Who's REALLY got those 'special rights'?

A common argument against gay rights is that it amounts to 'special rights.' That is, if G-BITs have the same rights as their straight counterparts, they will in fact end up with more rights-hence 'special rights.' The argument goes roughly that gays already have equal rights-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, the right to serve in the military, the right to a job, etc. And if anti-discrimination and same-sex marriage legislations are passed, this amounts to extra rights.

This argument is wrong for one reason, and entirely hypocritical for another reason. To begin with; the wrong argument. The conservative argument is wrong because it assumes that gays will somehow have more rights than straights. For example, a common line of attack is that anti-discrimination laws are 'special rights' because they protect gays from straight persecution, but not the other way round. This is, to put bluntly, bullshit. If a straight person were to be fired because of their sexual orientation (a borderline non-existent example, but bare with me), under current legislation they would simply have to suck it up. With proper anti-discrimination laws, however, this hypothetical straight person would not be allowed to be fired. Pro G-BIT laws don't give anybody 'special rights'-they enhance the rights of everybody. It's just that some people will benefit from anti-discrimination laws more than others.

The coup de grace, however, is the inherent hypocrisy of 'special rights.' Religious organisations claim that gays will be receiving 'special rights' when it is in fact those same religious organisations that possess rights that nobody else has.

From The Age:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Rob Hulls will today announce a controversial compromise struck with the state's religious groups that will allow them to continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians, single mothers and people who hold different spiritual beliefs.

In a move that has delighted religious groups but angered gay activists and discrimination experts, Mr Hulls will protect the right of hundreds of church-run organisations - including schools, hospitals and welfare services - to refuse to employ or provide services to people who they believe may undermine their beliefs.

Quick translation: if you are religious, you are endowed with rights not granted to others. Nobody has the right to discriminate based on a person's personal beliefs-except for religious organisations. The same religious groups that rail against some people possessing 'special rights' (despite, as shown above, to be a lie) are the ones to seek special rights for themselves.

It is entirely correct to say that some people have more rights than others. True to form, those with special rights are those who have the most political power.

Old rice and monkey nuts*, religion and atheism.

The latest from Andrew "Manlier than Teddy" Bolt:

Another example of how atheists seem to be walking, ranting evidence of the need for Christianity’s civilising influence.

His evidence?
That's it. Catherine used a naughty word, which makes her "uncivilised." I don't see how Christianity is a necessarily 'civilising' influence: christianity has been a justification for countless atrocities-from the Inquisition, the KKK, the American Taliban, and just about every abortion bombing in the history of the US.

However, ol' Rusty isn't finished yet. For his next column:

...if the Christian God really is dead, then there’s not much to stop people here from being barbarians.

I’d have hoped that the Atheists Convention’s speakers would have reassured me not just by fine words but finer example that a godless society will nevertheless be a good one.

How about the obvious: that despite the US being one of the most outspokenly Christian countries (certainly in the Western world), on every parameter it fails in its Christian teachings? The US has an infant mortality rate worse than Cuba. It's the only developed country without universal health care. It's education is worse than most other developed countries.

Compare this with the Scandinavian countries, all of which are amongst the least religious countries of the world. Sweden and Norway are among the best in preventing infant mortality. They are ahead in literacy. They have among the best public services while in comparison, while the US's infrastructure is on the verge of collapse.

I'm not saying that there's an inverse causation between religion and the of a country (ie, that the more religious a country is, the more it fails on actually meeting its religious convictions in protecting its citizens). What I'm saying is that religion is irrelevant to morality in services. A country can be highly religious and deliver health-care that would shame the Scandinavia countries. It may be entirely atheistic and be reminiscent of Zimbabwe. Either way the concept that Christianity is somehow 'civilising' by itself is nothing short of crock.

To go even further, there is evidence of non-human moral behaviour; that the ideas of justice and ethics aren't exclusive to humanity. This, more than anything else, would put to rest the notion that atheists are inherently less moral than theists.

I have no idea what Bolt's religious convictions are. Given how he so intensely defends Christianity, I'm inclined to believe that he has some sort of spiritual belief. Perhaps he doesn't, I don't care. However, before he starts with the classic 'if we become atheists we won't have any skydaddy to tell us what's right and wrong so we'll all go back to the caves and smash each others' heads in with clubs and crowbars' meme, he may want to see how the smear holds up to reality.

*Hattip to the original Pure Poison.

Just to show that this blog is still technically active.

The Catholic Encyclopedia was opposed to women's suffrage. Basically, just par the course for the Vatican.

Some religions are more rational than other.

Incisive piece from Andrew "Spank me, Rupert!" Bolt, in which he reveals his views on some religions:

As I say, we’re on a retreat from reason:

THE Victorian Ombudsman has criticised a left-leaning inner-city council for spending $620,000 of ratepayers’ money on a self-styled “white witch” to assist with “change management”.

Port Phillip Council’s ad hoc but costly arrangement with pranic healing and astrology devotee Caroline Shahbaz was savaged in a report by the Ombudsman tabled in the Victorian parliament yesterday...It has also emerged that the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment has used Ms Shahbaz as a consultant, as have the Victorian Department of Planning, Parks Victoria, Melbourne Water and the Reserve Bank.

If you were wondering what kind of irrational, superstition-raddled brains left us with water supplies critically low, forests dangerously overloaded with fuel, housing land too scarce, and useless wind farms scarring the coastline to fight a warming that actually stopped a decade ago, now you know. It’s the kind of minds that took a witch for their guru.

Of course, could you imagine Rusty saying such things about Christianity? Or Judaism? Heck, even Islam?

Personally I see all religions, by and large, as irrational as each other*. Christianity involves magic Jewish zombies, Hinduism features a human/elephant/spider hybrid creature, and I don't know what paganism and witchery involve, but I doubt either is based on sound science. Religiously, I see no difference between a new-ager and a Baptist-so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me, I've got no problem.

With Bolt, and I imagine other conservatives, is that Christianity is more 'logical' than other religions-the only possible explanations I that the monotheistic religions are older and more common than more recent ones. Which aren't so much reasons as they are fallacies, but I doubt that's the point.

And, true to form, he can't help but use this case as a way to bash environmentalists. What witchery has to do with controlled burning, water supplies and sustainable energy sources is beyond me-and probably beyond Bolt, given that he doesn't give any link to his hyperbole.

*When I say 'irrational' I'm referring to the belief systems. One can certainly be an entirely rational person and be religious.

Pure misogyny: the sequel

A while back, I wrote a post regarding 'purity balls'. My main beef was the double standard; that sexual purity was/is only ever applied to girls, whilst boys were ignored. In hindsight, I now realise I missed something equally as problematic; that religious fundamentalists and hardline conservatives can't separate morality from sexuality (when I say 'sexuality' I'm referring to one's sexual self, not which sex they're attracted to. Sexual orientation is a component of sexual self, but the sexual self also encompasses views on sex, sexual drive, etc).

Check out 'sexual morality' and its sister page, 'sex-negativity'. It becomes very clear what the far-conservatives, religious and areligious, believe that any form of sexual expression outside of your married partner is inherently amoral, and this reflects on your person; that you are amoral as well. This is a concept so ridiculous I have a hard time trying to formulate a proper response, but this is a good example. Turtle is a prime example of sexual absolutism; s/he is unable to discern a hypothetical gay teacher's sexual orientation (viewed as sinful) from the teacher's moral beliefs. As far as Turtle is concerned, the teacher's immorality begins and ends with his sinful orientation-no other information, such as compassion or charity work, is required.

Similar, if more crude and insulting, views can be found by searching 'slut' or 'whore' in FSTDT. Once again, we peoples'-in this case womens'-morality totally defined by their sexual self.

This actually explains a great deal of fundie beliefs. Fundies believe that sexuality defines morality; therefore, someone who adheres to traditional sexuality (no premarital sex, no contraception et al) is moral, regardless of their other beliefs and actions. You can be pro-war, reject any compassion or kindness to the poverty stricken, you can lie, defame and hate those different from you, yet you are moral because of your sexuality. Equally, somebody who doesn't conform to such rigid sexual norms is amoral, no matter who they are. A sex worker may regularly fundrais to support anti-poverty measures, but they will still be considered completely devoid of morality by religious fundamentalists.

Shakesville gives an excellent statement regarding that 'sexuality as morality' philosophy, in this case in the context of purity balls:

This transaction immutably and inextricably links a girl's virginity with her character—to the exclusion, Hart worries, of all else. "[T]hese dads and daughters may be falling for the misperception … that some sort of righteousness is inherent in the status of virgin, or any outward appearance of propriety. But what if that same virginal girl has a heart full of bitterness, envy, lust, greed? Would her dad still be proud? Would she? Should they be?" Good questions all. Here's another: Is there not something deeply troubling about a parent who finds it quite impossible to be proud of his daughter, or a daughter who likewise finds it quite impossible to be proud of herself, if she has a heart full of love and kindness and generosity, and is also an unmarried non-virgin? How many girls, knowing their father's love and respect is contingent upon their "purity," will resist telling their fathers if they are molested, or raped?

To say that defining morality as sexuality is dangerous is a spectacular understatement. A low key example is this, where a city manager was fired because his wife is a porn actor. This also shows that people (such as the aforementioned Turtle) are unable to distinguish a person's private life from their public life. Mr. Janke was fired not because of ability to his job, but because the council was uncomfortable with his private life. I don't care if it was Ms. Janke who was the city manager; the idea that one's personal life is also their public life is ludicrous. Thankfully, the community is at worst, neutral, and a best, supportive of the Jankes.

This, I feel, doesn't only show the inherent danger of 'purity' but, on an unrelated note, provides an adequate explanation for the fundies' support for Bush; in return for their vote, he gave America abstinence-only indoctrination, disenfranchisement of gays, and attempted to roll back Roe v. Wade.

Other good stuff here, here and here.

Bigotry; it's OK if you've got an invisible skydaddy to back it up.

Recently, religious groups have got into a bit of a tizzy over potential discrimination clauses which may be changed, preventing 'religion' from being an excuse to discriminate against people they don't like (wrapped up, as always, under the cover of 'religious freedom').

I've covered this topic before; if religious freedom and and human rights clash, than human rights trump religious freedom. Period. If you think it's your religious freedom to discriminate, than by extension you must agree that a white principal can prevent a non-white applicant from teaching because it goes against the principal's genuine beliefs. Of course, if it was a Muslim school disallowing Christians from teaching (equally as abhorrent), you would be up in arms in outrage.

(And does anybody think it's rather unjust that religious bigots are allowed to discriminate, but non-believing bigots are not?)

Captain Lefty, does a better job here.

I watched 'God on My Side' recently.

Good lord, it was terrifying. The film pulls very few, if any, punches, delving deep inside the psychology of American Christian fundamentalism-one half of the Republican vote (other half being big business). The film shows in as impartial way as possible why it is so important to prevent fundies from returning to power-because they want theocracy.

GOMS establishes that the fundamentalists freely want to align the laws of America along their interpretation of Christian principles. With theocracy, the freedoms of religion perish. From the ten commandments outside government buildings, to teacher-lead prayer in schools, abortion and homosexuality illegalised,to abstinence-only indoctrination (I won't call it 'sex education' because 'abstinence-only sex education' is an oxymoron), the effects of American theocracy are terrifying.

American theocracy needs to be opposed because those policies above are the antithesis of a liberal democracy. What if a non-believing child doesn't wish to participate in school prayer? Who gets to decide what's morally 'right' in the bedroom, wherein all parties are consenting (indeed, such anti-Sodomy laws are highly reminiscent of anti-interracial laws)?

Fundies are unable to understand why separation doesn't protect only the state-it protects religion as well. Who gets to decide which interpretation of fundamentalist Christianity is correct? James Dobson? Joseph Ratzinger? Fred Phelps? All an America theocracy needs is a hardline-enough President, and Christian denominations with opposing beliefs will be illegalised. Democracy is a fundamental tenant of religious freedom. What is also seen is that fundamentalists view the past (pre-banning of prayer) as a golden age of morality. Fundamentalises would give David Irving a run for his money for historial revisionism; pre-1962, there was rampant racism, rape was legal, African-Americans couldn't vote, and McCarthyism had only just subsided.

What I find most unappealing about all fundamentalist religions (not merely Christianity), much more than the anti-science stances (creationism and stem cells, anyone?) is the total intolerance of any faiths other than their own, and the fundamentalist hatred this generates. These people believe that Earth enters the end times, they will enter heaven, and the rest of humanity will be left on a hellish earth. It doesn't matter how moral I am; that I support various human rights and anti-poverty organisations-I am a non-believer, and so I will spend all eternity in torture in the lake of fire, simply for being so.

Perhaps these so-called Christian folk could take a lesson or two from the Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

The irony! It burns!

Why is it that religious conservatives (Liberals, Republicans, Fielding...) who continue to say that "the science is out on climate change"-defying the consensus of 2000+ scientists-never apply their skeptical and inquisitive nature to their own religious beliefs? As Field Marshal Editor so brilliantly put:

If only the AGW model was proposed in a collection of 2000-year-old texts of dubious authorship. That way there would be enough evidence.

"Your feeble irony metres are no match for the power of the Dark Side!"

The Pope: irony meter-destroyer extraordinaire.

Pope Benedict XVI has warned against the misuse of religion for political ends, in a speech to Muslim leaders on the second day of his visit to Jordan.

Speaking in the King Hussein Mosque in Amman, he argued that religion was a force for good, but its "manipulation" caused divisions and even violence.

...

"Some assert that religion is necessarily a cause of division in our world and so they argue that the lesser attention given to religion in the public sphere the better," he said.

"Certainly, the contradiction of tensions and divisions between the followers of different religious traditions, sadly, cannot be denied.

"However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society?"

I’ve had it up to *here* with Ratzinger’s inanities. There has never been any religious organisation that has abused its power for political purposes as much as the Vatican. From imprisoning scientists who went against its beliefs, masquerading as a country on the world stage, committing genocide against African women through its (and I say, entirely intentional) refusal to upgrade its policies on sexuality beyond the Medieval ages, excommunicating a girl who had an abortion OTHERWISE SHE WOULD DIE, condoning the state-sanctioned execution of gays and of course, for decades protecting pedophiles from being prosecuted and deliberately allowing children to be abused, so long as nobody knew about it.

Because that’s what dictatorships* do-they do everything possible to retain and expand their power. Suppressing opposition (maybe that’s there Burma got the idea from), increasing its influence through the UN, enacting policies to producing the maximum number of Catholics regardless of who dies in the process, ruling through fear and threat of exclusion, and protecting its own matter what. The sooner the Vatican goes the way of past dictatorial empires, the better.

Hat tip to Stupid Evil Bastard.

*One man, with absolute power, who rules until death ...come on. Tell me that that isn’t a dictatorship.

Random thoughts on religion and evil.

(Private's note: I'm aware that after the picture, the font randomly changes. Blogger is currently being a shithead).

It's pretty well-established that religion is a common justification for evil. It's the classic "my God says it's true, therefore I must do it and I am absolved of all blame for my beliefs and actions." From the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, to the KKK, the IRA and Real IRA, to the Army of God, from the Taliban to al Qaeda...for some true comedy gold, check out the site 'Fundies Say the Darndest Things!,' where you get the feel for how religion can justify acts of horror. One of the most horrific recent examples is this:

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

“We arrested Samira Jassim, known as ‘Um al-Mumenin’, the mother of the believers, who was responsible for recruiting 80 women’‘, Major General Qassim Atta said.
“She confessed her responsibility for these actions, and she confirmed that 28 attempts had been made in one of the terrorists’ strongholds,’’ he said

Stupid Evil Bastard states:

Got that? This Muslim woman is so convinced that Allah is real instead of just a figment of her imagination that she ordered 80 of her fellow women to be raped specifically so they would be vulnerable to being pressured into becoming suicide bombers. She not only was convinced that suicide bombing was justified by her religion, but she felt justified in having her fellow Muslim women raped to further the cause she believed in. She is so convinced of the rightness of what she’s done in the name of Allah that she’s confessed to the crimes on video. She sees nothing wrong with it. It was a necessary thing to do because women are less likely to be searched at checkpoints making them more likely to get through with explosives under their robes.

It’s hard to imagine how anyone could consider this even remotely conscionable, yet here’s someone who’s convinced it was perfectly reasonable because she believes in an invisible sky fairy who will reward the women in the afterlife even if their sacrifice was coerced through rape and manipulation. What’s a little rape and exploitation when Allah will reward them for eternity once they blow themselves up? Only a True Believer™ could think like that.

This is one of the problems of atheism: that the line between atheism and antitheism is quite blurred, and easily cross into each other. Atheists tend to get caught up in their dislike of religion that they forget that if it weren't for religion, humanity would find other excuses such acts. Take, for example, the Rwandan Genocide. The genocide was the finality of the war, which itself was the fruit of European colonization (Germany and later Belgium 'racialised' the ethnic groups (with the Tutsis considered 'superior' to the Hutus), fostering a hatred between the ethnicities that accumunated in the genocide).

From TIME:

We step inside Nyamata church and my guide, Josh Ruxin, points out the wall where babies were smashed up against the brick.

...

A holocaust colors everything that follows, alters the essence of a nation. And it fosters a lasting mystery — an incomprehension over how man could behave so inhumanly to man. At his offices in Kigali, President Paul Kagame says: "Hutu fathers killed their own children because some of them resembled their wives, who were Tutsi. How do you explain that?"

This was an act of evil that stemmed from a raw, racist-nationalist hatred of another ethnic group. Religion played no part in its justification. If religion had been the justification for the Hutu genocide atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens would cite it as further proof of the raw evil that is religion.

Lt. Ville makes his point clear in this post:

And this my main gripe with dogma and religion: if people follow it so devoutly and if it is so contradictory, conflated and confused then, then there can be untold consequences. The Taliban, for example (an extreme one too), distort the message of the Koran to brainwash their militia. The question, then, is would they be able to do it as successfully or as passionately without the Koran? Could they be an irreligious militia and be just as effective? If so, then what’s the point in following (and subsequently misreading) the Koran anyway? And how might one vote differently if they were religious? They would have a different slant on things perhaps.

To conclude, I think it’s ridiculous to follow dogma as a way to guide one’s life. But I think you all know that already.

(my emphasis)

My answer is "Yes, you can be a sociopathic terrorist organisaton lacking in religion.” The Nazis and current neo-Nazis are mostly irreligious. Some neo-Nazis even believe that Christianity is a tool of Jews, because the New Testament continues from the Old. Neo-Nazis justify their evil by the belief that they are in a 'race war' and if they don't kill all the non-whites, then the non-whites (the footsoldiers of the Jews) will kill them.

Now, how different is that from the Taliban? The Taliban believe almost the same thing, only replacing 'whites' with 'ultraconservative hardline Muslims' and 'non-whites' with 'West.' What we have is almost identical beliefs, merely with differing justifications.

And if you don’t have nationalism, good ol’ vengeance works pretty well.

Atheists should also keep in mind that science has been used to justify evil. After the enlightenment, ‘God’ was no longer an acceptable answer for unanswered questions. People began examining and studying the world for answers, thus helping fuel the growth of the scientific method. However, during this time, slavery was still in existence, and “the good book says so” was no longer an appropriate answer (not on its own, anyway). So people turned to science to justify this evil-and scientific racism was born. Take, for example, this photo from Gliddon and Nott’s Indiginous Races of the Earth (1857).

This is a perfect example how science overtook religion as a justification for evil. Today, we can see a similar parallel with gay rights. Before, religion was the sole justification for the oppression of gays. Although religion still plays a part, homophobes are aware of the influence and power of science. This is where pseudo-scientists such as Paul Cameron come in. Cameron is a ‘scientist’ whose theories and methods have been debunked by various psychological organisations, such as the ASA and CPA. However, despite being discredited, Cameron still peddles his hatred disguised as science-that gays molest children, they're a public health hazard, they're diseased (I feel like I'm describing The Eternal Jew here)...you get the idea.

If Cameron is proof of anything, it is that science is as easily twisted and abused for evil as religion is.

Perhaps atheists should loosen their hang-ups on religion-if history has taught us anything (asides from the fact that we never learn from it), it's that people will use any excuse to justify evil. Religion is simply the most common.

Fun stuff can be read here, here and here.

Disguising a 14th century dictator as a 21st century moral leader is like "a giraffe in dark glasses trying to get into a polar-bears only golf club."

There's nothing like a Blackadder quote to start off a post, is there?

But anyway, there's been a bit of a kerfuffle of excommunications, un-excommunications and communion-denyings regarding the Vatican lately. For the ease of fellow groupthinkers bloggers, I thought I'd sort it all into one easy post.

Supporting Obama-denied communion, but not excommunicated.

Giving equal rights to women regarding sermons, and blessing gay couples-sacked.

Having an abortion or performing one-excommunication.

Denying the Holocaust-excommunicated, but later unexcommunicated. So OK.

Raping children-perfectly fine.

Thus, I think we can sum up the Pope's views as such: believing in human equality and autonomy is more sinful then denying the Holocaust and raping children.

As Admiral F. R. Phoenix stated:

To question the dogma, even when the questioner still believes enough in the dogma to continue to preach, is a rebellious act. The Catholic Church was founded on the actions and beliefs of a rebel! Evidently rebelliousness is only acceptable when convenient to the Church.

A healthy society permits rebelliousness and questioning. It it how laws and ideas are formed, it is how discoveries are made. Without rebels such as Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Galileo and Gandhi the world would be a much different place. A world I certainly wouldn't want to live in.

And Sarah, the voice of today's apethetic youth, commented:

I love how the Catholic church is so free with its 'forgiveness' when it comes to paedophile priests and holocaust deniers, but simply won't stand for someone who doesn't agree 100% with their petty dogma.

And above all else, Hank, of Ethics Gradient, brilliantly ranted*:

Does anyone take these Papist fuckers seriously anymore? If so, why? Exactly what function does the Papacy serve at the UN? Precisely what is accomplished by giving this pretend country/museum of iniquity and horror a vote equal to that of other nations who actually contain real people and not glorified statue-polishers? These Janitors for Jesus seem to do sweet fuck all except provide enough soundbites to show the world just exactly how out of step they are with evolved modern societies. There's a reason Europe & the world shunned the Papacy and its Inquisitions & Dark Age in favour of democracy & knowledge and the Papists show this to us all at every opportunity with statements like those of Migliore. What, if anything, does the Vatican contribute to the UN except embarrassing anachronistic remarks? Who exactly does the Vatican represent? A billion Catholics? No! They're all citizens of the other 190+whatever proper countries with seats at the UN.

Seriously, what it is going to take for the UN to realise that the Vatican should be seen and not freaking heard? It's like the embarrassing great-uncle at Christmas time whose rude, racist, homophobic & generally offensive remarks everyone tolerates because he's been around forever, has tons of cash & everyone knows he's losing his mind. Everyone knows he won't be around forever, including him, so everyone's just holding their tongue until he pops his clogs. Noone really knows (or cares) how he fits into the family tree except for the oldest rellies, but they don't like him either.

So, yes, SIGH, Mandy's got another frickin Catholic hate-boner. Again, I must point out it's not actual Catholics that inspire this rage. From any post on this blog marked "catholic" it should be pretty clear it's the administration, the empire and its spokes-idiots that raise my bile. I know full-well that there are plenty of other religious organisations that deserve at least equal loathing & dark wizardry, but there really are none that compare to the Vatican - the 1500 year old Christian empire, constant enemy of knowledge, science and societal evolution, constant defender of gender/sexual inequality & child-rapists. No other religious organisation has been around for as long & has its own pretend country & corresponding seat at the fucking UN. For every Catholic city mission, nobly handing out blankets and feeding the homeless, there's a statement from some senior manager, laying out the official policy that anyone who's not a Catholic male is basically fucked. No other nation/empire has as lengthy or as reprehensible a history when it comes to human rights. Crusades, Inquisitions, Nazi appeasement, enabling child-rapists, lying about condoms & AIDS (condeming untold numbers to death), railing against masturbation, contraception AND abortion (effectively a three-pronged attack against sexual freedom of choice of any kind) and now, effectively condoning the executions of gays in tin-pot shitty little theocracies across the world.

Seriously, what the fuck is going to wake the UN up to this antiquated museum masquerading as a nation? Do they just keep them around to piss the Arabs off?

Bah, whatever, Merry fucking Christmas. Fuck the Pope and all his little wizards.

Seriously, I can't wait 'til the day the Vatican dies off.

*OK, so particular Vatican idiocy is different in Hank's tirade (namely, the Pope supporting the death penalty). Still, his comments are relevant in every way.

UPDATE @ almost 2200, 25/2/2009: I almost forgot to add one more for the list:

Lying when it suits your political agenda: asides from the fact that it goes against everything Jesus said, why not?

UPDATE 2 @ 1900, 7/3/2009: From Brazil:
A child victim of rape who could die from giving birth is less important then a pair of zygotes.

And from SEB: EDUCATION IS THE DEVIL, IT IS!

They make "Get in the kitchen, bitch!" sound so empowering for women

Redirected from Warrant Officer F. R. Phoenix, comes this:

A group of conservative Christian women is seeking 100,000 signatures on a "True Woman Manifesto" aimed at sparking a counter-revolution to the feminist movement of the 1960s.

Introduced at a gathering of more than 6,000 women in early October, the document calls not for equal rights, but instead proclaims that men and women are created to reflect God's image in "complementary and distinct ways."

That includes the idea that women are called "to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church."

And from RD:

The terms of the [True Woman] manifesto (downloadable here) serve as a good shorthand description of the aims and principles of the submission and patriarchy movement. Signers affirm their belief that women and men were designed to reflect God in “complementary and distinct ways”; that today’s culture has gone astray distinctly because of its egalitarian approach to gender (and that it’s “experiencing the consequences of abandoning God’s design for men and women”); and that while men and women are equally valuable in the eyes of God, here on earth they are relegated to separate spheres at home and in the church.

What puzzles me (even more so then anti-feminism women, if that's even possible) is that if God designed men and women to suit different roles, how come men and women can perform either role so easily? You'd think if women were practically genetically programed to pump out babies like rabbits and be submissive housewives, they wouldn't be able to hold down a job. Likewise, men would have no ability to cook or clean. But, we do. And in doing so, both genders have blown out of the proverbial water the notion that gender = predetermined role.

And on a final note: if God hates feminism (which, according to these guys and fundies in general), why didn't he stop it in its tracks a 100+ years ago? I thought the guy* was omnipotent.

*And of course, God would have to be a white, heterosexual man. The fact that whites, heterosexuals and men (especially when all three are combined) have brutally dominated the globe is totally coincidental.

Cross-posted here.

My spiritual journey.

First up-sorry for the constant lack of posts (although the previous post should have kept all readers epically busy). There just isn't much to get outraged by these days*. I'll dig through my articles on the computer and see if there's anything of interest.

I would, however, like to state that I have undergone something of a religious development. Initially, I was an agnostic. It was my hope and belief that there was some sort of beyond-world, where people could be held account for crimes for which they were not held on our world. I never knew what this 'beyond-world' was. It could be the classic Christian idea of heaven and hell. Equally, it could be the Hindu concept of reincarnation. I never went further then this belief.

But, since several days ago, I've begun to hunger for something more. The mere hope that there was something beyond us failed to satisfy me; I needed something more. I wanted more from this life. And through that convoluted process, I became an atheist.

Now there was a predictable plot twist.

Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that hope in no way means belief. Some sort of beyond-world system of justice (whether this system is dictated by a deity or not is irrelevant. I've never believed in any sort of god) would be great, and it is something I still hope for. However, I've decided that without any observable evidence, this mystical beyond-world simply does not exist.

To finish, I'd like to show a picture I've always enjoyed-a type of futuristic shanty town. Courtesy of MeganeRid of DeviantArt, 'Top of Their World.'


*Perhaps I should start reading the Sun.

Pure misogyny

Ever heard of purity balls? (here's that epic rant I was talking about)
From Wikipedia:

A purity ball is a formal event attended by fathers and their daughters. Purity balls promote virginity until marriage for teenaged girls, and are often closely associated with U.S. Christian churches, particularly fundamentalist churches.

Purity balls can vary in many particulars, but fathers who attend typically pledge to protect their young daughters' purity in mind, body and soul. Daughters are expected to remain virgins, abstaining from pre-marital sexual intercourse. A stronger father-daughter relationship is promoted as a means to affirm spiritual and physical purity.

Some Lefties might wonder why there aren't mother/son purity balls. But why should boys be held to the same 19th century standards of morality as girls? It's totally unfair; as the good Sheik said, we menfolk are totally subverted to the capricious whims of our ids, and possess not one iota of self control. Women, on the other hand, should definitely be held to ludicrous standards that only a saint could reach. Outrageous sexism is not just condoned, but endorsed in the Bible!

Which is the entire problem of purity; it's only ever applied to girls. It's an outdated concept that is practiced almost universally; from genital mutilation in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, to abstinence and virginity (for girls only, of course) in the West. "...fathers who attend typically pledge to protect their young daughters' purity in mind, body and soul." How exactly do they plan on doing that? Do these fathers plan of educating their daughters on sex, what happens, how to prevent pregnencies and STDs and in general improve their general knowledge on sexuality? Or do these loving dads instead plan on keeping their daughters completely in the dark on reproductive health?

Take a guess. By purity's nature, boys are exempt. Jesus may have been second only to Mohammad in prudishness, but he seemed to apply his ludicrously high standards equally to both sexes. Try typing 'purity ball boy' or 'purity ball son' into Google: these sites are what you get.

This sums up the misogyny of purity; if there is a problem, it's the woman's fault. Period. If a woman flaunts herself, and a guy ogles her, then it's her fault that he has no self control. It is, as the aforementioned Sheik stated, the failing of the uncovered meat rather then the violent, sociopathic cat. It should also be noted that 19th century misoyny is hardly confined to these religions-Judaism has its own branch of ultra-violence (of course, due to the fear that critisising branches of Judaism or certain Israeli policies makes you a neo-Nazi, such Taliban-style violence gets a free pass in the media).

It's always fascinated me how misogyny is so accepted in our society. One would think that after two waves of feminism, one would think that blatent sexism would be a little less tolerated in society. Could you imagine the outrage if someone stated that black people had to remain pure until they were married? Hell, it's all the same.

The logical conclusion of this ideology, of course, is this.

Cross-posted here and here.