Human Farce

Posted on by

The Tories in the UK are proposing a new Bill to end the ability of the European Human Rights Court (ECHR) to oversee England’s legislation. On the surface, it even has the semblance of reason: removing oversight, the Tories argue, will make sure that foreign criminals and terrorists lose their right to stay in the UK.

Is this a wise course of action? No. Hell, no!

Repealing higher authority on Human Rights issues opens the door to the same totalitarian government that was rampant in Europe not 100 years ago, and still is in those European states that are not signatories of the ECHR act. Because it’s not only the rights of terrorists that are being repealed – it’s everyone’s rights that are being encroached upon. It used to be that the need of many outweighs the need of a few. Now this principle is stood on its head: the need to get rid of a few, it is argued, outweighs the need of all to protect their human rights. This is a very, very dangerous idea.

Similar to the PATRIOT act in the US, legislation already passed in the UK gives authorities rights to seize and imprison you under trumped-up charges. A brief example: David Miranda, partner to the Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwalt who broke the NSA Snowden case, was held at London Heathrow under terrorism charges, was denied access to lawyers, and all his electronic devices where confiscated. Yet Miranda never was a terrorist suspect. Demonstrably, this was an attempt to get at Greenwalt for exposing the NSA Scandal. This is a direct violation of European Human rights, but already legal in the UK under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act (people stopped under schedule 7 have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning. Critics say that among other things, this curtails the right to remain silent). Do you really want to remove the last vestiges of oversight that prevent security forces from running roughshod over your loved ones in order to get to you?

The Human Rights are a central pillar of humanity. Are they perfect? No. But we should strive to increase their influence and better them instead of lessening the authoritie’s incentives to adhere to them.

The core of the human rights are

  • the right to live
  • freedom from torture
  • freedom from slavery
  • right to a fair trial
  • freedom of speech
  • freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • freedom of movement
  • [EU exclusive] freedom of sexual orientation and gender identity

Look at the list above and ask yourself: Who in their right mind would want any less of that? Who would want to curtail everyone’s access to above rights? Do you really think the UK would be better off if they rescinded these rights in order to get rid of a few unsavory characters?

The Daily Express has called the Human Rights ‘madness’, the Daily Mail a ‘farce’. I know that learning from history is something that isn’t en vogue these days. But comparing their comments with what the Völkische Observer wrote in the 1930s gives me an unwelcome deja vu.

The scary people over at Express and Mail have called Torie’s new proposal a ‘triumph’. Well, if that’s what you think it is, here’s another scary phrase you should become comfortable with:

Sieg Heil!

God hates you

Posted on by

Atheists often hear the ridiculous assertion that they hate gods.

But let’s be honest – even if we did, it wouldn’t affect anyone else. If a god can’t take the fact that a mortal hates them – well… On the other hand, there are ample reason to hate gods if they existed.

If you look at the Aceh province of Indonesia, for example, you’ll see a God-given system in effect. And it positively hates humans, women in particular. If you drink alcohol, kiss while not married, skip friday prayer, or – god forbid, literally – engage in anything homosexual, you will receive barbaric, horrendous corporal punishment. There is nothing benevolent about this system; it is pure, unadulterated hatred of anything that those in power deem ‘un-islamic’. And of course it also applies to non-muslims.

If you look at Aceh’s sharia laws, and believe that they are inspired by a God, the conclusion is obvious: God hates humans. Anything that could be fun, happy, or joyful is an affront to that god: music, cinema, driving a motor cycle, or openly showing affection. That god expects everyone to be miserable – and thank him for it. Hating such an unpleasant, blood-thirsty, petty and spiteful God would be a virtue.

Militant Bullshit

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, there was a commotion downtown. Heavily armed Police swarmed the area close to the main station; roads were blocked, and sirens were blaring.

Onlookers kept their distance to the cordoned-off area and speculated about what was going on. Due to the proximity to the main station, many thought it was a terrorist attack – after all, ISIS had just threatened exactly that. Others supposed a demonstration of some other militant group – Salafists, Separatists, or Fascists – gone awry. Or perhaps some gangsters had robbed one of the many banks located at the Banhofstrasse?

There were a million different theories flying about – many of them laughably wild. I particularly liked the idea that perhaps irate bee farmers let loose a swarm of hornets (Swiss government had just struck down a proposed bill to support ailing bee farmers).

But as exotic and outlandish these theories were, no-one ever voiced a particular notion: that perhaps militant atheists were to blame.

There’s a reason for that. Everyone knows that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, at least not in the true meaning of the word ‘militant’. That is why, after a bomb blast, an attack on a group of people, or some other violent crime, no police resources are diverted to gather evidence against atheists, no security forces are sent out to round up known atheists, and no DA ever thinks about investigating militant atheists.

‘Militant Atheist’ is just a phrase dishonest people use to shift blame, to demonize atheists and to make perpetrators out of victims. It’s one of the few surefire tell-tales to identify a religious demagogue.

Oh – the commotion? A large-scale exercise. So what did they rehearse?

Well, certainly not evacuation procedures for when militant atheists attack.

Thank God – you’re out!

Posted on by

The gesture is the epitome of sanctimonious self-aggrandizing: thanking god when you score in a game or win in a competition. Believing that god not only favors you over the other team, but also alters reality to help you win is borderline megalomaniac, and a crass contradiction to the idea that your god is just.

A few days ago, referees penalized Kansas City Chief’s Husain Abdullah who, after a successful touch-down, had nothing better to do than to kneel, and thank his god – probably for using his celestial powers to smite New England, the opposing team.

Since it’s not a US custom to penalize open displays of stupidity – even in egregious instances as this – I think that the referees over-reacted. Is thanking god for winning stupid? Yes. Is it in-your-face arrogant? Definitely. Is is unsportsmanlike? You bet.

But it’s also very American. Just watch the Academy Awards.

Neal Larson: Moran

Posted on by

Neal Larson is angry at ‘militant atheists’. Why? It’s not entirely clear, but after carefully reading his ‘Militant Atheism Rears its Ugly Head‘, I conclude it’s because these terrible, ungodly people dare to speak up for themselves.

Since we should never assume malice where simple incompetence suffices, let’s be kind and assume that Neal really lost his marbles writing this.

First, he flat out states that he

would refuse to vote for a proud and vocal atheist for high office, regardless of any offsetting credentials.

But he would vote for proud and vocal theists who flaunt their faith – who make a show of going to church, and make it a point to use phrases like under god during allegiance, …so help me god for their oath, or finish their speeches with God bless America. Because double standards are a sign of healthy morals, right? I guess his regardless of any offsetting credentials is the cherry on top to underscore his open-mindedness.

He then unintentionally proves that he doesn’t know the difference between private and official roles, claiming that a school official who leads everyone into prayer over the intercom is merely someone who privately affirms their faith. A little later he bemoans the fact that many Americans are falling prey to political hyper-correctness, who then outlaw phrases like ‘bless you’. Doing that would indeed be silly – but it is in no way something that Atheists would demand. It’s what religious people do because they erroneously believe that saying ‘bless you’ would offend Atheists. It doesn’t. And here’s a hint: we don’t mind people saying ‘merry Christmas’ either. We know how to interpret kindness, thank you very much.

But those are only small fry. Neal goes full-on Moran with this:

While atheists are certainly capable of doing good works, those good works are not inspired by an absence of belief in God. How could they be? If atheists do good, it is in spite of – not because of – their atheism, so let’s stop acting like not believing is just another super awesome way of believing.

Can you be more condescending while spouting world-class stupidity? His complacent ‘How could they be?’ alone is weapons-grade stupid, merely underscoring the fact that Neal has skipped Ethics 101. So he’s never heard of Euthyphro – his (rather obvious) loss. But to really kick this into a universe of stupidity of it’s own is to accuse Atheists that they believe Atheism to be a religion. Not understanding non-belief is one thing. But confidently stating an idiocy of this magnitude is really asking for it.

He then whips himself into a truly righteous anger, condemning the activities of some atheists:

Particularly insidious are the atheists who get a sense of satisfaction eroding the faith of others and behave as though it is a favor to rattle another’s belief in a higher power.

Although I, too, have qualms about ‘proselytizing’ Atheists, I would like to pose the following two questions to Neal:

  1. Do you think that Christian missionaries are equally reprehensible?
  2. How do you define the word hypocrisy?

At the end of his text, Neal forgoes the classic ‘Hitler’ argument (which I was expecting), likening atheists to jihadists instead:

I think we could all be more tolerant of unintrusive atheism, because who doesn’t have doubts? But let’s separate them from the purveyors and jihadists of Godlessness

It requires an extraordinary level of incompetence – or, ideed, malice – in times of daily beheadings, rape and torture by jihadist ISIS and militant believers who kill for their god, to use either term in conjunction with atheists who until today have never killed, tortured or raped anyone in the name of unbelief.

What a piece of self-important, hypocritical, holier-than-thou drivel. It’s difficult to believe someone can be that incompetent.

Write less, think more, Neal.

Hold the line

Posted on by

in Talking To God I quipped:

If you tell some one that you are talking to god, nobody bats an eye. Do the same while holding a phone, and they’ll put you in the looney bin.

In a recent and very friendly conversation with a believer I made the same comment, only to have her eyes light up with delight and humor. She agreed that it was funny, although she couldn’t exactly say why.

I can. For believers it’s a matter of perception. For atheists a matter of fact. The only difference between the guy talking to god, and a guy using the phone to talk to god is the phone. Yet, phones in general aren’t known as a leading cause for madness.

Anyone who claims to be talking to god has a screw loose. Phone or no phone.

I contend that believers know this. That’s why they laugh.

The Fabric of Belief

Posted on by

An article in VICE News reports that more than a hundred Muslim Scholars from around the world have made the ‘Theological Case’ against the Islamic State (IS, a.k.a. ISIS). In no uncertain words do the authors denounce IS(IS) as un-islamic.

While it is nice to finally have some muslims speak up against the horrendous atrocities committed in the name Allah, it is entirely pointless.

So a bunch of scholars have gotten together to interpret Quran and Hadith in a certain way in order to show ISIS that their interpretation is wrong. The problem is this: neither side can convincingly prove the other side is wrong – they have equal rights to claim that their interpretation is correct. Looking at the bloody history of religions Canada Phone base Number , a case can be made that the more ruthless and bloody you are, the closer you are to scripture – and that is by no means limited to Islam. Furthermore, no holy Scripture has ever been shown to be ethically sufficient to pass a modern litmus test. A millennia old code of conduct simply can’t – no matter how much parsing is involved.

What we have here, essentially, is one group of courtiers lecturing another group of aristocrats on the correct way to embroider the emperor’s new robes.

Please don’t let me be misunderstood.

Posted on by

Yesterday I mentioned the incredibly misogynic posters that ultra-orthodox jews put up in Stamford Hill. Predictably, and with much credit to Sam Aldersley, the issue blew up.

Chaim Hochhauser, from Stamford Hill’s Shomrim group, tried this as an explanation:

I have spoken to the organisers of the parade – they have apologised. They did not think it would get so public. It was just a misunderstanding.

No.

This is not a misunderstanding. There is nothing to misunderstand about misogyny. To make this perfectly clear – especially to those who maintain that the posters were only intended for religious people: misogyny is not a relative state of the mind; it is always evil. There is no excuse. If you believe that you are entitled to tell a woman which side of the road she must use, you are morally unfit for modern civilization. This is true regardless if you are religious or not.

That these people thought this wouldn’t get so public is just another disturbing reminder that political correctness in the UK is retarding efforts to rid society of institutionalized injustice.

Taking sides…

Posted on by

Some people have complained that I’m dishing it out all too one-sided; that all I do is lambasting Christians, Muslims and Hindu, showing how unjust, homophobic and misogynic they are, but not telling the whole story. In short, I’m too one-sided.

My bad. I certainly did not want to make it appear as if I’m taking sides. So, without any further ado, regard this:

Walkthisway

(Image credit: The Independent)

Yes, the Jewish religion is as #%*&! up as the rest.

Glad to have cleared that up.

56 problems

Posted on by

Former egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, worried about the rise of atheism (Really? Isn’t ‘decline of religion’ a better term?) in his country, revealed 56 reasons for atheism.

Number one: They hate god. Number two: Stupidity.

So according to Gomaa, Atheists got 56 problems but Allah ain’t one?

He’s got a point, though: from his perspective you have to be stupid to be an atheist in Egypt. After all, you can be jailed for that. Probably because the Grand Mufti believes that you hate god.

And Steve Neumann wants us to lay off these idiots?

God forbid.