Category Archives: Social

Pledge Perfect

Posted on by

Oh, dang. The AHA is at it again, going for the small fry. It really annoys me when an association that I’m a rabid fan of comes off as a bunch of pedantic, narrow-minded gits.

USA Today reports that the AHA has filed suit against the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District (N.J.) to have the phrase ‘under god’ stricken from the pledge.

For non-US citizens a few words of background information:

  • In the USA, many states mandate that every child in every school recite the ‘Pledge of Alliance’ on a school day. Yeah, exactly what I think.
  • The original text of this pledge read ‘… one nation indivisible…’ and did not contain the phase ‘under god’. During McCarthy time, to show those little commie bastards who where known to be no-good god-hating atheists, the text was altered to ‘… one nation under God, indivisible…’
  • This change was first deemed unconstitutional in 2002, and later in 2010 it was deemed constitutional.

So why am I blowing a gasket? Are they doing the right thing? Yes. But why don’t they get their priorities in order? The pledge and the dollar bill (‘In God we trust’) are not prime battlegrounds for humanists. They are small fry that resolve themselves over time. Let’s get the big ticket items first, can’t we?

Let’s get everyone’s right for same-sex marriages, women’s right to abort pregnancies, and rid ourselves of Guantanamo Bay Prison, Creationism and Abstinence-only sex ed first, OK?

Friggin Humanists. Always doing the right thing the wrong way.

Sometimes, I hate being a Humanist.

A Muslima’s civil courage

Posted on by

The world’s only voluntary muslima is at it again. Not understanding anything about reality (dead give-away: she likes wearing, and defending, the Burqa), in an open letter posted on a swiss salafist web site, Nora Illi praises the act of two European teenage girls (aged 15 and 16) who have gone to Syria to become Jihadists as ‘an act of civil courage’.

Yet even Illi admits that the only way these women can join the jihad is by marrying a fighter. The west may deride this as ‘sex jihad’, but the fact is that the epithet fits: these women aren’t welcome as fighters, only as sex toys. That’s how Illi views female empowerment. Pathetic.

It gets worse. Let’s say you are a woman, and you are both courageous and stupid enough to give up your freedom, integrity and everything you are to become a freedom fighter’s entertainment. Illi states that these women are doing it as a testament to their faith. Bull. In Syria, both sides are Muslims, and have therefore equal right to claim that God is on their side.

There is nothing courageous nor morally sound in this tragic affair. These girls went to a different country to wage war. Ethically this is always wrong. Becoming a mercenary has no moral defense. That’s why they try to dress it up it as ‘Jihad’.

So why did these girls go? Because they are frigging stupid, and very young. Having no idea what they are getting themselves into, they probably have read too much of female teen drama ‘Divergent‘, hoping to find a green-eyed rebel leader with whom they save the world before supper.

Unfortunately, the truth is that they have wasted their lives. Should they be lucky enough to survive, they’ll return as property (wives) of someone they don’t know. And if they return, they will be immediately seized and dragged before a court. They did break international law, after all, and stupidity never has been a good defense. The reason Illi doesn’t know this is because she never stood before a judge.

Civil courage my ass.

Intellectual submarines

Posted on by

Proving that ultra-nationalists are about as smart as they are ethical, a few members of italy’s right wing populist Lega Nord found themselves aboard a sinking ship – literally. Ignoring the sad fact that each year more than 1’700 refugees drown trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa to Europe, a group of seven ‘concerned patriots’ embarked on a trip to prove that taking this journey was still far too easy.

And so they checked out a Zodiac, and tried crossing the Mediterranean from Italy to Tunisia, only to have their outboard motor catch on fire close to Malta. Brave men as they were, they decided to call it quits and signal Malta’s coast guard. Unfortunately their collective brain trust wasn’t enough to even get this matter right – they managed to fire the flare directly into their boat, sinking it.

Luckily, the story ends well on not one, but two accounts:
The clowns were rescued by the Maltese coast guard. And the incident proved that Lega Nord’s beliefs really are as stupid as their members.

Moral Failings

Posted on by

Pastor Bob Coy, head of a Florida Megachurch (i.e. a congregation of more than 20’000) and evangelical radio show host resigned over unspecified ‘moral failings’ – his church declined to state what failings that would be. Except the admission of multiple affairs outside wedlock, and – of course – addiction to pornography. As lazy, ridiculously dishonest pseudo-excuses go, the latter has recently turned into the de rigueur ‘defense’ for screwing around. Which only makes sense to those who think morals and sex (or morals and pornography) have something to do with each other.

So his church is not clearing up where Bob the Priest’s morals failed, and helpfully removed from their web site all advice he gave on moral issues like screwing around or porn consumption. Which goes to show that his Church doesn’t have the first inkling about what’s being moral.

Being moral also means owning up to your shortcomings, and to take responsibility. Bob Coy and his church don’t do that. They admit only to what can be proven, and try to hide the rest. That’s not taking responsibility. That’s taking evasive action.

There may have been moral failings in Bob, but the good pastor is in good company within his church.

Saudi Korea

Posted on by

If there is one hypocrisy greater than religion, it is the western ‘friendship’ with Saudi Arabia. Not only has the Saudi King gone on record in front of the UN assembly that human rights are alien to him – which the UN recognized by appointing Saudi Arabia a seat at the UN Human Rights Council – it’s a matter of public record that in Saudi Arabia women are subjugated and homosexuals are persecuted.

Doing no-one – especially not moderate muslims – a favor, the King, taking a page from the Spanish Inquisition, now has redefined terrorism as

calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based

You read that right. In Saudi Arabia it is now considered an act of terror if you call into question a superstition – while traditional tell-tales or terror, like for example, using violence to induce fear in the populace, are absent from that definition. Somehow fitting for a state religion that has a lamentable reputation of doing just that.

What bothers me most: the moral mendacity of governments that make a distinction between Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

Sharia-conform blood diamonds

Posted on by

Ah, unreason. The other name for faith, bigotry and hate. Consider this:

There is no doubt that the word ‘sharia’ carries huge challenges in relation to public relations. If you talk about anything [related to] ‘sharia’, the first vision people get is chopping off of people’s hands, having four wives and all sorts of unusual practices which, in today’s world, are not compatible with the values which we live by.

So far, everyone would agree. The problem: thus begins a staunch defense for Sharia law. How is that possible? There’s a reason we associate Sharia with chopped-off hands, misogyny and homophobia: because Sharia law is exactly that. This isn’t even a matter of contention – it’s documented in the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith, and actively fought by major Human Rights Organizations. Just like Christian or any other religious law, Sharia law is highly immoral. A pig’s a pig, no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It boggles the mind how grown, educated people manage to add One plus One, and arrive at Lalateen.

It’s fitting, then, that the person who uttered above quote is UK’s Minister of Unreason, Baroness Warsi. She attacks the problem of Sharia’s bad reputation from the wrong direction. Instead of trying to correct what’s wrong, she wants to make Sharia law more acceptable in the UK by tapping into Sharia-conform finance.
This comes from the same woman who is on the record as bemoaning that Islamophobia had “passed the dinner-table test” and become socially acceptable in the UK. Yet she sees no problem when expressedly barbaric, misogynic and homophobic Sharia law does pass the same test.

To be blunt: Sharia-conform financing is the ethical equivalent of purchasing blood diamonds. It’s advancing morally corrupt and unacceptable behavior. It’s unfathomable how Warsi can’t see it.

Now, Warsi admittedly isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. But is it really that much to ask of a member of a country’s government that they perform some gross error checking before speaking up? She’s starting to make american ex-governess Sarah Palin look good.

Sharia’s bad rap

Posted on by

There is no doubt that the word ‘sharia’ carries huge challenges in relation to public relations,

declares UK’s Minister of Silly Thought (a.k.a. Minister of Faith), Baroness Warsi. Indeed. So do ‘Spanish Inquisition’ and ‘Apartheid’. All for good reason. She then goes on to make a couple of important points:

I am a British minister in the British cabinet […]. I am not elected[…]. I therefore don’t represent a constituency and I certainly don’t represent the British Muslim community.

Correct on all accounts – which rather does raise the question what the hell (pardon the pun) her role is. Except being a Baroness, which in the UK can be a job unto itself – see Queen (not the music group). If there is one thing she does it’s opposing ‘secular fundamentalists’ like Richard Dawkins.

The most aggressive post I get is from people who are secular fundamentalists,

she complains. She defines secular fundamentalists as people who say that there should be no public space for faith. It’s not entirely clear what her complaint is, but looking at other fundamentalists, she may complain about the complete absence of violence, calls for murder, or similar paraphernalia of standard fundamentalism that can be righteously denounced or talked away as being done by people who are ‘not true believers’.

It does not occur to her that the obvious opposite, someone who advocates faith in the public space, or, not to put too fine a point on this, holds public office for faith, must be a religious fundamentalist. Then again, reason never was the faithful’s strong suit, and she’s currently UK’s Queen of Faith.

It’s obvious that not only Sharia’s bad rap is well deserved.

Why men are homophobic

Posted on by

In Russia homophobia reigns – as it does in most other backward countries. If we take a look at Russia, we certainly wonder why it is that so many countries, so many people are deeply homophobic. Looking at Russia we’ll soon notice the close ties that Russia’s government has with the Orthodox Church. When we then survey other homophobic countries, we’ll see all these countries are also very religious. It would be simple to conclude that religion causes homophobia.

It would also be wrong.

Homophobia is not something caused by religion. Although the Abrahamic religions are doubtlessly homophobic, they merely amplify, not cause this irrationality. The cause for homophobia is actually quite simple:

Men.

There are two unrelated but significant traits in men that fuel this fear:

  • Men know deep down that they are sexual predators. If society and their own restraint didn’t exist, they would rape women.
  • Men think very highly of themselves, and most believe that they are nearly irresistibly attractive, that their looks and demeanor are almost godlike.

As a result men are afraid that their good looks and attractiveness makes them prime targets to gay sexual predators. That is why a ‘straight’ man usually has no problems with lesbians – most get turned on watching lesbian porn. But the thought of a gay man immediately evokes strong fears of being raped. Homophobic men are afraid of having to face an uninhibited, unrestrained, gay version of themselves; they are afraid of becoming sexual prey.

Homophobic men are deathly afraid of having to live through a situation that every woman walking a street today calls ‘normal’.

How can you live without religion?

Posted on by

But you have to believe in something!

In a nutshell that is why believers can’t wrap their thoughts around non-belief. In most believers, their faith scratches an itch, satisfies a craving that non-belief can’t. They need to believe something, no matter how preposterous. Luckily, this desire is artificial. It’s an addiction, induced by early indoctrination.

How can you live without religion,

is an honest question I was asked on multiple occasions. The problem is that these people really can’t – at least not immediately – live without religion; just like most addicts can’t live without their drugs. Weaning yourself of an addiction is painful and difficult. I remember how difficult it was for me to quit smoking – and that was a relatively easy thing to do compared to other addictions. Kicking the habit of religion took me much longer, and a lot more effort.

So, can you live without religion? You can – just like it is possible to live without nicotine, alcohol, or other drugs. But it’s a difficult process once you are addicted. It will induce great discomfort, and you are constantly surrounded by enablers who try to push you off the wagon.

So you can live without religion – if you want to.

But that requires that you first recognize that you have a problem.

God the Politician?

Posted on by

As entertaining as reading the discussion on God-awful (ha ha) christian flick ‘God’s not Dead’ is, it has also revealed two strange traits. Of course, the proponents for a film like GND can be expected to be rather fervent believers, so we get a natural pre-selection of commenters on that side of the spectrum.

Firstly, the most common retort to any criticism is ‘Why do you hate god’? Yeah, right. I never said their comments were smart.

But, strangely, whenever a discussion gets anywhere, it’s interrupted by a particularly puzzling non-sequitur from a religious person: “Oh, that’s a typically liberal view” – as if that means anything. I don’t get it. Is God supposed to have a political agenda? Are politically liberal Christians not religious? Is the validity of a religious argument decided by the political views of the one who brings it up?

I know that it helps believing in authority to accept the idea of Gods, and therefore a conservative mindset (not to mention inductive reasoning) makes it more likely that you are religious. Yet, if Jesus existed as described by the Bible, he is a radical leftist: a peacenik (‘turn the other cheek’) who wants you to give your second coat to the destitute and who is against big money (money lenders, i.e. banks).

So if God did exist and took political sides, it’d be bad news for the conservatives.

Can’t these people read?