Monthly Archives: January 2014

A perfect system for mankind?

Posted on by

I’m getting really tired of religious hardliners who never tire to accuse the non-islamic rest of the world of ‘debauchery’, being ‘morally corrupt’, generally unfit to make a decent decision, and then extol the moral superiority of their belief. A belief system that is difficult to be more misogynistic and hateful.

Recent UN and independent reports of underaged women who have fled Syria only to be sold as sex slaves, along with details of the Sharia-conform Islamic customs of Nikah mut‘ah, Nikah Misyar and Nikah ‘urfi – ‘temporary marriages’ to circumvent accusations of rape and extramarital sex with the sole purpose of allowing men to prey on destitute women, reveal the extent of ideological bigotry inherent in that particular belief. Here’s a sad truth: almost all women living under fundamental Islam are being denied important human rights. Few women would choose such a life by their own volition.

A few days ago, a funamental Islamic group gathered for a protest in London’s Brick Lane, with the declared goal to enforce a ban on selling alcohol. Part of that group were women (garbed in full body veil) holding up signs. One sign read ‘Islam is the perfect system for all mankind’:

Islamistheperfectbw Image Credit: Guy Corbishley / Demotix

Whenever I see a woman holding up a sign like that I can’t help but wonder: was she bought a slave and told what to do, brainwashed and beaten into submission, or is she merely incredibly stupid?

I have trouble believing she is stupid.

Bishop: pregnancy after marriage now compulsory

Posted on by

It’s not easy being a priest. After having lost his bid to becoming last year’s most disturbed catholic priest to raging lunatic Archbishop John Nienstedt of the Twin Cities, Chur Bishop Vitus Huonder is off to a good start to win the fool’s crown this year. His new idea: Marriage by church makes becoming pregnant compulsory. At least that’s his plan.

As with all things sex (at least consenting), the good bishop has no experience, and a lot of trouble thinking it though. Obviously, couples must not have had sex before they marry (well, the woman at least – Deuteronomy 22: 20-21), so it makes little sense to check for pregnancy beforehand. But I’d really love to see how the Bishop tries to enforce pregnancy after marriage. After all, he can’t really threaten to divorce the couple (Luke 16:18) if no offspring is forthcoming (uh, uneasy pun there). And if you are clinically unable to procreate – well, God loves you, I guess, but this cleric will not marry you.

All this silly talk reveals the real hare-brained thought that begot (ha ha) this terribly stupid idea: homosexuals can’t procreate (at least the males), and that way this homophobic idiot thought he could get his way after failing spectacularly with his homily against ‘Genderism’ a couple of weeks ago.

That’s gotta hurt: Darwin Award for Priests

Posted on by

For deeply devout priests, belief in their own religion can become lethal.

In one case, Pastor Franck Kabele read so many bible pages that his faith got the better of him, and he believed that Matthew 14:29 was something he could do as well: walk on water. And so he gathered his flock and told them that he was going to cross a large body of water on foot, and drowned.

In another case a self-described Prophet thought that he could pull off the same stunt David did in the den of lions, only to become a brief afternoon snack for said lions.

Merriment ensues when devout idiots comment that ‘you should not tempt god’ or, even better, that ‘their faith wasn’t strong enough’. Here’s a hint: If you think you can walk on water or lie with lions, your faith is strong enough. Your intellect isn’t.

To add insult to (deadly) injury, what we see here is Evolution at work. Both mental midgets perished before they could pass on their genes. They are due a Darwin Award nomination.

Or as we see it: Evolution 2 – Religion 0

Churchill was right

Posted on by

One of the most entertaining things I do is to read the comments for news articles that cover legislation that somehow curtails what some people regard as their religious freedom: removing religious symbols from public space, forcing organizations to hire women and treat them equal to men, prohibiting religiously-inspired mutilations on underaged children, or forcing children to accept life-saving medication in spite of their belief.

Within a few lines, the gloves come off; we wade knee-deep in justifications based on scripture, and we are inundated by a veritable Tsunami of accusations of moral decadence, crusading against religion (nice one!), or persecuting christianity. Godwin’s law always looms large, as Hitler is only a few arguments away.

To paraphrase Churchill: The best argument against religion is a five-minute conversation with the average believer.

Unfortunately, when reading the counter-points, the same goes for atheists.

Sturgeon’s law and religion

Posted on by

Sturgeon’s law states that ’90 percent of everything is crap’.
With regards to science, that is probably true: almost every thesis has been overthrown or changed at least once. Less than 10% of all laws have remained as they were originally formulated. Is that a bad thing or good? Religions are quick to point to the ever changing landscape of scientific discoveries and laws, and interpret that as a flaw, calling it ‘unreliable’.

But let’s look at the alternative:
Religions tout their ‘absolute truth’ and ‘unchanging, objective morality’; out of necessity they can’t change. Confronted with mountains of evidence that contradict their religious dogma, they try to ignore, re-interpret or laugh away facts as said unreliable evidence.

Perhaps 90% of all science is crap. But if we look at religions through the eyes of a rational, ethical being we discover another important fact:

With regards to religion, Sturgeon was 10 percent short.