Archive for November, 2007


There goes Brew…

November 7, 2007

I love patronizing Brew Urban Cafe.  Their coffee is great, baristas Marcus and Jen are wonderful people, and I was pleased to support a local business instead of that huge corporation.

Unfortunately, Brew’s owner doesn’t believe in handwashing.  While waiting for my iced americano she came into the store with the baked goods (fabulous foods from Gran Forno) and began unboxing them.  When I asked why she didn’t wash her hands, she gave me a dirty look and held up the food-service tissue she had in her hand.  She told me that she was using a tissue, so she didn’t have to wash her hands.  I said that using a tissue doesn’t take the place of washing one’s hands.  She got angry and said that she didn’t touch any of the pastries bare-handed (which is a lie.)  She was so angry that she didn’t finish unboxing the pastries; she left the store in a huff.

I didn’t get a chance to tell her that the tissue she was using was handled by her daughter.  The very same tissue that the girl took out of the box immediately after wiping her nose with her hands.  Ewww.  Just like her mother, the daughter didn’t wash her hands.

In addition, a couple of weeks ago, the owner’s young son came in to the shop, on his own, with the pastries.  Just like his mother, he proceeded to unbox the pastries without washing his hands.  Because he was holding a tissue, it was clear that he remembered that he should use one.  However, he had not learned that one needs to pick up the pastries with the tissue, not just hold it in the free hand while plating the pastries with the unwashed and un-tissued hand.

I suspect that the owner got so mad because she knows I’m right.  Why else would she get angry?  Hasn’t she heard of the recent MRSA infections?  Would she want to go to a food service business where the workers don’t wash their hands?  Would she be happy with the “but I’m using a tissue” response?  We all must wash our hands to stay healthy, especially before handling food.  I’m absolutely shocked that a mother, with young children, who owns a restaurant, wouldn’t be on top of such basic hygiene.


The myth of christian charity.

November 1, 2007

Flamingo Road Church (a South Florida mega-church) recently closed a soup kitchen that they ran in Hallandale Beach.  According to the church’s spokespeople, the church closed the food program because none of the volunteers were church members.   


Hmmm…despite the need for the food program, the church closed down the operation because no one in their church is xtian enough to volunteer to feed the hungry.  So, the volunteers that did staff the food program aren’t good enough for Flamingo Road Church?  The fact that food was getting to the hungry wasn’t reason enough to keep the place open?  Oh, jeebus would be proud!

The church claims that the food program will reopen at some point in the future.  I guess that’ll be once they can brainwash enough of their flock to do the work.  A Flamingo Road Church apologist says:  “They are doing this to make it ten times better. It is hard to make it better while the ministry is goingo [sic] on. It is going to take a break to come back better than it ever was before.”

Yeah…while the hungry people are starving to death, they can comfort themselves with the knowledge that the church just needed a little reorganization.  Well, at least this shows that faith based initiatives don’t work.  A non-faith organization would not stop helping the needy due to such a ridiculous notion.  Oh, wait, I get it now…the hungry people aren’t xtian, and Flamingo Road wasn’t successful in shoving jeebus down their throats with the food, so they closed up shop.  Of course, it’s all so clear now.

Those Flamingo Road xtians are clever.  They told a big lie so that the “volunteers” would look bad, not the church.  Well, I’m sure that the people who depended on the food program will understand Flamingo Road’s decision.  I wonder where in the xtian magic book of lies it says, “Ye who do not succumb to jeebus shall not receive food from xtians!”


Those pesky abominations!

November 1, 2007

Monday’s episode of Jeopardy (which I watched last night; ah, the joy that is TiVo) included a category called “Biblical Abominations.”  Normally, I hate it when a category that’s based on the bible is included in the game.  However, I figured I would enjoy this category as I assumed it would hint at the hypocritical behavior of xtians.

Homosexuality is the “abomination” xtians repeat the most often.  They love to quote passages from Leviticus that say, supposedly, homosexuality is evil.  I’ve always wondered why xtians are so hellbent against homosexuality when there are plenty of other abominations, i.e. sin, that they freely commit.

To my delight, none of the Jeopardy answers had to do with homosexuality.   Instead, the Jeopardy writers included the abominations of eating shellfish, and the ban on anything to do with bugs, eagles, incense and Egypt.  Wow!  Egypt is an abomination?  Tut would have been so proud.

So, despite the abomination that is shellfish, I’ve never encountered a xtian eschewing a lobster or a clam.  In fact, I’ve even seen ads for church sponsored clambakes.  Likewise, I’ve never heard a xtian parent scold a child for committing a sin by playing with a caterpillar or a ladybug.  Oh, and what about incense?  Don’t the catholics love to swing around their purses full of incense during mass?  They should be going straight to hell for that.

Furthermore, xtians claim that the US is a xtian nation because the “founding fathers” wanted it that way.  (Uh, that’s a big lie.)  Nonetheless, the symbol of this great xtian nation is an eagle.  Ha!  Eagles are an abomination!  Ooh, those xtians who covet eagles are sinners! Since it’s in the bible, it has to be true.  Right?

When did xtians decide which abominations are worse than others?  And how could they do that?  If god said something is an abomination, it can’t be changed just because some xtians choose not to obey the word of god.  It’s not rational that xtians are so against one supposed abomination when they freely engage in other abominable behaviors.  Isn’t an abomination is an abomination?