The really, truly True Believer™ of the Month Award June 2010

We at Atheist Ireland thought the first True Believer competition would be wanting for nominations on such short notice, but we were not let down.

Among the forerunners for this month’s prize was Dr Vincent Twomey SVD, Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology in our country’s beloved Maynooth who wrote to the Irish Times this month to express his feeling that the civil rights bill “effectively deprives all citizens of their right of conscientious objection”

Vince feels that “People such as registrars, photographers” are forced to perform acts… such as Compulsory photography I guess… of the happy couple, that they may be morally objected to. Much like the judge in the Mildred Loving trial thought that the mixing of the races was an abomination.

That two hearts in this world could find love, only to have that love indicted because those hearts pump blood to the wrong skin type or sexual organs is only something those of True Believing can accomplish.

I wonder if the people who photographed the first inter racial couple felt they were denied “right of conscientious objection”??

But the prize this month goes to…. *drum roll*… the Islamic clerics in Iran who had enough faith in their own sexuality to honestly believe that the sexual attraction to manmade materials could become a pandemic in the population at large.

Normally we write about dummies, but this story defaults to dummies themselves.

Having realised how attracted they were to mannequins the clerics moved that such sexual deviancy needed to be stamped out immediately. Rather than recognise their own urges for decoration defloration as being the problem, they decided to protect the population at large by reducing the attractiveness of the plastic paradise with the hacking off of their breasts in their usual methodology of cutting off the sexual organs of anything that find themselves overly attracted to.

It takes belief of the strongest kind to think that sexual attraction of a man to a mannequin is a problem of god’s plan or the female form, and not the deviants who cannot control it.

However if we want to reduce the level of pain in the world, at least humping plastic is better than marrying the local 6 year old. It’s a step forward guys, well done… and I guess since boobquake did not happen, we owe you our lives.



  1. Avatar
    Bipedalhumanoid July 03, 2010

    I like that you’re referring to the “civil partnerships bill” as the “civil rights bill”, because that’s essentially what it is as far as I’m concerned. Was it intentional?

  2. Avatar
    The Rev July 03, 2010

    Athiest Ireland bites the bullet on the inate paedophilic tendancies of islam. someones gotta do it before the mistakes of previous generations are repeated, good on ya Noz

  3. Avatar
    Steve Dugges July 03, 2010

    What I find interesting is how are officials and photographers “forced” to perform Civil Unions. Clearly they are unaware we are in a free market economy and if someone doesn’t want to perform the service, then your business can be taken elsewhere.

    Another point is that homosexuals tend to have the highest disposable income, allowing Civil Unions in churches might be a good money spinner to help recoup the funds lost in paying abuse victims compensation.

  4. Avatar
    nozzferrahhtoo July 04, 2010

    Biped – I actually robbed the wording off the person who alterted me to the story on the forum and nominated them for the prize.

  5. Avatar
    Steve July 05, 2010

    You dont have to be religious to think its liberal stupidity to extend tax breaks which in effect are in place to encourage child-birth within marraige to people who cant procreate.

    I love the way you insult people who may have valid objections to a comparison with racism there also. classy.

  6. Avatar
    Bipedalhumanoid July 05, 2010


    If the tax breaks are for couples with children, then why are they available to heterosexual couples who don’t have children?

    None of the suppposed secular arguments coming from the religious right make any sense at all. That being the case, you can hardly blame us for reasoning that bigotry is afoot.

  7. Avatar
    nozzferrahhtoo July 05, 2010

    If there are valid objections, I sure have not been made aware of any.

  8. Avatar
    PurplehairedJo July 05, 2010

    Since this is an Irish website I’d have voted for the Irish bigots, but there really are so many religious nuts out there in the world that it’s almost too easy to find targets.

  9. Avatar
    nozzferrahhtoo July 05, 2010


    Feel free to pop over to the forum where we will be taking nominations and votes throughout the month of July for the next one! The more the merrier!

  10. Avatar
    Jeff July 05, 2010

    Sawing off mannequin breasts?? Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up!

  11. Avatar
    Cuttlefish July 05, 2010

    The perky breasts of mannequins
    Inflame the poor Irannequins;
    Because their lust could not be sated
    They had the boobies amputated!
    Now, lest you think their actions drastic–
    Plastic surgery on plastic–
    The clerics claim they had good cause
    To hack away at tits with saws;
    There is, I think perhaps, an answer–
    A cause as cruel, as dire as cancer:

    Religion is the real disease
    That led to these mastectomies.

  12. Avatar
    Hector Pascal July 05, 2010

    I wonder who gets custody of all those sawed-off boobs.

  13. Avatar
    Amii July 05, 2010

    Steve – You may object to the bill for economic reasons. But, when someone objects because they say they will be deprived of conscientious objection in a free market economy, then they are either ignorant or lying and bigoted.

  14. Avatar
    swede December 29, 2010

    “”at least humping plastic is better than marrying the local 6 year old.””

    Actually in the old Sand Pirate’s defense…he only played dolls with her till she was mature enough, at the ripe old age of 9.