Monday, February 27, 2006


Stealth fundamentalism in the schools

Fundamentalist Christians are a deceptive lot. They know that their agenda turns off most rational people. So they try to hide their agenda or cloak it under other names. So creationism gets christened as “intelligent design” and is presented as some version of pseudo-science.

Right-wing Christians will pretend they are classical liberals or libertarians. They aren’t. But no matter. It’s a lie meant to make it easier for them to market their rubbish.

Now they are trying to force their religious views on gay people into state schools. These are religious views just as much as “intelligent design” is a religious view. They force the fact to fit their theology.

One group run by an “ex-gay” is Inqueery. It’s main page says it is “addressing LGBT Issues on High School & College Campuses.” It doesn’t say they are religious motivated group that attempts to pray people into heterosexuality. The fact is that the “ex-gay” movement is a fraud. It started as a fraud and it still is one. And the goal of this group is to force government schools to use tax payer funds to promote the ex-gay agenda.

Behind the Religious Right agenda there is always a call to use the force of the state. And this group is no different. On their web site they offer: “Sample legislation... that would require equal time to be given to the subject of homosexuality in school assemblies and counselling programs on a school by school basis. We encourage all our supporters to pass this legislation in their schools.”

Of course the founder of the group is available to speak to high schools and tell them how they can become ex-gay.

Founder Chad Thompson leads an ‘ex-gay” ministry but like most these mixed up people won’t actually say that his sexual attractions are heterosexual. They always talk about a “process” and “becoming”. In the early years the ex-gay frauds did claim change and regularly were embarrassed by them. It turns out that some of the best known “cures” were still having gay sex with the very men they were sent to counsel into finding Jesus. Other “ministries” just disappeared as the head ex-gay suddenly vanishes --- often with some cute young thing in tow.

Chad claims that homosexuals are “unconsciously trying to recover their father’s love in the arms of another man.” Very Freudian, very discredited. Charles Socarides claimed the same thing and then it turned out his son was gay. Ooops.

Chad uses all the “process” talk and the “becoming” rhetoric. It’s hard to tell if he is gay however. He makes it clear that he never really wanted sex with men he just wanted a man to love him. He said he would fantasize about men but “I didn’t fantasize about sex.” Hard to tell. On the other hand he doesn’t say he’s attracted to women either. He just says that he “began to see myself differently.”

Chad counsels Christians to be deceptive. He knows that if the real agenda is portrayed that it will be rebuffed. So he warns: “Do not approach school officials about the ‘evils of the gay agenda’ or recite from religious texts such as the Bible. Instead emphasize the need for diversity and respect for all perspectives, including ex-gays.”

Thompson practices the deception he preaches. His site leaves out the God-talk. The goal is to get their hands on the young first and then push the religion pill down their throat. So I didn’t see any mention on the site of Thompson’s own book Loving Homosexuals As Jesus Would. Nor was their any message about him being involved in seminars at a “WestGate Church” which promises people they take the Bible seriously and believe it to be “God’s perfect Word for us today.” It’s left out because he’s trying to hide it.

The website for the group that speaks to schools leaves off all the Jesus crap. But Thompson's other website is covered is with it. There you see that he speaks mainly to fundamentalist churches. There he talks openly about his "ministry" and his real agenda. Apparently he doesn't see this approach dishonest.

He urges the born-again parents to get legislation passed “which requires if the subject of homosexuality is ever addressed in your school, both sides of the debate will be given equal time.” In other words the doctrines of the Religious Right should be presented. This is precisely the same tactic they are using to smuggle creationism into the schools.

Of course there are not “two sides”. There are a dozen sides. And religion does not belong in state schools. Chad wants to go in and speak to young students and tell them they can change. Change? They haven’t even reached a mental stage where they can clearly know their sexuality. And he’s already wanting to change them. But what about the ex-ex-gay side? Is there the gay side? The ex-gay side? And the ex-ex-gay side?

There are lots of ex-ex-gays. Those are people who made all the bullshit claims that Chad makes and who were lying and got caught or finally admitted they were lying. Ex-gay ministries have very short life spans.

Chad’s approach is part of the new Right-wing tactics of hiding their real agenda from the public. But of course it’s an old tactic as well. I remember Richard Angwin, a fundamentalist Baptist preacher, giving a seminar where he warned his followers that they must not tell their “whole” agenda. He said it would hurt if people found out that they wanted to ban dancing and close down “Hollywood movies”.

Christian Reconstructionist Gary North said that the turmoil of modern life is good for theocrats because, “we need the noise of contemporary events to hide us from humanist enemies who, if they fully understood the long-term threat to their civilisation that our ideas pose, would be wise to take steps to crush us."

North has told fellow fundamentalists to “use the doctrine of religious liberty... until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

This differs little from Chad Thompson’s ploy of using “equal time”. Be it “equal time” or “religious liberty” the goal is simple. They plan to use such tactics until they control the schools and when they do there will be religious liberty and no equal time. And if you want proof notice how Chad Thompson and his conservative followers only want equal time in state schools for their religious message. They never once demand equal time inside Christian schools for the “other side”. These schools routinely preach creationism and “ex-gay” theology. And they don’t even pretend to offer equal time to anyone who disagrees with them.

Now I think it is there right to do what they want with their own schools. But this does how that their real agenda is very different from the fake issues they raise to gain access to school children so they can push their religious dogmas.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Separated at birth??

One of the biggest fools to come out of Africa in some time is Peter Akinola, a “archbishop” for the Anglican Church. Akinola is a leading “conservative” among the Anglicans opposed to recognizing gay relationships.

One good things about the man in the holy dunce cap is that he shows that conservatives don’t

merely want to “protect marriage” they want to destroy rights for gay people. They are as against “special privileges” for gays as the Ku Klux Klan was opposed to special privileges for blacks.

The Archbishop has thrown his weight behind new legislation in that basket case he calls home: Nigeria. The new law not only says that same sex marriage would be illegal. It also says that it would be illegal for gay people to meet or even to petition government to change the law. In addition it would be illegal for the press to publicize gay groups and illegal for churches to provide any blessing or sanction on gay relationships.

The law says: "Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria."

Conservatives in the US, those phoney advocates of “limited government”, have been pushing legislation as well. And while they claim it is to prevent gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, they go much further. Even when there is no state involvement they want the law to forbid private recognition of these relationships as well. In other words they are calling for massive expansions of state power into private contracts. But that’s the way American conservatives have been since they started worshipping George Bush.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Sex? Just for one please!

We had a little fun a few days back dealing with Mormon advice regarding masturbation. Of all the issues that religious folk get worked up about this one amazes me. By definition it is one activity that can have almost zero impact on others. If some fundamentalists spent more time masturbating and less time running the lives of others we’d all be better off. But their masturbation obsession is rooted in their contempt for being human.

I recently came across an essay that was written on the topic for Christians. The take in it was interesting in what it revealed. First the author admits there is no Biblical mandate on the topic at all. But he smuggles in bizarre religious concepts about life.

First, sex is not about reproduction per se or even about pleasure. It’s about wholeness therefore any sex outside heterosexual marriage “is destructive to wholeness.” Now sex is not about wholeness. It really is about genes needing to replicate. It’s not even about pleasure, though pleasurable it may be. It is pleasurable to ensure that people seek out sexual opportunities and that is sufficient for genes, in general, to get replicated, which is the goal.

This doesn’t have to be precise. Every sex act need not lead to replication. In nature the mere pleasure of the act guarantees that enough sexual acts that do lead to reproduction will be performed so that genes replicate. People who don’t enjoy orgasms don’t have them and aren’t likely to reproduce. That sort of evolution pretty much guarantees that most people will like orgasms and seek them out.

Now the Christian has to ignore all of this since that’s nature and science. They prefer fantasy. So the pleasurable nature of sex, which leads to the reproduction of genes, is downplayed. They are always suspicious of it. Thus the emphasise on “wholeness”. The author I’m reading argues that pleasure per se is “sexual selfishness”.

Now here we get to the similarity between Christians and socialist. Both argue that individuals must live for the sake of others not for his own sake. The fact is that people have sex because it is pleasurable. That it is pleasurable for their partner as well, if there is one, is icing on the cake but it’s not the cake. But the Christian argues that seeking sexual pleasure for it’s own sake is wrong. As the author says: “a self-giving life style is not a self-centered one.” One must live for the sake of others. Sex is not for pleasure but for wholeness and what it contributes to the social network. It is not something that God particularly likes: “The aim of our lives should be to please God, and to do that we must deny the flesh, put to death our selfish desires,, starve the appetites of our inner sensualities and lusts, and feed upon the Word of God.”

In other words the Christian is basically at war with human nature. The way humans are engineered is bad. People must work hard at not having a human nature. Of course they fail. They fail because a thing is what it is. People are people. But it is the failure that the Christian seeks. Failure leads to guilt and guilt makes people easier to control.

Here are a few gems on the topic from some Christian authors.

John White wrote a book Eros Defied. It’s a monstrous book, perhaps one of the most evil books written by religious nutters. White says he has compassion for “victims of masturbation.” Perhaps, but he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word victim. He starts out saying that masturbation is a sin full stop. “It is a sin because sexuality was not given to us for that purpose.” By this he means some supernatural being designed it. But apparently this deity forget to set it up so it would only work the way he intended.

God screwed up sex. He forgot to establish it so that it only works when a penis is inside a vagina and a marriage license is on the wall. At the very least he could have easily made it so that the desire to have sex only exists when around a member of the opposite sex. But he didn’t. He made it so people have orgasms by themselves. In fact he designed it so that if they don’t have orgasms by themselves they may have them while asleep! How negligent of him. I think we should sue. God designed a flawed product and apparently whines when the product works the way he made it. In fact he blames the product for the defects. What a twit!

For Mr. White individuals are not self-owners. Again this is a similar point between Christians and their secular equivalents on the Left. Christians say man lives for the sake of God. The Left says man lives for the sake of others. They both agree that man must not be allowed to live for his own sake.

Nor should one evoke the self-ownership principle with these people. You are not a self owner says the Christian and the Marxist. You are owned by a god or by the collective. White says: “My body is mine only in the sense that I am responsible for its proper use.” In other words you have all the costs but none of the benefits. “My body was not designed to masturbate,” claims White ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Yes it was! That was designed to do this is indicated by the fact that the practice is virtually universal.

Talk about being oblivious to reality. Religion, and some ideologies, are totally opposed to the facts of reality. They are at war with reality. They attempt to mould and shape society instead. White says: “My body was designed to be used exclusively to glorify God.” Again this is obviously false. If some god had designed bodies to only glorify himself -- rather self-centered of him I think -- then he could have made it so that is all the body can do.

White again: “To use it in any other way is to rob God of something that is his by right, for their are no morally neutral actions.” Now if I understand this White is saying that the only thing that people must do is glorify God and anything that is not glorifying the deity is theft! Not only do you not own your self you are a thief if you think you do. You are a slave to the deity who owns you. You must only glorify the deity or be guilty of a vile sin. Talk about a childish concept of god. These Christians worship a deity with the moral maturity of a a three year old.

Finally White argues, “masturbation is a form of idolatry. Our bodies are to be offered to God. Masturbation is to make a god of my bodily sensations, or relief from the tension that I feel.” Even sex with a married partner is wrong if it is for pleasure he says., “copulation can be entirely selfish, a mere using of somebody’s body to gratify myself, which is little different from masturbation.” This is rather Catholic of him considering he’s a pesky evangelical.

Protestants, especially the more evangelical types, like to pretend they are not taking the Catholic view that all sex must be for reproduction alone. But they constantly slip into this position when not vigilant. White has done that. Sex for pleasure is idolatry he says. So any sex must be for non-pleasure related reasons. That’s rather hard to do since sex is inherently pleasurable hence the cause so many of these moralists getting caught, literally, with their pants down. White’s view would require that one take steps to make sure sex is not being done simply for the fun of it. That would seem to require one to shun condoms, birth control, etc. It really does limit one to the Catholic view that all sex acts must be inherently open to producing a child and that any act, that does not include that possibility, is sinful.

That makes not only masturbation sinful but birth control, oral sex, homosexuality, ad infinitum. In fact it rules out the bulk of human sexual activity as immoral and evil. It is guaranteed to destroy self-esteem. It reinforces the Christian view that man is evil, impotent, and disgusting. Their view of sexuality is rooted in their contempt for humans. At the core these Christians hate humanness.

Thoughts on sinning

It seems to me that people continually commit the same sins over and over. I see no reason for this. Why? There are so many options you would think that before they establish a pattern they would give them a wide sampling before picking one and sticking to it.

Friday, February 24, 2006

The doctrine of perpetual offense

Hard as it is to believe I don't actually go looking for material showing some Islamic nutcase being offended. They just crop up all over the place. Now we have Muslims being "furious" (what else?) over a sex toy. I'm not kidding here.

It seems that a London sex shop is selling a blow up male doll they call the Mustafa Shag. And that has Muslims in another dither. A spokesman for the local Muslim Association whined: "This is the name of our prophet and it's very upsetting. This thing should be banned."

The Muslims wrote the sex shop: "You have no idea how much hurt, anguish and disgust this obnoxious phrase has caused to Muslims." Really. Yes, they do. We all do.

If you are a Muslim we understand. You are offended constantly. You are angry constantly. You are unhappy, miserable, bitchy, intolerant, obnoxious, ad infinitum. Everything makes your angry. Get over it.

Yes, that is Mr. Shag in the photo. Not to be confused with prophets or other spokesmen for supreme beings anywhere. I understand that blow up male doll called the "Jesus stud" is being planned complete with a Second Coming.

Give me a break.

In Portland a college newspaper published a take-off on the Danish cartoons that have Muslims upset. In this cartoon they drew Jesus as a suicide bomber. And one student was very upset. He said: "I think it's extremely offensive."

He went on about being upset: "I have no idea how to describe my feelsing in words because I'm extremely angry right now." Okay, so he's extremely angry and extremely offended. He's possible just extreme.

The student, Ussain Shihab, is a Muslim. "To portray Jesus as a terrorist is extremely offensive to Muslims everywhere," he said. Personally I get the impression that Muslim just spend a lot of their time being constantly offended.

But what I don't understand is this: why do they find a cartoon of Jesus as a suicide bomber offensive but never get offended by real suicide bombers who kill people?

Across the Muslim world they protest and shriek and scream about cartoons. But when real suicide bombers kill in the name of Allah they don't complain at all. If anything they only public demostrations we find in the Islamic world over such murders is cheering.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Film still inspires bigots to fume

The religiously challenged just can’t get over rabid hatred for gay people. And it seems Brokeback Mountain just brings these bigots out of the woodwork. The film is now showing in Jamaica and the bigots are out in force spitting out their protests.

Neil Lewis, of the Family (sic) Life Ministries says he is “very distressed” because the film is being shown. Presumably he must fear someone dragging him in, kicking and screaming, and forcing him to watch the movie. Otherwise I can’t see how it’s any of his business if others see it or not.

But these buzzing insects of religion prefer to buzz around annoying others. And Lewis says: “We are allowing Hollywood to swamp us with wrong things. It’s dragging us down in the maelstrom of immorality.” How this film drags him down into anything is beyond me. No one is forcing any of those with theological lobotomies to watch the film.

Allan Russell of the Emmanuel Apostolic Church demanded that the film be banned and said it was an attempt to “indoctrinate the world to a most sinful act.”

What irritates them is not so much whether they are required to see such films. They aren’t. What bothers them is that they are not allowed to tell others what they may watch.

One particularly demented conservative, from the inaccurately named group Accuracy in Media, by the name of Cliff Kincaid, has insinuated that gay films may the cause of terrorist attacks on America or could be. He said he hoped “radical Islamists don’t watch the Academy Awards that night and get even more motivated to kill us.” Of course these Islamists wouldn’t kill one of their own so Kincaid is probably safe.

Kincaid, like his fellow extremists, is either very dishonest or just a bad writer. It’s hard to tell which since both are plausible explanations. He described Brokeback Mountain as “the film that depicts homosexual relations between married men with children as normal and even healthy.” Now the way that sentence is written he is saying the film shows married gay men having sex with children.

Of course, as I said, it could be just incompetent writing and what he meant to do was add some commas in the proper places so it said: ‘depicts homosexual relations between married men, with children, as normal and even healthy.” Those two commas make a huge difference. But I checked his writing carefully and he left them out entirely changing the meaning to one entirely different --- and entirely false. I will leave it up to him to confess whether he’s incompetent at his craft or just dishonest.

The film continues to do well at the box office even though a huge drop off is normally expected this many weeks after the initial release. The film has grossed around $75 million in the US and another $45 million overseas so far. it appears to be headed toward being the third most popular gay themed film in box office revenue only trailing The Birdcage and Interview with the Vampire.

The BAFTA awards in England were good news for the film as well. And if it does as well at the Academy Awards as expected there will be a large boost at the box office. In related news Jake Gyllenhaal recently auctioned off the two shirts that play a major symbol in the film. Gyllenhaal put the shirts on Ebay to benefit Variety The Children’s Charity. With 11 seconds left before the end of the auction the shirts were won with a bid of $101,100.51.

Another cartoon controversy

A student newspaper at the University of Toronto has entered the cartoon fray with their own contribution. Combine the Danish controversy with a touch of Brokeback Mountain. It showed Jesus and Mohammed tongue dancing passionately.

Now here is news! The Muslim Students’ Association found the cartoon “gravely offensive”. Offensive and Muslim just go together. Fundamentalists of all stripes spend inordinate amounts of time being offended by the world around them. I’m sure the feelings are mutual.

Of course Jesus couldn’t possibly be gay. Think about it. If he were he’d lose that hippy haircut. At the very least he’d have to trim that prophety beard and the outfit would just have to go. As for Mohammed, well, no self respecting gay man would run around with a towel wrapped around his head.

Bloody Mary and bloody censors

The faithful never learn how freedom works. They don’t like the idea of other’s being able to make up their own minds. They think their beliefs alone are deserving of special protections.

One incident I’ve been watching has been a concocted controversy in New Zealand over a South Park episode. Anyone who has the show knows it irreverent and rude. It is also terribly funny sometimes and often the satire is right on target.

An episode was scheduled to be shown there where a statue of the Virgin (sic) Mary was bleeding. Well that got a handful of Catholics into a tizzy. They whined and cried and complained. And they just didn’t stop. So this dragged on and on especially since the episode in question was not scheduled for showing for some weeks.

Anti-Catholic Christians on the fundie Right also complained. Not that they like Catholics. They don’t. They think them the anti-Christ incarnate. But they never miss a chance to call for state control of speech. They love the lash of the whip when it comes to big brother.

So the local TV station decided that the best thing to do was bring the show up on the schedule. Instead of cancelling it or allowing the controversy to continue they ended it by showing the program last night instead.

Now remember New Zealand is a small country. And normally South Park appears on the televisions of about 30,000 households. The would-be censors shouted and screamed about the show for days. It was major news across the country. The net result was then when it did air last night the audience had increased to 220,000 households instead!

Just like the lunatic Islamists they found out that all the publicity only meant that more people ended up seeing the thing they found offensive. The Timaru Herald editorialized: “Catholic spokeswoman Lindsay Freer said the ...decision to screen the episode was arrogant, cynical and unethical, just a move to boost ratings. Right. But who ultimately ensured that the ratings would be boosted? The very people who were most against it. Her and her colleagues.”

The anti-apartheid satirist Pieter Dirk-Uys used to quip that every time another one of his shows was being produced he would send in an anonymous complaint protesting his own show. This would get the despicable censors investigating and that always generated an audience.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

IDiots at it still.

The right-wing Discovery Institute has been funded by religious fundamentalists in order to push their creationism under the guise of science. These advocates of stealth creationism are distributing a petition which is supposed to be for scientists who doubt the validity of evolution.

Now like so many of these agenda driven groups the scientists who are signing are not scientists in an appropriate field. The petition, which has only been signed by around 500 individuals, is overwhelmingly made up of individuals who are not biologists. And, according to an article in the New York Times, most the biologists who signed do not work in fields of biology related to the origins of life.

One signer, Scott Fulton, teaches math and says: “When I see scientific evidence that points to God, I find that encouraging.” Roger Lien, a signer, teaches poultry science. His inspiration for signing is religious not scientific. “I was brought to Jesus Christ and God and creationism and believing in the Bible.”

Dr. Gregroy Brewer, teaches at Southern Illinois University medical school. He says: “Based on faith, I do believe in the creation account.”

Now there always have been minorities of scientists who put political or religious dogma ahead of reason. A look at how scientists prostituted themselves to the Marxist agenda is one example.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Lying on the net

This is merely a diversion. A point I make for entertainment purposes. I have decided to see how often the phrase that so and so lied comes up on the web via a google search. It proves nothing except who is seen as lying in important ways.

'Bush lied" 1,730,000 pages
"Clinton lied" 170,000 pages
"Bin Laden lied" 240 pages
"Mohammed lied" 216 pages
"Jesus lied" 815 pages
"Jehovah lied" 223 pages
"Marx lied" 55 pages
"Stalin lied" 173 pages
"Hitler lied" 519 pages
"Kennedy lied" 584 pages
"God lied" 9,240

Saturday, February 18, 2006

New film delves into dark Mormon past

Film maker Christopher Cain (father of Dean Cain) is finishing a new film September Dawn which deals with one of the darker, less known facets of Mormon history -- the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The film stars Jon Voight, Lolita Davidovich and Terence Stamp with a cameo appearance by Dean Cain.

The film covers the Mormon-led massacre of "Gentiles" on their way to California. While the church has acknowledged some aspects of the crime they have diligently tried to cover up the fact that the massacre was likely encouraged from the top eschelons of the church. The church simply argues that no one can really know the facts.

On Sept 11, 1857, Mormons, disguised an Indians, attacked a wagon train of immigrants. The wagon train circled the wagons in defense and held off the attacking "Indians". The Mormons leading the attack then held their fire while some of them dressed as settlers approached the wago train and convinced the settlers that they had convinced the "Indians" to end the attack but only if the settlers surrendered to the Mormons who would give them a safe escort. The settlers agreed and were escorted out by the churchmen, one Mormon escorting one settler. On cue the Mormons executed the settlers and kidnapped the children who were then "adopted" out to Mormon families.

The story is based on the journal of John Lee a leader of the attack. Lee was the only individual arrested for the massacre and was executed by firing squad. Utah is the only state that executes by firing squad in keeping with the Mormon belief of "blood atonement."

Cain explained: ""You start asking yourself the question. What makes a young kid - of any faith, in any part of the world - strap a bomb on his back and walk into a school, or a mosque, or get on a bus full of innocent people, and blow himself and them all up? You ask yourself that question, and as you do, you start looking around and all of a sudden, it's what religious fanaticism can turn into."

Mormon voyeur arrested

An assistant professor at Brigham Young University, Robert Jackson, has resigned after his arrest. The professor at this Mormon university was arrested because he used a hidden video camera to tape a 14-year-old girl.

Police had found a video of the girl stripping on a laptop computer belonging to BYU. Police confiscated the computer and brought the man in for questioning where he readily admitted his involvement.

Jackson himself not only taught at the Mormon school but is also a graduate from the school. Jackson has been employed at the university since 1988.

Fanatics united by hate

The Danish cartoons of the so-called prophet Mohammed has shown one thing. It has shown, without a doubt, that few religious leaders support freedom of speech. The only group that could compete in bowing before fanatical terrorists were second-rate politicians --- but then that's redundant. I should say politicians alone.

The main reason that I think this is so is that these god addicts yearn for the same "rights" claimed by the lunatic Islamists. That is they want the right to demand that anything that offends them and their Dark Age’s sensibilities be forbidden.

The latest religious challenged individual to demand the right to forbid that which “offends” him is the Chief Rabbi of Moscow, Berl Lazar. This Rabbi, who ought to dress in brown shirts, argued: “I would like to assure you, that the parade of homosexuals it is not less offensive to the feelings of believers than any caricatures in newspapers.”

The Rabbi and Islam’s Chief Mufti in Russia, Talgat Tajuddin, seem to be inspired by the same hate. It is amazing how the bitterest religious enemies can unite if you find them somebody else to hate. Tajuddin, emboldened by the deference given to Islamic mobs said that if a gay parade is allowed in Moscow, “Muslim’s protests can be even worse than these notorious rallies abroad over the scandalous cartoons.”

This Islamic sicko promised violence against homosexuals. “The parade should not be allowed, and if they still come out into the streets, then they should be bashed.” Mufti Mouse explained: “Sexual minorities have no rights, because they have crossed the line. Alternative sexuality is a crime against God.” If God thinks so then let him, her or it deal with the matter.

This is the problem of the gutless politicians and religionists prostrating themselves in deference to the violent mobs rallied by Islamic governments under the false pretext of having their silly religion ridiculed. Once cowards submit themselves to these fanatics it emboldens them to demand more and more. Each time they threaten killing, maiming, and rioting if their absurd theology isn’t respected by others.

The fact is that they do not deserve respect. Fanatics are dangerous and sane people must stand up to them. It doesn’t matter if these nuts are Jews, Christians or Muslims.

In a related manner the increasing totalitarian government of putrid Putin has stepped up it’s war on freedom in Russia. Putin is a rabid nationalist and hater of individual rights. In Volgograd authorities closed the Gorodskiye Vesti newspaper because of a cartoon. The illustration showed Christ, Moses, Buddha and Mohammed watching a riot on television. The caption said, “We never taught them to do that.”

Like the old communist tyrants the regime argues the opposite of the facts. They said they stopped the paper because the cartoon might encourage inter-religious strife. Now an appeal to forgo strife is consider encouraging strike.

A similar case in Russia recently dealt with an exhibit at a museum regarding the dangers of religious fundamentalism. Fanatics from the Orthodox Church attacked the exhibit. In a typical disregard for the property of others these Christians vandalized the exhibit. The “Christians” said the exhibit insulted their religious feelings. A Moscow court ruled the vandals could not be prosecuted for their crimes because such vandalism is not a crime and instead a criminal case has been opened up against the two curators who set up the exhibit. Prosecutors asked for a three year sentence to a concentration camp for one curator and two years for the other.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Don't confuse them with facts.

There is a reason that religionists emphasize faith over facts and religion over reason. Evidence is damn inconvenient. It has a tendency of smacking one in the face now and then. And the Mormons keep running into inconvenient facts on a regular basis.

The latest is the issue of DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, written by Joseph Smith, but passed off as the work of an angel, claims to be the history of the Lamanites.

Lamanites isn’t a new version of plastic flooring. They were supposedly a race of people who lived in the Americas and whose story is told in Smith’s fanciful fiction work. Of course Mormons believe the book is inspired and actual history. The imaginary Lamanites were Israelites who, due to sin, were made a darker color. And they supposedly came to North America and are the ancestors of the indigenous people of North America.

Now a crisis has been looming over the fictional Lamanites because of DNA evidence which shows that American Indians are not related to people from the Middle East. Simon Southerton is a molecular biologist and was once a Mormon bishop. And he wanted to check out the evidence.

DNA testing showed that Jews throughout the world did have strains of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton looked at the DNA maps of 7,300 American Indians and among Pacific Islanders -- another group the Mormons said were really Israelites.

Now the evidence showed what would have been expected. None of these people showed a lineage going back to the Middle East. Southerton wrote a book on the subject called Losing a Lost Tribe. The faith blind church takes the view that “the Book of Mormon will never be proved or disproved by science.” Duh! If Smith’s tome says these people are Hebrews and the evidence shows they are not Hebrews then the book is fiction! End of story.

Now Mormon leaders are inventing a whole new take on the story and pretending it was the old story all the time. They say that Smith’s fiction only described an isolated segment of the Hebrews who intermarried with the existing natives and that the Hebrew DNA was swamped by the much larger population. Daniel Peterson teaches at the church’s center of “higher” learning, Brigham Young University, and says: “It would be a virtual certainty that their DNA would be swamped. And in this case, you couldn’t tell who was a Lamanite descendant.” How convenient!

Of course Smith was a relatively uninformed man though an inventive one. He had the Lamanites in North America riding horses. Yet horses were brought to America by the Spanish centuries after these fictional tribes supposedly existed. Smith also didn’t realize that the Lamanites could not have had cows, sheep, steel, chariots or silk either. All these items are in his novel but never been found on the North American continent by archaeologists. Maybe they got “swamped” by interbreeding with bear, deer and beaver?

This issue has been brewing among Mormons for awhile and is not a new controversy. Mormon Thomas Murphy is an anthropologists and he wrote an essay Lamanites Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics which said that DNA research “lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans.” The best he could come with for Smith’s treatise was to same it might be “inspired” fiction. The church went to excommunicate Murphy but backed down when other Mormons protested.

Smith’s inventive tales are a woeful legacy for the faith driven. His Book of Abraham was allegedly written by Abraham of Hebrew fame. Smith purchased a mummy from a travelling side show and found some papyrus which was the writings of the biblical Patriarch. From that Smith, through divine revelation, wrote out a translation. No one could read hieroglyphics at the time so he was safe then. But the Rosette stone put an end to that. But luckily for the Church the mummy and papyrus had vanished. But in 1967 it showed up at the Metropolitan Museum in New York City.

And the document was not written by Abraham. It couldn’t have been. It wasn’t old enough. And it wasn’t written in “reformed Egyptian” as Smith claimed. Nor was it a manuscript. It was a funeral document and a rather routine one at that.

Smith purchased the mummy and papyri from Michael Chandler in 1835. Smith wrote that with some help "I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth."

Smith didn’t live long enough to “translate” the second scroll, supposedly written by Joseph of the Old Testament. Good thing he didn’t. The Mormons don’t need another hoax floating around the temples.

Now the mummy and the papyri disappeared. But the Mormons had kept copies of the text and published them in the book itself. Alas Egyptologists had all pronounced the “translation” to be totally wrong.

But the faithful, for the most part, go on refusing to consider the facts. Born-againers ridicule them for this but themselves engage in similar blindness.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Recent spate of arrests of ministers

Police in New York are withholding the identity of the pastor of a Long Island Baptist Church. The minister was arrested on multiple counts of sexually molesting his three daughters. According to local district attorney the pastor had sex with his eldest daughter an average of two times a week for the last few years. In addition he is charged with having sexually abused his two other daughters when both were under 14 years of age. The pastor's lawyer said his family was supporting him. Yet the same news report indicated that the pastor was arrested only after the oldest daughter told someone what happened to her and they told her mother. Sources claim that the pastor confessed to the incidents upon his arrest.

Meanwhile in Thaxton, Virginia a youth leader at the Shady Grove Baptist Church was arrested. He was accussed of molesting a 14 year old youth from the church.

In Florida Pastor Vincent Kohn, of the Annoited Church of God, was arrested for animal cruelty. He was see throwing puppies from a pickup truck and leaving them to die int he woods. The witness said: "He was actually throwing them, not setting them dow, but throwing them as far as the tress. Just chucking them." When police tracked Kohn down they found the mother of the puppies in a malnourished state chained up along with some other puppies who had neither food nor water. The puppies had lost patches of their fur and had sores on them.

In Chicago another Catholic priest was arrested for fondling three children from his parish.

In California Kevin Thompson of the Bay Area Family Church was arrested. He and a group of others were illegally catching and selling bably leopard sharks to pet distributors. Laws meant to protect the species say the sharks must be 36 inches or longer to be caught.

In Palnesville, Ohio police are investigating Baptist minister Gary Johnson. Trustees of his church say he has stolen at least $55,000 from the church. Four years ago, in Burlington, North Carolina Rev. Johnson was accussed of taking out loans in the name of his church. He was convicted of obtaining property by false pretense.

In Kentucky police arrested Ralph Broussard for scamming elderly individuals out of $900,000. Broussard, who taught Bible classes at the Mount Calvary Independent Baptist Church. Broussard's victims were mostly members at the church. One reason for this may be that some of his victims said that church's pastor encourage investing with Broussard.

King warns of demons

King Mswati III runs a tiny kingdom that has little going for it. Swaziland is not exactly one of the most advanced nations in the world. And if the sermons of Mswati are any indication it won't be advancing anytime soon. Take these comments:

"“The devil likes to bring catastrophes and evil things such as diseases where there is peace. We are not intimidated by the HIV, Aids and bird flu because the Bible warned us that in the last days there would be wars and incurable diseases. Even after we have been ravaged by so much diseases we still worship God because he is powerful."

Mswati told his subjects that they only way to stay free of evil spirits was to hold to Jesus.

The Right to Offend

Here is a "guest" posting. It is portions of the speech by Ayaan Hirsi Ali that she gave in Berlin. Ali is an MP for the Dutch liberal party and a refugee from Somalia. Raised a Muslim she has become one of that most vociferous critics of Islamic fundamentalists.

I am here to defend the right to offend.

It is my conviction that the vulnerable enterprise called democracy cannot exist without free expression, particularly in the media. Journalists must not forgo the obligation of free speech, which people in other hemispheres are denied.

I am of the opinion that it was correct to publish the cartoons of Muhammad in Jyllands Posten and it was right to re-publish them in other papers across Europe.

Shame on those papers and TV channels who lacked the courage to show their readers the caricatures in The Cartoon Affair. These intellectuals live off free speech but they accept censorship. They hide their mediocrity of mind behind noble-sounding terms such as ‘responsibility’ and ‘sensitivity’.

Berlin is rich in the history of ideological challenges to the open society. This is the city where a wall kept people within the boundaries of the Communist state. It was the city which focalized the battle for the hearts and minds of citizens. Defenders of the open society educated people in the shortcomings of Communism. The work of Marx was discussed in universities, in op-ed pages and in schools. Dissidents who escaped from the East could write, make films, cartoons and use their creativity to persuade those in the West that Communism was far from paradise on earth.

Despite the self-censorship of many in the West, who idealised and defended Communism, and the brutal censorship of the East, that battle was won.

Today, the open society is challenged by Islamism, ascribed to a man named Muhammad Abdullah who lived in the seventh century, and who is regarded as a prophet. Many Muslims are peaceful people; not all are fanatics. As far as I am concerned they have every right to be faithful to their convictions. But within Islam exists a hard-line Islamist movement that rejects democratic freedoms and wants to destroy them. These Islamists seek to convince other Muslims that their way of life is the best. But when opponents of Islamism try to expose the fallacies in the teachings of Muhammad then they are accused of being offensive, blasphemous, socially irresponsible – even Islamophobic or racist.

The issue is not about race, colour or heritage. It is a conflict of ideas, which transcend borders and races.

Why me? I am a dissident, like those from the Eastern side of this city who defected to the West. I too defected to the West. I was born in Somalia, and grew up in Saudi Arabic and Kenya. I used to be faithful to the guidelines laid down by the prophet Muhammad. Like the thousands demonstrating against the Danish drawings, I used to hold the view that Muhammad was perfect -- the only source of, and indeed, the criterion between good and bad. In 1989 when Khomeini called for Salman Rushdie to be killed for insulting Muhammad, I thought he was right. Now I don’t.

I think that the prophet was wrong to have placed himself and his ideas above critical thought.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have subordinated women to men.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have decreed that gays be murdered.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have said that apostates must be killed.

He was wrong in saying that adulterers should be flogged and stoned, and the hands of thieves should be cut off.

He was wrong in saying that those who die in the cause of Allah will be rewarded with paradise.

He was wrong in claiming that a proper society could be built only on his ideas.

The prophet did and said good things. He encouraged charity to others. But I wish to defend the position that he was also disrespectful and insensitive to those who disagreed with him.

The dissidents of Islamism, like the dissidents of communism, don’t have nuclear bombs or any other weapons. We have no money from oil like the Saudis. We will not burn embassies and flags. We refuse to get carried away in a frenzy of collective violence. In number we are too small and too scattered to become a collective of anything. In electoral terms here in the west we are practically useless.

All we have are our thoughts; and all we ask is a fair chance to express them. Our opponents will use force to silence us. They will use manipulation; they will claim they are mortally offended. They will claim we are mentally unstable and should not be taken seriously. The defenders of Communism, too, used these methods.

Berlin is a city of optimism. Communism failed. The wall was broken down. Things may seem difficult and confusing today. But I am optimistic that the virtual wall, between lovers of liberty and those who succumb to the seduction and safety of totalitarian ideas will also, one day, come down.

Desire and ability

A minister announced that the film Brokeback Mountain has nothing positive and is offensive particularly due to the "abnormal behavior" of homosexuality. No surprise of course. Christians have been throwing tantrums about the film even before it was released.

But I didn't say the minister was a Christian nor did I say what kind of minister he is. In fact he is from the Ministry of Culture and Information with the United Arab Emirates. Of course the Islamic fundamentalists like their Christian counterparts are opposed to this film. They are peas in the same pod.

The UAE has banned the film. Fundamentalist Christians lack that power in the US though they would dearly love to have it. Their reluctance to do the same is not due to their wishes only to their abilities.

Expert just not in that field.

So what is happening? Is this a major defection from the field of science to superstition? A professor emeritus from the University of California, Berkeley is giving lectures defending the religious doctrine of "intelligent design".

The professor is Philip Johnson and he taught at Berkeley for 33 years. Now his lectures are sponsored by the fundamentalist Intervarisity Christian Fellowship. And it is taken place at a Christian college. In addition the Professor will be speaking on behalf of a local Baptist church as well.

Now what haven't I mentioned? I did point out his academic credentials. Or did I? Actually I didn't. So what was it that Johnson taught? Was he a biologist? No! Was he a scientist of any kind? No! He taught in the law school. In other words his credentials are in a field entirely outside the range of science. He has no expertise in a field that qualifies him to lecture on evolution. That, of course,is par for religions.

You will note that the Green religion does the same thing. Paul Ehrlich was a butterfly specialist who was made famous predicting the world was vastly over populated. He wrote that England would never survive to the year 2000, that massive famine would grip the US in the 1980s, etc. Not one of his major projections turned out accurate. The result: he is consider a leading expert in Green circles.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Fanatics want UN tyranny

It is hard to have much respect for the United Nations. It will be harder to do so if the totalitarian nations of Islam get their way. There are 57 basket case nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They are mostly fourth-rate nations run by petty dictators and besotted with superstition.

And these gaggle of tyrants wants to push the UN into being more destructive to human rights than is already the case. The OIC, which is led by Turkey, said that they want blasphemy regulations written into the principles for the absurdly named “human rights council”.

These indicates two things. One is that Turkey is not yet a civilized nation. Certainly Turkey’s contempt for human rights is a clear reason that it should not be admitted to the European Union. The second thing is that the UN defines “rights” mostly in ways that violate rights.

Islamic nations are almost all tyrannies. They are uncivilized by any definition of the term. They live in the Dark Ages. They are vicious racists and murderous regimes. Yet they have the audacity to whine that the Danish illustrations of Mohammed “constituted an incitement to hatred and violence against Muslims.”

It amazing how dishonest these tyrants can be. What violence? The only violence was perpetrated by their own people at their encouragement. No gang of Danes attacked a mosque. But insane Islamists attacked Danish consulates. No advocate of free speech marched through the street calling for terror attacks, beheadings, and murder. Again only the lunatics who think Mohammed is a prophet did that.

It’s time to turn the UN over the third world idiots and let them run it. The US and European nations should get out of the UN. They stop funding it and the US should deport the entire organization to some suitable location like Harare.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

More Islamist lies.

This fake cartoon scandal that has Lefty politicians tripping over themselves to apologize to terrorists needs to be exposed. Below we already showed that it was lie to say Islam forbids depictions of Mohammed and that throughout history such depictions have been common place even in Islamic nations. We also showed that the cartoons appeared several months ago in an Egyptian newspaper.

Now lets look at how Islamic imams from Denmark intentionally faked images to stir up this controversy. And yet these religious thugs are allowed to live in Denmark as if they were civilized. They ought to be thrown out post haste. First let us look at the actual page of the newspaper from Denmark that supposedly started the controversy.

Please look at these images carefully. In fact count them. There are twelve of them. When these holy liars went off to stir up shit they distributed a booklet that showed 15 images of Mohammed that they said were published in the newspaper. Now that is three more than actually appeared. What were the other three? They were the cartoons that people found most offensive and they were frauds.

One of the images showed Mohammed with a pigs face. Another showed a Muslim praying with a dog humping from behind and the third was titled "Den Paedofile 'profet" Muhammed". The nature is rather clear from that. None of the images actually appeared in the newspaper. The Muslims from Denmark are hiding the facts. Here is a picture showing that the BBC showed these extra drawings being peddled by the imam Abu Bashar of Denmark. The Danish Muslim Community, which distributed these other illustrations, merely claim they received them in the mail. But these three illustrations are the ones found most offensive by the rabble. But there were never printed. And so far the only people distributing them was the imam and his friends.

Now get this: Abu Bashar is a paid employee of the Danish government. He is paid by them to spread the message of Islam insides Denmark's prisons.

Now below is the page from the booklet distributed by this rabble rousers from Denmark. Notice that this is supposedly the illustration of Mohammed as a pig.

But it too is fake. It was never an illustration of Mohammed. In fact it's not actually an illustration but a rendition from a photo. And the photo was of Frenchman jacques Barrot as he performed in the French Pig-Squeling Championships, an annual contest held in Trie-sur-Baise. And if you don't believe me here is the photo from which this fake illustration was taken.

So true, so true.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Little lies the Islamists are telling.

Religion and lying goes together like priests and altar boys. And the Islamists are some of the biggest liars around. Or the dumbest. Take your pick. And they are lying about those cartoons.

Now catch up here. They are running around killing each other and setting buildings on fire because they contend that the printing of these cartoons in Western newspapers insults some sand-sucking prophet. Supposedly printing these cartoons is some major violation of their silly taboos. And only insensative Western types would do such a horrible thing. LIE!! IT'S A LIE TENS TIME OVER.

Long before most Western newspapers had published these cartoons an Egyptian newspaper had published them with out a single protest. Here is a picture of that page for you to witness yourself.

Below is a close up of the front page of the paper. You can see the date quite clearly. And for the Americans who date things all on their own what this means is the 17th day of the 10th month not the 10th day of the non-existent 17th month. And the date is 2005. That's well before the religious riots. This Egyptian newspaper is Al Faqr which is a descent sized paper so it wasn't as if this could have gone unnoticed. But until tied to the racist anti-Western views of the Islamists no one paid attention. Admit it, these people are racists and bigots and hate mongers. And they have learned that if they point their dirty fingers at the West that years of left-wing induced guilt complexes will get everyone rolling into a ball on the floor and apologizing and begging for forgiveness for offending a Third World peoples. And the usual culprits in such things are doing just that.

You might wonder why the appearance of these cartoons in the midst of a major Islamic nation several months ago didn't cause a ripple of protest. Well the reason brings us to the big lie. Islam has no prohibition against depicting their prophet. The whole claim itself is a lie. Amir Taheri, in the Wall Street Journal, puts that myth to rest. He writes:

"The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers."

To illustrate this point below is a painting from 1595 which is supposed to depict Islam's founder and his followers advancing on Mecca while accompanied by a gaggle of angels.

If you click on the title of this post it will take you to the website of Bilkent University in Turkey. They have copies of numerous illustrations of Muhammad from hundreds of years ago displayed. These paintings of the so-called prophet were commissioned by Murad III, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire (1574-1595). They illustrated a biography of Mohammad, Siyer-i Nebi. When the project was completed the illustrated book took up six volumes and contained 814 illustrations. Other images of Mohammed can be found in museums throughout the Muslim world. The elite troops of the Ottoman army, the Janissaries, had a medal with a bust of Mohammad's head on it.

Remember the Islamists are on a political crusade much as American fundamentalists are and they will lie and deceive as part of that crusade. The real purpose of the outrage, which was called from by various Islamist political groups, is not about religion. It is about politics. And they want to try to force the West to apologize to prove to their followers that they have power. And too many Western politicians, cowards to the core, are willing to give these fanatics precisely what they want.

Advice for Mormon wankers.

Sometimes religion is actually funny. And to get away from the deadly, destructive side of it I thought we'd get some sex advice from the Mormons. They are an interesting lot with their doctrine of spirit babies, Adam being Jesus, and men becoming gods themselves through the rituals of the Mormon Church--much of which was borrowed from the Masons. And they promise their members that they will go through eternity having sex to create more of those spirit babies. What they are not fond of is solo sex. You might get away with 40 wives but a wank is not acceptable.

Here is some advice that the Mormons have given to overcome the secret sin. I won't go into all of them just the low-lights.

#2. "Avoid being alone as much as possible." (Of course when their missionaries spend all there time together under this theory, with no sexual release allowed, they often end up in each other arms.)

#3. "If you are associated with other persons having this same problem, YOU MUST BREAK OFF THEIR FRIENDSHIP." The problem here is that this contradicts the previous suggestion. If the typical Mormon youth avoided everyone having this same problem he would spend all his time alone.

#6 "If the temptation seems overpowering while you are in bed, GET OUT OF BED AND GO INTO THE KITCHEN AND FIX YOURSELF A SNACK." Well this should lead to some really huge Mormons. Being overweight is the obvious answer. An extra few hundred pounds and they would not be able to reach what this tract calls "the vital parts".

Other suggestions include yelling "STOP" as loud as one can when tempted.In the Osmond household, with all those boys, no one would get any sleep.

They also suggested sleeping with a Book of Mormon in hand. If you simply end up with sticky pages they suggest tying one's hand to the bedpost. Another idea is to carry a calendar and color days black when one gives into temptation. It would probably be cheaper to sell calendars that are on black paper. Other suggestions are to keep your bladder empty. But wouldn't that require constant touching of the vital parts?? And one should avoid spicy food.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Facing Muhammed

Let us be honest folks. The riots and rampaging mobs of Islamic fanatics is part and parcel of Islam itself. This is not to say that every Muslim must hold such primitive values. But these values are Islamic. The same is true for Christianity. At it’s core the values of Christianity are intolerant and vicious and history shows that. That they are not today so vicious is due, not to the nature of Christianity itself, but to the Enlightenment values that came to dominate the West.

These Enlightenment values were a solvent that, for the most part, eroded the viciousness inherent in the monotheistic, monopolistic faiths. Like most solvents there are parts of the whole that were missed or which resisted the solvent. Fundamentalist Christians are that part. Not all such Christians are vicious but that they are not is due to their own nature and not to the nature of their faith.

Islam is a religion of primitive people. But fundamentalism of all kinds appeals to such classes. Polls have regularly shown that the less educated an individual the more likely he is to say he has been “born again”. The more poverty stricken the individual the more devout. This does not mean that well off individuals can’t become religious fanatics. All the 9/11 murderers were well off financially. Often such individuals become leaders where the poor and ignorant in their fold are the followers.

The world-wide mob tactics of Islamics is a clear indication that the West needs to reconsider whether it wishes to allow such people into their nations as immigrants especially in light of the huge numbers of such immigrants who sit on welfare for most of their lives and whose children run riot in the streets.

It is said that such individuals are an intolerant few and not representative the vast majority. This is hard to believe. In Auckland, New Zealand 800 of these people marched demanding censorship. There are only 4 million in New Zealand and 800 Muslims is a significant percentage of the Muslim population especially in the Auckland area.

We witnessed massive mobs of fanatics. These were not small bands of malcontents. They were swarms of violent prone religionists demanding that the West abandon Western values and embrace their own vile values of the Dark Ages. In the name of “multiculturalism” they want the destruction of Western culture. They are hypocrites as are all fundamentalists.

They use freedom to attack freedom. They use our tolerance in order to destroy tolerance. In essence they force us to accept their values. In the West they demand the right to run around with their faces covered. And we respect that right. When our people visit their countries they must adopt their culture. So if a European is in Saudi Arabia he must respect Islamic tradition. In Europe he must also respect Islamic culture. While the Muslims in neither place respect European culture. It is Europe that surrenders constantly in the face of the violent threats of these fanatics.

Hirsi Ali is a refugee from the Islamic lunacy. She was born in Somalia one of the man Islamic hell-holes in the world. Her father tried to force her into an arranged marriage. She fled to the Netherlands in 1992. She enthusiastically embraced the freedom of the West and renounced her faith in Islam. She became a critic of Islamic intolerance and was elected to the Dutch parliament as a member of the liberal VVD Party. With Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh she produced a documentary Submission about Islamic treatment of women. For that film van Gogh was executed on the streets by Islamic cretins. And this took place, not in some backwater like Iran but in Holland.

She says that, instead of apologizing, the West should stand in solidarity with each other. “The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can’t boycott goods from every country. They are far too dependent on imports.”

Ali argues that the West trips over itself to apologize to these violent sects. “Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imans aren’t preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they’re just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don’t allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they’ll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.”

She says that Islam will not change because the central obstacle to reform is the Koran. “The doctrine stating that the faith is inalterable because the Koran was dictated by God must be replaced. Muslims must realize that it was human beings who wrote the holy scriptures.” Of course the same is true for the fundamentalist Bible beaters as well.

Will the West surrender to this?

Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri is the former imam of London’s Finsbury Park mosque. And he appears headed for jail. Like so many of his ilk he used his pulpit to preach murder and terrorism. A jury in England found his guilty of seven counts of soliciting murder.

Under his preaching his mosque was linked to several terrorists suspects including the inept “shoe bomber” Richard Reid and the 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui.

The cleric, who says he lost his hands in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets, is also wanted on charges in the United States. Born in Egypt the cleric is wanted in the US for his attempts to set up a terrorist training camp among other terror related charges.

In a previous posting we mentioned that one of the Islamic demonstrators, who attended the London mass meeting calling for more terrorist attacks, was dressed as a suicide bomber. He has now been identified. He is Omar Khayam, 22, who lives in Bedford. This fine, upstanding Muslim, was recently sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison for being a heroin and cocaine dealer. According to the BBC, he “was free from jail on license at the time of the protest.”

Realizing that his actions put him in legal jeopardy especially given his tenuous state over his drug dealing he said his actions were “un-Islamic” but compared his actions to those of the cartoonists who drew Mohammed. His mosque also said his actions here “totally un-Islamic.” Now if dressing like a suicide bomber is “totally un-Islamic” then what is being a suicide bomber? And if it is “totally un-Islamic” why do so many Islamic states support the practice? Why do hundreds of millions of Muslims approve of the tactic? What of the hundreds of Muslims who marched with Khayam and carried the disgusting signs shown below? And why are Muslim clerics so regularly promoting terrorism?

But is this intolerance “totally un-Islamic?” European states want to convince themselves this is the case. Robert Spencer, editor of The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, notes: “Sclerotic European states eyeing the rapid growth of their Muslim populations console themselves with tale of old al-Andalus, reassuring one another that Islamic hegemony not only wasn’t all that bad——it was a veritable golden age. Investigators in Europe and America are discouraged from monitoring activity in mosques. After all, goes the dogma, terrorism isn’t an Islamic problem. Islam is a supremely tolerant faith. No, terrorism is a problem of political grievances or socio-economic imbalances.”

But what if that is wrong? What if the faith itself is responsible? What if all faith has this effect to one degree or another?

The West has long adopted a Marxist interpretation of life. The poor of the world are never responsible for their poverty. It is always the West that rapes them. Never does their own culture or religious values lead to destructive results only capitalism does that. And so the problem continues to grow and grow. And the West caves in repeatedly. And inch by inch the Mullahs and the Islamists gain territory while the intellectually emaciated West has no ability to resist.

Please note that none of this warrants US troops in the Middle East. It was clear from the start that Bush’s invasion of Iraq would only fan the flames. In fact it has done worse than that. The Bush administration has bent over backwards to push the idea that Islam is actually tolerant.

Islam is a predominantly fundamentalist faith. And no fundamentalist faith is tolerant. But since Bush is a fundamentalist himself he can not acknowledge the inherent intolerance of fundamentalism without offending his own power base. And this is where it gets really scary.

The West is broken into two camps. The Europeans are weak advocates of Enlightenment values. They are intellectually emaciated. The US, on the other hand, is willing to fight back but not in the ways that are effective but only in ways that are ineffective. And worse yet the US is becoming a fundamentalist state as well ruled by Christian fanatics.

With two anti-freedom forces fighting for global domination and with Europe refusing to defend the values of the Age of Enlightenment freedom is truly in danger as it has never been before.

In spite of the military policies of Bush this is not a war of guns and weapons. This is an intellectual battle. On the one side is Europe which clings to its old values with weak hands. The other two main warriors are Islam and the United States. And under Bush the US has joined the same camp as the Islamists. They have embraced the revival of intolerance whole-heartedly. Bin Laden and his cronies want to destroy American freedom. George Bush and his cronies do too.

The sins of the fathers.

I have long contended that in practice it is not possible for Christians to “hate the sin but love the sinner.” Their vile treatment gay men and women shows that to be the case. A person’s sexual orientation goes to the very core of their being. How does one separate that from who they are? And the repeated instances of high profile, sanctimonious members of the Religious Right treating their own gay children abominably shows that these fanatics do not “love the sinner”.

Now I want it stated loud and clear that I do not consider being gay a sin. What a silly concept worthy of the Inquisition or Dark Ages! It came out of the absurd books that the fundies think are inspired by some deity. And their treatment of homosexuals will never improve as long as they believe that collection of malignant fairy tales is inspired by God. For the same reason the Islamic killers striking out an infidels will continue to do so as long as they believe that their collection of malignant fairy tales is inspired by their deity.

This inhuman treatment of others is inspired by the idea that some deity has revealed himself to man. Now such rubbish is not likely to catch on today. Not, at least with some new revelation from God. The last time there were enough bumpkins in one spot to fall for such trash was when Joseph Smith dictated his so-called Book of Mormon. And that was about 150 years ago.

These “revelations” are monstrous because they were written by men who reflected the violent views of their age. That people are dumb enough to take these culture bound books seriously and impose them on a modern world is the root of what I suspect will be the major conflict over the next century.

But I digress. My main point is that when they say they hate the sin they really do mean they hate the sinner.

That hatred is so strong that they will try to punish the children of the “sinners” they hate. Take the case of the Donelson Christian Academy outside Nashville, Tennessee.

For some reason, which I don’t understand, John Barnby wanted to send his son to this “school”. He seems to believe the faith concept. But Barnby is a victim of faith. He is a gay man who lives with another gay man and together they are raising a family. Surely he knew that means he is a vile creature in the eyes of the monster called Jehovah. But apparently Mr. Barnby thought otherwise.

He received a phone call from the headmaster of this school for training up religious fanatics. Danny Kellum, the headmaster, “stumbled over his words and asked if we were gay parents,” said Barnby. “I responded that we are a gay family and very interested in our son receiving a quality education at a faith-based school.” (Please note the contradiction in what he was seeking.)

Barnby said that Kellum got rather worked up and told him that his son would be taught how evil his family was and that they are subject to eternal damnation. He also said that the child would not be allowed to attend the school. Of course the child has done nothing worthy of such action but in the fevered imagination of the fundamentalist having sinful parents apparently is enough.

Barnby said that in a few days he received a letter which said the school regretted that he “had decided not to send their child” to the school. Gee, these people really have trouble being honest. They did, however, return his application fee.

Now this is probably a blessing in disguise. After all why the hell would Mr. Barnby want his child subjected to hours of brainwashing by the American Taliban. But this does illustrate, once again, that it is the gay person himself that the fundamentalists hate, not their homosexuality. This child did nothing. But their bigotry is so strong that they can’t resist lashing out at a small child in order to attack the parents.

Monday, February 06, 2006

UK cleric demands execution of those who offend Islam

A Muslim cleric from the UK, Omar Bakri Mohammed, has said that any cartoonist who was behind a cartoon of the so-called prophet Mohamend should be tried and executed. "The insult has been established now by everybody, Muslim and non-Muslim, and everybody condemns the cartoonist and condemns the cartoon. However, in Islam, God said and the messanger Mohammed said, whoever insults a prophet, he must be punished and executed."

"This man should be put on trial and if it is proven to be executed. ...If anybody insults the prophet, he will have to take a punishment."

This cleric, who is allowed to promote terrorism in England, said that if various nations do not punish these cartoonists they must "face the consequences". That sounds like a nut case making a threat against the people of England.

Meanwhile the people of England seem upset that radical Islamists were allowed to march around London calling for murder. And numerous individuals have complained that the police took no action against those calling for terrorist attacks on Europe. At least one of the Muslims was dressed as a suicide terrorist.

It is unfair to say that the police made no arrests however. But the people they choose to arrest were two counter protestors who had copies of the controversial cartoons duplicated for distribution. Police arrested them, held them for a few hours, and then released them.

Islamists in the West are doing precisely the same thing as fundamentalist Christians. Calvinist theocracy advocate Gary North has said he would "be blunt about it" and told fellow Christians "we must use the doctrine of religious liberty... until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutrel law, no neutrel education, and no neutrel civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finaly denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Offended religionist demand ban. Guess who?

Crazed religious fanatics offended by an insult to their prophet. Nope, not Muslims this time, but once again the tedious American Taliban of Christian fundamentalism. The brainless and brain-dead at the so-called American Family Association are demanding that a future episode of the show Will & Grace be pulled. They say it is offensive to their religious sentiments.

According to the AFA (which ought to mean American Fundamentalist Asses) the show "mocks the crucifixion of Christ" and will "further denigrate Christianity". Like their Muslim counterparts they are demanding that the show be pulled and that local affiliates refuse to show it. After all the affiliates wouldn't want turban wearing mobs gathering outside the station. Ooops, sorry I got my fanatics confused.

The big government conservatives at World Net Daily claim the show will guest star Britney Spears as a host of Christian TV network cooking show entitled "Cruci Fixin's."

The AFA, based in that thriving metropolis of Tupelo, Mississippi has gathered the born again battalion to man the barracades in the "culture war." The head mullah at AFA, Don Wildmon, says that "NBC is clearly mocking the Christian faith." Not as if that is hard to do. If you really want to mock Christians give Don Wildmon and other crazed fundamentalists time on TV to show their true colors.

The show they are protesting does not exist. It has not been taped. It has not even been written. Apparently this plot line was discussed but never finalized. NBC said: "The reference to 'Cruci-fixins' will not be in the show and the storyline will not contain a Christian characterization at all."

Of course the Right-wing is claiming a "victory" for their side. Much in the way mentioned in my article below on the misnamend Liberty Counsel. They took credit for forcing a school to include the song Silent Night in a Christmas show when the show included the song right from the start. This time the Right is claiming that NBC "has decided to remove a segment... that would have been highly offensive to Christians."

Mullah Wildmon took the credit for himself: "Plainly put, NBC heard from their affiliates that they did not want to go through another Book of Daniel situation while losing millions in advertising revenue." Mullah Wildmon is sure that his power is the reason that a script that wasn't written doesn't include what he didn't want in it. Ah, but the mullah is not nearly as powerful as this little blog.

I have a list of things I don't want in lots of shows that haven't been written yet and I am assure that they will not be in the shows. I did not focus on just one show but thousands. In fact I'm so powerful that I've stopped the plots not only from appearing in non-existent scripts but in non-existent scripts for shows that don't even exist. Top that Don!

Now we just need to get the press to report that the show will instead feature a cartoon episode of Mohammed, Jesus and Moses having a ham sandwich at Hooters!

By the way: the guy with the bad suit and the smirk, on the Far Right above, is Mullah Wildmon.

The furor of fanatics.

The following photos were all taken in London. This is what raw religion looks like. Now the real question is why are these people still in London? Why does the West go out of it's way to allow fanatics who threaten violence to live in the West? Worse yet, a huge percentage of such people live off tax funds. Allah doesn't provide for them. The Nanny State does. And that money is used for, among other things, all that is necessary for them to participarte in public marches where they threaten the people who put food on their table with beheadings, holocausts, terrorist attacks, etc.

The US invasion of Iraq was wrong. But so is this! No one has the right to threaten violence over some drawings. That these people simply don't get it indicates they are not fit for living in Western nations. I would not exclude people from a nation merely because they are Muslim. But if they do not accept Western values they are a threat to our society. By the way this equally true for Christian fundamentalists (see Fundie Fred below for an example) but unfortunately they are home grown fanatics.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Christian group caught lying. Surprised?

This last holiday season the Christian Right tried to make the holidays (yes, Virginia, there are more than one) as political as possible. They hyped up the bull of a "war on Christmas". Now one of these group is facing a lawsuit due to the claims they invented.

The misnamed Liberty Counsel raised funds through a national appeal which said that the Dodgeville, Wisconsin, school district had banned a rendition of Silent Night. One way to raise funds from the boobs in the movement is to tell then how their very life is under attack by evil secularists. But the claims were false. And even the school district website had the facts posted. But this was ignored by the Taliban.

Of course Liberty Counsel threatened the district with law suits. In the end the school district spend $23,000 in legal expenses and added security because they feared the widespread accusations might bring out some violent individuals. Now the school district has written Liberty Counsel demanding that the Tablian repay them for the expenses. Sounds fair.

The mullah at Liberty Counsel says the whole problem should be laid at the door of the school district. He says they should have called him to correct his accusations. In other words he is not responsible for what he says other people are. Apparently he did not have the responsibility of checking his facts first. All this talk on the Right about "responsibility" is bull. They never take responsibility for the falsehoods they disseminate.

Now Liberty Counsel has several projects. One is to try and force schools to use taxpayer funding to finance the Christian message. They think liberty means they can do what they want at the expense of others. They also wanto to prevent gay people from marrying and stop abortion. For people who pretend they support liberty they certainly want state control of others. One hysterical book they sell is "Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk." Right!

The head of this "public interest law firm" claims that the school should receive nothing for the costs imposted on them by his false accusations. Insteady, "They ought to be glad they didn't incur a lawsuit."

Even now the group still lies about the case on their website. They claimed that the school had banned Silent Night and was replacing it with entirely secular lyrics. The district said that is false. They said that the traditional song was always on the program of their celebration along with a reading of the words for the other song. They told Liberty Counsel that was the case. Liberty Counsel, instead of admitting they were wrong, crowed that this was a victory for them becasue the district "has now dumped Cold in the Nihgt from its 'winter program.' After receiving an avalanche of phone calls and emails, late yesterday afternoon, Debra Messer, the District Administrator, confirmed that Silent Night will be sung."

Notice the deceptive wording. They didn't say the district "has now added" the song to the agenda only that they "confirmed" it would be sung. They want the Bible boobs who pray for them and send them donations to think this was a great victory for the rightous. So they say this happened after the "avalanche" of harassment thay Libert Counsel encouraged. This is to imply that the avalance caused the district to cave in. In reality what they actually said if you are carefully read the claims is that there as this avalanche of harassment and then the district confirmed the song would be sung. It gives the impression that the campaign caused the song to be sung. But it doesn't actually say it.

Instead of simply saying: "Hey, we were wrong. The school district had never banned the song and was going to sing it all the time" they wrote a statement that, while factual, allows the groups supporters to think something contrary to the truth.

The head of the group, Mathew Staver, has written a book Take Back America which lays out the case for the "need of God in America again". Staver has a booklook on the Myth of Separation of Church and State. They also sell a video "The Truth Behind the Declaration of Independence" which claims that it was intended "to create a society based on Christian values using the Bible as its sole source of guidance." Of course the Declaration was written by a man who opposed orthodox Christianity -- Thomas Jefferson. But we already know this group plays fast and loose with the truth.

And for some reason the website promots "soy products" and links to sites where people can buy the stuff. I wonder if Staver has any financial stakes in the company being promoted? It would be interesting to find out.

Fundie Fred still at it.

Fred Phelps is one of those people who probably should live permanently in a room with rubber walls. But he is a nice illustration of the absolute absurdity of "Biblical Christianity."

Here are a few things that fundie Fred has recently said in a television interview.

"The doctrine of absolute predestination is the bible from one end to the other," said Phelps.

Phelps says he wants people to "repent" of their sins. And he says that homosexuals who have sex should be killed. He says that God will judge America because it doesn't follow his advice to kill gay men and women.

Now why bother? If there is "absolute predestination" there is no free will. No one can repent unless the Calvinist puppet master in the sky has choosen them to repent. It is not a matter of choice. There is no free will. There is "absolute predestination".

And the reason that homosexuality is not illegal in the US, according to "absolute predestination" is that the puppet master has so ordained it.

If there is absolute predestination there can not be issues about what people choose to do since no one chooses to do anything. The gay man is gay only because the puppet master wanted it that way. The whore is a whore because it is the will of Jesus. Fred Phelps is an ass because his god wanted him to be an ass.

In the television report Fundie Fred is picketing a Catholic Church and screaming about pedophile priests. Certainly something to complain about but not if you believe in "absolute predestination". If you hold to that doctrine you would have to say that this is what Jesus wants to happen.

And if it is the will of Jesus then why is Fred unhappy? But then, of course, Fred has no choice in the matter either. No one does. It's an absurd doctrine but then the Bibl is full of those.


Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites