The Boobquake

Remember what that crazy muslim cleric said some days ago?

Well, so much retardedness could not go unnoticed.

Jen McCreight, a.k.a. Blag Hag, an atheist (yeah, what did you expect?) took action and decided it was time for a "Boobquake"

On Monday, April 26th, I will wear the most cleavage-showing shirt I own. Yes, the one usually reserved for a night on the town. I encourage other female skeptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that's your preferred form of immodesty. With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I'm sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn't rumble. And if we really get through to him, maybe it'll be one involving plate tectonics.

That could have been a lone and small move in one of millions of blogs that are in the interwebs.

But there is Facebook, where the idea liked so much it already has more than 60,000 attendees.

Enough to make it to CNN:

Blogger: Show cleavage to test cleric’s quake theory

It started as a college student’s snide response to an Iranian cleric’s assertion that scantily clad women cause earthquakes.

But as of Thursday, it had become much, much bigger.

Jen McCreight, a self-described atheist, feminist and geek “trapped in Indiana,” took issue with Hojatoleslam Kazim Sadeghi’s message during Friday prayers in Tehran, the Iranian capital.

The hard-line cleric, who was standing in for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, said women who dress provocatively – thereby tempting men – are to blame for the world’s temblors.

So, if what this Muslim cleric said is right, since there will be a huge number of women dressed in provocative clothes, there will be a huge quake. If there is no quake, that cleric will be proven a liar or an idiot.

Ok, so what the outcome is going to be? First of all, I really, really hope that there are going to be a lot of women dresses in their best flesh-showing clothes. Not only for the visual attractive, but because it will show that there are many who supported this fun and intelligent campaign.

However, as Iran sits on many faults, it is likely that a quake will strike in the next, let's say, 5 years.

And surely then that retarded cleric will come out and say "I told you, Allah (shit be upon him) is angry, and even though He took years to punish us, He did.

Stupid people will believe. But hopefully the people that share the same values as the Blag Hag will stand up against that and say "that is bullshit."

I have faith in them

Finally, one of my favorite pair of boobs in one of my favorite women



To join, again, this is the event on Facebook.

South Park creators threatened for *not even showing* Muhammad's image. Guess by who

No matter how much we can criticize Christianity or Judaism or any other set of beliefs, we have to admit their degree of intolerance will hardly hold sway against what Muslims can show us



So, first: They didn't even show Muhammad's image. Yet, it's sole mention is enough to drive radicals to threaten with death to the South Park creators and end up "like Theo Van Gogh" who, as the report said, directed a film criticizing Islam and was killed by a radical Muslim.

This sole fact is enough to show to what extents Muslim fanaticism can go. There are plenty of films and documentaries criticizing Christianity, I think the last and most successful was Religulous. Yet, as much as its creator, Bill Maher can be despised by the religious, he hasn't received death threats, less attempts to kill him.

Theo Van Gogh didn't have that much luck, the only difference being that he criticized a less tolerant and more fanatic set of beliefs.

Second: The website states that their statement is not a threat, but a warning. Does "if you do such a thing, you *might* end up killed, in the same way that another person who (according to our standards) disrespected what we hold so precious" doesn't sound like a threat? Obviously, it does.

Third: According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (the writer of the film directed by Theo Van Gogh) the Quran calls for the assassination of anyone who criticizes Allah, the Quran or the prophet Muhammad. Yet, many Muslims don't act upon such call. That's a good thing, the same thing that many Christians do, so that they don't act following crazy statements in the bible. That kind of "cherry-picking" is ok, until the argument that "the bible is the word of God and, therefore, perfect" is made. Then it just sounds hypocritical.

Fourth: South Park creators say that it would be "hypocritical" to not make fun of Mohammad after making fun of almost everyone. Yet, they had the images of Muhammad covered. It's clear that they are afraid, even in a society in which freedom of expression is regarded as one of most essential rights. To that extent has reached the Muslim fanaticism.

Finally, there is one "what if": What if those weren't "real Muslims" and just Jews disguised as Muslims trying to make Islam look bad. Because, you know, threatening people and acting violent after Islam has been criticized is not what Muslims usually do. Islam is a religion of peace, right?



Riiiiight...

Quotable Quote XLVI

“On the point about the right to manifest religion; under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights that is a qualified right. You don't have the right to manifest your religion if the way in which you want to manifest your religion interferes to a disproportionate extent with someone else's right, including someone else's right to be treated without discrimination. The fact that your religion gives you an incentive to discriminate against other people doesn't give you a lawful excuse for doing that.”

Dinah Rose QC

El Pat Robertson Iraní: Los terremotos son causados por sexo fuera del matrimonio

Si pensaban que solo los fundamentalistas cristianos estadounidenses tenían el monopolio de la estupidez a la hora de explicar el origen de los terremotos, se equivocaron

Sexo fuera del matrimonio produce terremotos: Clérigo Iraní

Un clérigo iraní ha declarado que las mujeres vestidas elegantemente incitan al sexo fuera del matrimonio, lo cual causa más terremotos en Irán, un país que se extiende sobre varias fallas, reportaron periódicos el domingo pasado.

Perra!

La vestimenta de las mujeres nos condenarán a todos.

No voy a explicar el por qué esto es estúpido. Quiero pensar que la gente que lee estas líneas puede darse cuenta de ello. Pero el líder islámico (¿Creyeron que sería un líder secular? ¿En Irán? ¿Acaso eso existe?) lo explica:

“Muchas mujeres se visten inapropiadamente, causando que la juventud se pierda, poniendo en riesgo su castidad, e incitando al sexo pre-matrimonial en la sociedad, lo cual aumenta los terremotos,” dijo el Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi a los fieles en Tehran durante la oración del viernes.

De verdad, es difícil comprender qué clase de mente pueden tener tales “fieles”, los cuales siguen y obedecen a tal clérigo, un clérigo con experiencia y que ha estado en el cargo por varios años, el cual muy probablemente ha estado declarando otras incoherencias de este tipo.

Los cristianos fundamentalistas estadounidenses pueden ir a varios extremos cuando se trata de hablar estupideces. Afortunadamente, los Estados Unidos es aun un país bastante secular, comparado con Irán. El cual es una teocracia en la cual, entre varias reglas impuestas por el clero, se encuentra la represión de la mujer mediante el cubrimiento de sus cuerpos.

¿Qué pasaría si los terremotos fuesen causados por la estupidez de la ley islámica? En verdad, es tan probable como que sean causados por las vestimentas de las mujeres o el sexo fuera del matrimonio. Ambas posibilidades son completamente incoherentes.

Lo cual no es poco común en el Islam.

The Iranian Pat Robertson: Quakes are fueled by extramarital sex.

If you thought that only the American Christian fundamentalists had the monopoly of stupidity when it comes to explaining the origin of quakes, think again:

Extramarital sex fuels earthquakes: Senior Iran cleric

A senior Iranian cleric has claimed that dolled-up women incite extramarital sex, causing more earthquakes in Iran, a country that straddles several fault lines, newspapers reported on Saturday.

Women's bodies will doom us all

I won’t even explain why this is retarded. I like to think that most people will notice that. But the Muslim leader (what? You thought it was a secular leader? In Iran? Do those even exist?) explains it:

"Many women who dress inappropriately ... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes," Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi told worshippers at Tehran Friday prayer.

Seriously, it’s hard to comprehend what kind of mind those “worshipers” have, that follow and obey such a cleric, a senior cleric, nonetheless, who is very likely to have been babbling these kind of stuff for a long time.

American Christians can go to serious extremes regarding outlandish statements. Fortunately the United States is still a pretty secular country, compared to Iran, a theocracy in which, among many rules declared so by the clergy, is the repression of women by means of covering their whole bodies.

What if the quakes were really caused by the stupidity of the Islamic law? Really, it is as likely as being triggered by women’s clothes. Both are retarded explanations.

Nothing uncommon in Islam.

El Papa, la cárcel y el escándalo

Si siguen las noticias internacionales y han estado prestando atención a los asuntos de la iglesia católica, entonces saben qué esta lo que está pasando actualmente. En caso no lo sepan, este es el asunto:

Inglaterra: buscarán la detención del Papa durante su visita


Dos científicos británicos buscarán la detención del papa Benedicto XVI por “crímenes contra la humanidad” durante su próxima visita al Reino Unido, luego de que algunas acusaciones apuntan a que él ayudó a encubrir abusos de curas pedófilos.

El científico Richard Dawkins y el periodista Christopher Hitchens tienen intención de entablar las acciones necesarias ante la justicia británica y la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) de La Haya, indicó el abogado del primero, Mark Stephens, al diario The Guardian.

A pesar de lo alucinante que suena esto, no es del todo exacto. Los primeros reportes dieron la idea de que los mismos Dawkins y Hitchens, con un grupo de policías, irían a recibir al Papa al aeropuerto a aprehenderlo.

Bueno, la cosa no es así. En palabras de Dawkins:

Christopher Hitchens primero me propuso la idea de una maniobra legal, el 14 de Marzo. Le respondí con entusiasmo, y le sugerí el nombre de una abogada muy conocida por casos de derechos humanos. Sin embargo, había perdido su dirección, por lo que me puse a buscarla. Mientras tanto Christopher hizo la brillante sugerencia de Geoffrey Robertson. Lo contactó, y el artículo de Mr. Robertson en The Guardian, titulado “Put the Pope in the Dock” (Pongan al Papa en la carcel) lo muestra como alguien idóneo.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366.

El caso está obviamente en buenas manos, con él y Mark Stephens. Yo me encuentro intrigado por la propuesta de impugnar la legalidad del Vaticano como estado soberano cuyo líder de estado puede clamar inmunidad diplomática.

Así que si bien Dawkins apoya esta iniciativa, quienes la están llevando a cabo son los abogados.

Ahora, yo dudo mucho que esta movida vaya a funcionar. No creo que el Papa vaya a ir a la carcel, a pesar de que debería ir si se prueba que sabía sobre los abusos sexuales, pero no hizo nada para castigar a los abusadores. Tampoco creo que siquiera vaya a ir a juicio aunque, de nuevo, deba.

Lo que creo que va a suceder es que la iglesia católica va a perder bastante apoyo y credibilidad. Y eso es algo bueno.

Sabemos quién es Richard Dawkins. Sabemos que está aprovechando la oportunidad para golpear a la iglesia con toda la fuerza que pueda.

¿Es eso criticable? No. Porque es la reacción lógica.

Uno no necesita ser Richard Dawkins, o siquiera un no-creyente, para indignarse ante los miles de casos de abuso que la iglesia católica, como institución, ha cubierto y, al hacerlo, condonado y permitido. Cualquier persona con dos dedos de frente puede ver que la iglesia católica le da más importancia a su imagen y relaciones públicas que al bienestar de los niños que fueron puestos a su cargo, confiando en los sacerdotes que fueron educados bajo las directrices de dicha iglesia.

La iglesia católica necesita perder parte de su poder, poder dado por todos aquellos que la siguen como si se tratase de un faro en un mar oscuro. Es necesario desconfiar de sus sacerdotes, y que estos se ganen la confianza de la gente como cualquier otra persona a la que se le confían menores de edad. También es necesario el que se le responsabilice por los crímenes que ha ayudado a encubrir, con la idea de mantener una buena y santa imagen ante el mundo.

Por supuesto, habrá quienes se opongan a esta iniciativa. Habrá quienes defenderán a la iglesia a capa y espada, sin importar cuantas pruebas de dichos abusos salgan a la luz, y cuantas veces los abusadores fueron protegidos. Defenderán al Papa aunque se encuentre que no hizo suficiente para evitar tales abusos. Ese es el tipo de gente que necesita desesperadamente creer que Dios está cerca de ellos y es representado por una iglesia compuesta por hombres; y sin importar nada, preferirán ver tales crímenes sin castigo que el perder la seguridad que tal institución brinda.

Pero también habrá quienes tengan justicia en mente y actúen en base a esta, así eso signifique el criticar al Papa. Para ellos, mis respetos.

Ratzinger difícilmente irá a juicio. Sería excelente si fuese, pues demostraría que nadie es demasiado poderoso o demasiado importante como para que no sea juzgado.

The Pope, the atheist, and the jail

If you follow international news and pay attention to the ones referred to the catholic church, then you know what is going on right now. In case you don’t know, the ongoing topic right now is this:

Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI



RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

As epic as this sounds, it’s not quite accurate. It gives the idea that Dawkins himself (actually, along with Christopher Hitchens) are going to wait for the Pope to come down his plane and, with a bunch of cops, take him prisoner.

Well, it’s not that much. According to Dawkins himself:

Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366.

The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

So, while Dawkins is a strong supporter of this initiative, the ones actually carrying this action are the lawyers.

Now, I am really doubtful that this is going to work. I don’t think that the Pope is going to go to prison, even though he should if proven that he knew about the abuses and did nothing to prevent more or to punish the sex abusers correctly. I don’t think that he is even going to face trial, even though, again, he should.

What I think is that the Catholic Church is going to lose a lot of support and credibility. And that is a good thing.

We know who Richard Dawkins is. We know he is using this situation to attack the Pope and the Catholic Church with an ungodly force.

But that is the perfect and logical thing to do.

One doesn't need to be Richard Dawkins or even a non-believer to be outraged at the thousand of abuse cases that the catholic church, as an institution has covered and, by doing so, condoned. Any person in his right mind can see that the catholic church gives more importance to its image and public relations than to the children's well-being, children that were given to it and supposed to be taken care by priests who were educated following the guidelines of such church.

The catholic church needs to lose part of its power, power given by many who trust it as a lighthouse in a sea of darkness. It's priests need to be distrusted at first and then gain the confidence they deserve, just like anybody. It also needs to be held accountable by the many crimes it has helped to cover, just to keep a good and holy image towards the world.

Of course, there are going to be those who will oppose this initiative. They will defend the church and protect the church, no matter how many proofs there are that show its abuses and how the abusers were protected. They are going to defend the Pope even if it is found out that he didn't do much to prevent such abuses. That is the kind of people who need desperately to believe that God is near them and is represented by a church made of men, and no matter what, they will prefer keep its crimes unpunished than lose that security that such institution gives.

But also there are going to be some that will stand for justice, even if that means criticizing the Pope. To them, my respects.

The Pope is very unlikely to stand trial. It would be great if he did, since it would show that no one is too high or too important for justice not to get him.

La víctima es el culpable. Es palabra de Dios

O más bien, palabra de los sacerdotes, quienes son los pastores del rebaño de Dios

El obispo de Tenerife: 'Hay menores que desean el abuso e incluso te provocan'

"Puede haber menores que sí lo consientan -referiéndose a los abusos- y, de hecho, los hay. Hay adolescentes de 13 años que son menores y están perfectamente de acuerdo y, además, deseándolo. Incluso si te descuidas te provocan". Con estas palabras ha descrito el máximo responsable de la Iglesia en Tenerife, el obispo Bernardo Álvarez, el grave problema de los abusos a menores en una entrevista en el diario local 'La Opinión'.

Si nos ponemos así, entonces también podemos decir que son las mujeres las que incitan a que uno las viole, con las sugerentes prendas que se ponen, que muestran piernas y escotes. Si lo están mostrando es porque quieren que las violen.

El cinismo y la desesperación que los sacerdotes católicos tratan de quitarle la responsabilidad de los abusos a la iglesia católica como institución, es abrumadora. Ahora resulta que según este tipo (no un simple católico, o un simple cura, sinó un obispo, nada menos) pretende decirnos que la culpa es de los propios niños.

¿No se supone acaso que el sacerdote hace votos de castidad ante Dios?

¿No se supone acaso que la homosexualidad es un pecado (según la iglesia católica)?

¿No es acaso el abuso de menores un delito?

¿Entonces con qué cara se pretende eximir a la iglesia católica de la responsabilidad de estos hechos?

El obispo además compara la homosexualidad con los abusos y, aunque asegura que la diferencia entre la homosexualidad y los abusos está clara, plantea una pregunta: "¿por qué el abusador de menores es enfermo?".

En cuanto su opinión sobre los homosexuales, Álvarez, pese a que asegura respetar esta condición sexual vuelve a mostrar su lado más crítico y afirma que "el fenómeno de la homosexualidad es algo que perjudica a las personas y a la sociedad".

Esta es a todas luces un desesperado manotazo de ahogado. Los homosexuales, dentro de una sociedad lo suficientemente tolerante (he ahí la palabra clave) pueden formar familias y llevar una vida social común y corriente. Ya en varios países dos adultos conscientes de sus actos pueden contraer matrimonio, siendo del mismo sexo. Y al ser dos adultos, dentro de una sociedad tolerante, no hacen daño a nadie.

Cosa que sí hace un sacerdote que viola a un niño, incapaz de negarse, ante la autoridad que el cura representa.

Cosa que también hace la iglesia católica, al encubrir a los violadores católicos, para así seguir perpetuando una "buena imagen".



En este caso, y aunque se amarguen mis amigos derechohumanistas, apoyo completamente lo que acaba de decir el obispo Bambarén sobre la pena que debieran recibir los violadores de niños:

“Para el único caso que Dios pone pena de muerte es para el que escandaliza a un niño y que más escándalo que violarlo. Por parte de la iglesia (Católica) debemos mantener esa posición, yo sí estaría de acuerdo”, dijo en declaraciones a Radio Capital que recoge Perú.com.

Es inconsecuente con el No Matarás, pero me parece una excelente idea. Ojalá incluya a los encubridores, así sean Papas.

Ya ni las estatuas del niño Jesús están a salvo.

Recopilación según San Otorongo

El Otorongo es una publicación peruana de humor político. Y como en Perú la iglesia siempre ha estado en buenos términos con el gobierno, esta no se ha salvado de su rugido:

There was just an earthquake on Easter day

Yeah, that was an earthquake. So, it's very probable someone is going to say:

"It is a sign that Jesus rose from the dead"

More over, if that someone is a staunch catholic:

"It's a sign that God is angry at the people who are trying to destroy His church"

Well, if you hear that, it's very probable you are going to want to say something back. Here are some ideas:

"God is angry at the pedophile priests"

Pretty easy, right? And just as true as the "God is angry at the people accusing the pedophile priests".

"The goddess Eostre is angry at the world for celebrating Jesus and not her".

Myth against myth. Oh, who is Eostre you ask? Well, in few words, it's the Anglo-saxon Goddess that is said to have originated the celebration of Easter, way before Jesus came on the scene.

"Americans are trying their earthquake-making weapon to separate Mexico from the United States, just like they tried it on Haiti"

This is going to be a favorite for my anarchist/communist friends who advocate that the United States is the Antichrist.

"The Mayans predicted it"

Mayans FTW!

Anyway, those are some I can think of. The truth is, no matter what you do or what you believe in or to what you attribute the quake, quakes happen. It doesn't matter if you went to church today, or for the last 3 days, or for the last 40 days. It doesn't matter if you didn't go at all. There are quakes and the only ones who will give an educated explanation are geologists. They studied, therefore, they know, at least more than you and I.

What can we do? Be prepared, of course. Plan ahead, have some canned food, buy a radio, get a weapon. And help others, you might need their help later.