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.

Asshole alert: Newt Gingrich

Source: blog.au.org

I read this article on the toilet this morning, strangely appropriate.
The gist of it is that the former Bozo of the House was speaking to the Republican Senate-House Dinner about, as described in the article, the importance of religion in American political life and public policy.

AU does their usual, wonderful job talking about this and how vile and inappropriate his words were. Beyond this, however, there are a few items that rub me the wrong way. Specifically, it involves the quotes from Gingrich that were delivered at a separate conference.

Specifically, this quote drives me nuts: Reignite in people an understanding that the heart of your life is subordination to God! The heart of your life is seeking God’s will, and that all of us are weak and vulnerable, all of us make mistakes, but that all are welcomed by a loving God.

Foremost, the language used here is rather sad. It is self-demeaning and pitiful. How could such a person have come to a position of leadership with he is, as he says in his own words, "weak and vulnerable?"

Secondly and just a disturbing is the fact that this is Gingrich's own, pathetic interpretation of his jebus cult cell. It is not everyone's opinion. What makes him think that others feel as pathetic as he does? Probably more do that I would hope. However, one thing that is systemic of the jebus cult-and other general cults-is the game of one-upsmanship that goes on where one cultist tries to show that it is more devout than the others. This act makes for a dangerous game that results in extremism. Extremism of any kind is not good-it's evil.

The other thing about his quote is exemplified by "subordinate" and "weak and vulnerable." What is this? What is usually weak, vulnerable, and subordinate? A child. Is this man not an adult? Stupid question. There are a variety of reasons why someone would act this way but I believe that it is mostly about shirking individual responsibility or culpability. When the cultist does something stupid that makes other livid, they have their imaginary friend to run to, who will like them and say nice things to them when everyone else calls them an asshole.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-05-19

So many posts, so little time.

I can appreciate the attempt to give an encouraging message to the sheep but the short space makes for some damn funny clauses. This is one of them. I could be wrong, and this is the pure message as intended. Yikes. Let's start, as I always like to do, by analyzing the language. It is always a source of amusement.

Actually, the clause itself is fine but for two single words, pay and sacrifice. They give it a rather explicit meaning that is disturbing. All the speaker had to do is move who up to the first line and replace pay with make to make the clause acceptable. As it is, it reveals much about the psychology of the writer.

A person can make a sacrifice or pay a sacrifice. Paying for something implies that the object is something that the person wants but must perform a transaction to acquire it. Something tells me this is an impulse buy. Maybe they person wants the item but do they really need it? My main problem with the use of pay here is that the transaction involves the individual's life itself, as opposed to some form of legal tender or bartering with something of equal value. One's life is not. Apparently, the boogieman for this cult only accepts payment in death.

Next is the word sacrifice. Sure sacrifice fits the usage, if you change the verb, but one could just as easily-and effectively-use the word price. It definitely works with the verb pay. Pay the ultimate price has a shred of dignity to it. Make the ultimate sacrifice has a bit of dignity but also implies that the person knew that this would happen, thus performed the act willingly. That would be okay, but we are dealing with cultists, so there is an understanding of deception and/or coercion. What is the reward? Death. What is the cost of this reward? Death. Sounds like a death cult to me.

Then there is the other aspect of sacrifice. Of the two possibilities, this is usage is definitely literal: the person is literally sacrificing themselves, just like in the "good ol' days." People nowadays still make sacrifices but they are most often figurative. Wearing one's Sunday finest to the cult facility is a figurative sacrifice that pagan cults used to do. The Athenians would offer bolts of fine cloth to Athena as a sacrifice. What they do today is the same thing, just figurative—and very pagan. With this statement, however, it is implied that it is literal. It has to be-it is a death cult.

Towards the end of the writing, the word willing leapt out at me. There is not much to say about it other than it reinforces the supposition of dumb sheep being tricked into marching to the slaughter. All I can do is shake my head at the potential lost if these people were not fettered, neutered, and shamed into submission. They have no true respect for themselves.

On the other hand, taking the message as it reads, it is asking the reader to extol the virtue of someone so delusional as to believe that one person having holes shot in to their carcass makes a substantial difference. How many does it take? When have enough sheep been sacrificed to make one say: "maybe we cannot win this one?" Such arrogance. Such stupid sheep. Sounds like a match made in....ah, crap.

Regarding Dr. Tillman

I told myself that I was not going to comment on the vicious, hypocritical murder of Dr. Tillman, the late-term abortion doctor in some flat part of the country.

Considering how much gawd-lovers scream about abortion and children, do they not realize that children and reproduction technically are their gawd's curse to women and punishment to both men and women? Of course it is. To be funny, one could say that it was paradise because you could walk around the house naked all day. However, there is nothing to indicate that A&E were copulating prior to acquiring knowledge, prior to which they were as dumb as the moss on a stone. They did not have offspring in the garden. Ah! Maybe they could not because they were not sexually mature. That would be interesting in light of religious figures and children.

One thing that does bother me about religious justice is that a mundane instrument is required at all. There were a number of jerk-offs who said that their gawd would not want this murder victim to live. Obvious IT did because IT had not killed it before then. After all, IT is omniscient and omnipotent, but more importantly, IT is obviously lazy. Maybe IT decided to test IT's cultists with the existence of the murder victim. By committing the murder, the cultists are telling IT that they do not like that test. Well, isn't that convenient. If you tell your teacher that you don't want to take their stupid test, they say No problem. Here's your F. This shit does not jive with love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek, probably because it's inconvenient and isn't compatible with their burning intolerance. I wish they would follow the turn the other cheek line. More children from the insane cultists need to be aborted, as late-term as possible. Gas it right after the live birth.

There have also been a number of cultists who have publicly endorsed this murder. They should be rounded up and executed, young and old, rich and poor, cultists and cult leaders. They are all criminally insane. Now, we will not give them lethal injection, or electrocute them, or decapitate them, or shoot them, or hang them. Let's use their own favorite: burn them alive. All the others kill more quickly than burning but that is not the real reason to use it. We use it for the blood-curdling screams one hears coming from the flames. Real, protracted pain and suffering. They deserve only the best.

Pat Condell: Children of a stupid god

Back from a little time off, Pat flies out of the gate with both barrels blazing!

Squirm, selfish cultist, squirm!

No matter which way I turn when I leave, I have to pass by a church. When I do, it starts my mind to race and my blood to heat. Today was no different. What popped into my head today was the phrase, "my personal relationship with <your brand of pasta here>..." I then responded, "yes, it is a personal relationship. Mine is different. Howdy Doody's is different. Why are you talking to me?"

As I have said in the past, a cultist's faith is unique to them and solely for that individual's benefit. Of course, they may tell you that they want to share their joy with their faith. Why does that individual think that anyone else cares? Does the mad cultist share every time it is overcome with joy, say, from Blue Bell® Dutch Chocolate ice cream? How about when it wins the temporal, financial lottery? I've never seen it. I want some ice cream, too. Then, I am happy to chat with it, but only about ice cream.

Next time a cultist approaches you, wanting to share their faith, steer the conversation this way...

"I want to share with you about knowing <your brand of pasta here>."

"Wow. Before you do, do you consider yourself a most excellent practitioner of the pasta?"

"I try, through the grace of the pasta sauce."

"Do you think, right now, that I am going to be denied the unending pasta buffet?"

"Well, friend, by knowing the pasta..."

"No, that is not what I asked. Take a snapshot and put it on the scale. This is it, right here. Will I be denied the unending pasta buffet?"

"I cannot say for certain (This assumes an intelligent, non-raving cultist), but without constant attention, we all are in danger of that."

"Fair enough. For the sake of argument, let us agree that the answer is 'no.' Now, with that same snapshot, do you believe that you will enjoy the buffet?"

"I hope that I will be invited to the buffet when the time comes."

"Okay. Again, for the sake of argument, let us agree that that answer is 'yes.' Now, would you, right now, make a complete swap of the disposition of our souls in your afterlife?"

If the cultist answers yes, then the reason is one of the following:
1) They are truly genuine, but probably expect that their sacrifice will earn them another spot.
2) They are lying because this not something that one can do, according to the cult's manifesto.

If the cultist immediately answers no, then you know it is either #2 from the Yes group, or they have no intention of giving up their reservation.

If the cultist pauses before answering no, it was stunned by your question and denial is just a programmed response since all cults are about denying the individual. Most likely, the cultist will give you some excuse.

If the cultist does not give a direct answer to this clearly simple, non-confusing question-what a shock-and instead starts to ramble about the job of the happy, good cultist, take that as a no.

No matter the answer given, a cultist pursues its faith for purely selfish reasons. It does not care about your disposition. Maybe it constantly questions its own faith and now, you just attacked the sole reward for its foolish behavior. For an added bonus, you can tell the cultist, except the ones that answer Yes#1, "Well, that doesn't sound very pasta-like," and watch them squirm and likely become belligerent.

I ask again, why are you talking to me!?