Morans pray for Earthquake

As Reuters reports, a group of extremist Islamists has called upon all muslims to pray for an earthquake in Sochi to kill everyone and ruin the ‘games of the atheists and pagans’.

A couple of things. First, to quote Ambrose Bierce:

PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy

Praying never accomplished anything, and won’t help here. Then again, I much prefer an extremist wasting his time on prayer than spend his time wasting people, so maybe in this case, praying does accomplish something.

But is praying for a calamity to befall, and kill, scores of people just harmless idiocy? After all we know that praying won’t change a thing. No, it’s not harmless. Unfortunately, intent does matter. And for all intent and purposes, these Islamists believe they have their hands on a weapon of mass distruction: Allah. And they want to use it.

If Allah did create an earthquake that hit Sochi, it would end the lives of hundreds, if not thousands people, many of them innocent. This callous disregard of human life permeates the belief of whoever prays for earthquakes. A belief, we should remind ourselves, that their practitioners call the ‘religion of peace’.

If you are religious, pray thanks to your god that these extremists are really, really stupid.

… you moran!

Moran3

(Image credit: St. Louis Indymedia Center)

 

Experience vs. Learnings

In an interview, Swiss National Councilwoman Barbara Schmid-Federer commented on her religious views:

As a child I experienced first hand what it means to be a member of the catholic minority in the reformed city of Zürich. That is why today I’m committed to supporting religious minorities. [translation: cf]

Aww, too bad. So close, but still a miss. Barbara did experience religious discrimination, but didn’t learn anything from it. Minorities of all kinds need support, no doubt. Yet, the reason for her past discrimination wasn’t the fact that she belonged to a religious minority – it was religion itself. Had she learned from her experience, she wouldn’t fight the symptoms. She’d fight the cause: religious indoctrination and intolerance.

Meena

Meena sits in a chair.

“My brother used to tell me that the place for a woman is either at home or in the grave”, she says. “My brother told me to carry out a suicide attack.”

“They attached a bomb to my [9 years old] sister Nahida.” A single tear runs down her face. “She told my brother the bomb was heavy and she could not walk. He said she would be comfortable once she was sitting down in the car. I heard my sister saying: ‘Where is Meena? I want to see her.’ But I didn’t have the strength. My heart couldn’t take it. My mother fainted when they put her in the car.”

Meena is 13.

Her brother, a Taliban.

The non-equality of religions

Eight years ago, some journalists mused upon their growing impression that somehow newspapers censored themselves whenever they reported on Islam. While no one held back slamming the christian, jewish, or hindu belief, criticizing Islam was always done in the most timid of voices, anxious not to offend.

Believing that this was wrong, and hoping that this was just a misinterpretation of facts, they published an article. Fleming Rose, culture editor wrote:

Modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where one must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. […] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end.

The article was accompanied by 12 hand-drawn cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed as subject of mild irony. In the aftermath, reportedly more than 200 people died violently.

Later, the Onion published a hand-drawn cartoon depicting Moses, Jesus, Ganesha and Buddha engaging in extremely graphic group sex [WARNING: somewhat tasteless cartoon here].

No one died.

Fleming proved his point beyond his wildest nightmares. Today, Islam is still treated differently from all other religions. Not out of respect – but because of fear. Recent events at the London School of Economics and UKU underline just how erratic people have become in their efforts not to ‘offend’ Islam.

Is this really a good thing? More importantly: why are we letting this happen? Is fear really a good counselor?

The human right to be welcome

Swiss national Abdel Azziz Qaasim Illi (a.k.a . Abu Nusaybah, birth name Patric Jerome Illi), leading member of the ‘Islamischer Zentralrat Schweiz’ (IZRS) was barred from entering Canada where he wanted to attend the ‘Reviving the Islamic Spirit’ conference. Why wasn’t he allowed to travel to Toronto? Well, details are still sketchy, but it’s a safe bet that being a member of the fundamental islamic IZRS has something to do with it, along with the fact that some countries (USA, New Zealand) regard him as a hate preacher.

According to Swiss News, Illi was ‘surprised’ to find himself declared persona non grata in Canada. Furthermore, Illi feels that

not being allowed to travel to any North American destination [Illi is also barred from entering the USA] is a violation of the basic human right of freedom to travel

As with other interesting interpretations of human rights, Illi offers up a very peculiar view of what that human right means – a view that almost perfectly mirrors his interpretation of religious freedom: that he may go wherever he wants. But that is not what freedom to travel is about. Just like freedom of religion means that people have the right to refuse your religion, freedom to travel means that although you have the right to travel, it does not give you the automatic right to be welcome everywhere, nor the right to impose your presence upon others. Although you may depart whenever you like, your destination has the right to refuse you. You can travel – but only to destinations where people want you.

There is no human right to be welcome.

If you have overstayed your welcome before you arrive you may be doing something wrong.

Shove over, Islam – Christians can be racist without you!

FOX ‘News’ had some real news for a change. Not the factual kind of news, but still something new in a sense that it’s new information.

Adding unwanted proof to the ‘Blonde Bimbo’ stereotype (law degree notwithstanding), FOX anchor Megyn ‘Dyslexic Parents’ Kelly asserted that not only was Santa Claus a white man, but so was Jesus. Well, given the fact that the currently most popular image of the mythical winter solstice hero Santa Claus was invented by the Coca Cola company in 1930, and that the Santa myth itself originates with the Northmen, plus the fact that we are indeed talking about a fantasy figure, I don’t have an issue with ‘White Santa’. It also fits with the snow theme.

But… Jesus? If the historical figure existed, he was born in Galilee 2000 years ago. And that would mean that there’s no way he’d be white-skinned. If he’d been an albino, the Bible would have mentioned that as yet another miracle. It doesn’t. So there’s a greater than 99.99% probability that he was dark-skinned. Not that it should matter. But it tells you a lot about FOX ‘News’-country Christians, and the way they ‘think’.

Plus it goes to show that Christians can be racists without ever needing to tell the Muslims they need to stop beating their women.

Homophobic Homilies against Human Rights

Tomorrow is International Human Rights Day. In other words, another perfect opportunity for the Catholic Church to publicly disgrace itself, this time with yet another homophobic homily.

Chur Bishop Vitus Huonders published (warning: in german) his official letter for Human Rights Day. In it, he denounces what he calls ‘Genderism’ – his thinly veiled ersatz for homosexuality. True to christian form, he calls homosexual behavior immoral, and demands that gay people must not marry nor be allowed to adopt children. He complains that the rights these gays ‘allegedly’ have would corrupt our impressionable young, and will invariably lead to the downfall of civilization. In short, he went full-on Goebbels. Denying essential rights on International Human Rights day is an interesting way to assert moral superiority.

In a somewhat confused middle segment Huonders also seems to cite scientific ‘evidence’ that homosexuality isn’t natural. Since he is a scientific ignoramus (a.k.a. ‘deeply religious’), we can forgive him that stupidity, although I fear the irony of that is lost on this cleric.

Professor Strangelove

The bible tells the story where the Israelites, after vanquishing the Medianites, murder all male children, and all non-virgin women. They then take all virgins (Numeri 31:35 boasts that their number was 32’000) as their (sex) slaves. A little later, after again being victorious – this time against the Canaanites – the Israelites kill all survivors: women, boys, girls, even infants.

No-one in their right mind would argue today that these are morally defensible acts.

Enter Professor William Lane Craig. He argues – in writing – that the wholesale slaughter of infants, women and children was essentially their salvation, not murder. Not content with spouting this horrifyingly twisted madness, he then goes on to argue that the massacre was hardest on the Israelites who had to murder all these defenseless, terrorized people.

This is, by the way, the same professor who argues that without a god there would be no objective morals. Color me immoral, but I want nothing of this celestial morality.

What bothers me most, though, is that Craig is by no means stupid. In fact, he’s much more intelligent than you and me combined. If someone this smart can rationalize away religious terror, mayhem and murder, we don’t need to explain why stupid people do it.

Exorcise this!

Oh, boy. Bishops and Stupid surely seem to go together like Nitro and Glycerine. The result is an equally explosive mix of hate and bigotry. After the Bishops of Limburg and the Twin Cities, Springfield Bishop Thomas John Paprocki has gone off the deep end.

In his frothing-at-the-mouth homily he exorcises the evils of same-sex marriage.

What is it with religious dimwits that keeps them up at night worrying about what other people are doing between the sheets?

What kind of neurosis compels someone to write the following dreck:

“I’m not saying that anyone involved in the redefinition of marriage is possessed by the devil”

Indeed – and I’m not saying Paprocki is a professional liar and child molester.

On his way to orbit, already high as a kite, he mentions in an aside that, anyway, his homily is just a minor exorcism, not a major one. But just what’s the difference between a major and minor exorcism? It’s like differentiating between Bigfoot and and the Bogeyman. Seriously. What’s wrong with you, Bishop?

Paprocki grouses on:

“Another major deception or distortion of marriage is the view that it is not ultimately about generating life, but rather is mainly about a romantic relationship designed for individual (not even mutual) fulfillment.”

Of course a catholic priest who can’t have sex nor marry would say something as stupid as that. Bishop: Sex is ultimately about generating life. Marriage is exclusively about social life.

But let’s be honest. Paprocki begins his homily by showing his hate credentials, trying in advance to shift the blame:

“It is not hateful to say that an immoral action is sinful.”

No. But it is hate to say that homosexuality is immoral. Nobody gives a rat’s ass about your concept of sin. Stop being a homophobic hate monger and start being a decent human.

Religious Danegeld

In the 12th century the Northmen (also called Danes or Vikings) took to the sea and plundered all over Europe. In England and France, some monarchs thought it prudent to pay a tribute instead of being plundered. This tribute was called Danegeld. Needless to say, it didn’t work well, and only served to prolong the problem. In the end, they had to fight a larger, vastly richer, better equipped, and deadlier enemy.

Today the press censors itself in the hopes of not arousing the ire of muslims. People are denied freedom of speech for the same reason. Governments look the other way when religious people ignore human rights and shadow law is practiced. Those responsible once again believe that they are being prudent, that they are taking the safe approach.

They are not.

Instead of drawing a line in the sand, they try to placate the barbarians at the gate. This will not work. Whenever governments curtail fundamental rights in the ‘interest’ of peace with an aggressive, hostile, morally retarded religion, they are repeating past mistakes.

They are paying religious Danegeld.