Lee Strobel's brief offering of failure

Hemant is so friendly.  I am not.  And so it begins.

I had a vested interest in the non-existence of God because I was living a rather immoral lifestyle and did not want to be held accountable for my behavior. To me, atheism opened up a world of hedonism that I knew wouldn’t be acceptable to God if he existed.

Then I believe you are in the minority.  Very few atheists are atheists for the sex life. Some of us are in it because we were never taught to be anything else.  Others are in it because religion doesn't hold water.  The rest of us are in it for the nachos.  And a good Christian wouldn't judge us for it!

Let me be clear: I’m not saying that all atheists are hedonists. I’m just saying that, for me, atheism cleared the way for me to live a self-indulgent, me-first, narcissistic life. And to be honest, to this day I can’t figure out why atheists would choose any other path, although I know many do.

I can't figure out why Christians would behave differently.  I mean, to an extent, you need to be "self-indulgent" and "narcissistic" in order to just function properly.  And, of course, if you go too far, it is social suicide.  Albeit, appeasing the wishes of others seems less appealing when you don't have a ghostly policeman menacingly glaring at you from behind a cloud.  But, some of us do it anyway.

While a lot of the issues they raise are the same ones that vexed me, I was not on a mission to wipe all faith from the face of the planet. 

Hoping that people collectively abandon religion over time =/= "wiping faith from the face of the planet."

My wife’s conversion to Christianity (which deeply troubled me at first) resulted in a lot of positive changes in her attitudes and behavior, which I found winsome and intriguing.

This is an incredibly common claim.  Christianity is a miraculous behavioral therapy due to the magic of Jesus.  Or, it could just be the acceptance into a new social group that is solely devoted to saying "yay us!" ad infinitum.   Either one.

In light of the scientific evidence that points toward a Creator and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, I came to the conclusion that it would have required more faith for me to maintain my atheism than to become a Christian.

Ugggh.  Let me guess:  your scientific evidence pointing to a Creator is all anthropic principle crap, and your historical evidence for the Resurrection all comes from the contradictory accounts given in the Bible?  Correct me if I am wrong.

Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason.

Did you really think that that would slide?  Did you?  Point by point.

• How does God producing everything rather it arising spontaneously resolve anything at all?  Given that God himself either needed to be produced or needed to have always been, meaning that you either believe, in contrast, that "something produces something produces something....produces everything" or that "something that is always existed produces everything", your case is really not a whole lot more convincing, and does not necessarily need to involve God as you conceive of him.
• Life-forms are composed of elements that are found in non-living matter, become non-living matter, and is, in of itself, not alive.  It is an almost trivial distinction.
• Suffice it to say, your definition of "random" is intentionally askew.  Random processes follow predictable patterns.  Randomly moving particles reach a dynamic equilibrium.  Random sample means are distributed Normally.  Random chance determines whether a mutation occurs, and random chance dictates whether the situation makes it a positive or negative mutation, but its success in regards to yielding offspring will be determined by those facts, and the population will be directed (fine-tuned) based upon whether, by "random" chance, certain traits will be favored due to being beneficial.  Sometimes, randomness isn't so random.
• Both of those terms are essentially meaningless to me.   Too subjective, and often used to describe any variety of things.
• I am not even sure if that counts as English.  But, you are reifying consciousness.  It is not something out in the aether that needs to be produced.  It is a subjective product of internal biology, not something external imposed onto us by a bigger version of the same thing (which, inexplicably, also needed to be produced by consciousness...more of the same problems).
• Pretty much the same thing as consciousness, above.

Jesus’ resurrection (and, hence, his divinity).

Really?  Jesus [supposedly] came back from the dead, therefore he is the Christian God?  Could it not be that:

Jesus has clones.

Jesus was raised as a zombie by a Voodoo sorcerer.

Jesus was a humble magician, not an embodiment of God.

Jesus was an avatar of Vishnu.

Jesus had the ability to regenerate from fatal wounds (and later became Wolverine, of X-Men fame).

Jesus's evil brother Jaysoos was the one crucified, not Jesus.

Jesus was brought back from the dead by alien technology in order to throw them off the scent of Xenu.

Jesus won against the Grim Reaper in a game of checkers and got his life back.

Jesus was raised from the dead by a 15th level Cleric.

Jesus sold his soul to a demon in order to attain immortality.

Jesus was secretly a cat, and was actually "resurrected" on 7 other occassions.

Jesus was kicked out of the land of the Dead for being a pretentious prick, charlatan, and all around douche.

I think that any of the above are just as likely.

<

Having said all of this, I do believe strongly that despite our fundamental disagreements, it should be possible for atheists and theists to engage in constructive discussions instead of resorting to name-calling or the imputation of bad motives.

I agree.  It is just more entertaining when we do the latter.

I now believe atheists are wrong in their conclusions, I’m confident that they still matter to God and therefore deserve respect.

Well, it's good to know that you are only willing to give respect when your deity of choice gives the go-ahead.  Considering his level of tolerance, I am not quite sure I am comfortable with that, though.  Oh yeah, and just because you changed your opinion does not give you increased credibility.  I am sick of this "former atheist" crock.  They pull the same thing with political ideologies; using the fact that they were once into a different brand politics as a form of implicit evidence that the abandoned ideology was flawed and the new one is that much better, in lieu of actually presenting an argument of any merit.  It sickens me.   But, what else is new.

The Birth of the True Scotsman

Some of my earliest memories of Christianity, before I knew much about its teachings, or knew anyone who explicitly considered themselves Christian, involve wondering why the term  "Christian" is used as if it were synonym for the word "good".   I think I understand more clearly why it is done today.  Despite not being rooted in the arrogance that I originally assumed it to be when I first heard a religious affiliation being used as a term of merit, the implications of that particular usage of the word still are quite entertaining (and frustrating....really the same thing for me).

I present the definitions of the word "Christian" here for reference:

1.  Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

Now, for all practical intents, definition 1 is the only that can serve to accurately define a group. And definition 4 is simply "person who is like a person who fits one of the other definitions".  Definition 3, and the related definition 5, are those that are relevant to the usage of the term as a form of acknowledging merit; as a word that is used in a similar to manner to "good".  Of course, this isn't because of any assumptions that the Christians represented by definition 1 are inherently better people than others, but because it is entirely different usage of the word "Christian", in that it is referring to those who act "Christlike", and are being compared to Jesus, rather than simply being among the adherents of the religion Christianity.  But, unfortunately, this distinction is rarely made clear, especially by those who like to equivocate in order to gain a false veneer of credibility.

And what fertile grounds for such equivocation!  The only term describing a member of your religion is also the same term used to describe one who behaves like the idealized man-god that the religion worships, and all of the virtues that go along with that.  You would have to be Jesus himself to be able to resist using that fact to your advantage when trying to claim that those who are not "Christlike" are not "Christian" [*cough* by one definition of the word *cough*].  And therefore, Hitler was a Scientologist.  Completely disregard the fact that your entire religion is based upon the idea that even the most heartless and wicked human being alive can attain salvation by calling upon Jesus for help.  Completely ignore that all humans are imperfect and inherently NOT "Christian" [by that same definition] according to your religion, hence the need for Jesus in the first place.   Anything to win an argument.

5 Questions that I will waste my time answering.

Here is a youtube video I found somehow titled "5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answer". He's lucky I am in an obedient mood right now.



Question the First: "Aren't you using 'chance' in the exact same way in which you accuse Christians of using 'God of the gaps'?"
Yes (for all I know). There's just one key difference: "chance" can be observed and is consistent with extrapolation based on what we know of the underlying chemical and biological processes of life, whereas "God of the gaps" is using a unknown, unknowable entity as an explanation for the same thing based upon the fact that we don't know how else it could have happened. Saying that something was arrived at by "chance" isn't just a last refuge and stock conclusion that has no rational basis and that is jumped to whenever people run into a dead end. It is, in some cases, the only rational conclusion, since pretty much every process we can currently observe is directed by probabilistic factors and confined "chance".

Question Deux: "Why should there be something instead of nothing?"
Shoot me now.
There is something instead of nothing because we are something, and if there was nothing, there would not be something, and we would not be there to contemplate the nothingness. Basically, a non-existent person tells no tales, and a non-existent universe has no tales told about it. If you want me to go into the "how" of this, beyond the scope of the Big Bang Theory, then I can offer nothing but speculation. And just because your speculation comes pre-packaged with a church's stamp of approval doesn't make it hold more water.
Also: WTF is "moral order"?

Question Tres: "Where do you get your morals from?"
Same place as everyone else: conscience, upbringing, culture, and a dash of rational assessment of consequences for certain behavior. The morality definition offered up at the beginning of that section from an evolutionary perspective is actually quite good. Unfortunately, it seems that he is looking for that nice old "objective morality". He can keep on looking, because changing moral zeitgeists in countries that remained predominantly Christian for centuries gives us a good indication of just how immutable their objective moral codes are.

Question Quadrilateral [I believe that that is "four" in Portuguese]: "How did morals evolve?"
When humans started interacting with one another in order to survive, and personality traits and behavioral patterns that helped facilitate and stabilize group function became increasingly favored over "immoral" behavior that does neither, or the opposite.
No, no self-consciousness or awareness of the evolutionary processes behind it is necessary. Natural psychopaths will lose out to a naturally helpful, kind, and industrious individual in ideal social settings every time (with the possible exceptions of warrior cultures).
He mentions that a caveman would not feel guilty for killing a human in a neighboring group. This much is true. That's what happens when you get into groups that are competing against each other for survival. And it has been something that has been true even under religious codes against it (or that cleverly support such things as war and killing in self defense, while simultaneously condemning killing of any other kind). It hasn't been until relatively recently, in increasingly stable and open societies, that we have started moving away from those sentiments, and seeing all of our species as a unified group. But, we still have our hatreds and divisions nonetheless.

Question Five: "Can nature generate complex organisms, in the sense of originating, when previously there was none?"
Wow. You sure have a hard-on for abiogenesis. Okay, first off, we don't know. Second off, the fact that life hasn't come about on the select few planets we can observe isn't really a point against abiogenesis, so much as consistent with the fact that life came about in a chance process, and Earth just happened to be the rock in the right position to let life come about. And then he starts to babble on about "design", comparing a woodcut to nature. Why do those evil atheists stubbornly refuse to merge the concepts of natural and artificial together in order to haphazardly argue for the existence of a celestial blacksmith? WHY!?

The thing that was most remarkable about these questions is that they had little, if anything, to do with atheism. No questions about gods (or lack thereof) at all. It was all about clumsy attempts to find holes in non-creationist science, and trying to wrap his head around secular morality. It's a real shame. But, I guess they feel better about ranting about how the world had to have been "designed" because it looks "designy" rather than talking about whether there is any intellectual integrity in positing a "designer" due to that, or at all.

America: We just don't let things slide.

Some people wanted to claim that throwing a shoe at the President was violent. Well, I guess that evil Iraqi journalist Zaidi got his just desserts then.

Edit:  Link fixed.  Forgot the "h" in "http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/16/bush-shoe-zaidi".  Oh well...it was all part of the mystery!

It's alive!! Again.

Dinesh D'Souza. That's all the introduction I need.

Still, I was very surprised to see a man who has devoted decades to formulating some very controversial views run so desperately away from them. This was precisely what Singer did when I debated him on December 3

That couldn't possibly be because you don't understand the nuances of his regard for those views, could it? You know, like presenting ideas as philosophical and logical imperatives in one respect while also acknowledging the problems that would exist in fully applying those ideas. Same reason why Descartes didn't go around acting as if he were nothing more than a disembodied consciousness in a hallucinatory world. You can present an idea, support it, show why it is good in some respects, and still not fully support its actual application in current social contexts.

Singer’s atheism, I suggested, is the primary foundation of his advocacy of infanticide, euthanasia, and animal rights.

Animal rights? What the hell does that have to do with the other two? And: infanticide is an iffy subject, for reasons that Singer delves into, and euthanasia is not a bad thing. When it is actually a bad thing, it is called murder (or it involves some complex manipulation of the euthanised). Alright?

Somewhat to my surprise, Singer announced to the largely Christian audience that he was not there to debate his views on infanticide and euthanasia. Rather, he said, he had come to debate whether God existed or not.

Heaven forbid that someone address the actual debate topic.

I countered that the existence of pain and suffering raised no questions about the existence of God, only about the nature of God.

That's true. And if that nature is too different from the Christian conception of God, which is the image that 1/3 of the world have of one, than you're left dealing with deistic wisps of a phantom of a god that is usually only supported who want to feign a legitimate position in debate, but don't actually care about in real life, because the existence of such an entity is essentially irrelevant to us.

Imagine if I had a father whom I always considered to be kind, generous, and loving. Then I encounter a tragedy and my father does not help. It would make no sense for me to say, “Since you have acted contrary to my previous assessment of your character, therefore I conclude that you do not exist.”

I swear that you are retarded on purpose. Of course you would not conclude that because:
1. You have given those qualities to your father yourself due to your observation of his behavior as an existent thing. It is a trait that he has. The example you give would put those observed traits into question. Whereas for God, it is not so much a simple observed trait as a hypothetical defining aspect.
2. You actually know that your father exists and can observe him and his behavior. You cannot do the same thing for God, even though his work should be seen anywhere and everywhere. He can only be trivially thought to exist if reality as we know conforms to the traits that we attribute with him, and, since it does not, that is one defining characteristic that needs to be discarded.
Basically, a have a bauble that is green. It turns blue. But the bauble still exists, even if my color assessment is wrong. This same thing could be true for God, but we do not know, because we cannot observe him. So, instead we say that an analog to God, call it a zephyr, exists with the observable trait that there is a cold breeze. Since we cannot check it any other way, and there its ability to be known by us is entirely contingent upon the presence of its defining traits, when there is no cold breeze, a zephyr cannot be said to exist. See?

Here, after all, is a man who has publicly said that even infants have no rights for some 27 days after they are born. According to Singer, these infants can be killed during that time if they are felt to be an inconvenience or burden to their parents or society.

If only your mother had agreed with him. Wikipedia will help Singer defend himself here: "Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" ^[23]- and therefore "[s]imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."^" Considering that he is a philosopher, that kind of thinking isn't really uncommon. That said, I sort of agree, but I think that infants are enough of a person (in that they are least minorly functional cognitively) to warrant basic rights, including protections against killing (save euthanasia if prognosis demands it, and the parents consent to it).

I proposed the topic, “Can We Have Morality Without God?” Here, I thought, was a direct opportunity to link God with morality and to show what happens when a thinker like Singer seeks to formulate an entirely secular morality

Sounds familiar...

Yet once again Singer began his speech by announcing that he had no intention of defending his positions on the taking of human life. In fact, he said that people who had come to hear him defend such positions could leave and go home. Singer argued that even if his views were terrible, it would not follow that atheism was terrible.

Wow. You are a dumbass, Dinesh. Ever occur to you that debating your own personal philosophies have nothing to do with the debate topic? Or that it would take for bloody ever for him to defend his positions to a greater degree than he has already done when he first presented them? A debate is by no means about trying to go through one another's autobiography and bringing up stuff you think you can score points with. It is about discussing the topic at hand.

Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim, and his views can be considered dangerous, but it doesn’t follow that Islam itself is dangerous. Having compared himself to Bin Laden, Singer did not seem to be off to a very good start.

Eeek. Faux pas. He shouldn't have tried to argued that not all Muslims are dangerous either, because that might lose him points with people who are going dogmatically agree with Dinesh anyway (oh, nevermind).

This time I refused to play Singer’s game and permit him to duck his outrageous views. “Peter Singer is reluctant, perhaps understandably, to discuss his positions,” I began. “Therefore it will be my task to discuss them.”

I anoint "The Biggest Douche in the Universe". Enjoy the prestige.

But the values of America and Europe—even secular values—are decisively shaped by Christianity.

Sure they are. Shaped by the parts of Christianity that happened to coincide with common sense and human empathetic reasoning. Everything else kind of got pushed into the corner though...

Many of the new atheists, I suggested, want to get rid of Christianity but keep core Christian values

You gonna take credit for "thou shalt not kill" now, or do you not want to make the true levels of your idiocy that explicit?

He is an honest atheist in that he recognizes that you can’t have Christian morality without its transcendent foundation. I identified Singer with the philosopher Nietzsche’s project to go beyond the “death of God” and eradicate all Christian values—including equal dignity and the preciousness of human life—from the West.

Oh. "Preciousness of human life" is what you are calling it? How about "the necessity of other human life to exist in order for individual human lives to continue"? Because that's where your idea of "preciousness" comes from, and why you feel free to do whatever the hell you like to anything that isn't human (or to other humans, but that's aside the issue of principles and into hypocrisy). Oh, and if by "equal dignity" you mean "equal rights", the Greeks beat you to the punch, and you Christians lost your way incredibly from the monasteries in which this practiced (and almost the only place it was practiced until the Enlightenment).

Specifically, the Communist regimes of Stalin, Mao, and the Nazi regime provide the clearest indication of what truly God-free societies look like.

Shut the hell up already.

Singer has vociferously protested the equation of his views with those of the Nazis, and I said he was right to make this distinction. After all, I pointed out, the Nazis favored state-sponsored genocide while Singer advocated free market homicide.

Ooooooo. Burn. Funny, that Dinesh supports both forms: in the form wars, death penalties, and murder in self-defense (which, albeit, very few would argue against).

Instead, Singer went right back to the problem of pain and suffering. A just and compassionate God, he said, would never permit such disasters as earthquakes, hurricanes and cancer. Consequently there is no good God presiding over human affairs. Therefore if we are going to have morality we will have to develop morality without God.

Not much to disagree with there.

I regard Singer and Christopher Hitchens as two of the most effective advocates of atheism in the United States, and perhaps anywhere

Only because they are the only ones willing to debate you...

I like to debate these men in order to show that theism in general, and Christianity in particular, can withstand the best that the opposition has to offer.

Ahahahahahaha. You can withstand us, but we sure can't stand you!

Dawkins, however, has shown himself to be a coward by refusing to defend his aggressively-articulated views in open debate. And now Singer has twice shown up at debates with his running shoes on. So with Dawkins hiding under his desk and Singer sprinting for cover, is modern atheism losing its nerve?

Dinesh retains the title I just recently gave to him, and is now striving to become Heavy Weight Wrestling Champion of the World. Seriously, you are not worth anyone's time Dinesh, and 60-something Dawkins can't go around debating chickenhawks like yourself every time you want to go up on stage and try to spout random garbage to please your masters. Grow up or shut up, please.

Assassination without bullets (or weapons).

One of these things makes the other sound ridiculous. Pick out which one is the exaggeration!

While Bush wasn't harmed, the incident was reminiscent of John W. Hinckley's failed attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981 . Hinckley slipped into a crowd of reporters outside the Washington Hilton , and when Reagan emerged from a speaking appearance, the 25-year-old drifter fired six shots with a .22-caliber handgun, hitting Reagan in the chest, permanently disabling presidential press secretary Jim Brady with a bullet to the head and wounding a Secret Service agent and a police officer.

Contrast with this statement from the Secret Service:

"It's obvious that (Bush) could have been hit in the head with a shoe,'' he said. "Anytime there's an incident like this, we're going to review it. We're always trying to improve ourselves.''

Give up? I know. It sounds too improbable that someone used the phrase "always trying to improve ourselves" right after a sentence including the word "Bush" , but it happened. Clearly, they are bald-faced liars.

Okay, serious time: there is not even a remote similarity between the scenario of the shoe thrower and John Hinckley. Here's a non-exhaustive list of reasons why:

• Hinckley was a U.S. citizen. Zaidi is an Iraqi citizen. And the conference took place in Iraq, which just happened to be a country that Bush invaded. Slightly different climate than good ol' U.S. soil.
  
• Hinckley was not a journalist, and had to sneak around. Zaidi was a journalist, and was actually supposed to be in the press conference.
• Hinckley intended to hurt people, and did. Zaidi did not (most likely) and did not.
• Hinckley used an actual weapon (related to above). Zaidi threw a f#@$ing shoe. He should have thrown some form of food product to make the responses against this move look as ridiculous as they truly are.
  
• Hinckley was insane. Zaidi was outraged.
• Hinckley's attack, by your own description, didn't even occur inside a press conference, but only when Reagan was leaving one.

The only similarity is that 1. a President was targeted with something that moved a distance greater than 5 feet, and 2. it happened in or around a speaking engagement of that President. That is the only comparison I can see, and trying to draw any further ones is just a tad beyond disingenuous, and only providing fodder for those who are going to claim that this was a vicious attack anyway. I would almost call the comparison fearmongering if it weren't for the fact that I think that it was far too inane to even intentionally have been that. Just plain sloppiness, I assume.

Canada. Mexico. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Anywhere but here!

Fucking fuck fuck fuck.

H. Res. 847
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
December 11, 2007.
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world

Striving for theocracy AND playing the victim at the same time, as per usual. And, of course, supported predominantly by Republicans. This ridiculous measure is only being put forward in bald-faced attempt to try to get their ridiculous feelings of entitlement for complete and utter control of this country justified by a seemingly innocuous ruling by an unsuspecting and sympathetic Congress. I hate these people so much...

Edit: My hatred remains, but I may not need to expatriate myself yet. Apparently, this was put before the House last year. Part of my rage was from remembering them trying to pull off a similar bill around Spring of this year. As such, I am slightly placated by knowing that this was probably the same one, and thus they aren't trying to make this annual tradition, like the frickin' flag burning amendment. Oh, but I guess my anger may be important anyway, because it has already passed in the House of Representatives. I would continue to rant, but I am too busy laughing at similar legislation.

The Ghost of the War on Christmas Future

2009: Bill O'Reilly starts crying due to the continued insistence of using the term "Happy Holidays" (even on his own website). People continue to laugh at him. Bill Donohue gets his own show on Fox News and does the same. He promptly dies of a heart attack three weeks later. Christians launch a full scale assault on city halls across the country with ornaments, Christmas trees, and plastic baby Jesii. 12 were killed.
2010: Bill O'Reilly throws a temper tantrum when cities refuse to put up Christmas displays this year.
Jesus returns. He is promptly killed by Christians who think that he is a radical liberal terrorist from Mexico.
The Christmas tree in Times Square is blown up by secular jihadists, who are subsequently thrown into Guantanamo and forced to listen to Christmas carols.
2011: Bill O' Reilly enters the fetal position around mid-September because there aren't enough Christmas lights. Santa gets a bionic arm with which to strangle anyone who catches him stealing cookies from unsuspecting chimneyed households. Christians start trying to hide menorahs in order to keep Christmas from "losing the War on Christmas". Secularists feel confident in their inevitable victory, and build barricades around state Capitol buildings. A few abortion clinic bombers were redirected to try to break through the barricades, but just wound up in prison on charges of being "drunk in public".
2012: Obama is re-elected and Bill O'Reilly is now in a mental ward after being diagnosed with an acute case of wingnuttery, coupled with delusions of moderation. Fox News subsequently becomes obscure and unnoteworthy. Santa continues world-wide burglaries and murders. Jesus is once again killed by a shotgun wielding Christian. And most state buildings remain devoid of any holiday displays for the next decade or so (save for the few cluttered ones where they provide an accidental open forum for everyone by letting a porcelain baby Jesus slip through).
2023: Bill O'Reilly strangles Jesus to death in the asylum. Jesus had been put into the mental facility for coming back after being killed 12 times in a row, and proceeding to kill off random fundamentalists. His lawyer forced Jesus to plead insanity after recording all the conversations they had in which he claimed to be the son of God.
Santa Claus's killing spree is finally put to an end when the U.S. military guns down his sleigh. They proceed to confiscate his bags,containing hundreds of thousands of weapons that he was smuggling to children across the globe. They would also confiscate the sleigh in order to reverse engineer it and determine how it is able to travel at light speed. Rudolph is still on the loose.
2024: President Cthulhu is elected for a second term.