Tag Archives: dishonest

Selling Islam

Posted on by

Expressing indignation over Sam Harris’ and Bill Maher’s ‘sweeping generalizations’ about Islam, Reza Aslan, in an interview with CNN went on record stating [at the 5:38 mark] that

In [muslim] Indonesia, women are absolutely 100 percent equal to men

Now, taking into account that Aslan is a professional apologist, that statement still is a jaw-droppingly brazen lie. It is impossible for someone like him to not know about the Sharia law-regulated Aceh province of Indonesia. Sharia law, especially in criminal cases, is synonymous with gender inequality, and violates fundamental human rights – especially women’s – something that Aslan, a scholar of religious studies, doubtlessly knows.

Today, Time and other news outlets report that women in Indonesia who want to become policewomen must demonstrate their virginity, and that married women are not eligible to join the police force (in case you wondered: men do not have to prove their virginity, and married men are accepted into the police).

Which makes you wonder what ‘absolutely 100 percent equal’ means in Aslan’s universe. It casts a dim light on his other arguments – especially the one where he calls FGM an ‘African problem’, when it is common knowledge that this vile practice is also prevalent in Indonesia (surprise!), Malaysia, Pakistan and India, none of which can in any way be called African countries. Aslan should know better, and I’m quite sure he does.

What is it that makes intelligent people like Aslan be untruthful on behalf of their God – when they know that sooner rather than later their religious brothers will do their worst to help us catch them in their lies?

When public dishonesty becomes the best approach to selling your religion, it says a lot about the product.

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.

Atheists believe!

Posted on by

It’s exploiting a linguistic imprecision Find phone , they know it, and it’s driving me nuts. Ray Comfort and the rest of the lunatic creationist fringe in particular. The word ‘believe’ has two very different meanings, and intellectually dishonest apologists have been mining that particular vein for personal gain.

When a believer states ‘I believe in God’ what they are saying is ‘I have faith that God exists’. It is the first definition of believing: to accept something as fact with no, and sometimes in spite of, evidence.

When someone states ‘I believe (in) evolution’ what they are saying is ‘I have been persuaded by evidence to accept evolution as a valid explanation’. It is the second definition of believing: to accept a statement as true, i.e. after being convinced by evidence and fact.

I believe that most apologist know this. I believe they don’t give a damn.

Now, that wasn’t too hard, was it?

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.

Atheist are Bigots

Posted on by

In a public interview for Al Jazeera TV, Mehdi Hasan, political director of The Huffington Post UK, talked with Professor Richard Dawkins about religion and non-belief.

A segment of the interview produced some controversy. Dawkins was surprised and visibly baffled by Hasan’s admission that he believed that Mohammed flew to Heaven on a winged Horse. Literally, not as a metaphor. To Dawkins, who treasures hard truth over pleasant fiction, this is incongruous with the idea of being a rational journalist. He voiced that opinion, and on a related incident a few month later, even tweeted it. That kicked off the controversy

For example, The Guardian’s Andrew Brown took issue with Dawkin’s tweet, calling him an ill accomplished clown and bigot.

But why do so many people react harshly to Dawkin’s comment?

Because he is spot-on.

Many people feel caught in their own intellectual dishonesty, and are afraid that they, too, might become exposed to ridicule. Brown, for example, makes money writing religious books. He has a lot to lose if he admitted that he wasn’t believing stupid things.

Dawkins wrote,

A believes in fairies. B believes in winged horses. Criticize A and you’re rational. Criticize B and you’re a bigoted racist Islamophobe.

Indeed. If your personal brand of insanity has the majority, it’s safe to label the sane minority ‘bigots’.

On-Line Exorcism

Posted on by

For some people, no low is too low. Preying on the weak-minded, desperate or possibly schizophrenic, ‘Reverend’ Bob Larson has a business model that is difficult to be less moral: as CNN reports, he exorcises demons (speciality: gay demons), and now offers his services digitally via Skype. For $295 an hour, you can have your demons exorcised on-line. No word on the required bandwidth.

I guess the ‘good’ reverend thought that if he can sell the existence of demons to his flock, he can also sell it online. And why not? So do fortune tellers and seers. Opportunities abound on-line, and to quote David Hannum, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute’. Gives a whole new meaning to the term ‘wire fraud’, doesn’t it?