Tuesday, 23 August 2011
It seems that other denominations have leaders that like to victimize their congregants too. My question: didn't anyone think to question the idea of this guy having teenaged girls over to pour honey on them and then have them shower? My guess is that he got a free pass because of the undeserved honor placed on so-called holy men. Because he's in tight with Jesus, everyone assumes that he won't do something like this. It's high time that we drop the bad assumption that religious = good.
And, it's not just Xianity either, as this story shows. Yeah, these guys have even got the indifference and stonewalling of the Catholics down pat. Perhaps Hitchens was right when he said that religion poisons everything.
Friday, 29 July 2011
I've recently found a charming (tongue firmly in cheek) little blog called GetReligion. It is supposed to be a blog where discussions of journalism and religion stories happen where the authors discuss how to make the stories more balanced. There's a recent article about the cross to be placehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifd at ground zero where we find out that the article isn't as good as it could be because there are no mention of atheists that don't want a lawsuit to block the cross. Apparently, the article lacked because it didn't paint atheists in a negative enough light.
The next article they published showed us how articles that report on the gay marriage victory in NY are flawed unless they include people who are upset by this because they are acting on their deep, religious principles.
In short, it's a religious apologetics site that whinges that there's not enough pro-Xian and anti-everyone else stuff published in certain news reports. At least that's what I surmised from reading and commenting. It doesn't take a genius to scan through their articles and start to see the hints they leave. Gays = bad. Atheists = bad. Not enough mention of Xianity in a positive light = bad. Story supportive of Xianity = good. Etc. My comments were also routinely edited and/or outright deleted for not being sufficiently focused on journalism, while other comments not at all related were approved - so long as they supported the Xian stance. When called out on it, they started to make accusations of bigotry against journalists, which is funny since I never uttered a word against journalism or journalists (In fact, if they had to delete my comments for not being about journalism, how can I then be accused to posting bigoted rants against journalism/journalists?) I figured they were the run of the mill clueless gobshites that one meets all over the web. But, of course, it actually goes deeper than that.
I had linked to my blog on my comments, and wouldn't you know it, one reader hopped over here to post an excellent link that shows this blog for what it really is (HT to Jay in the comments). It turns out that GetReligion is a front for Xian Reconstructionists AKA Dominionists. These radicals want to make the Bible into our law book with such draconian measures as death for such "crimes" as homosexuality. In short, they are theocrats that want nothing more than to turn the US into a theocracy with their version of Xianity being the rule of law. And, this GetReligion blog seems to be a front for them.
Yet, the GetReligion group tries their best to proclaim that they are merely interested in journalism and they try to advocate in measured tones. This is nothing short of rank dishonesty on their part. And, what does it tell you when the advocates of Xian theocracy feel they have to lie about their motives? Well, for one it says that even they probably recognize the ridiculousness of their aims and that they can't hope to actually gain converts without deceit. It also points out the contradictory nature of a group that would seek to install Biblical law -thou shall not bear false witness - by doing just that, bearing false witness. It also shows that to them, the ends justify the means. Their vitriolic hatred of others (gays, atheists, etc) burns so hot and bright that they will do whatever they can in order to strike out at those others, no matter what it takes and no matter how dishonest and underhanded they have to be. What makes someone hate their fellow humans so much? Oh yeah, I remember - it's fundamentalist religion.
Monday, 25 July 2011
By now, we've all heard about the horrific acts that happened in Norway over the weekend. What a deplorable loss of life. The fingers are all coming out as well as everyone trips all over themselves to point the blame at this group or that group. We do know that he belonged to a xenophobic group (right wing) that was afraid of Muslim immigration since the Muslims would all come and over-run the country and make everyone submit to Sharia law. And, he's not the only person afraid of this happening.
This is exactly why we need to have a secular government that keeps a strict separation of church and state. Not only does it protect the poor Xians from Sharia law, but it ensures that such will not happen. Of course, ironically for the Xians that want to enact a Xian government to keep out the Muslims (move to Iran if you want to see a theocracy in action) the best defense is also what keeps them from imposing their religion upon the rest of us. Only when all of our rights to freedom of religion (and freedom from religion) are honored will all of us be truly free.
Update: This post deserves a serious shout-out.
Saturday, 2 July 2011
I usually don't like to brag, but ah hell, screw it, I'm gonna.
If you do a search on google for "Why people hate Jesus," this blog is the number one hit!
We're number 1!
We're number 1!
We're number 1!
We're number 1!
(It also works for various alternates, like "Hate Jesus," "I hate Jesus," etc. I'm also number 2 for "Jesus Hate.")
Friday, 1 July 2011
Talk about religious bigotry, a Lakeland Florida sheriff's department is harassing an atheist woman for having the temerity to point out their illegal use of taxpayer funds. Yes, they used taxpayer funded items as donations for religious institutions, which would constitute a clear violation of church and state. Instead of acknowledging their errors or even seeking the courts to make a ruling, they've decidehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifd instead to go after this woman,http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif arresting her for impersonating a lawyer, some marijuana charge, and a felony sexual charge.
Wow, this woman must be a horrible person you say, right?
Well, their case against her for impersonating a lawyer seems to be that she wrote "Esq." after her name. Oh no, they couldn't actually be that stupid/transparent/whatever, right? Apparently, this woman (who actually is a lawyer, just not currently licensed) is somehow impersonating a lawyer because she used the "Esquire" title, which as anyone knows is not reserved for lawyers. (See here and here, especially this part, "No court in the United States has ever held that merely using the title "Esquire" is evidence of anything.".)
And, her marijuana charge? Perhaps stupid of her to have marijuana, but it's a misdemeanor at most and could very well be trumped up, especially in light of the previous charge and the next one.
The felony sex charge? Well, that was for moaning too loudly and repeatedly during sex in her own home. Yes, you heard that correctly. Apparently the sheriff's office found fit to charge her for a felony for having sex in her own home.
This is nothing more than Xian fundamentalists trying to use the weight of the law to silence dissent. They are attacking and harassing a woman for speaking out for equality and equal treatment under the law. Once again, religious intolerance rears its ugly head and it seems that the perpetrators (in this case at least) have no shame nor morality to speak of. I certainly hope that this obvious case of police misuse of power is stopped and the perpetrators are summarily dismissed from service.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Right wing, religious, anti-choice proponents have realized that their best strategy to outlaw abortion is to chip away at it piece by piece. For example, in Nebraska (and some other states) they've outlawed abortion after the 20th week based on BS studies that are meant to look scientific. Since submitting to dogma is more important than the women this harms, I wonder if they even care about the actual cost in terms of people's lives. For example:
Last fall, Danielle and Robb Deaver of Grand Island, Neb., found that their state’s new law intruded in a wrenching personal decision. Ms. Deaver, 35, a registered nurse, was pregnant with a daughter in a wanted pregnancy, she said. She and her husband were devastated when her water broke at 22 weeks and her amniotic fluid did not rebuild.
Her doctors said that the lung and limb development of the fetus had stopped, that it had a remote chance of being born alive or able to breathe, and that she faced a chance of serious infection.
In what might have been a routine if painful choice in the past, Ms. Deaver and her husband decided to seek induced labor rather than wait for the fetus to die or emerge. But inducing labor, if it is not to save the life of the fetus, is legally defined as abortion, and doctors and hospital lawyers concluded that the procedure would be illegal under Nebraska’s new law.
After 10 days of frustration and anguish, Ms. Deaver went into labor naturally; the baby died within 15 minutes and Ms. Deaver had to be treated with intravenous antibiotics for an infection that developed.
Apparently, stupid ideology is more important than the health of the mother or the developing fetus. And, given the prevalency of slut-shaming that happens in the anti-choice movement, how will they shame this woman who is married and was actively seeking to have a child? (Here's a great post from a former anti-choice advocate who talks about slut-shaming and how it's all about shaming women.)
Meanwhile, in states like South Dakota, lawmakers are requiring women to go to pregnancy crisis centers before they can have an abortion. Nevermind the fact that these centers are not licensed, don't offer medical services, offer debunked and misleading information, and are really just vehicles for Xian ghouls to try and "save souls" by preying on women in vulnerable positions (link). The real cost, of course, is that of the women who are constantly being hounded, slut-shamed, proselytized to, made to jump through hoops, and told that they aren't able to decide what is best for their own bodies because they are simply too stupid or too emotional or too female to have their own opinions.
It's time to end these misogynistic attacks on women's reproductive freedoms. Women are not here to be baby incubators, they are not property, they are fully able to make decisions and act as autonomous units, they do not need to be slut-shamed, they do not need to hide their sexuality away as some delicate flower never to be touched until they are ready to be owned by some man in marriage and made to have offspring. If a woman wants to wait until marriage, that's her choice. If a woman wants to engage in the very human act of sex, that's also her choice. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, that's her choice. If her contraception fails and she chooses an abortion, that's her choice. It's past time for anti-choice zealots to realize these simple truths.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
I've previously written about whether science and faith can be reconciled - they can't. But, today in the HuffPo, I find someone trying to argue that only good Xians accept evolution.
Apart from the obvious problems of reconciling the Bible with a naturalistic account of the origin of the universe and then subsequently with the origin of species...
Apparently Mr. Dudley's claim is that Xianity has always embraced science, so standing in the way of science now is un-Xian.
In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.
This, of course, only tells half the story. Sure, Xians have always embraced science, so long as they were in control of what it said and they could easily fit it into their pre-conceived notions of how the world was supposed to work. IOW, as long as they could control the content so that it only said what they wanted, they were all for it. Look at what happened the moment scientists started to speak out and show that long-held "truths" of the church were not actually true. Galileo anyone? And, that's just one example. A more modern example is the creationist movement that attempts to hijack science classrooms and force their beliefs down everyone's throats.
But, even when Xians were supposedly supportive of science, they really were not. They were attempting to force the facts to fit their pre-determined conclusions. It was anti-scientific from the get-go. That is because science in its essence is the eschewing of faith, while religion relies on faith.
Not that everything Dudley says is bad:
Because no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.
It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.
It has failed to explain why today's animals live in the same geographical area as fossils of similar species.
It has failed to explain why, if carnivorous dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern animals, we don't find the fossils of modern animals in the stomachs of fossilized dinosaurs.
It has failed to explain the broken genes that litter the DNA of humans and apes but are functional in lower vertebrates.
It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.
Yes, exactly. Evolution explains the data, creationism is sadly lacking. But, then he goes back to claiming that it's un-Xian, and even says that those who reject the data ought to rip pages out of their Bibles:
Those who believe God created the world scientists study, even while ignoring most of the data compiled by those who study it, might as well rip dozens of pages out of their Bibles. Because if "nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible," it's basically the same thing.
The only way to "reconcile" the Bible with the natural world is to ignore the data. It's not the creationists that should be ripping out pages, it's Dudley. He's engaging in post-hoc rationalizations in order to shoehorn his Bible into the scientific knowledge of the day and greatly distorting it in the process - it would be better for him to simply jettison the superstitious mythology known as Xianity. It would be great if he were correct and we could maybe convince Xians to stop ignoring the scientific data and even actively fighting against it, but it wouldn't be true.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Sometimes I peruse some of the older posts on blogs that I frequent and it leads me down some interesting rabbit holes. Going through some of PZ Myers' old stuff I came across a book review, which lead me to an apologist's blog, which lead me to a curious entry from said apologist wherein he claims that skepticism and freethought are cowardly positions to take.
I thought I would address some things about his piece:
1) I highly doubt he makes a good skeptic.
Bob, on the other hand, is making a definitive statement that he is prepared to back up.
Since Bob in this case presents the theist and is willing to make positive statements that he is prepared to back up...where is the backing up of Xianity? Why can no one put forth coherent, cogent, and compelling reasons to actually believe?
3) Um, causality does not always hold in the quantum world - so the gotcha put forth is not really a gotcha after all.
4) The big bang shows that the universe was not eternal and unchanging, not that the singularity popped out of nothingness. But, time is an element of the behavior of light in this universe, and so asking about time "before" the big bang may very well be meaningless. Causality also happens to be a concept that depends on time and the laws of physics, which the author points out break down during the big bang, thus defeating his own argument.
5) The reason for the argument that the universe must have a cause is so that the theist can seize upon the idea that goddidit. This is nothing more than a fallacious god of the gaps argument, however, and further it leads to turtles all the way down once one asks what caused god. (The theist will reply that god is uncaused which is special pleading, or that god is uncaused and eternal and therefore didn't come into being and does not need a cause, which is also special pleading and destroys usual Xian ideas that god is perfect and unchanging in the process.)
But, all that aside, the reason I wrote this is because he seriously misconstrues why it's brave to be a skeptic! Sure, in terms of the belief itself, it's a bit more brave to put oneself out there and make a claim that could be wrong. It's more rational to hold the atheist's position, and therefore safer in a way, but that completely misses the point.
Going against the herd is always difficult, especially for social animals like humans. The easy thing to do is put one's head down and simply agree with the rest of the people around you and mouth your prayers and hymns to a god that you don't believe in. Doing this at least gets you peace and quiet.
People have, throughout recorded history, been killed for the sins of apostasy, blasphemy, and heretical thought. Socrates was killed for his heretical stance that went against the political tides. But, even now people can still be killed in many parts of the world for not believing in a specific deity or conforming to the beliefs of the majority, whether it's fatwas in the Muslim world or people performing abortions in the Bible belt. Being a skeptic raises the ire of the people who fervently believe and puts the skeptic at risk simply for daring to have different thoughts and a rational standard of necessary evidence before swallowing the superstitious claims of theists.
When Madalyn Murray O'Hair stood up to protest school prayer, she was called the "most hated woman in America."
Vocal atheists like Justin Vacula routinely receive hate mail.
Webster Cook was threatened with bodily harm and death for taking a communion wafer and not eating it, which touched off the whole "Crackergate" controversy.
Damon Fowler) has received death threats, intolerance from school officials and fellow students, been thrown out of his house by his own bigoted parents and forced to move 6 hours away to a new state and live with his brother and all for skepticism.
It would be much easier for all of them and all of the rest of us to just be quiet and not rock the boat. We could sit there and watch as the majority runs roughshod all over our rights and tries to silence us all through abuse and threats of violence, but many people don't. Many people take the skeptical stance and stand up to be counted. Many people don't simply accept what's been spoon-fed to them all their lives and don't simply go with the herd. That's what's brave about it.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
"Religion teaches us..."
"What we learn from religion is..."
How many times have we seen these phrases or something similar? I have an idea, let's stop using them, because they are invariably followed by some inane ramblings that are either nonsensical, untrue, or both. For example:
'Religion teaches us about our relationship to god.'
Really? It teaches us something that's nonsensical and completely fabricated? And, whose religion? How does anyone know that the claims made by this religion are true or make sense? They don't? Oh, I see.
If we are being honest, there's nothing we can claim that we learn from religion or that we've been taught by religion, as religion is nothing more than made up claims that talk about nonsensical ideas that can not actually be evaluated. We may as well claim that religion has taught us that yjujkfdi saiojnn snoaing as that makes just as much sense as any claims to made-up invisible sky faeries and our relationships to them. Let's expunge these phrases from our lexicon for truth's sake.
Thursday, 2 June 2011
A trio of recent news items have caught my eye, and I wanted to pass them on as well as some thoughts and comments.
1. A couple weeks ago the US Conference of Catholic Bishops put out a report on the abuse cases happening here in the US. Miranda Celeste does an exceptional job of pointing out what is wrong with the report (actually, exceptional isn't a strong enough word). To sum up, they rely on limited and untrustworthy data from dubious sources, redefine "pedophilia" in order to make their percentages look better, and make numerous attempts to re-locate all the blame on other sources, such as the prevailing culture and lack of training (in how not to abuse children). In conclusion, Ms. Celeste says:
Time and time again we have seen that the Church will do whatever it takes to downplay and/or cover up their failings and crimes. They have shown their willingness to fight dirty, and one of the most useful and effective tools in their arsenal is their dominance of the discourse and conversation (both in the media and elsewhere) about these issues. The Causes and Context study is a textbook example of this: when the media reports its “takeaways” without providing context, they are, in effect, doing the Church’s face-saving dirty work for them.
Don’t shut up, even when you feel like you’re repeating yourself. It took me a while to realize that the reason I’ve sometimes been repetitive when writing about this is that the Church itself has repeated the same crimes and the same institutionally sanctioned cover-ups over and over again. They repeatedly refuse to admit their culpability or to face legal punishment when appropriate. And, most importantly, they repeatedly deny outsiders access to their files that contain information on the sexual abuse of children and the cover-ups of that abuse.
Until the day that they allow that access, until the day that the light of public scrutiny is finally able to illuminate and reveal the darkest and most disturbing aspects of the Church, we owe it to the victims to never, ever shut up.
She hits the nail on the head. And, it can not be stressed enough that the crimes of abuse are horrible, but what really gets me going is that the church has facilitated these crimes, covered up these crimes, made excuses for these crimes and cover-ups that point all the blame elsewhere instead of owning up to it, and shown no regard for their actions and made no attempt at atonement or responsibility.
2. And, speaking of abuse, one California mother thought it a good idea to slit her children's throats because of the rapture. Luckily the children were saved and she's incarcerated right now, but this illustrates quite well the real harm that such religiously derived irrational beliefs can cause to the people who uncritically accept such ridiculous beliefs.
3. But, hey, on the lighter side of things, if you ever want to go to a fun, hip, happening place to kill some babies, the Abortionplex is for you!
Monday, 23 May 2011
Well, the Rapture came upon us and demons own all of our souls now. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the demons will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new demon overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted atheist blogger, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground brimstone mines.
Well, this blogger was possibly a little hasty earlier - would like to reaffirm his allegiance to this country and its human president. It may not be perfect, but it's still the best government we have...for now.
But seriously, what will happen with this church? When will the excuses come, and what will they be? Or, will they walk away with the $80M dollars so far donated to their church? Of course a failed prediction in 1994 didn't stop them from gaining more followers and more income, so maybe they'll just ramp up the rhetoric and work towards even more followers and more income.
In their defense, the article does point out that Camping has not taken money for his own personal salary, so he may actually believe this stuff - which would be pretty sad. Still, the church is operating under the idea that, "A fool and his money are soon separated," which is morally problematic. Still, it should be interesting to see what comes of this, although if history is any sort of guide, the believers will find some way to rationalize the failed prediction. That's what happens when your position is not based on logic or reason.
(Shamelessly stolen from the Simpsons...)
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Stephen Hawking has said that heaven is a fairy tale, and really, who can argue with that? Heaven is completely unevidenced and not even well thought through. What is heaven like? Has anyone come up with a conception of heaven that isn't self-contradictory or at least contradictory to the ideas of the religion that spawned it?
Monday, 2 May 2011
A recent commenter was extolling the historical accuracy of the Bible and I got to thinking about it. So, let's focus on the stories of the OT for now and actually look at the historicity of the Bible.
Genesis - god creates the universe in 6 literal days - didn't happen.
Adam and Eve - didn't exist.
The Exodus - didn't happen (there's no evidence for it and the evidence we do have indicates that the Jews were never in Egypt).
Jonah and the whale - didn't happen. Whales don't eat people.
The conquest of Canaan and all the genocides - much as I like to harp on theists for this, they didn't happen. Of course, I still feel justified because they are in the book and described as their perfect, omni-max god's actions, so it's fair game.
The more I think about it, the more difficult I find it to think up any story in there that actually is historically accurate. Anyone care to stand up for the Bible's (OT - I'll talk NT in a later post) historicity?
Friday, 22 April 2011
Touchdown Jesus is now set to be rebuilt as a new statue, and I have to wonder, didn't these people learn their lesson the first time?
If their god is omni-max then that means that the statue burning down was part of his divine plan, i.e. god didn't want that statue there any longer. Are they not once again risking the wrath of god by putting it back up? Next time god might smite the whole town or the whole state or allow terrorists to blow something else up or allow a devastating hurricane or earthquake to decimate a whole city. Who do these people think they are tempting fate the way they are. I say it's time for them to repent of their statue building ways and beg for god's mercy. Anything else might put us all in grave danger!
A recent commenter has noted that her comment did not appear after she thought she saw it on the site, twice. I decided to check the spam filter and found that not only her comment was there, but a couple other comments have been deposited over the last month. I had not been checking the spam filter since it never seemed to actually block anything - until now. I will start to monitor it more closely. If you feel that a comment may be caught in the spam filter, please let me know and I'll see if it's there.
As for the comments that were in there, oddly enough some of them were the same as comments that were already posted. The ones that were not duplicates I went ahead and posted to the site (better late then never, right?) I apologize for the administrative SNAFU.
As for the comments that were in there, oddly enough some of them were the same as comments that were already posted. The ones that were not duplicates I went ahead and posted to the site (better late then never, right?) I apologize for the administrative SNAFU.
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Wow, it's another disgusting story of a girl raped by a Muslim who then is blamed and put to death. In a giant bout of blaming the victim, somehow it is this girl's fault for being raped and she needs to be punished. And, her family is now under protection because they are getting others in trouble for carrying out such a heinous act. Where is the sanity?
And, closer to home, we find this charming video. To be honest, I'm not seeing much difference between what the narrator is advocating here and the behavior in Bangladesh. The narrator sounds like a rapist in waiting, and further, he'd be fully prepared to blame the girl/woman for being too provocative.
It's time for these religious [expletive deleted] to grow up and start taking responsibility for their own lives and urges. Yes, you may be attracted to a woman on the street. Deal with it and join the human race.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Those people that come to your door to tell you all about their god are generally either Jehovah's witnesses or Mormons. And, those mormons are always dressed in nice clothes (but not too nice) and very clean cut. Oh, they must be such nice people...until you learn about the bigotry that pervades this church. Until only a couple decades ago blacks were thought of as cursed and wicked. But, more recently, we have the efforts of the Mormon church to block equal rights for LGBT citizens of California.
While Proposition 8 still sits in the courts (why it's even there I can't fathom considering it should be a no-brainer to grant equal rights to gays citizens and all citizens really) we know how it got there. I recommend anyone interested to see story behind the scenes to pick up the documentary, 8 the Mormon Proposition. In it, you can learn about how the Mormon church and some of its members are so anti-gay that they took money from their own children's college funds in order to make sure that gays can't enjoy full citizenship status. It's truly insane - and that's not all of it.
Why don't they get rid of the pretext and formally join forces with Fred Phelps.
Saturday, 12 March 2011
So, what would you do if you were running a religion facing multiple scandals and dwindling attendance to the point that you were becoming almost completely irrelevant. Well, if you're the catholic church, you spend money on a website and make ads in order to get people to come back.
Apparently, they've discovered that people can be influenced by television ads, so they've decided to give it a try in order to bring more suckers...I mean worshipers in the door.
Of course, their website is designed to not really address the issues. I mean, in the FAQ on morality, there's nothing in there about how old is too old for young children to be molested by their priests who will then be shuttled around and shielded from both any type of enforcement (law or otherwise.) But, hey, they're giving us "god's words" right?
I really hope that people don't fall for this obvious BS and the church continues to dwindle into oblivion. The catholic church is a beacon of dogma, irrationality, intolerance, and criminal activity. It has been for a long time now and it's high time that civilized, rational folks toss the idea of the church into the waste bin.
Saturday, 5 March 2011
From the epic fail logs...
Yes, we have a pretty new defense of the Amalekite genocide.
Point #1-The Amalekites were not sitting around playing tiddly-winks, committing various, pagan inspired acts of charity and leading the Ancient Near East toward any sort of awe-inspiring enlightenment. Quite the opposite in fact.
Ah yes, the "Amalekites were evil" defense. See, the Amalekites attacked the Jews on their exodus (which never happened - but we can assume it did for the purposes of the argument) and god now wants revenge. So, he waits for how many years and then has his people go and utterly wipe his enemies off the face of the Earth. Of course, those enemies are probably long since dead by the time god comes to punish their descendants for their heinous crime that god could have stopped, but thought it was better to let more people die so that he could come later and have a genocide.
Ah, but the Amalekites also killed their own children...so what better way to put a stop to that than wiping them all out, especially killing the children. Let's see those dead Amalekites kill their dead children now! That'll show 'em.
Point #2-The killing of the animals owned by the Amalekites actually had a purpose.
Yes, because genocide that doesn't make you wealthier somehow makes it OK?
Point #3-The weight of evidence suggests that God was being hyperbolic when he commanded the destruction of the Amalekites.
Yeah, right. And, god was being hyperbolic in all instances where he demands genocide, and it's clearly denoted in the text...oh wait, it's not. Of course, here the apologist is basically tossing out the Bible and saying that we can't trust god's word. If that's the way he wants to play it...well go ahead. I agree, let's not trust the Bible. Now, why is it that you're a Xian again Mr. apologist?
I really wish Xians would stop trying to defend such monstrous notions in the Bible and leave their tired, archaic, bloodthirsty, and evil superstitions behind. It's time that we all stepped into the modern age and stopped trying to live with and defend the petty and barbaric writings of past generations.
Monday, 28 February 2011
Whether it's Boobquake or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 on everyone he hates it seems that now-a-days you can't swing a dead cat around a disaster site without some ghoulish religious a-holes blaming it on people they hate. So, on the heels of my last post, let me present to you the "Christchurch Quake."
Yes, that's right, it's not horrific enough that the death toll stands at 154 in this terrible disaster, but some religious group is taking it upon themselves to use it as a tool for hatred against others. It's just another shining example of religious non-tolerance.
[Note: As it turns out, the actual website is suspended at least for now, else I would have linked it. Also, although no one has explicitly claimed this for any religious group that I know of, it's pretty obvious that it's a religious group, probably Mormons.]
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
This may end up being a post series, since there are so many examples that one could cite for the religious being intolerant of others. Whether it's Muslims flying planes into buildings (no link needed I trust) or rioting/killing over cartoons of Mohammed, Xians petitioning for their right to be bigots or killing abortion providers, or Jewish communities that try to impose their religious values on all those around them or theocratic Jews making pronouncements about the role of gentiles (to serve the Jews) - examples abound.
Instead, today I'd like to focus on something else - a sports story from the midwest.
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Fourteen-year-old wrestler Cassy Herkelman doesn't need anybody protecting her from anything. She's broken her collarbone, split her lip, deviated her septum, wrecked her elbow, all from wrestling. She's about as dainty as a forklift.
She's her district's pony-tailed, 112-pound champion wrestler, boy or girl, kangaroo or camel. She's not a tulip, isn't a Jane Austen character, and doesn't wilt in the heat.
So why did her first opponent in the Iowa state high school wrestling tournament default rather than wrestle her?
Because "wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," said 16-year-old home-schooled sophomore Joel Northrup, in a statement. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner."
Why am I not surprised that Joel is home-schooled? But, yes, it's a matter of his faith (religion) that he's not supposed to competitively wrestle a young woman and it shows another example of religious bigotry, this time aimed at women.
"We believe in the elevation and respect of woman," the father told the Des Moines Register, "and we don't think that wrestling a woman is the right thing to do. Body slamming and takedowns -- full contact sport is not how to do that."
Yes, of course, the old, "We respect women, so we have to ensure that we treat them like delicate flowers that need to always be protected and kept away from anything that might offend their delicate sensibilities." Nevermind the fact that she had earned her way to the state tournament by...(wait for it)...wrestling. But, if his religion teaches him this, then it's quite plainly teaching him sexism and intolerance.
I do, however, need to take issue with one thing the author states:
I don't feel as bad for Cassy as I do for Joel. He was the fifth-ranked wrestler in the state at 112 pounds. He was 35-4. He had a chance to win the whole thing. In Iowa, that means a lifetime of people buying you lunch. It's corn-state royalty. To give all that up to protect a girl who loathes being protected? What a waste of a dream.
In no way would I ever think that him throwing away his chance at winning a competition should make us feel sorrier for him than the sexism that she has endured in this. I do, however, feel some sympathy for him, and here's why. This stance of his is a learned behavior. He's been indoctrinated into a religion that teaches sexism and intolerance. Here's to hoping that one day we can all throw off the shackles of religious intolerance and make the world a better place.