Deveney Watch, April 15th

I really don't know where to start with this one. In the same article she writes these two things, unaware they conflict with each other:

'"What's a sin?" asked the 11-year-old atheist. I could have sung with joy knowing a child knew right from wrong and good from bad but knew not what the word "sin" meant.'

Interesting. She has already pigeon-holed (I daren't say brainwashed) an 11 year old into thinking her way.

Then, this:

'My mate and I debriefed about the deep-rooted brainwashing of children by religion. No child is born religious, homophobic, racist or sexist. They are programmed. Children's brains are malleable to promote the survival of the species. Here's how it goes: "Hey, little cave kiddy, don't eat those poison berries or you'll die." Imprint equals better chance of survival. The more malleable the substance the better chance of imprint. Religion has successfully exploited this evolutionary leg-up to its advantage.'

She's a shithead. There, I said it. There's more:

'I'm with Richard Dawkins. Indoctrination of children into religion is child abuse. Children should have the right to be raised free from their parents' superstitions, prejudice and mumbo jumbo. Let them make up their own mind when they're adults.'

Careful, Cath, he says that rape is not as bad as religious exposure. Are you with him on that one?

She is completely unaware that by her logic, everything you say to your child is brain-washing. Every last drop of it. You can't help it, as a parent. God also didn't control her parents to do or say the things they did to her. She had a text to check it all against and she didn't. She's a halfwit the same way Dawkins is.

The story about the dyke coming out to her parents has nothing to do with religion at all. It's mindless blaming of her favourite target. We're on article number 3, again.

Fail. Utter fail