Category Archives: Social

Education Kills God!

Posted on by

From the Department Of Bloody Obvious comes another confirmation of what even Martin Luther knew in 1520: the more you know, the less silly superstitions you have. This was also indicated by a study a few months ago which concluded that better internet access leads to less religiosity (the headlines then screamed ‘The Internet Kills God!!!!!’), and is now (unsurprisingly) confirmed by a study conducted by the Louisiana State University:

The study finds that more education, in the form of more years of formal schooling, has “consistently large negative effects” on an individual’s likelihood of attending religious services, as well as their likelihood of praying frequently. More schooling also makes people less likely to harbor superstitious beliefs, like belief in the protective power of lucky charms (rabbit’s feet, four leaf clovers), or a tendency to take horoscopes seriously.

Strange phrasing (really? not attending a superstitious gathering is a large negative effect?) and questionable differentiation (luck charms are superstitious, but belief in gods isn’t?) aside, we see once again what motivates Boko Haram, IS and Taliban, and what Luther wrote about in the middle ages:

Reason is […] the greatest enemy that faith has

It’s only a matter of time until we can openly say what is blatantly obvious: smart, educated people don’t believe in gods, fairies or magic. Stupid people serve their priesthood.

Mini morals

Posted on by

A wave of sexual assaults has hit Kenyan women: they are severely beaten and have their clothes torn off by a mob of men. Why? Because, according to the male mob, their victims are

tempting them by being indecently dressed

Even more alarming, in an interview a 26-years old student commented to the press that

An African woman should be decent. They are provoking us. And I think we should put in place laws to curb that.

Let’s face the truth. These ‘men’ are looking for excuses to humiliate women and will take anything as a pretext to sexually assault them. A miniskirt that was proffered as evidence for indecency is a cynical joke. No mater what a woman wears, no man must ever take that as a pretext to assault her – no excuse will ever do. Moreover, in Kenya many women live in traditional communities that do not have Abrahamic nudity taboos – they don’t, for example, have acquired the compulsion to cover their breasts. So even if we did allow for some ‘cultural’ BS explanation, it would not hold water here. No, these men simply assault women – because they feel they can.

What we see here is unchecked male desire for dominance, coupled with a patriarchal ideology – most probably Christianity – trying to assert itself by openly assaulting women. Mind you – the fault does not lie directly with Christianity; it lies with the perpetrators. It’s just that Christianity provides such a convenient pretext when foaming-at-the-mouth priests tell their congregation that

wearing miniskirts is the devil’s work

Remember this the next time some religious nut tells you that religion helps you to be more moral. https://findphonebase.ca

Erdoğan’s America

Posted on by

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – not particularly known for his intelligence – wants to set the record straight. As the Guardian and other outlets report, Erdoğan maintains that muslim sailors reached the Americas more than 300 years before Christopher Columbus did:

Muslim sailors reached the American continent 314 years before Columbus, in 1178

More interesting than the question whether this is true, though, is the question why anyone would want to say something like this. So some people say that Columbus ‘discovered’ the Americas. But is this really something to be proud of considering the fact that

  • Columbus’ (re)discovery ultimately led to immense suffering and death – the indigenous population was almost wiped out both intentionally and accidentally. Why would you want to claim responsibility for that? Even US Americans are finally clueing in to the fact that celebrating Columbus Day is like celebrating the Huns’ arrival at the Gates of Rome.
  • Why is the religion of the discoverer relevant? If you do want to put your God in the spotlight this way, you’ll have to explain why so many more discoveries were made outside your religion. 
  • It’s common knowledge that the Vikings made multiple landfalls on the american continent before 1000 AD; the Polynesians very likely reached South America more than 1500 years before the first Northmen set foot on Newfoundland – yet you don’t see either of them running around trumpeting that fact. Why would they?
  • More to the point, the original discoverers of the Americas are the indigenous people that the Johnny Come-Latelys killed: the Americas were originally settled 16’000 – 20’000 years ago, most probably via a land bridge from Asia. They almost certainly were superstitious, but they definitely didn’t adhere to Islam, Christianity or any other religion we know today. 

If there is one thing I wouldn’t obsess about is the question who really discovered the Americas and what deities they believed in.

So what can we learn about this silly claim?

If you feel that your religion has some kind of penis envy versus some other religion and that you must stake a claim for your religion, make sure it’s about something worthwhile.

Cat-callers go apeshit

Posted on by

It all started with a video: a woman walking down some New York streets, being the target of a lot of cat-calls. Even if parts of the video are fake (as was accused, but not proven), it definitely made an impression. To many men, the number of cat-calls was surprisingly high; most women say that it feels about right. Even if parts of the movie were staged, it points to an actual issue. So silly me thought that the issue was clear cut: the video shows that there are a lot of men who say things like ‘hey babe’ to a strange women, believing they are doing her a favor, while women think this behavior is bordering on harassment. Condensed into the short movie, the point, I thought, was crystal clear. I thought.

Enter Steven Santagati, who considers himself god’s gift to womankind. In a discussion on CNN, Steven went on to give new meaning to the term mansplainin’: not only did he explain to the two women on CNN what they really want, he also advised them that their best course of action to counter every-day harassment would be to carry a gun, and blow away the cat-callers.

Now, contrasting the original video to the sentiments of a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, who explains the world as perceived by a single-digit IQ brain, I thought this was a slam-dunk – one of those rare cases where everyone agrees.

Reading the comments on YouTube (a bad idea even on a good day), I found further proof against evolution: if you think humanity has evolved from monkeys, you are dead wrong. We are still apes.

Then again, using a gun to get rid of cat-callers is a surprisingly Darwinian approach to this problem.

Coo coo Cook comment

Posted on by

Apple CEO Tim Cook officially affirmed that he is gay. Most people around the globe acknowledged his open statement as an act of bravery; it underscores the fact that gays are still discriminated; that people of power like Cook must take it upon themselves to make their private life public in order to shelter and encourage those who live in fear of discovery.

Except for a few idiots. Meet Hanna Henkel, editor of Switzerland’s conservative Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ). From her perspective, ‘Cook abused his power as a manager when he made is own sexuality public’.

Really? Hanna, you do realize that most of your conservative friends who share your stone-age morals also think that a woman like you shouldn’t be an editor, right?

Well, for once, I agree with their sentiment. Your article is a disgrace to you, and your paper.

French Barbarism

Posted on by

French culture Minister, Fleur Pellerin, admitted to the fact that her tight schedule does currently not allow her to read literature. This was seen as a scandal by some, especially in the light that this year’s Literature Nobel Prize went to Patrick Modiano, a french national.

Writing for the French version of the ‘Huffington Post’, Claude Askolovitch called Pellerin’s lack of reading ‘barbaric’ and called for her to resign. Which goes to show that you don’t need religion to be a pompous, self-important jerk. Of course reading is important to Askolovitch – he’s a writer. But Fleur Pellerin’s job is not to read, it’s her job to manage an entire nation’s culture policy. Calling her ‘barbaric’ because she hasn’t read a particular book lately and demanding she step down is like requesting the minister of Transportation to resign because she hasn’t driven a truck lately.

Plus, another trait in Pellerin struck me as noteworthy: there are lots of people who pretend they have read Modiano. Fleur Pellerin, when put on the spot, did not try to weasel out of an uncomfortable situation. She knew that her answer was going to be somewhat embarrassing (a staffer could have prepped her), yet she unflinchingly told the truth.

That’s called having a spine, and – in politics – is almost as rare as real unicorn tears. Not having read a particular author, no matter how important, is not something to be ashamed of. Especially if you are running the country.

Ark Park Snark

Posted on by

Ken Ham, professional dimwit and owner of Creation Museum, a.k.a. the palace where reason goes to die, is in hot water as reported by Slate. After accepting tax payer’s money to build his next great attraction, the Ark Park (guess what that one’s about), the world-famous (if not notorious) non-thinker may have forgotten that any business that accepts state money also has to play by state rules. And – surprise! – state rules forbid that you discriminate against employees with regards to religion or sexual orientation. Which Ken’s new ‘attraction’ does: his employee requirements state that you must not be gay, and must be a Christian who believes the Earth is 6000 years old – and follow all the other nutty Christian Taliban claptrap these crackpots believe in.

So the state withdraws the funding money, and Ken Ham – irrational person he is – now thinks that hate crime is a god-given right, and that this is the perfect opportunity to make a stand. Hilarity will ensue once he (predictably, and no thanks to SCOTUS) publicly claims that discriminating against gays and other religions is a right granted by the constitution.

Ok, so Ken is an idiot – what else is new? The real scandal, however, was only mentioned in an aside: in the US you can discriminate legally against religion, sex and sexual orientation of your employees as long you are a ministry.

As you can in most European country. And these dimwits do discriminate on a daily basis, shouting hate at the top of their lungs – while maintaining that they are moral leaders.

Ok, so Ken is also not alone.

Prometheus II: Moses

Posted on by

I guess it was inevitable. After Thor, christian movie makers picked up the gauntlet, and answered with Noah. Or ‘The day after 4000 years ago’, as we call it. Well, Thor II came out, and now the christians are upping the ante with Exodus: Gods and Kings, also a tale ‘inspired by the bible’. As with all the other Godflicks, realism is not an issue (and I’m not saying that it should – these are fantasy movies after all), so the trailer does look promising.

The story itself is a bit tired, but I can see why it’s interesting for Ridley Scott to make such a movie: It’s the natural continuation of his Prometheus, placed in our past; a veritable Alien: the Pre-Sequel – Gladiator meets the Alien. And there is progression: In the original, the Alien only killed a handful of people. Then the death toll rose with each sequel. In Exodus (at least going by the book this is based on), the Alien kills hundreds of thousand people: all firstborn and Pharaoh’s army.

This time, though, it wins: by making a whole people it’s mind-slave. Predictable, yes, but only because that’s how it’s written.

If this movie is anywhere as exciting as I hope it will be, I can’t wait for Scott’s next feature: Abraham: Blade Runner that recounts the heroic struggle of great man – who wants to kill his son because voices in his head tell him to. Again predictable: at the end, he lets his son go – just like Rutger Hauer spared Ford in the classic.

Judge ‘Dredd’ Mac

Posted on by

Montgomery County, TX Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack is opening his courtroom sessions by first reading from the Bible, followed by a prayer. He thinks there is nothing wrong with this because he starts the religious part of his public service with the following remark:

We are going to say a prayer. If any of you are offended by that you can leave into the hallway and your case will not be affected.

Naturally, this has brought him a complaint from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which requested he stop this practice.

Mac replied that he will respond to their demand at his October 23 prayer breakfast. He added that

I am not seeking the potential controversy, as I will have to respond to these groups as well. We are on strong moral and legal ground.

Well, you wouldn’t state that you are on strong legal grounds if you weren’t seeking controversy, now, would you? Can we please have a little bit more honesty, Justice?

Mac added that

I want to make a statement to show […] that not only is it acceptable to our community, but […] that God has a place in all aspects of our lives and public service.

First of all, we need to recall that in Texas, anyone, regardless of their fitness for that purpose, can be elected Justice of the Peace. This could explain why Mac seemingly doesn’t know what the foundation of the law he presides over has to say about this: the Constitution strictly forbids state-sponsored religious public service, the Establishment Clause states that government may not in any way promote, advance or otherwise endorse religion.

It does not bode well for his past rulings that his knowledge of law is so tenuous that he gets even the essentials wrong.

Once thing is for certain, though: his assertion that people may leave his court room and that this would not affect their case is blatantly, provably wrong. After all, he openly stated that he holds the moral high ground, that performing a religious ceremony is a morally superior thing. Anyone who expresses their dissent by leaving would in his eyes be morally corrupt. In a justice for peace ruling that usually means you have lost your case. What Mac is doing is that he sets up a religious Litmus test before beginning his ruling; his decisions can therefore be seen as religious law. Do we really need Christian Sharia courts? I think not.

I really hate to have to quote to these zealots from their magic book: During the Sermon of the Mount, Jesus flat out commands that you should not pray ostentatiously but only demurely in your own inner chamber (Matthew 6:5-7). OK – I admit: I love to do that.

Why is it always that religious dimwits like Mac know less of their own scripture than your average atheist?

Tip-toeing Tutors

Posted on by

A research paper shows how English secondary school teachers handle the question of how to bridge the gap between religion and science. The researchers found out that science and religious education teachers tackle this problem differently:

Both RE and science teachers were aware that a “science vs religion” viewpoint turned some students off their subjects. Science teachers responded by emphasising “respect” for religion but avoiding controversial discussion, whereas RE teachers tackled the tension. While there is some curriculum guidance about science for RE teachers, science teachers have little guidance or help on how to address science and religion, and so are negotiating their own way through this difficult territory.

This is an artificial problem, and the tack that the science teachers take is dangerously wrong. Religions, like all ideologies should never be respected, and are fair game for discussion. It may, however, be a good idea to pay your respect to the people who hold these ideologies. But only to a certain point: people who, for example, believe the white race to be superior deserve no respect at all. Neither as a person nor their ideology.

This should be a non-issue. Science teachers could easily point this out to their students and shut down any possible discussions: while different people may hold different religious beliefs, science applies to all. There is no such thing as ‘Hindu Physics’ or ‘Christian Physics’. There is just Physics. If you need a religious qualifier, it’s not science.

Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. The real problem is mentioned only in an aside:

They [the teachers] knew the discussions were controversial, and worried about parent complaints.

Right. It’s not the students. Their parents are the real problem. Not to mention parents who send their kids to faith schools.

Good luck trying to resolve that when your approach to solving this is to tip-toe around the problem. Nothing was ever solved that way.

With apologies to Pink Floyd, the teachers must draw a line in the sand:

“Parents, leave these kids alone!”