Slow summer edition. Check here for more Screwballs who didn't earn Gold.

It must have been the heat -- not many screwy emails, and most of the ones I got were short and dull, like:

Hey it's "James patrick holding" Or what ever Robert Turkel is calling himself these days! :-D

Or like this:

Mr. Holding,

I just read your interesting article "Mighty Mithraic Madness" and I was amused. The reasoning you used for debunking Achaya S's interpretation of Mithra could also be used to debunk Jesus and the Christian religion.

Christians debunk the "miracles" of other religions and gods as myths while accepting the miracles of Christianity and it's gods as the truth.

Or this:

One wonders who your therapist is, and which of your several prescribed medications you regularly fail to take.

There were a couple of longer ones. Like:

It never ceases to amaze the spiritual socks off of me the amount of filthy rhetoric you and your ilk continue to spew forth. It's like venom. What the hell? Yes, YHVH DID, indeed already have his stamp of approval on the 'mass divorce' that took place under Ezra by already giving His timeless standard in the Law. YOU'D BETTER GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD IF YOU WANT TO SURVIVE THE COMING DAYS. The same Law of YHVH applies today, in its entirety, despite the efforts of the Mason and False Apostle Paul to 'undo' the 'eternal' Law AND Statutes AND Judgments of YHVH.

We, as the Israelites are NEVER to marry outside of our race. Not only because of the doctrinal 'adulteration' that occurs in our minds, but because of the 'adulteration' of the blood/spirit/ruach of our Father. We create 'broken cisterns' when we mix our blood.

Do yourself a favor and learn these things. There are thousands of people like myself who are so [profanity] sick of the pastors/teachers leading our people to their death under the guise of Christianity, that we could puke.

Jeremiah states in chapter 2, 10, 12, 22, 23 etc. that the REASON for the Israelite being taken into captivity in Babylon in the FIRST PLACE was the fault of the PASTORS. If you're one of those arrogant charlatans who call themselves by that name, you need to realize that you are deceived, and just like the people of old were led into bondage in 'Babylon' by your kind, they are being led, today, into 'Mystery Babylon' by you and yours as well. Make no mistake.

Isaiah 29:10,Revelation 16:10speaks of the darkness (mental darkness - 'Skotoo' Greek - as you probably know...) that will come over the kingdom of the last days. If you are a pastor, and are preaching Pauline Christianity, YOU ARE GUILTY OF SPREADING THAT DARKNESS.

The Dragon is wroth with the woman and goes to make war with the 'remnant' of her seed 'who obey the commandments (entire Mosaic Law) of their God'. READ IT in Revelation and stop with the lies and rhetoric.

You will have to pay a stiff price for not obeying the charge of your office and for teaching deceptive lies. Stop giving folks false hope through Paul. He was a liar and a Mason and a Pharisee and 'of his father the devil; and that means 'genetic offspring'.

The day is coming when the truth of which I speak will be revealed on a wide scale. You will either be in the remnant or burnt to a crisp. The status of your heart and mind will be the determining factor.

Come out of her . . .

And this:

It has torn me up from reading the collection of works by the venerable Thomas Paine when coming upon his Age of Reason. Then, in my search after this hurt to get some kind of explanation for his religion, Quakerism, I run into Holding's site. You are somewhat vulgar toward and you are very disrespectful of a great man, even though he is not Christian. However, he does believe in God, which does reflect in his other great works. Those other great works are what provided the foundation in the moral political-economic principles that have, granted even to a much looser degree of today, created a great nation. Please do not be so arrogant and all-knowing when refuting Paine's Age of Reason because you are Christian. I am Catholic and what Paine reveals in his Age of Reason does not have anything to do with his other collected works aside from his moral philosophies. And that is the important thing--his moral philosophies when influencing his political-economic sensibilities.

Please still show some respect. You know, you could always choose not to read his Age of Reason. Why do you choose to associate, in error yourself, Common Sense with Age of Reason, when they are obviously so different in scope? That, my friend, I view as nonsense.

This one came under the subject line, "Bloodline of the Holy Grail":

I've just finished reading the book and was intrigued by its central premise. I thought I'd do a bit of "research" on the internet to see what others thought about it and came across your "review". I have to say that what you have written does you a great disservice. Such a blatant attempt to rubbish a book with so little effort made to substantiate any of your criticisms just lends credence to the view that there is more to this than meets the eye. Why not write your review again in a professional manner actually taking the time to rebut with evidence the points with which you disagree? Or are you simply unable to?

The August 2007 John Loftus Collection

DC acquired a new emotional deconvert who pretends his deconversion was intellectual, Touchstone -- but it is appropos that he joined, since like Loftus, he is known for lying. Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall wins for the old "20,000 denominations" canard, and his "state senator sues God" diatribe in which he said:

"Several years back in our state, we had a lady slip and fall on the side walk due to ice injuring her hip. She sued the city. The judge said it "Was an act of God". She then filed a law suit against several large churches.

The case was thrown out for lack of proof that God did anything or it could be proven that the term "God" could act, plus seperation between churhc and state.

Conclusion: As always, God is not there when the going get tuff.

And, Lee Randolph wins for saying Jesus was a "human sacrifice," and for a convoluted argument concerning Adam and Eve; and Hector Avalos wins -- just for joining Loftus' blog.

The Random Skeptic Collection

Wyzaard wins Gold for this epistemic train wreck:

Mountain Man: I readily accept that my senses are reliable and that my perception of reality is largely correct.

Wyzaard: Which is a currently unsupported and patently arrogant presumption.

CarpeDeum gets really Deee-umb:

While ancients would have known that it was at least unusual for dead people to come back to life, they would have had only a vague idea of just how unusual. Given the large population, good communication, and large body of scientific literature that we have nowadays, we can place a much lower bound on how often resurrections and ascensions happen than the ancients would have been able to do.

"FreeYayo343" wins for this:

[03:58] FreeYayo343: do you believe in ghosts

[03:58] Kabain53: Meh

[03:58] Kabain53: Not sure

[03:58] FreeYayo343: well you believe in the holy ghost

An anonymous weirdo wins for this missive to a reader who does YouTube videos:

Hi. You donít know me, but you might some day. I look forward to sharing the love of God with you. Iím only a few years away from opening up my first Church of Christ. You are a very special young man and your videos have helped me tremendously. You tube sure is a great tool to learn about believers.

The funny thing is, I donít believe in retarded fairy tales. Iíve been using you tube as a way to communicate with Christians, most of which are just like your self. Iíve gotten into the minds of you tubers for the last three years. The more I know about how the religious mind works the better I become at exploiting it.

Exploiting people like you is extremely easy. The good thing about religion is any dumb person on the street, or scared uneducated taxpayer will fall for it like candy.

You have no Idea who I am. When you look into a smiling preachers eyes in the future youíll have no clue who I am. When someone who agrees with you puts their hand on your shoulder, youíll have no way of telling weather or not their laughing at your ignorance inside. Your faith will be dashed, because that one guy named Me will always be in the back of your tiny mind. Youíll have no way of knowing who is genuine because Iíll be right there. I could be in your community, or half way across the globe.

I look forward to exploiting you believers in the near future. Once again thanks for every thing you have said in your videos, please donít stop. Come by and visit my Church sometime.

Tladatsi wins for this gem:

It seems to me that the flood was a miracle. As such it cannot possibly have any scientific evidence to support it. The whole point of a miracle is that it defies scientific explanation, it is beyond human understanding. If there were evidence, it would not be a miracle.

Seasanctuary gets more fundy in approach:

When the claim is made that the "culture and conventions" of the penmen includes errors being ok, then you've lost the meaning of inerrancy.

"The Bible is error free, except of course for any errors I feel like handwaving off as ANE culture's disregard for avoiding errors."

This is nothing more than a way to get all the "gee it sounds good" of claiming to believe in Biblical inerrancy without all the hassle of requiring the Bible to be free of errors.

Faust8 wins for exegetical torment on Matthew 10:34-8:

That first paragraph is I'm not even allowed to love my MOTHER more than you? My mother, who's done everything for me, has to be second place to some dude who has no conclusive evidence of even existing, let alone actually be divine?

I don't think even the biggest Fundies put Jesus before their mom, unless they're ungrateful *****.

From another anonymous critic:

The Bible was just some random book randomly written hundreds of years ago that people just randomly started to believe in

"bloody excrement" wins for these comments:

Proof [that the Context Group isn't fringe]? Aren't you the one who thinks Abraham and Moses really existed? Whoever's supporting you there is most certainly fringe.

Also, when called on citing a book he hasn't read:

I've read ABOUT the book and the author and selected parts. I don't need to read the entire book to know the reputation of said book.

Mike Wright, who may be a parody, wins:

1)Xians say that their sky daddy exists everywhere

2)Everywhere includes planet earth

3Anything that exists on planet earth can be found on Google maps

Therefore if their sky daddy existed xians would be able to show me where they exist on Google maps

If xians cant show me a GPS coordinate for their skydaddy or give me a link to their skydaddy on google maps then atheism is true

So tell me silly xians, how do I find Jebus on Google maps?

Samuel 025, on the healings of Jesus:

Not probable in the slightest. The people who were "healed" could have been paid off before hand by Jesus himself to impress onlookers, or by his followers to make Jesus believe he was God, or even by both for the purpose of making people believe.

Apparently carpentry and fishing paid better than we thought.

An unnnamed YouTube commenter nominates for Platinum with this:

According to to Islam Judas replaced Jesus on the cross, according to others his bones have been found, but he never existed because he's a sun-god as we well know. So what REALLY happened is that The disciples stole the body of Judas thinking he was Jesus and tried to revive him. They succeeded. Since he was now divinely transformed, he put his bones in an ossuary and they are now mistaken for Jesus' bones. We dont know where Jesus is, but Judas ascended and became the sun we now orbit.

Dumplin' Dumbash wins several this round; soon he may get his own section here, like Loftus has:

Third objection: the NT writers were biased. The authors try and turn this objection around by asking, "es, but why were they biased?" Itís not a very good question, since it invites the answer "ecause they were superstitious, underprivileged, and gullible, and wanted to be part of something big and important," so G&T turn it into a more apologetic version.

And two that win the Head Firmly Between Buttocks Award:

Isnít it interesting that modern theologians, without God showing up in real life, and without any direct access to Hell itself, are able to make "new" discoveries about eternal punishment just by rejecting what men have said in the past and thinking up their own ideas about what Hell ought to be like? One of the advantages of academic theology is that, since everything is based on what men say about God, you can construct a whole "new look" for something as basic as the doctrine of Hell, just by going back over whatís already been said, and selectively emphasizing or de-emphasizing whatever ideas need to be made stronger or weaker.


Theoretically, it shouldnít be too hard to preserve at least the basics of the faith across changing ages and cultures. One of the problems with the patronage model, though, is that the people God ďsponsoredĒ in New Testament times are long since dead, and since He does not show up in real life to sponsor any successors, the system devolves down to men appointing themselves and doing whatever they think God would want them to do, in His absence. The subsequent doctrinal breakdowns that we see in church history are the inevitable result.

And this gets the KKK Lifetime Membership Award:

I donít know where Holding got the idea that fundamentalists have never heard of death being separation from God, but it was a quite common theme in the evangelical denominations I was formerly associated with, and especially in the conservative Christian college I attended. Nor can I tell where he got the idea that Iíve said anything denying that shame and honor were important to the ancients. Obviously, it was important to people in the past, just as it continues to be today. If anything, weíve become more civilized and less brutal about "shaming" people than the ancients wereófor all his talk about shoving things down my throat and choking me, I trust Holding would not really do physically the violent things he expresses verballyóbut shame and honor are a huge part of theology, politics, professional sports, and many other areas.

In ancient times, however, literal physical violence was how shame and humiliation were inflicted. Holding himself alludes to this fact a number of times, so itís hard to see what makes him think that emphasizing the importance of the shame in any way diminishes the physical violence by which shame was inflicted. The greater the violence, the greater the shame; the greater the physical suffering, the greater the shame. Indeed Holding suggests that his post on the topic was motivated primarily by his reaction to Mel Gibsonís The Passion, and his desire to divert attention from the physical suffering of Jesus to something less abhorrent.

Moreover, Jesusí own references to eternal torment follow the same model of shame and mortification through suffering endless pain. Though of course, Jesus never had the opportunity to "read some works by credible scholars on this subject (like Malina and Rohrbaugh)," so maybe he was just poorly educated and had no ability to grasp biblical scholarship (just like me, wow!). That would explain some of the snide things Jesus had to say about people who put their trust in the teachings of men instead of in the Word of God.

His blog readers win, too. Arthur wins:

He used the word "patronage" again. I hate to be the indiot all the time but, to my untutored laypersonís mind, patronage means the support or influence of a patron. To Mr. Holding, however, it has every appearance of being a particular, well-defined, not to mention central, concept, which

a) isnít listed in my dictionary (which is very small, I have to say), and

b) has to power to explain (so far) big ideas including atonement and Godís remoteness.

It sounds so simpleÖit explains so could be Christian theismís version of the natural selection theory.

I have to assume Mr. Holding isnít going to spell the concept out for me, given his admirably direct expressions of dislike for indiots, so I was wondering if anyone else could provide some sort of good-faith approximationĖa devilís advocacy, as it were. The devil would want me to understand what heís talking about, right?


I'm betting it's some religious term. Highly sophisticated, 'course. Which is why us dumb hey-thee-ests wonít get what it means even after reading a dictionary.

If it makes you feel any better, I think being called a screwball by an arrogant twit should not be a serious bruise in your ego. I think itís pathetic and disgusting that he was actually so pompous and arrogant as to simply mock you instead of giving at least some superficial answer to your question.

I did look up the word on Wikipedia, and there IS a religious (ecclesiastical) "patronage". Not knowing what that is doesn't make anyone a "screwball" in my book, whatever the hell that means.

It looks like a rather esoteric historical/theological term.


(Holding's) arrogance would not be a problem if he was actually arguing about something real.

He is a hand waver of momentous proportions hoping that if he can distract you long enough you wonít notice the pseudo intellectual foundation of apologetics and pro-religious reasoning in many a scholarly setting.

Write long screeds with lots of jargon and quotes from other apologists supporting you. Oh and donít forget biblical quotes and cherry picked quotes from other faiths. Then redefine some words you donít like the meaning of and viola. Itís like something a post modernist would write, no foundations but it sure looks impressive. I wonder if there is an "Sokal" essay generator for xtian apologists, press a button and out comes another. (

I wouldnít worry Arthur it's like being told you are mad by a lunatic, kind of reassuring.

And, yoyo:

good analysis of a very flawed argument. You know that they are flogging a dead horse when they descend to "unless you read x, y or z favorite theologian you canít critique /understand my version of the bible". Cudos also for not sinking to name calling in response to his childish insults.

Pitchforkpat wins and nominates Platinum for saying of the rule about knocking out the eye or tooth of a slave, and why it does not also apply to issues of death:

The rather obvious and gaping flaw in this argument is that someone CAN be beaten almost to death without knocking out at tooth or an eye. This isnít my opinion, of course. Itís a fact.

As well as for this explanation of why Hebrew "slavery" is not indentured servitude:

The level of your ignorance is truly astounding. The term "indentured servitude" came from the American colonies. Workers from other countries agreed to work without pay for a specified number of years in return for the payment of their passage to the New World. They were often taught a trade. After their period of employment they were often given land and an amount of money to start off with.

The word "indenture" actually refers to the indentations on the CONTRACT that both parties agreed to. To refer to master/foreign slave relationships where you were permitted to buy children to keep as slaves and hand down to subsequent generations is NOT the same no matter how much you want to delude yourself and parrot the party line.

Ken_1969 gets a head start:

Well, not that ignorant - I know that these are indeed modern doctrines (in the last 400 years or so), and so I do treat them with the contempt they deserved. If God was not capable of writing a book - supposedly the most important book of his people's existence - that is clear and plain to the unwashed masses who represent the majority of his followers - then he is just as ignorant as those who think they can, after 2,000 years, finally "figure it all out".

It's no co-incidence that around 1600BC was when scientific thinking was really allowed to begin to shine, and so as more and more "biblical truth" was proven by the scientific method to be complete nonsense, the various branches of Christianity had to find ways to either dispute them or make sense of them. Hence the persecution of scientists, and the appearance in a short space of time of many new Christian doctrines.

If you think this rampant multiplicity of Christian doctrines is the answer to Christianity being taken more seriously then you are deluding yourselves. Nothing can be "proven" about any of these doctrines - hence the continued and heated bickering about which is right.

I tell you what, once you can all agree on one doctrine, maybe then we can all have a discussion about it. Call me in a millennia or two.

By the way - Tim Lewho?

It's not theology - it's mental masturbation. The fact is, your bible didn't make sense 2,000 years ago, and none of these new doctrines make it any less nonsensical, and the fact that you're still vainly looking for the "truth" of this ancient scripture is an embarrassment to your religion. It's just one theory layered on top of another. The fact is the bible is such a huge unwieldy document that I'm sure you could make it say whatever you want it to say, and that, it seems, is about the size and shape of "modern Christianity".

You are all utterly reliant upon biblical scholars to interpret scripture which was the point I was making to Esther. It's basically a "made up religion". You may not actually have rewritten the scripture but you've interpreted it so much it might just as well be the book of Mormon!

Hercules2345, for this:

JP Holding has no qualifications whatsoever in any Biblical field, knows no Biblical languages, and has no relevant training, yet has the temerity to presume that his OPINION is enough, and that his personal FAITH is all that he needs, to offer a vicious and vitriolic critique of credible credentialed scholars who are trained in this area of expertise. JP Holding has no training in comparative religion. No training in mythology. No training in archaeoastronomy. No training in astrotheology

What college was it that gives a doctorate in archaeoastronomy and astrotheology, again?

Avaya, who is shaping up to be a Platinum n00b nominee, adds:

You are stretching the defense too far by claiming "case law" will make a reasonable person come up with actual reasonable morals.

Truthhammer makes his mark, for example:

And I also want to be clear about something that has been misconstrued several times. I never meant to use insults or personal attacks to argue for my position. I meant to use them because we got some idiots running around. I've been very clear: I'm not going to get into it with any of the Turkelites. They aren't worth my time.

But I have been reading up on Oral Tradition (as per their suggestion). And it didn't take long to figure out what's going on. If you read Christian websites they'll repeat over and over how reliable oral tradition is (the best argument I found was that "people tried hard to memorize things back then"). But if you spend 5 minutes searching scholarly journals you'll find the truth. For instance, Jan Vansina wrote a seminal book on the topic called "Oral Tradition as History." Which is basically a description of how unreliable oral tradition really is. That book is a great starting place, but it's certainly not the only source. I encourage you to do some real research, instead of listening to everything posted in Tektonics.

I also think there's some confusion about what it means that the burden of proof is on you guys. You are making a positive claim: The Bible's history is sufficient proof of its contents. I am making a negative claim: No, it isn't sufficient. I've tried to explain why it isn't sufficient (i.e. give a plausible alternative explanation of the data). But the burden is on you to prove your point. And all you guys have been doing is nitpicking at my responses. The way this discussion should really start is with a coherent, complete argument from your side. That would situate the entire interchange. Then I would have something tangible to argue against, and you would have something tangible to argue for. As it is, I'm arguing against a nebulous concept, and you're responding with unorganized unfocused blurbs.

Dolle Dino wins Gold, but no awards for coherence:

However, if God has free will, he needs something that drives this free will. A being without any preferences is incapable of doing something (it's impossible to make a choice in a void), so God needs preferences. Since preferences are not justifiable in logic without making baseless assumptions*, God makes baseless assumptions in the process. So, if God is personal and has free will, then he will have irrational characteristics you can disagree with without being wrong. Perfectly moral therefore only has meaning if you fully agree with these assumptions God makes.

Progeny earns one for this:

What if Christianity is correct, and my lack of faith will ultimately lead to my eternal damnation in the fires of hell? Or if, maybe, I'll spend some well-deserved time in purgatory? Or if, (long shot) somehow I earned a spot in God's shining glory in Heaven, despite my contempt for religion?

What if none of those options appeal to me... What if I want to escape my fate in the afterlife, assuming one exists?

Enter Cryonics!

Supposing that my body, or even my mind, was immediately put into a state of cryopreservation following the cessation of my vital signs... what would happen? Keep in mind that when somebody dies, they can be recussitated for a decent period of time afterward, as long as the brain has not suffered too much damage. So why not hit the 'save' button on life, put my brain on ice, and reload a few decades down the road, when the technology exists to safely revive me, properly recussitate me, and then go on to improve my state of health.

I can think of three ways it could go:

1) The freezing process or revival fails, causing irreparable brain damage, killing me.

2) God, if he exists, says "Forget this!" He intervenes, ripping my soul from my frozen body.

3) The whole process succeeds. My eternal fate has been averted! I found the grand loophole in God's plan!

I do not truly, irreversibly die until my brain no longer holds the information that my personality and consciousness are composed of. If the brain, still containing me in every sense of the word, is frozen, or more properly, vitrified, before the cells begin to die, I am still alive by many definitions. The technology is by no means in its infancy, and several organizations are already performing the process commercially. Obviously it will become safer and more effective over time, but it is already becoming a realistic alternative to... death!

Unless you assume that a person's soul abandons them whenever they even draw close to death (near death experiences of those who experience heart failure, etc), then this should be a concept that unsettles quite a few of the more religious people amoung us.

Could a person live a life of evil... or of good... and still escape their eternal destiny?

X-Japan Golds with this:

Jesus died in order to show how insane everyone in the world is. By demonstrating this, he strive for people to reach a higher level of consciousness. Once people are aware that they are insane and controlled by their egos through their actions toward Jesus, this awareness will help to advance society.
The Confused Believer Collection

"Undead" colors this with his crayons:

I doubt that there are any true protestant churches outside of the Free Presbyterian church of Northern Ireland and "God hates fags" etc.

Protestant means "protest". If you are not protesting against Catholicism, or something else, then you are not "protestant" no matter whom you claim descent from.

As for Baptist churches, I don't hear much protest from them about anything these days.

Gold to VenomFangX, a geocentrist (yes!) who said in a debate over whether an old Earth was biblically warranted in which a reader was using Hebrew:

i won't debate hebrew with you, i'll debate the english tho

And another screwball to a moron struggling to respond to a reader pointing out the biblical definition of faith based on the Greek word pistis:

That's nice, your not greek.

Tomski, in much the same vein, wins for this after being told how to define the Greek word agape in the Bible:

I believe that the word used to describe the love God has for us and the love God wishes us to have for Him and for our fellow man is inadequate - it's higher than our language.

It's "higher than our language"....but he knows what it means anyway.

Unnamed Christian wins for this, which won't be used by CMI any time soon:

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims. Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!

Sozo2 wins for a reference:

Let me leave you with this paragraph taken from The Ancient Hebrew Research Center on Word Studies...

...which is apparently himself sitting in a closet with a Tanakh, as there is no such place.

David Keefe of Christianity Today wins for this defense of The Shack:

Yet in order to give a work a fair hearing, we have an obligation to engage it on its own terms. A "good faith" reading of The Shack involves, among other things, attending to Young's reasons for writing, his intended audience, and its particular literary form.

Young says he wrote the book at his wife's prodding, to explain his 11-year journey of healing with God to their six children. The "shack" in Young's story represents deep personal wounds, both suffered and inflicted. The book is spiritual autobiography (in one web interview, Young says Mack is "basically me") cast in an alternative world, an imaginative attempt to condense 11 years into a weekend of conversations. These are words offered by a 53-year-old father to his children, a fictionalized tale of his relationship with God mended in deep darkness.

Therefore, it's tricky to speak definitively of The Shack's theology. Young could have written a theological treatise, a spiritual memoir, or even a long poem. Instead, he wrote what he calls a "parable" (not an allegory). That should give readers pause about confidently reading off a systematic theology from the book.

So in other words, it's OK if Young writes bad theology, because he wasn't intending to write about theology.

Unnamed Christian in paltalk wins, for calling a reader a heretic for being an orthodox preterist. When they brought up Matthew 24.34, he yelled "I DIVORCE YOU FROM THE BODY YOU WILL BE LEFT BEHIND" (signup required) -- Platinum nomination for the Crouches for paying themselves so much.

Platinum nom also for Texe Marrs

My little bro found this one: Platinum nomination, Christian

Bill Maher, for his film Religulous, already wins a special Platinum

Sam Harris does it again:

Imagine the Koran exactly the way it is, but with one additional line "If you see a red haired woman on your doorstep at sunset, cut her head off". Just imagine a text like that which makes it down through the ages and is still there today. I can tell you what kind of world we would live in: a world in which red haired women are found murdered (in the Muslim World)... we would open the NY Times and read that 20 heads were just found in a bag and they were all red haired women. We would also live in a world in which Apologists for Islam would look at that behavior and say it has nothing to do with Islam. They would say things like "there was a news story last week where a Mormon man killed his wife and she had red hair" and "Many of the women who's heads were found in the bag were not actually redheads - some were strawberry blonde" and "some of the women were shot and not decapitated, but clearly only decapitation is sanctioned in the Koran" etc. This is the type of gymnastics we would be faced with.