Free Speech and religion

Who would dare support anti-defamation of religion? 1) It's subjective. 2) Laughing at retards is fun!

After all, at one point, especially with religion, any discussion about a new faith was dangerous. You could be killed for it. Hypocrites. Their take is defamation is intolerance. I say anti-defamation is intolerance.

It's the same side of the same coin.

Source: Pharyngula

Pat Condell: Wake up, America

Bravo.

Pat Condell: The arrogance of clergy

Back from the summer vacation season and on fire!

...And Misery for All

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yf9gs5u

An amusing trial is going to occur in California early next year. In it, the constitutionality of the state's recent Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, will be assessed. Unfortunately for the backers of the porposition, they are in Judge Vaughn Walker's court. There was today a preliminary hearing with the attorneys, as highlighted in the link at the top. Judge Walker indicated that he was not amused by the position of the group and would take the opportunity in court to examine some of the rhetoric often spouted in the defense for such a ban.

I laughed several times reading this article, mostly at the simple questioning offered that garnered highly-polished I-don't-knows from Charles Cooper, attorney for the backers. After the hearing, the Mr. Cooper said that he would be ready with material to support his case.

Allow me to help you, the people who support this ban: you won't and never will for one simple reason: your position is wholly indefensible from a legal standpoint. The only thing you can say if that this is your belief or opinion. It will save a lot of time if you simply come out and say that it is the faith of your clients. Then the case can be thrown out for being patently stupid, bigoted, and faith-based.

One of Judge Walker's questions was regarding how same-sex marriage causes harm to mixed-sex marriages. Again, Mr. Cooper did not know. There is no harm to mixed-sex marriage except for that which is caused and perceived by the individual. After all, if same-sex marriage is allowed...where will it end? Mixed-species? Mixed-matter-states? Whom does it harm? No one. You may not like it, but that does not make it wrong or bad.

What business is it of yours, anyway? You do not want the government involved in an issue like this because, inevitably, it will decree something that you do not like. Then what? You gave them the power and now you are the victim. I would offer the same advise to you then as I do now: suck it up, jackass.

But marriage is a sacred institution. Bullshit. Humans were forming community-acknowledged pair bonds long before some asshole priest/shaman/witchdoctor decided to create a lucrative line of work for himself—and a few bucks—by pretending to solicit blessings from the Sky Daddy over the union. Humans form pair bonds. Even alligators form pair bonds, and they are hundreds of millions of years old—or 5000 in young-Earth years. That's all you need. Probably, after a few centuries of study, you might find that pair bond couples have greater success because of the nature of the pair bond. Maybe not much more, but its more.

Do pair bonded couples marry? Of course, and that's fine because at no time will I say that anyone cannot marry if they want. Marriage is not a sacred institution, unless you really want those blessings on the union. What are the typical blessings: children (have more sex, use the rhythm method, have sex every day - works for atheists and everyone else), a prosperous home (work harder or at least do work that rewards you in other ways beside money - works for atheists and everyone else); love and respect (don't be an asshole, plus love and respect your partner - works for atheists and everyone else). Hmm. I'm not seeing anything special here. Sounds more like magic and talismans and spells and potions are needed - you know, pagan stuff. Of course, if blessings are not part of the equation then make an appointment with your local Justice of the Peace.

I'm curious about these supposed blessings on the union: do you have to be a member of the cult to receive them or does the Sky Daddy dole them out to anyone? What about a couple who are not married, who have several healthy children, whose lives are rich, and who love each other to the end of their days? Did Sky Daddy secretly bless them? What if they are Buddhist? Atheist? Deist? Zoroastrian? Pastafarian? Stop me when this starts to sound really silly. Too late.

I'm sure that the big item that will be presented is the harm to children of same-sex parents. They are the same arguments used to prevent same-sex couples from adoption. Harm? What harm? Again, the only harm is that which is perceived by these bigots. They're not raising them like I do my children! Thank The Great Noodle! Maybe they won't be bigots.

Children of gay (from here the term "gay" shall encompass the full gamut of GLBT) couples may be brought up with different values than yours. Values are an individual's own pursuit. So what? Who is to say that such an upbringing is bad? The bigot? That person is biased. The same-sex couple? They're biased, too. Why don't you ask the kids once they are adults? Track them. Collect data. Analyze it. Collect more data. Compare those results with the first. Have other people conduct the same experiment with a different population and compare those results. Then, and only then, can you make a pronouncement about harm or benefit.

Aw, crap. That's the scientific method and this is a religious matter.

In any case, it's none of your fucking business any more than it is the government's. Those people are individuals. They have the freedom to change their own minds, express their own opinions, form new opinions and pursue their lives however they want. Just like you. The latitude you enjoy is available to everyone. It's starting to sound like you are opposed to people having values different from yours. Values are not part of a package deal when you reach adulthood. You build them over time. They change as a person experiences life. A person with fixed values is unable to grow.

Marriage is the cornerstone of the family. You might be on to something there...um, nope, that's bullshit, too. Maybe to you, marriage is required to have a proper family but have you looked at that position from outside your little bubble? How pathetic is that? You have to have this artificial construct imposed onto your life in order to be a good parent—I do not say couple because marriage is about children, you know, the traditional reason? You really believe that unless you are married, you will be a horrible parent and unable to love your spouse? Does that not sound incredibly wrong?

Marriage is about commitment. Again, I ask, are you completely unable to do this without the construct of marriage? Have you ever interacted with any of the other seven billion people on the face of the earth in your life? You have?!?! Were you civil to them? Were you polite? You weren't standing in front of a mirror, were you? So how is that any different from the way you would treat your domestic or life partner? If you are a civilized human, the answer is none. Incidentally, commitment to whom? Your spouse or your Sky Daddy? Who or what is more important? That sounds more like a three-way, and not the kind of three-way I was wanting.

Are you worried that those kids will not be brought up in a household of religious faith? Guess what, gays have faith, even if you think your faith ignores them. It is faith, after all. It is what you make of it.

Are you worried that the children of same-sex couples will become gay? There is no proof of that. If you want proof, I already told you how to measure that. It should only take a few hundred years to have a good data sample so that you can postulate a theory. It will never be any more than a theory because it involved humans, and humans are infinitely complex. Well, some are. To further clarify, so long as there is one variant, it remains a theory, never a law.

Whatever the results of the case, frankly, I do not care because, as the comedian is so fond of saying: everyone deserves the same opportunity to be miserable. If Judge Walker cock-punches these crackpots (please!), it will not matter to them because they will wrap themselves in their faith and know that they were right. That's fine. That's faith: a psychological mechanism to tell yourself that everything will be okay, despite the situation.

For my final swing of the bat, I have to ask: is this really that important? Is this more important than poverty? Is this more important that hunger? Is this more important than education? Is this more important than life where basic human dignity is oppressed? Stupid question, I know. Without suffering and ignorance, you cannot have faith.

I can only shake my head in incredulity. For the record, I don't think that marriage is completely bad, just unnecessary for civilized humans. If it helps some people behave themselves and/or be happy, more power to them? When the marriage fails, that okay, too. They're only human.

Since it's on topic: An opinion piece

De theocracy natura

The blogs that keep tabs on the religious nut jobs have plenty of quotes from their mouthings off that make it clear, though not always explicit, that these bozos would like nothing more than to live in an American theocracy. I have some thoughts on that.

There are few true theocracies in the world because they require one hundred percent commitment from the populace. Most of them, to obtain that amazing support, require such control and capitulation of the will and individuality of the populace that the very thought of it gives a rational, free individual a WTF moment.

Perhaps these evangelical lunatics should consider this: evangelicalism exists because it does not like the way the mainstream version of the cult works. Their crap is derived from Protestantism, which exists because they did not like the rules of Catholicism. Even evangelicalism has splinter groups who interpret things different from the other dangerous cults. So here is the question: whose rules are law? What about people who do not agree? Do they form a subcult? Are they afforded the same privileges? Of course not. One thing that religions is completely against is options. So that should tell them, if their rules are so awesome, why is it that some people do not like them?

It happened before and it will happen again: one person will be to differ with the ideals of the mainline faith and cause it to splinter. Will that be treated as a civil war? Considering how rabid some people in this country are about their faith, armed conflict is inevitable.

To offset this, they ruling cult will probably opt for a least-common-demoninator for of the rules. Keep it simple enough that everyone is happy. The problem with that, is that no religion works that way.

For a contemporary perspective, look at the goings-on in Iran. That is an example of an extreme cult running a theocracy and what happens when some people don't have their head up their ass. Eventually it will happen. There is no way that a system can maintain that kind of tension. Humans adapt and change. Humans that do not are dead anyway.

Bishop Dolan: Scaremonger for idots

Link: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04232009/news/regionalnews/tamper_with_marriage__were_in_big_troubl_165728.htm

Enough about marriage, already. It is a contrived burden, just like religion. A tiny percentage, depending on whom you ask, of animal species are monogamous - about 3 - 5% by some estimates. If marriage is so awesome, why do so few animals do it? Gawhd obviously likes animals more than humans since they were made first - not as an afterthought - so why do they not practice it more? Because they are dumb animals?

Maybe it is a punishment. After all, adam and eve were companions until they decided to try knowledge. Then they were shackled together. That is not real marriage. It is an arranged marriage, maybe even a shotgun wedding. We all know how revolting those are.

Oh, wait, I answered my own question there.

Hmm. Why was woman made? Because man was lonely or because gawhd was tired of adam humping his leg?

As I've said before, if you care enough for someone and can tolerate them being around, you can coexist without some mumbo-jumbo magical contract.

At one point, the bishop rattles off some crap about morality and marriage being programmed in our DNA. I am not sure what he means by morality, and it does not matter because morality is subjective. Marriage, however, is more determinable. The concept of marriage is not in our DNA, pair bonding is. The two are not the same.

Something else in our DNA - fear, the real cause of religion.

Are you the worm?

Today, I drove past by my Taber-chuckle source. Reading the current sign again, my mind raced away with something like the following:

What I fixated on from this sign is the sleeping xian tidbit. As before, my first thought is WAKE UP! Get your ass out of bed and get to work. There are things to do, not just for your community and the world but also yourself.

Sleeping in a metaphor in this case but I find it is more realistic than not. The main thing that is dormant in these people is their curiosity. How can anyone look the cosmos, the planet, or even their front yard and not be interested in something? I cannot remember the exact quote but I believe it was Einstein who observed, roughly paraphrased, that he could not believe that a deity would create something as powerful as the human brain for it to just sit there idle and dormant (my embellishment). Considering that emphatic xians are so keen to earn daddy's favor, should not they do something to make it proud? Would not the creativity of the human mind be just the ticket?

What do these people think will make their daddy proud? Singing? Praying? Kissing its ass? Those seem to be the main avenues to the afterlife. No one wants to be subjected to such crap, except really old, senile people, or Alzheimer's patients. Those people are draining. They are tired of life, but will not admit it. They have nothing more to give, nothing to contribute. Instead, they focus on the glory days, when people cared who they were, when they had power and influence, when they meant something and had significance in the world. No more. Now they just sit there, drooling and loading up a diaper. To these people, daddy is omnipotent and omniscience but to me, it sounds a bit omnistultant. Only an idiot would not appreciate the creative potential of the human being.

Rather than doing something for the world, the people spend their lives groveling, crying, pleading, begging, crawling to daddy to take them up after death. Then what? Do you get to stand on two feet? Of course not. Daddy likes you on your knees in front of him. Keep doing it. Keep crawling like a worm. After a lifetime of practice, they only just suck at it.

What makes them think they can stand up and use opposable thumbs? Daddy is an old daddy. Its thinking is old-time thinking. Its loud-mouthed cheerleaders tell us this all the time. So why do they expect to suddenly find a progressive afterlife experience? Since no other aspect of their perception of daddyland is different from the same concept of those sheep herders who invented it after a week of huffing raw methane, why should this part be any different. There is nothing to do except what daddy wants. Even these people move out of their parents' house because they want their independence and freedom. When they die, they want to move right back in to Slavery Central.

Hmmm. Sounds like hell to me.

Pat Condell: Freedom go to hell

Here in America, at least locally, we do not have quite the problem that Europe does. That said, we are in the early stages of having this problem with insane Fundamentalists. Different cloak, same problem. This medieval thinking must end.

Taber-Chuckles: Jan 28, 2009

I definitely need to drive by this place more often. I just happened to go by one morning because I was running late and here was this beauty. I think I gritted my teeth when it click in my head what it said.

In one sentence is the command and the excuse. I can understand the clergy expressing this thought. They better...it's their job. If they don't think this then they need to quit.

To individuals, this surely must rub some of them the wrong way. Don't think. Yield to gawd. It will reward your submission with...an uninspiring life. I suppose if you approach it from a point of thinking that you as an individual is nothing, worthless and empty without a continuous serving of mystical spaghetti, it makes a little sense. You are nothing. You have nothing. Subjugate your remaining flecks of will to some The Pasta and as a reward, you will enjoy the same semi-random events that affect everyone around you. It's magic!

Is His Noodleness really giving his best? I suppose those parents who willfully let their teenage daughter die from easily treated diabetes or another set of parents also mentioned in the same article who let their fifteen-month-old die from a blood disease think that gawd's will was done. They prayed and I am sure they prayed their asses off so that their children would die and the lord provided.

Is gawd's will gawd's best? I suspect that you can find millions of people throughout this perpetual dark ages who would agree with that but their faith prevents them from making such a statement. Instead, they justify their disappointment with pathetic expressions like "It was gawd's will."

I think what bugs me so much about it is its similarity to the Nanny State. No one wants a Nanny State, except for freeloaders. Yet this is what the "Non-thought of the Day" is expressing. Leave it to me. I'll take care of you. Do these people not have a sense of pride in themselves? Do they not think themselves capable of doing anything significant? I guess not. It's the crux of the most contemptible phrase these people mutter: The Lord will provide. No. Your lord will provide you with only one thing: death. Everything else is up to you.


Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death. - Albert Einstein

I will agree that the sad individuals who yield their will to a cloud will not do so for every question in their lives. However, that is not the point. It is egregious that they do so at all in the first place. They threw away the greatest and most powerful part of their humanity: the ability to grow beyond what they are. The church does not like that because you are with the boogieman made of you; that should be good enough. It makes me weep to think of the wasted potential of mankind on a singular, selfish desire.

I leave you with a few more thoughts from Albert Einstein, which I feel apply nicely:

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

Religious Freedom Day

Today, January 16, is Religious Freedom Day. Americans United has a delightful page full of links to historical documents that espouse this concept in an intelligent and tolerant manner. They are as important today as they were when written a few hundred years ago.

Link: Words Of Liberty: Readings For Religious Freedom Day

Technorati Tags:
freedom, intelligence, knowledge, thinking

Pat Condell: godless and Free

Technorati Tags:
atheism, fear, freedom, Pat Condell, religion, Youtube, faith

It's all about fear

Note: this posting was done inebriated.

Fear of the hereafter and the possibility of the lack thereof.

The squeaky (loud) wheel gets the grease. These who make the most noise about religion are those who are the most confused and suspicious that it is real at all. The quiet ones are more confident.

What if gawd is the celestial mechanic? That would be nice, too. It makes the universe, sets everything in motion and that is it. No intervention, no interest, and it does not care about you.

While acquiring my inebriation, V for Vendetta was on the tv and that was my inspiration - no fear of death made Evey free. Gawd lovers are not free and never can be.

Technorati Tags:
freedom, religion, fear, cowardice

Pat Condell: Islam's war on freedom

http://europenews.dk/en/node/13092
http://europenews.dk/en/node/13294
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212166385.shtml

Islamists actively establishing worldwide Islamic state
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808081657/global-terrorism/islamists-actively-establishing-worldwide-islamic-state.html

Islamic groups trying to use human rights law to stifle free speech
http://www.secularism.org.uk/99993.html

Please support The Council of ex-Muslims
http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/

A petition has been lodged with the British government to make the Prophet Muhammad's birthday a national holiday. If you live in the UK and you think this is a bad idea, please sign this counter petition.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/nomuhammadday/

Technorati Tags:
freedom , Pat Condel, religion, Youtube

Choosing a good life over a bad life

Link: http://www.youtube.com/v/DaOVPaYf780

Some additional thoughts regarding the Fundamentalist mormon cult in Texas

There definitely is no religious freedom in American but fortunately it works both ways. Personally, I would rather have splinter xian groups, like this quiet, contained, yet nutty Mormon enclave, dotting the landscape than wacky, disturbing, loud-mouthed fundamentalist groups like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or any of those sanctimonious luddites with TV ministries. I digress.

I have not kept up with this story because it is not an important issue to me. I have a position on child abuse but nowadays, abuse is as over-used and over-extended as hero. I once saw an billboard saying that teachers are heroes. No. They can be someone's hero but their actions are not heroic. Fighting fires and patrolling the streets also is not heroic. Running back into a burning building four times to rescue people and keeping innocents safe in a violent situation is. Unfortunately, those actions come as a high price. That is heroic. I digress.

Was this all a setup to allow the government to poke its head in and pull off a raid? Maybe but how did they know that this was going on? Someone would had to have reported it, even before an operation to plant someone inside. If Sarah - a good Jewish name - is real, she is probably sequestered as a government witness. I doubt that weapons were the reason because the Feds would have moved differently, despite Waco - because the government goes by the manual and never learns. No, I am sure that their interest was the the welfare of the children. The government loves children and in much the same way the adult males of the sect were. George Carlin has a wonderful routine about the government's love/hate relationship with children: it loves the pre-born but once you are born, you are F-ed (George Carlin : Back in Town/, one of his best shows).

This is biggest issue of the bunch: the kids. America has developed a culture and society that oppresses children. Some kids are impressive because, even at eight or ten, they can carry on an educated, adult conversation because its parents cared about their child. It was exposed to information and knowledge, allowed to explore the world of ideas and develop their own, even treated as an adult. Just imagine if kids today were given the opportunity to reach for the boundaries. I think that America would not be the five hundred pound retarded gorilla that it is today. We would be Europeans.

No matter how much people dislike the concept, humans are animals - just like a dog, cat, monkey, bird or fish. When animals reach menarche, they start mating. When young apes reach the age to reproduce, they are driven off because they are sexual rivals to the parents. That is adulthood. Society and its culture define an artificial - i.e., unnatural - boundary. It goes against our innate nature. Males reach their sexual peak at seventeen or eighteen - the societal age of adulthood.

What was hyped to no end in the media was that young women were being married to older men and having children. Oh, no! Young women were having sex. That is the red alert. I think that there were a few mentions of young males being married off but those quickly disappeared from the story because that is a badge of honor for men, or it was completely false to try and lessen the perceived gravity of the situation. Women were being the sexual creatures that they are. Is it abuse? No. Obviously it is not an issue to reproduce so young or the body would not work that way. Oops, I meant to say that gawd would not have fashioned to body to work that way. Society is to blame for the age of consent problem but it is understandable. Populations would become unmanageable and drain resources, lowering the quality of life of adults. Then we would become a third-world country. In reality, medicine is to blame for this. Old people live too long, but I digress.

Xianity is wholly to blame. Saint Paul, the Apostle, was celibate but at least he did not pound his chest about it. He has plenty of crimes to answer for as is. There is another Saint, maybe Augustine or someone else, who is responsible for the establishment for xianity's attitude towards sex on top of its existing fear and hatred of women. He is a mega-hypocrite because he only came to this realization after literally screwing everything under the sun (I do have a source to quote this that I will find and insert here) and finding gawd. It is unclear if the two are related. Augustine definitely is responsible for the concept of Original Sin - not the act of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge but A&E gettin' their freak on. The reason why is another topic altogether. I try not to digress.

So, to sum up: this incident is a hollow show of protecting female "children" because they were being married off to older men, breaking the artificial rule of the society surrounding their enclave regarding sexuality and children, also artificially defined, all because some old man, 1600 years ago, was tired of sex and additionally because of the fear of the inexorable power of female sexuality.

Technorati Tags:
idiocy, oppression, religion, cults, freedom

Man is not special

If you examine the bibble, specifically chapters one and two of the first book, it is easy to see that man is not special. Man is not created until the end of the creation sequence. Is this because Gawd was saving the best for last? No. Man was created for a purely selfish reason. Man was not created because the animals were lonely, but because the animals needed someone to care for them and the land needed someone to care for and use it.

So here were are, Gawd and Man, tooling around the new world. Will Man shoot the breeze with Gawd, maybe discuss the myriad topics on the tip of the tongue of an omniscient entity? Nope. Man is here to till the land. He is here to work, to toil in the fields. Their relationship is that of a master and his slave. Gawd explicitly tells Man to avoid the Tree of Knowledge. You don't need that to pull a plow. If Man knew something, he might ask questions or want to discuss things. No, no, no. Keep on working in the fields, day in and day out. Make Massa happy.

But Man must be special somehow. Gawd did breath life into a statue made of dirt. Not quite. The Latin Vulgate bibble states: formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae. De Limo terrae is the bit that we want to see. The problem is that "dust" is not a definition of limo. Limo translates as "slime, mud, or mire," something definitely wet and unpleasant, not dust and not clay. Perhaps the original authors were hints at some sort of ooze, maybe even a primordial soup?

There you have it. Man comes from slime and specifically created to toil his life away, as stupid as the plants and animals in his charge. Doesn't sound like a special plan to me, but one day, Massa will call you in from the fields to the big house and your life will be complete.

Rick Gervais and his wonderful life.

http://www.rickygervais.com/bestlife.php

Good man. He managed to cure his insanity before it could make its roots too deep.

The best quote: Seventy-five percent of Americans are God-fearing Christians; 75 percent of prisoners are God-fearing Christians. Ten percent of Americans are atheists; 0.2 percent of prisoners are atheists. Some would say that that just represents the majority of the population. That misses the point. Do you really think that Jebus is pleased that you are in prison? How does your incarceration balance with compassion and being kind to your fellow man? It doesn't, but that's okay. Evil begets evil.

The incomparable Henry Rollins

Spotted on bynkii.com.
I wonder which episode this is from? I hope a new season has not started yet because one of my minions will be in a world of hurt if it is so.


Now this one, I remember from the end of last season. The point here is about freedom. Religion does not offer freedom to the individual so it might be an alien concept to some.