Monthly Archives: April 2014

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.

Looking back in anger?

Posted on by

When I was a pre-schooler, my grandmother used to tell me stories – lots of stories. Being born in the land of the Brothers Grimm does have its advantages. Some of the stories I found frightening, but most of them enthralled me and engaged my (hyperactive) imagination. As a kid, the distinction between real world and fantasy was arbitrary and flowing; one world bled into the other, both were equally real to me.

Over time, I learned to differentiate between the two. I learned that Hänsel and Gretel didn’t really exist, and that, sadly, neither do dragons.

Today, believers often ask me, “why do you hate God?” I find this question to be disingenuous at best. It seems that they mistake my argument for rationality as animosity towards their god, that I perhaps feel betrayed by the fact that he doesn’t exist. Nothing could be farther from the truth. When I found out that Gretel was a fictitious character, I didn’t start hating her. I accepted it as fact. Why would I feel betrayed? Moreover, how do you hate something that does not exist?

Between the Frog King, Rapunzel and Cinderella, I of course heard the stories of Noah, Adam and Eve, and Jesus. Which kid in my town hasn’t? Today I know that these tales are fiction. Fairies, Dragons and Gods don’t exist. I’m saddened by the fact that they don’t, because the world would be much more colorful if they did. But hate? Again – how could I hate something that does not exist?

No sane person would hate gods.

… or believe in them.

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.