1. Comment #27446 by Crysknife on March 24, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Ha! I live in Taylorsville!! I'm going to go buy one right now. I drink coffee every morning in front of my two fundamentalist partners and I used to feel somehow unclean because of it, but I've gotten over that. That shirt might over do it though.....I do have to work with these people after all.

I'll wear it on weekends.

Other Comments by Crysknife

2. Comment #27449 by DavidJMH on March 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Crysknife,
On the contrary, your fundementalist colleagues work with you. The fact that you know they are fundementalist god botherers mean they haven't been shy about letting you know it. Dawkins can be in their faces and so should we; it's just a teeshirt; no further comment by you to them is necessary and any rate, your right to free expression is just as valid as theirs.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

3. Comment #27453 by Homo economicus on March 24, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Coffee, the reason I get out of bed. Esp. with the clocks going forward and me being on an early this Sunday (groan).

Other Comments by Homo economicus

4. Comment #27456 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 5:53 pm

So Bach wrote most of his cantatas in praise of god, at least he wrote one in praise of coffee!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

5. Comment #27458 by Crysknife on March 24, 2007 at 6:01 pm

David, I appreciate your comments and I even agree with them....in theory. In practice, that approach isn't likely to be beneficial. I have to make a living and it is difficult enough as it is. My partners and I clash sometimes, but to keep my income, I try to keep it to a minimum. Make ripples, not waves, I guess? Anyway, coffee was something I wasn't gonna give up just to spare them, but I don't need to push it to the point of a joke.....do you see what I mean?

On the weekends, I have no problem wearing it around town, but I want my work place to be as stress free as it can be. We all have to make concessions of some kind in this world.

And yes, they let it be known, but they don't push it on me. Sure, there's the occasional blessing in one of their offices, attended by half the workforce, but hey, I play my rock music loud and drink coffee, so we're even.

Other Comments by Crysknife

6. Comment #27459 by admin on March 24, 2007 at 6:01 pm

There was a fascinating study done with caffeine and spiders...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

Other Comments by admin

7. Comment #27466 by Veronique on March 24, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I just loved the spider video on youtube!! What a hoot.

Everyone should see it. Talk about LOL. I choked on my cuppa and had to watch it again. I have a caffiene soaked friend who yabadayabadas like that spider. She wants to buy a free-standing hammock, 'cause she likes her smoke as well.

Classic!
Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

8. Comment #27482 by Roy_H on March 24, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Many a true word! Our biology teacher read us extracts from his student thesis about spiders where he describes the effect of the web building abilities of spiders after they had been given a small dose of home made orange wine! Come to think of it, he was the guy who taught me what a "Humanist " was, he was the first atheist I had ever met.

Other Comments by Roy_H

9. Comment #27491 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 25, 2007 at 2:46 am

And here's what happens when spiders drink rather a lot of coffee.
www.cannabis.net/weblife.html

If the Angel does turn out to be a registered trademark then the Mormons would have a point. But if they are just getting their nickers in a twist because they don't like seeing one of their symbols portrayed that way then they can bugger off.
Their religion, they can show repsect to their idols. It's not our religion therefor we don't have to.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

10. Comment #27496 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 3:10 am

Right, lets see, the angel is called "Moroni"

Does this mean that the followers are Moronic?

Sorry, OK, mea culpa, its a cheap one, its an easy one, but hey, someone was bound to point it out sooner or later...

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

11. Comment #27499 by ridelo on March 25, 2007 at 3:24 am

Not being a native English speaker I don't understand the expression 'getting their nickers in a twist' and I can't find it in the dictionary. I suppose it means 'getting very upset' but I'm not sure.

Other Comments by ridelo

12. Comment #27501 by Duff on March 25, 2007 at 3:32 am

Scottish,
You are correct, Sir, it has been done many, many times before.

Other Comments by Duff

13. Comment #27516 by Corylus on March 25, 2007 at 5:47 am

Ridelo

"Knickers" is an English word meaning underpants (particularly female ones) - so getting them twisted is not a good idea.

So yes, the phrase 'knickers in a twist' does mean getting upset and agitated. :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

14. Comment #27518 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 6:15 am

Speaking of underpants, in the UK (and maybe elsewhere?) they are usually referred to as pants (also used as an expletive)OF course UK /USA usage of the word is totally different

I remember reading somewhere about a fundie church which "didnt allow the women to wear pants" Must admit I found that highly amusing. Of course they were referring to what we Brits would call trousers.

Ahh, the joys eh? Two countries separated by a common language!

Incidentally, there is a fundie church in Scotland (and I think a couple of congregations in England) called the Free Presbyterians who subscribe to that particular viewpoint - no trousers for women, strict sabbatarianism, and definitely no female pastors.

The most famous FP in recent years was Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher. You can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mackay,_Baron_Mackay_of_Clashfern

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

15. Comment #27521 by ridelo on March 25, 2007 at 6:37 am

I'm afraid that next time I have to attend a church service (can't escape going to funerals!) thinking about all those women without pants will terribly interfere with my prayers!

Other Comments by ridelo

16. Comment #27525 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 7:09 am

I know I'll be accused about going off topic, but this is such a funny one. Check out this link for some fundie pants-hatred:

http://www.dividedbytruth.org/women_pants.htm

You couldnt make this up...

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

17. Comment #27534 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 7:39 am

So a fundamentalist woman can't wear anything remotely resembling "men's apparel" on the one hand or anything remotely sexy on the other. Doesn't leave them many dress options really does it?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

18. Comment #27549 by Linda_K on March 25, 2007 at 8:51 am

Oh no! They've boycotted coffee! Big deal, they aren't supposed to drink it anyway. It's against they're beliefs to ingest caffiene.

Other Comments by Linda_K

19. Comment #27575 by Crysknife on March 25, 2007 at 10:49 am

You guys wouldn't believe the number of Mormons there are that drink Coke, and there's plenty of caffine in that drink. But stick coffee in their faces and they look at you like you're the devil.

I think it has more to do with coffee being a "hot brewed" drink. Tea is seen as bad for you as well. But hot chocolate is enjoyed by all of them.

Crazy...

Other Comments by Crysknife

20. Comment #27578 by A on March 25, 2007 at 11:45 am

"The shirts have upset the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Two words.

'so what?'

Other Comments by A

21. Comment #27579 by rockguy on March 25, 2007 at 12:01 pm

That's a great t-shirt. Has anyone tried the beer Polygamy Porter? Its brewed in Utah and its pretty good too.

Polygamy Porter
"Why have just one?"

Other Comments by rockguy

22. Comment #27581 by Corylus on March 25, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Scottish Geologist

Cool link! Now I see why women should wear skirts and men trousers/pants.

BTW: I do hope for the sake of your immortal soul that you are not sitting in front of your PC in a kilt. ;-)

Other Comments by Corylus

23. Comment #27585 by mr gollo on March 25, 2007 at 1:02 pm

I can't say that when I read the bible I got visions of helpful flying beings when it came to angels.

"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" - From the film "The Prophecy"

Incidently, if the angel in the picture is blowing his trumpet how can he be drinking coffee at the same time?

Other Comments by mr gollo

24. Comment #27592 by Nails on March 25, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Does anyone live near this place?
Can you get them to flog these t-shirts on e-bay or something?
i just love upsetting religous types, esp. the mother-in-law.

Other Comments by Nails

25. Comment #27593 by Bremas on March 25, 2007 at 2:17 pm

scottishgeologist
Funny pants link.... but that damn music drove me nuts.

Other Comments by Bremas

26. Comment #27595 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Mr Gollo

Hi - your posting on angels actually reminds me of something - Nowhere in the bible are angels described as having wings. At no point, where angels (Gods messengers) and men interact, are wings ever mentioned. In fact there is a passage in Hebrews "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares"

If angels had wings, then how on earth could they be entertained "unawares" - it would be pretty obvious wouldnt it?

I have often wondered where this "winged" thing came from. And have often wondered if it is as a result of confusion with fairies. After all, what is that thing on top of a Christmas tree? Angel? Fairy? Could be either couldnt it?

Yet the Christian churches continue to peddle this stuff, esp at Christmas time.

There is actually a ludicrous instance some time back of a charismatic church which experienced "angel feathers" falling on them. On top of "miraculous gold teeth" and all the other bizarre behaviour, I suppose this was to be expected.

Actually, it's unfair to have a go at the charismaniacs , they are such an easy target - the uber-deluded. Even mainstream believers find them embarassing....

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

27. Comment #27596 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Yet the Christian churches continue to peddle this stuff, esp at Christmas time.

No joke, the catholic church actually teaches that every catholic has his/her own guardian angel:

336 From its beginning until death, human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession. "Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life."Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Other Comments by BaronOchs

28. Comment #27637 by steveroot on March 25, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Speaking of Mormons and pants in the same breath, check this link ("parody"):
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/mormonunderwear.html
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

29. Comment #27652 by Philip1978 on March 26, 2007 at 1:55 am

I have heard of many words that are spoken here in England that cause all sorts of hilarity, the Australian use of the word Thong for example is what we Pommies would call a Flip Flop or a Sandal which are worn on the feet by men and women! Most English lads and ladies like to go out "On the Pull" and from what I understand that's a completely different concept in Canada (To Pull= to masturbate!) Lets not forget that we English are not being homophobic when we have been known to go out and smoke a fag or too!!

Truly great spider video, very funny!

Just wondering how the mormon fundies would react to a nice cup of TEA?

Other Comments by Philip1978

30. Comment #27656 by Loonacy on March 26, 2007 at 2:29 am

Concerning angel wings, in Isaiah, Chapter 6 it speaks of seraphim(s?) with 6 wings.

"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly."

http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/isa6.html#2

Incidentally, I thought "seraph" was the singular, and "seraphim" was plural, but here they speak of "seraphims".

Other Comments by Loonacy

31. Comment #27658 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 26, 2007 at 2:34 am

Another mistranslation happened at Wimbledon one year;
John Macenroe - "Man, there's a lot of fannys in those seats."

I wish I'd never mentioned the knickers now.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

32. Comment #27684 by MiloC on March 26, 2007 at 6:04 am

I used to teach junior high science in Taylorsville, UT in the mid 80's. We non-Mormon teachers had our own little coffee club and then some Mormons joined in and started to drink coffee with us. They also told us that they wouldn't drink it at home. Weird!

Other Comments by MiloC

33. Comment #27698 by MouthAlmighty on March 26, 2007 at 7:14 am

This is an amusing story - made all the more so by the conspicuous absence of riots and official decrees of divinely sanctioned murder.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

34. Comment #27767 by Goshzilla on March 26, 2007 at 3:36 pm

They(the mormons) don't have a case. No credible lawyer that wasn't a die hard Mormon would take their case on seriously.

Even though it may qualify as a trademark, they have many things going against them.

What we have is a photo of a statue that is publicly viewable from the sidewalk. Photographs of trademarked items are allowed, and digital alterations of a photograph are also allowed within reasonable grounds.

If this is not the case. For instance if the photograph was copyrighted and used in a published form of work, then the mormons would have real grounds to sue. If this is just an image from someone's digital snapshot camera, then Mormon lawyers can blow hot air all they want.

Other Comments by Goshzilla

35. Comment #27786 by ksskidude on March 26, 2007 at 5:40 pm

It never stops. What's next?

Other Comments by ksskidude

36. Comment #230723 by felixq78 on August 15, 2008 at 4:36 am

Wearing the T-Shirt on weekends sort of defeats the purpose and follows that infuriating and irrational tendency to not question religious delusion.
If the T-Shirt offends your colleagues, who cares, be a man and stand up for your convictions.
These deluded fools NEED to be confronted. If more people did it they might begin to question their own beliefs.

Other Comments by felixq78