Wingnut Continues

I am somewhat saddened that I came across Dinesh D’Souza’s blog at a time when I have very little spare time to make my own posts. The things D’Souza says are stunning in the bigoted idiocy they demonstrate. If I didn’t know better I would have thought it was one big joke blog written by some teenagers laughing to themselves. Sadly, this wingnut appears to be a real person.

Looking over his blog today, I stumbled upon a post titled “Good Heavens, No More Limbo?” which is another fine example of his, erm, thinking. Basically, this is a post reporting that the Catholic Church has decided to do away with the concept of Limbo (where babies went if they died before being baptised) and from now on, all babies who die go to Heaven.


The whole line of logic is breathtaking. I could spend hours trying to work out at which point is a child considered no longer a baby and therefore subject to “sin” when they die? I could spend days trying to work out how the Catholic Church can decide what God does or doesn’t do based on the whims of the current Pope — the doctrine of Original Sin seems to be overturned here and wasn’t that enshrined since about the fifth century? Sadly, I dont have time to do this, hopefully others will though! D’Souza, someone I had previously thought of as a Theist, displays an Atheist tendency:

Hell seemed like too harsh an alternative for little ones who had done nothing wrong, and so the Catholic Church invented limbo.

Aha. We see the early signs of “freethinking” creeping in. If hell can be seen as too harsh for one group of people, why not invent more places for them to go… I mean the whole thing is made up, so where do you draw the line? Showing remarkable mental agility, D’Souza continues:

Think of limbo as a place which has no suffering, or if there is suffering, it is very mild. One of my Dartmouth professors explained it as a place where one-year-olds were gently pelted with marshmallows which they were nevertheless permitted to eat.

This is seriously mind boggling. “If there is suffering, it is very mild” – who gets to decide what is mild and what isn’t? Why are innocent people suffering? Is there even any suffering? (Make your mind up!). Here he says one year olds get pelted with marshmallows then eat them — does the Catholic Church not know how unhealthy it is to let a toddler eat marshmallows all day long? It also begs the question, why in Thor’s name are one year olds being punished for ANYTHING? As there is the risk he was heading towards some freethinking questioning of Religious Dogman, Wingnut D’Souza finishes off with:

But today we live in a strange era in which infants are killed even before they are officially born. Thanks to Roe v. Wade and other abortion laws, being born is itself getting to be quite an achievement! And certainly it seems cruel and unreasonable to consign an unborn child, whose life has been snuffed out even before it began, to anything less than heaven. Even marshmallow pelting seems unfair under these circumstances.

I didn’t realise D’Souza had the authority to say which of God’s actions were fair or unfair. Brilliant. He must be so proud. I also find it strange that if an omnipotent deity objected to a law of man it still got passed. Maybe God is not all that Omnipotent…

And so from now on Catholicism will teach that unbaptized infants–born and unborn–go straight to heaven. I like this idea better, although I’m going to have to throw out my old cathechism book.

Well, it just goes to show. In Christianity, if you don’t like something God says you can just change it…


Sorry, posted in haste. You REALLY have to check out the comments on D’Souza’s post. They are pure brilliance. Some sensible people trying to explain to the wingnuts, then the wingnuts pile in with more and more nonsense. It is like bad history meets bad science with a side order of bad logic.