Dear Brother Sam,
Do you perform weddings?
Love,
Sister Anxious in Arkansas
Dear Sister Anxious,
Among the various acts Brother Sam has been known to perform, weddings may be counted. The legalities vary according locale. I not long ago officiated a wedding Kansas and will officiate another there in October. Encore!
Love,
Brother Sam
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Which came first?
Dear Brother Sam (You Handsome Bastard),
Which came first, the chicken salad or the egg salad?
Love
Brother Vincent Wright
Dear Brother Winnie,
You see, the thing with trick questions is to start out by eliminating anything extraneous, all the stuff that’s in there just to obfuscate, so to speak. So let’s begin by dispensing with the obvious part, and save the tricky bit. The egg came before the chicken. By a mile. There were all sorts of eggs long before anything like a chicken ever laid one. And, given evolution and all, there had to some pre-chicken or proto-chicken that was pert near but not plumb a chicken, as now commonly understood and enjoyed. So let’s hear no more of which came first. Goddamn. The question is salad. And the answer is chicken salad. Chicken salad came fist, what’re you crazy?
Love,
Brother Sam
Which came first, the chicken salad or the egg salad?
Love
Brother Vincent Wright
Dear Brother Winnie,
You see, the thing with trick questions is to start out by eliminating anything extraneous, all the stuff that’s in there just to obfuscate, so to speak. So let’s begin by dispensing with the obvious part, and save the tricky bit. The egg came before the chicken. By a mile. There were all sorts of eggs long before anything like a chicken ever laid one. And, given evolution and all, there had to some pre-chicken or proto-chicken that was pert near but not plumb a chicken, as now commonly understood and enjoyed. So let’s hear no more of which came first. Goddamn. The question is salad. And the answer is chicken salad. Chicken salad came fist, what’re you crazy?
Love,
Brother Sam
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Would banishing religious-based views and actions privilege atheism?
Today's Grilled Atheist selection is from the same Cathy Lynn Grossman piece in USA Today online that Thursday's was from.
Dear Brother Sam,
Think about it: Would banishing religious-based views and actions privilege atheism?
Love,
Sister Somebody
Yes. Of course. As well it should. Atheism is simply the absence of theism. Spaces that are taxpayer-owned, -leased, or -maintained are supposed to be free of theism. Y’all theists got the remaining gazillion acres on which to hold church.
Love,
Brother Sam
Dear Brother Sam,
Think about it: Would banishing religious-based views and actions privilege atheism?
Love,
Sister Somebody
Yes. Of course. As well it should. Atheism is simply the absence of theism. Spaces that are taxpayer-owned, -leased, or -maintained are supposed to be free of theism. Y’all theists got the remaining gazillion acres on which to hold church.
Love,
Brother Sam
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
What about all the immense good provided to millions by the Catholic Church?
Today’s Grilled Atheist selection comes from somebody close.
Dear Brother Sam,
I saw this Cathy Lynn Grossman piece in USA Today online. Here’s one of the questions she puts to atheists. “What about all the immense good -- social services and health care just for starters - provided to millions by the Catholic Church?”
Love,
Sister Somebody
Dear Sister Somebody,
That’s what passes for an argument among big time theists these days? Goddamn. Well, let me just hunker down and see can’t I dash off a little something by way of short but dignified reply.
Dear Sister Cathy Lynn,
I can’t imagine a theist wanting to engage on the subject of what all the Catholic Church has done. And I’ll leave it for others to weigh the human costs against the “immense good" you ascribe to the Catholic Church. But doing good doesn’t obviate bad acts. What about all the immense good -- social services and health care just for starters - provided by the Familia drug cartel? Should they get a pass on the murders and kidnappings because they offer social services?
Should rights be apportioned according to the amount of social benefit individuals and groups provide? Maybe we could issue credits. Feed ten children for a week and get forgiven for ten past acts of sectarian barbarism. Provide health care for ten old people and you’re allowed to erect one medium-size cross on public property. I’ll admit it sounds reasonable, but implementation could be tricky. For one thing, the Catholic Church starts out in the hole. And it’s a hell of a hole.
Love,
Brother Sam
Dear Brother Sam,
I saw this Cathy Lynn Grossman piece in USA Today online. Here’s one of the questions she puts to atheists. “What about all the immense good -- social services and health care just for starters - provided to millions by the Catholic Church?”
Love,
Sister Somebody
Dear Sister Somebody,
That’s what passes for an argument among big time theists these days? Goddamn. Well, let me just hunker down and see can’t I dash off a little something by way of short but dignified reply.
Dear Sister Cathy Lynn,
I can’t imagine a theist wanting to engage on the subject of what all the Catholic Church has done. And I’ll leave it for others to weigh the human costs against the “immense good" you ascribe to the Catholic Church. But doing good doesn’t obviate bad acts. What about all the immense good -- social services and health care just for starters - provided by the Familia drug cartel? Should they get a pass on the murders and kidnappings because they offer social services?
Should rights be apportioned according to the amount of social benefit individuals and groups provide? Maybe we could issue credits. Feed ten children for a week and get forgiven for ten past acts of sectarian barbarism. Provide health care for ten old people and you’re allowed to erect one medium-size cross on public property. I’ll admit it sounds reasonable, but implementation could be tricky. For one thing, the Catholic Church starts out in the hole. And it’s a hell of a hole.
Love,
Brother Sam
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
How much toilet paper can you take before it’s stealing?
Dear Brother Sam,
That question from If the Ocean was Whiskey and God was a Duck, “How much toilet paper can you take before it’s stealing?” What’s the answer?
Brother Abe Woodaxe
Dear Brother Abe,
Who knows? The question illustrates moral relativity in action. In the absence of clear lines, all that remains is relative. One can assert that stealing is always wrong, and define stealing any number of ways, but it’s hard to fix a precise number of sheets of toilet paper below which it is not stealing and above which it is stealing. The answer lies somewhere between one sheet and all the toilet paper in the place.
Most people would agree that it’s probably OK to take a little with you to protect your hand from the bathroom door, or to wipe your nose with, in addition to the minimum amount necessary to satisfy your personal standards of hygiene. But what about taking the rest of the roll? How about the roll from the next stall? All the stalls? The cabinet? Does it make a difference whether its a public restroom or one in somebody’s home? How about at work?
If the answer is along the lines, “No more than you need,” who doesn’t need toilet paper? Over time, you will absolutely need an amount of toilet paper greater than you’ll find in any one restroom. And there it is. A gift, not a sale or a loan. And moreover, nobody is watching, which has nothing to the morality of the act, but still.
One can stipulate that profligacy is bad and that one ought to be considerate of others who who come along and need that toilet paper, and that waste is bad. And, of course, environmental concerns that can be figured into the proper use of toilet paper.
Little Brother Sam asked God about it back in the summer of 1965. That’s how it wound up in If the Ocean was Whiskey and God was a Duck. I asked my father, too. He said God knew when it was stealing. I had to take his word on that. God never said shit.
Love,
Brother Sam
That question from If the Ocean was Whiskey and God was a Duck, “How much toilet paper can you take before it’s stealing?” What’s the answer?
Brother Abe Woodaxe
Dear Brother Abe,
Who knows? The question illustrates moral relativity in action. In the absence of clear lines, all that remains is relative. One can assert that stealing is always wrong, and define stealing any number of ways, but it’s hard to fix a precise number of sheets of toilet paper below which it is not stealing and above which it is stealing. The answer lies somewhere between one sheet and all the toilet paper in the place.
Most people would agree that it’s probably OK to take a little with you to protect your hand from the bathroom door, or to wipe your nose with, in addition to the minimum amount necessary to satisfy your personal standards of hygiene. But what about taking the rest of the roll? How about the roll from the next stall? All the stalls? The cabinet? Does it make a difference whether its a public restroom or one in somebody’s home? How about at work?
If the answer is along the lines, “No more than you need,” who doesn’t need toilet paper? Over time, you will absolutely need an amount of toilet paper greater than you’ll find in any one restroom. And there it is. A gift, not a sale or a loan. And moreover, nobody is watching, which has nothing to the morality of the act, but still.
One can stipulate that profligacy is bad and that one ought to be considerate of others who who come along and need that toilet paper, and that waste is bad. And, of course, environmental concerns that can be figured into the proper use of toilet paper.
Little Brother Sam asked God about it back in the summer of 1965. That’s how it wound up in If the Ocean was Whiskey and God was a Duck. I asked my father, too. He said God knew when it was stealing. I had to take his word on that. God never said shit.
Love,
Brother Sam
Friday, August 5, 2011
Why do you want to hurt your family?
Dear Brother Sam,
I know that no matter what greeting I use, you’ll change it to “Dear Brother Sam,” so I’m sticking it here in the middle where it’s harder for you to change. Dear Sam, I refuse to address or refer to you as “Brother,” as we are biologically cousins, not siblings, and you are not my brother in the Lord, either. So I won’t say it. Here’s my question. Why do you want to hurt your family and the ones who have always loved you? I am leaving off the closing, too, as I know how you’ll just tack “Love, Brother Palmer Singleton" on anyway. Like an idiot.
Love,
Brother Palmer Singleton
Dear Brother Palmer,
I realize that your question is personal, but it bears on something I’ve heard from a number of atheists, as well as on my own experience, how estrangement, or more accurately, osctracization from family has been a consequence of outspoken atheism. Like me, they tell of coming from a close family. They describe how for years they tolerated the relentless unfairness of being expected to accept without comment all manner of religious talk, of knowing that they were not equally at liberty to express their own ideas and values and convictions. They talk of sucking it up in the interest of harmony, in the interest of maintaining relations with those they love, notwithstanding matters of belief. It’s a familiar story, all right. Finally, they speak out, but not directly to their family. They speak publicly. By and by their family gets wind of it. And ties are severed. The atheist has said nothing derogatory to or about anybody in the family. There has been no falling out, no exchange of harsh words. The affront is to the believing family members’ fantasy life, to their purely selfish interest in their own riches after death. They love that nonsense more than they love their own kin. Goddamn that stinks.
Love,
Brother Sam
I know that no matter what greeting I use, you’ll change it to “Dear Brother Sam,” so I’m sticking it here in the middle where it’s harder for you to change. Dear Sam, I refuse to address or refer to you as “Brother,” as we are biologically cousins, not siblings, and you are not my brother in the Lord, either. So I won’t say it. Here’s my question. Why do you want to hurt your family and the ones who have always loved you? I am leaving off the closing, too, as I know how you’ll just tack “Love, Brother Palmer Singleton" on anyway. Like an idiot.
Love,
Brother Palmer Singleton
Dear Brother Palmer,
I realize that your question is personal, but it bears on something I’ve heard from a number of atheists, as well as on my own experience, how estrangement, or more accurately, osctracization from family has been a consequence of outspoken atheism. Like me, they tell of coming from a close family. They describe how for years they tolerated the relentless unfairness of being expected to accept without comment all manner of religious talk, of knowing that they were not equally at liberty to express their own ideas and values and convictions. They talk of sucking it up in the interest of harmony, in the interest of maintaining relations with those they love, notwithstanding matters of belief. It’s a familiar story, all right. Finally, they speak out, but not directly to their family. They speak publicly. By and by their family gets wind of it. And ties are severed. The atheist has said nothing derogatory to or about anybody in the family. There has been no falling out, no exchange of harsh words. The affront is to the believing family members’ fantasy life, to their purely selfish interest in their own riches after death. They love that nonsense more than they love their own kin. Goddamn that stinks.
Love,
Brother Sam
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
On "Why Atheists Always Lose When Debating the Existence of God"
Dear Brother Sam,
Is there anything about which you feel the need to vent?
Love,
Ardent Admirer
Dear Sister or Brother Ardent,
Thank you for asking. There’s this. For the first few weeks after Brother Sam‘s video Why Atheists Always Lose When Debating the Existence of God appeared on You Tube, a couple of years ago, I still read every comment that pertained thereto. Sometime in the interim I ceased doing that. But I still get an email notifying me when one is posted.
I just checked in. Of more than nine hundred comments, I’d say that fewer than, oh, one, has come from somebody who has actually watched the goddamn thing. Yes, the title is ironic. And one thing about irony: it requires that you actually view the material.
You’d think that the atheists who leave comments would be less likely than their theistic counterparts to go off half cocked, but not so. Should you need to disabuse yourself of the idea that all atheists are reasonable, thoughtful, clever, or kind, peruse what some of 'em write. There’s a line in If the Ocean was Whiskey and God was a Duck: “You don’t have to be genius to figure out the most obvious thing in the world, namely, that there is no God.” Need evidence? There’s this (sic throughout): “You make the claim that? God exists. Prove it. You're asking Atheists to find evidence that something doesn't exist, when things that don't exist leave no evidence.”
Multiply this by several hundred and you begin the comprehend the depth and breadth of the vacuum that occupies the space between the ears of a shocking number of atheists. Now, I realize that this isn’t what you prefer to hear from atheism’s premier evangelist. So here’s a little something from the other side to restore your sense of superiority.
“Atheists always debate Christians because they desperately need to justify themselves. Christians should be ready to give an answer but they never need to justify themselves. I always get barraged with questions and insults from atheists I have never commented to directly on YouTube. Is constant having to justify yourself any way to live a fulfilling life? Take this man's good advice and give up trying to justify yourself.”
Well, that last bit was pretty good, even if it did come from a believer. Who didn’t watch the video.
Love,
Brother Sam
Is there anything about which you feel the need to vent?
Love,
Ardent Admirer
Dear Sister or Brother Ardent,
Thank you for asking. There’s this. For the first few weeks after Brother Sam‘s video Why Atheists Always Lose When Debating the Existence of God appeared on You Tube, a couple of years ago, I still read every comment that pertained thereto. Sometime in the interim I ceased doing that. But I still get an email notifying me when one is posted.
I just checked in. Of more than nine hundred comments, I’d say that fewer than, oh, one, has come from somebody who has actually watched the goddamn thing. Yes, the title is ironic. And one thing about irony: it requires that you actually view the material.
You’d think that the atheists who leave comments would be less likely than their theistic counterparts to go off half cocked, but not so. Should you need to disabuse yourself of the idea that all atheists are reasonable, thoughtful, clever, or kind, peruse what some of 'em write. There’s a line in If the Ocean was Whiskey and God was a Duck: “You don’t have to be genius to figure out the most obvious thing in the world, namely, that there is no God.” Need evidence? There’s this (sic throughout): “You make the claim that? God exists. Prove it. You're asking Atheists to find evidence that something doesn't exist, when things that don't exist leave no evidence.”
Multiply this by several hundred and you begin the comprehend the depth and breadth of the vacuum that occupies the space between the ears of a shocking number of atheists. Now, I realize that this isn’t what you prefer to hear from atheism’s premier evangelist. So here’s a little something from the other side to restore your sense of superiority.
“Atheists always debate Christians because they desperately need to justify themselves. Christians should be ready to give an answer but they never need to justify themselves. I always get barraged with questions and insults from atheists I have never commented to directly on YouTube. Is constant having to justify yourself any way to live a fulfilling life? Take this man's good advice and give up trying to justify yourself.”
Well, that last bit was pretty good, even if it did come from a believer. Who didn’t watch the video.
Love,
Brother Sam
Monday, August 1, 2011
Dear Brother Sam,
I have temporal lobe seizures and see flying monkeys with tails carrying little imp like characters on their backs while flying over fire filled burning pits. Should I invite my friends over to roast marshmallows or should I buy some bug spray and a fire extinguisher? I am anxious for your kind reply.
Love,
Sister Cinda Grimm
Dear Sister Cinda
First off, you get points for pluck. Brother Sam is big on pluck. And a sense of humor, also good. But there's a time for levity and this ain't it. Your question is nakedly fallacious in its premise. It presents a false dichotomy. There is no choice. You invite your friends over to roast marshmallows and buy some bug spray and a fire extinguisher. Try not to let this happen again. I assume Brother Sam is to be among the invitees. Goddamn.
Love,
Brother Sam
I have temporal lobe seizures and see flying monkeys with tails carrying little imp like characters on their backs while flying over fire filled burning pits. Should I invite my friends over to roast marshmallows or should I buy some bug spray and a fire extinguisher? I am anxious for your kind reply.
Love,
Sister Cinda Grimm
Dear Sister Cinda
First off, you get points for pluck. Brother Sam is big on pluck. And a sense of humor, also good. But there's a time for levity and this ain't it. Your question is nakedly fallacious in its premise. It presents a false dichotomy. There is no choice. You invite your friends over to roast marshmallows and buy some bug spray and a fire extinguisher. Try not to let this happen again. I assume Brother Sam is to be among the invitees. Goddamn.
Love,
Brother Sam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)