If this is Blasphemy, let God come down and tell me

He/She/it surely won't, since he might not care, might not be able, or just might not exist, which is the most logical conclusion.


The problem with blasphemy is that it can range from working on Sundays to tackling the Pope (which I have to admit is somehow funny), depending on how deranged people's beliefs are. It depends on the people making that claim that something is blasphemy since God will not come down to Earth to tell us exactly what is an offense to Him/Her/It.



Moreover, if we consider than an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God can get offended by anything we human beings do, we are certainly talking about a pretty little, miserable short-sighted being who needs lesser beings to defend Him/Her/It from whatever others do.

Apparently, Allah is terrorized by the West's freedom of speech. Well, that's a
pretty miserable and weak god we have there.

In other words, blasphemy is not about God, could not be about God. It's about His/Her/Its bigoted and intolerant fans, who can't bear have their cherished and nonsensical beliefs mocked, or even, just questioned and criticized, usually with a pretty good reason. This is what happens when faith pretends to be above everything else in a person's life. The more fanatical, the more a "Jesus Freak" a person is, the more God loves them, that's the message religion brings. For Muslims, just change "Jesus" with Allah and there we have a couple of towers coming down.


Now, add to that equation how politically incorrect it is to criticize religion, especially when it's taken as a breaching of someone's "Freedom of religion". Moreover, add the horror and despair that are brought when that religion belongs to some foreign, usually non-white, group of people, since criticizing such belief is "racist" or "xenophobic", and you'll have some retarded legislation against blasphemy.

Both of them would be art (a pretty dick art if you ask me)
but because of the protection Islam has thanks to multiculturalism,
this is what we have

Fortunately there is still hope since the UN, which some years ago supported legislation against "defamation of religion", now sheds away the politically correct crap and notices that freedom of expression can't be thwarted by what is perceived as freedom of religion.

United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme Late last month, the UN issued a new statement on the extent of freedom of speech under international law. It says that laws restricting blasphemy as such are incompatible with universal human rights standards.

Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.

Laws against blasphemy or “religious insult” (found throughout the world, including half of all Council of Europe member states) are inherently discriminatory against secularists and religious dissenters. They are discriminatory in that secularists have no legal recourse—nor should they—when the words of believers offend their moral sensibilities, nor can gays take the publishers of Leviticus to court for the spiritual affront to them that it surely is. Skeptics and heterodox believers, on the other hand, do have an Article 18 right to live and speak according to their conscience even when it offends the orthodox.

Believers usually have their "freedom of religion" as a shield to insult gays, non-believers and even other religious groups, but whine and pout when someone dares to point out their hypocrisy and intolerance. The only "but" I could have regarding this issue, is that blasphemy should be made in a tasteful manner. It's different to say "The only church that illuminates is a burning one" than "Fuck Jesus in the ass".

These can be considered blasphemous, but who cares, they are awesome

Fortunately, the tendency is for religious influence in laws and in public to go down. A better world is possible.

Breaking: Osama is Dead. Also, he wasn't a Muslim

Yesterday night we all got the news that Obama was going to say something important, and it didn’t took long until it was revealed that the big news were Osama’s death. Obama’s was going to give his speech at 10:30 and I had to listen to it. It went pretty well at least at first:

I just hope this is actually true

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

Uh… ok, yeah, it doesn’t really matter, if you acknowledge some pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go on.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not --- and never will be --- at war with Islam. I've made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam.

Yeah, that makes sense; there are Muslims who respect others’ rights and liberties and Muslim fanatics that just understand whatever they want to understand. Those are the ones you were fighting, right?

Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

What?

What the fuck?

Are you kidding me?

Bin Laden was an extremist Muslim who believed in Shariah law, and Al Qaeda was an extremist Sunni Muslim organization, and the fact that they killed Muslims doesn’t exempt them of being Muslims, just like the people who murder abortion doctors in their own church are just as Christians as anyone who believes in Christ. It’s their twisted way to believe, but until those deities come down and explain what they really want, they all could be correct.

Obama obviously was playing the political correct card here. Deny a fact so that everyone is happy. Well, if he had said Osama was a Muslim (which he was) there would have been more probabilities to have a plane delivered at his home. And in the same way, stating that Osama is not a Muslim makes it less probable to have crazy Muslims rioting all over the world. Because he knows, as well as most of us, that there would have been some of that. Yeah, keep the political correctness.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

And that was the icing to the cake. I think Obama was trying to appeal to everyone, his democrats who will be cheering Obama’s name, and republicans, who will love to see America’s big enemy dead and their beloved God and pledge of allegiance recognized and connected to that event. No one left to point out that Obama just kissed some major Muslim ass.

Moreover, consider that, while we were told that Osama was not a Muslim, it surfaced that he had been buried at see, “according to Islamic teachings”. So, is he or isn’t he a Muslim?

Finally, since there is no body to be shown to the public, especially considering how much many would have liked to see that, I hope there is some pretty strong evidence that this announcement was true. Otherwise, the backslash for Obama would be terrible, even though he might deserve it. So until there is more evidence that Bin Laden is actually dead, I’ll remain "agnostic" about the issue.

And just so you know, this picture is fake

Sila Sahin vs Islam: Because women can't do with their bodies as they wish

I like to think humanity has reached a consensus in which we understand that each person is his/her own master and can take the decisions that seem better for their lives. But then, even with the politically correct multiculturalists trying to convince us of the contrary, religious hordes bring us back to reality, a reality almost taken from the dark ages.

Some days ago, Turkish actress Sila Sahin appeared naked on Playboy to break free from her "slavery" as a Muslim girl.

"What I want to say with these photos is, 'Girls, we don't have to live according to the rules imposed upon us,'" Sahin told Playboy.

However, the idea seems to only have reached a few, since her conservative Muslim family didn't take it very well. Furthermore, the Muslim community in Germany (where Sila lives and works as an actress) felt outraged that a young woman would want to break free from their customs.

Sila says ""For years I subordinated myself to various societal constraints. The Playboy photo shoot was a total act of liberation." After breaking those constraints, she was treated as a pariah by her family. Such a nice family and culture, right?

This is what happens when a group of people, inspired by their religion, bases its honor between its women's legs. Their bodies belong to anyone but them, and very frequently those who are supposed to help and support them, end up being part of the problem.

The muslim community's opinion goes from accusing her of "shaming Muslim womanhood" to branding her as a prostitute. Some even warn her to "be careful". And the Islamic Community of Germany has called for a boycott to her show,

She said: "I have always abided by what men say. As a result I developed an extreme desire for freedom. I feel like Che Guevara. I have to do everything I want, otherwise I feel like I may as well be dead."

Sila looks happy. Maybe it's just great acting, but it's pretty evident that what she did was becase she desired to. But when we talk about a religion that inspires a culture of repression and submission, those desires are subjected to anacronic laws and customs that nowadays, no matter how much liberals cringe, are pure bullshit.

Certainly there are many who practice the Muslim religion with respect for others and living good lives. But there are others who, in the name of that same religion, commit the worst atrocities. And both groups claim the others are the fake Muslims. Moreover, in places where Islam rules, human rights, especially women's and gays' are usually threatened. So we can't actually talk about just a group of people, but instead, entire societies in which the status quo keeps women one step backwards.

By getting naked, Sila doesn't harm anyone, only to those who just like to feel offended when something doesn't go according to their whims. It's pretty much like the spoiled child that cry when its parents don't do as it wishes, and in this case, Islam is the child and multiculturalism is its loving but misguided and irresponsible parent. If we criticized Islam as much as we do with Christianity, the reality would be different.

Finally, if you want to see for yourself Sila's picture, you can visit my friend Shigure's blog. You won't be disappointed.

On how the burning of a book became worse than the slaughter of people for retarded reasons

Remember the case of the crazy pastor (I know this is kind of redundant, but this guy is worse than the usual) who wanted to burn a Koran and even Obama came out to ask him to do so?

Well, he finally did it:

Koran burnt in Florida church

The burning was carried out by pastor Wayne Sapp under the supervision of Terry Jones, who last September drew sweeping condemnation over his plan to ignite a pile of Korans on the anniversary of September 11, 2001 attacks.

Sunday's event was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found "guilty" and "executed."

The jury deliberated for about eight minutes. The book, which had been soaking for an hour in kerosene, was put in a metal tray in the center of the church, and Sapp started the fire with a barbecue lighter.

A very dick thing to do, especially considering that Muslim extremists are violent enough to go on a murderous spree as they did when the Muhammad cartoons were published. If can have faith in something, it’s in the fanaticism that religions inspire

Ten dead in Afghan Quran burning protests

At least 10 people have been killed and 83 wounded in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, officials said on Saturday, on a second day of violent protests over the burning of a Quran by a radical fundamentalist Christian in the United States.

A suicide attack also hit a NATO military base in the capital Kabul, the day after protesters over-ran a U.N. mission in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and killed seven foreign staff, in the deadliest attack on the U.N. in Afghanistan.

This isn’t anything less than outrageous. Yet, there are many, especially politically correct liberals with a “multicultural” mindset who abhor the actions of pastors Sapps and Jones, but say nothing about, and even try to justify their actions by blaming it on the pastors.

Is it disrespectful and bigoted? Yes, but it is also within one’s rights to burn his property on the land he owns. At least in the United States. No one says that this is an action that deserves praise, but certainly deserves the freedoms that our constitution guarantees.

The killing of innocent people, who had nothing to do with the actions of a religious zealot? Despicable and hateful, and certainly proper of a religion that wants to be considered as a religion of peace, but is ready to kill in order to prove it. This is something few people want to admit, and will try to whitewash how mindlessly violent faith can be. Want an example?

Obama calls killings in Afghanistan outrageous

"No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, and there is no justification for such a dishonorable and deplorable act," Obama said.

Obama wants to be nice, and keep the peace among everyone (or at least, keep the fire away from him), but this is certainly not true. Religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocents. The only difference is that some take that literally and others don’t. But we will never know which one is right.

Muslims need to realize that the beliefs they hold so dear also inspire hatred and violence. Just like Christianity, but in a greater way. No one should have to hold their criticism just because they have a gun pointed at their head, and if the gun fires, have people saying "it's your fault for provoking them".

As much as I despise pastor Jones' actions, I think he has a right to carry on with them, if we are to care about freedom of speech. A friend of mine suggested to me that I might be falling into a slippery slope fallacy by considering that prohibiting such speech would prohibit also other actions that might be considered disrespectful to Muslims or any other groups. But consider that this action is being done away from a Muslim community and whatever is burned is private property. If we are going to start prohibiting people to state their discontent with a group's action and philosophy by a symbolic act that harms no one, then the same could be applicable to any cartoon, any speech or any book.

Sam Harris explains this very clearly:

The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for “racism” and “Islamophobia.”

On how many ways might religion endanger life?

So far we have:
- Murders for blasphemy
- Murders for homosexuality
- Murder for religious differences
- Attacks on women’s reproductive choices

Now, most of these ways religion affects our lives directly. And I’m not counting the ways it makes our lives harder, at least for those who like to live in a fair and free society. Religion seems to demand all of these from its followers, and while some might want to deny so, arguing that “those actions go against the coran/bible/whatever”, their word is as truthful as that of the most ardent fanatics.

Let’s also consider the way religious parents indoctrinate their kids into following the same nonsense they believe. We have already seen the Jesus Camp video, and fortunately society is in some ways realizing how harmful it can be to grow up in a religious home. Of course, believers are not very happy:

Christian foster couple lose 'homosexuality views' case



Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, from Derby, said the city council did not want them to look after children because of their traditional views.

The pair, who are Pentecostal Christians, say they were "doomed not to be approved".

The High Court ruled that laws protecting people from sexual discrimination should take precedence.

It’s funny to see a black couple complaining that the court won’t let them discriminate against another minority. I think I can sue then if I ever want to adopt a kid and tell him “Niggers are bad, don’t get near them”. See? By now many of you are already outraged that I used such a hateful word. For this, I think, society is moving forward. The less kids grow up in strongly religious families, less bigots society will harbor in the future.

As the icing of the cake, let’s consider how some religious groups will shun medical treatment because of their faith. Yeah, a totally (and literally) insane attitude. But, being a little bit cynical, we can think, “that’s ok, they’ll die faster”. But that’s not entirely true. Those kind of cases certainly can harm us:

Measles Scare Hits 3 U.S. Airports

Thousands of passengers may be at risk after a woman who tested positive for measles traveled through airports in Washington, D.C., Denver and Albuquerque last Tuesday.

The C.D.C. says the woman who tested positive was not immunized because of her religion.

I don’t think anyone can force this woman to get vaccinated. But the least think we can do is prohibit her and those without the proper immunization for religious reasons from flying. If there is such a concern about terrorist boarding planes, this is surely something to take into account.

Religion commands us to shut down our reason and simply live by what others, who rely only on authority, tell us. To believe, we have to close our eyes and walk simply by trusting an invisible hand that isn't there, until we reach a cliff and fall off. And yet, many will think that this was done so that we can learn something. Moreover, many times, a believer will drag others who just don't want to be dragged. That's the importance of of speaking against religion.

Muslim family values: Beat up your famous sister/daughter for dating a non-muslim

I know there is family violence everywhere, no matter place or economic status. But in this case you will notice that main reason has been the zealotry the Muslim faith inspires

Harry Potter actress's brother admits attacking her

The brother of a Harry Potter films actress who assaulted her because her boyfriend was not Muslim has been warned he could be jailed.

Ashraf Azad, 28, was due to face trial at Manchester Crown Court for attacking his sister Afshan Azad, 22, who played Padma Patil in the hit films.

The court was told Miss Azad was assaulted and branded a "prostitute" after meeting a young Hindu man, a relationship which brought anger from her father and brother.

There might be some anger when a child starts dating someone of different faith or economic status, yes, everywhere. But to beat up the "disobedient" child? That takes that anger to a whole new level, to the animal level to be exact.

Moreover, this violence is inspired in the so-called "religion of peace". Moderate Muslims will tell you that "violence is condemned in the Koran", therefore, these are not real Muslims. Well, the same accusations can be made by those who use violence, even the taliban, that the "moderates" are not real muslims. So get your story right, forget about political correctness and look at Islam for what it is, a violent non-sensical zealotry-inspiring religion.

Happy Blasphemy Day! Three blasphemes, and (more important) the reasons behind them

Today, September 30 most non-believers and intelligent people in general celebrates the International Blasphemy Day. Congratulations to everyone

The reason why it is celebrated today is to commemorate the publication of the Mohammed cartoons and the violent reaction it inspired in the prophet’s followers. Great example of a “religion of peace.”

My perception about blasphemy is not saying something offensive to religion just to piss believers of. I think that is kind of dickish and unnecessary, and doesn’t contribute to the dialogue and will not convert anyone. Of course, whoever wants to do it has the freedom to do so, I won’t stop them. My interest for blasphemy when any material that offers legitimate criticism can be considered blasphemy and thus, prohibited. Like this:



This is the best-known Mohammed cartoon. Is it offensive? Maybe. But there is something behind it, Cartoons, especially political newspaper cartoons have a background an focus on an issue that needs to be criticized. In this case, the violence associated to Islam, represented by the prophet Mohammed.

And what is it that Muslims around the world do? Riot and destroy property, thus confirming the criticism in the cartoon.

Another way to see the problem is when science determines something that goes against what religion has been telling us for years, then being considered blasphemy by the believers who see their cherished myths debunked. A great example is Stephen Hawking.



His words were certainly controversial, and many would love to see them censored for being “offensive” to their beliefs. In other words, blasphemous.

So, here we have two kinds of blasphemes that must be protected in order to ensure a society where freedom of expression primes: Legitimate criticism and the freedom to publish scientific findings that go against religious dogmas.

So, with this in mind, I bring you three blasphemous videos, but with a message that is worth considering.


1. God Will Fuck You Up


The title is a little bit shocking, which made me lose interest at first. But then after listening to it, one realizes that the song criticizes the idea of a loving God that will, well, “fuck you up” if you don’t believe in Him. As you can see, it’s not just insulting for no reason,


2. What Would Jesus Do

I think this is one of my favorite videos on the internet. It criticizes the American conservatives’ idea that Jesus is somehow related to the United States, so much that He would drive a Ford, drink Jack Daniels and use a Smith & Wesson gun.


3. Islam is not for Me

It lays down pretty much most of the despicable customs made in the name of Mohammed and that few have the balls to say out loud.

Finally and to remind us that non-believers are not free to this phenomenon, there are also those who claim to be atheists, but treat a prominent figure (let’s say, Dawkins or Hitchens) as a god, without accepting the idea that they can be criticized. I don’t think Dawkins would like a flock of sheep following him. And if he does, what a deception.

If there is someone who I admire as (or even more than) Dawkins, it’s Carl Sagan. By the way, Sagan never identified himself as atheist, but agnostic. To deny such fact is like raging at the sight of something true, but disgusting to this non-believer’s eyes. It’s almost the same reaction of those who want to ban blasphemy.

¡Feliz Día de la Blasfemia! Tres blasfemias y (más importante) sus por qué

Hoy 30 de Septiembre los no creyentes del mundo y en general gente inteligente celebra el Día de la Blasfemia. Feliz día blasfemos.

La razón del por qué hoy se celebra es debido a que un día como hoy se publicaron las caricaturas de Mahoma que causaron que cientos de musulmanes marcharan y destruyeran edificios en distintas partes del mundo. Excelente ejemplo de una religión de paz.

Mi percepción sobre la blasfemia no es simplemente el decir algo ofensivo a la religión por el puro interés de joder. Me parece algo atorrante y que no contribuye al debate ni mucho menos desconvertirá a nadie. Por supuesto, el que quiera hacerlo tiene la libertad de hacerlo, no seré yo el que se lo impida. Mi interés por la blasfemia es cuando se convierte cualquier material legítimamente crítico en blasfemia y se prohibe por ello. Algo así:



Esa es la famosa caricatura de Mahoma. ¿Es ofensiva? Tal vez. Pero hay algo detrás de esta. Las caricaturas, en especial las políticas que aparecen en los diarios tienen un trasfondo que busca criticar algo en la sociedad. En este caso, la violencia asociada con el Islam, representado por Mahoma en este caso.

¿Y qué cosa hacen los musulmanes molestos por esta caricatura? Probar lo cierta que es y destrozar edificios en varias partes del mundo.


Otra forma de ver el problema y que hace que me interese lo que es blasfemia es cuando la ciencia encuentra algo que va en contra de los dogmas de las religiones, y por lo tanto, se considera blasfemia, al ver los creyentes sus adorados mitos ofendidos, al ser mostrados como lo falsos que son. Un buen ejemplo es el amigo Stephen Hawking



Sus declaraciones fueron controversiales y a muchos les gustaría ver tal tipo de comentarios prohibidos, por ser “irrespetuosos” ante las creencias de otros. En otras palabras, blasfemos.

Es así que tenemos dos casos de blasfemia que deben ser protegidos si es que buscamos una sociedad donde la libertad de expresión prime. La legítima crítica y la libertad de divulgar lo que la ciencia da a conocer.

Y en este espíritu que les traigo tres videos, muy blasfemos estos, pero con un mensaje que es importante tomar en cuenta para entender el por qué de la blasfemia.

1. God Will Fuck You Up


Un título chocante de entrada, lo cual al comienzo me hizo un tanto reacio a verlo. Sin embargo, al oir la canción, uno se da cuenta de la ironía que lleva. Supuestamente un Dios de amor y comprensión le jode tremendamente la vida a quienes no cree en este. Como ven, no se trata de joder por joder, pero de señalar algo concreto y que merece ser criticado.


2. What Would Jesus Do


Creo que este es mi favorito entre los videos dedicados a criticar la religión. Este se centra en la manía de los conservadores estadounidenses de relacionar a Jesús con los Estados Unidos. Según el video, Jesucristo es estadounidense, tan estadounidense que maneja una camioneta Ford, toma Jack Daniels y usa armas Smith & Wesson.

3. Islam is not for Me


Este deja claro las atrocidades que se cometen en nombre del Islam y que pocos tienen el valor de señalar.

Por último y como recordatorio que en todos lados se cuecen habas, no faltan los no creyentes a quienes se les eriza el cabello ante la posibilidad de alguien critique a sus representantes favoritos del movimiento ateo, ya sea Dawkins, Hitchens o cualquier otro. Dawkins, por muy bacán e inteligente que sea, no es Dios y no creo que le agrade tener un rebaño de borregos detrás de él. Y si sí le agrada, pues qué mal.

Si hay alguien que me vacila tanto como (o hasta más que) Dawkins es Sagan. Y dicho sea de paso, Sagan nunca se declaró como ateo (mas sí como agnóstico). El pretender negar eso es simplemente horrorizarse ante la idea de que alguien diga algo desagradable (a mis ojos), pero cierto. Casi casi, la misma reacción de los creyentes que tratan de prohibir la blasfemia.

The burning of the Quran and the waters of common sense

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you. - Yoda

For almost a month a pastor in Florida has been threatening to burn the Quran in remembrance of 9/11 and with the sole purpose of pissing Muslims off.



Now, let's get something straight here. Just because this pastor is a bigoted and hateful fucktard, it doesn't mean he is not a Christian. He believes in God and recognizes Jesus as his savior, and all the hateful things he does are done in the name of God. Under that category also falls his signs against the openly gay major.


Very, very christian attitude

Now, while I oppose to this burning, I certainly recognize that this pastor has the right to do so. As far as I know, there is nothing that prohibits him from burning books. It makes him an astronomical level asshole, but just that. Exactly like the people who want to build the so-called mosque near Ground Zero. Of course, there might be laws against burning big stuff in the open, or maybe against burning something with ink, but I haven't heard of that so far.

By now you must be thinking, what is the difference between opposing a Christian pastor to burn the Quran, and opposing the Muslim community building their community center near Ground Zero?

The burning of the Quran is meant to offend all muslims for something few did. It's a similar case when muslim extremists pretend to wage war against all Americans, or all Western society in response to the American occupation in their countries.

It's even similar to protest trade agreements or immigration laws by burning the American flags. Those who do that hold innocent people responsible for the acts of others. Which is bullshit. The have the right to do it, but it is still bullshit.


On the other hand the islamic community center is not aimed to offend anyone. There are some who get offended, but their reason to do so is that they consider all muslims responsible of what happened in 9/11. That's just a stereotype, fueled by fear, anger, hatred and that -as Yoda says - leads to suffering.

Fortunately, the bullshit has stopped and common sense has won. After Obama asked the pastor to stop this plan, he did it, and agreed to meet with the Imam who is behind the construction of the 9/11 center. I have no idea of how that dialogue will end, but any dialogue is a good start.

And here is another thing I like to point out. When the announce was made, there were many who came out to say "Thank God!". Interestingly, it was because of God that this pastor was doing all this. I said this and received a response saying that "Well, God knew all this was going to happen before we did"

Under that reasoning, then God also knew of 9/11, and did nothing to stop it. What a dick.

I won't be saying "Thank God" regarding this case. If there is anyone to thank for this, that one is Obama.

“If he’s listening, I just hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans,” Mr. Obama said in an interview shown Thursday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” referring to to Mr. Jones.

“As a practical matter, as commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan,” the president said.

It feels good to have a president with such common sense. If the Muslim fanatics want to be violent enough to hold all of us responsible for what we did, let them be. We will support our measures to prevent that. But that doesn't mean we are going to behave in the same way as they do. I still think that in the United States we are not that retarded.

I have a Quran and a Bible at home. I would never burn them. On the contrary, I read them and conclude once and again of how stupid religion can be.

The Mosque Wars

At this time, most of us know that there is a fuss all over the US regarding "Park 51", incorrectly named by the unreliable media "Ground Zero Mosque". As many point out, this is an issue that has divided the United States given the "controversy" surrounding it.

By the way, "controversy" goes between quotation signs because it shouldn't be such, especially considering that the US laws protect freedom of religion so that anyone can worship the way they want.

Well, the issue has divided not just the US, but also many atheists have had a say on this. Unfortunately, a lack of belief in God does not mean necessarily a clear and objective view of the world. As an example of this, Pat Condell



For the non-believer who is eager to pick up his weapons and go on an unholy war against religion, this is music to the ears. However, to the one who sits and think thing thoroughly without letting his own anger and fear take over, there is usually a problem. The Amazing Atheist has that position:



First of all, I'm no fan of neither of them. I've seen a couple of Condell's videos and seemed boring to me. Sorry, an old man in front of a camera in not very appealing to me. His message is not bad, but not appealing enough. Regarding The Amazing Atheist, well, it's the first time I've seen one of his videos and, I have to say that a chubby guy walking towards a camera is also not very appealing.

So, having stated that I'm no fan of any of them, I don't see hard to agree with The Amazing Atheist. First of all, because it's a rational position. They both despise Islam, but while Condell extends the wrongdoings of some extremists to all its adherents, The Amazing Atheist recognizes their right to do as they want, as it is stated in the US constitution.

Condell calls a Slippery Slope by stating that a "mosque" (which is not a mosque) will be present in the Ground Zero Area (actually, two blocks away from the site). Political correctness can also be a problem, but it shouldn't be when there is a law backing the "politically correct" action. Then there is just bigotry.

Both of them agree that such act is in bad taste, but while Condell pretends that just "bad taste" is enough reason to prohibit the construction of the building, The Amazing Atheist recognizes that, despite their assholery, it's their right.

Condell also says that such a violent religion like Islam is not capable of providing spiritual relief. I think most of us non-belivers can say the same thing about most religions, if not all. The problem is, there are many who do find it, and while some of them might do abhorrent acts based on it, those who don't shouldn't be punished for them.

I could keep comparing both videos, but won't do that, they are there for you to see. What I would like to do is point out one last thing. The Amazing Atheist says that Condell is a one-issue voter. He doesn't give much explanation, but I understand that Condell (and many others) will take the "anti-religious" position, no matter what. No matter what liberties are at stake, and no matter what rights are being taken away.

Just like those who were happy and saw no problem on the Patriot Act being enforced and taking one step towards a police state.

I do like my right to be a non-believer. I also like my right to be able to say it. That is what I intent to protect and stand for. Not just whatever agrees with my own ideas, but the right that enables me to have those ideas and not hide them. Condell doesn't seem to understand that.

Someone who does understand and makes me very happy she does, is ZOMGitsCriss. It's just delightful to see such a beautiful woman with a strong opinion on such a hard topic, and yet, keeping them within the realm of the reasonable.



Certainly, to see her is much better than the other two

Again, why was separation of church and state important? Well, take a look at Iran

I don't know why this is even an issue in the US and the western world. Church and state don't mix well together. Religion often regards unquestionable faith as a virtue, and a state that has the power to enforce such unquestionability from its citizens is no more than a totalitarian state. It's that easy.

Yet, we can't stop hearing from conservatives who want to "put God back in the schools, in the courts and in the government", as if that were a good thing. That's one of the dangers of the religious thinking, which portrays itself as a source of good and nothing else, even when spouting anti-scientific views or bigoted and discriminatory attitudes.

Want God in the state, and religion to be used to convert this in a "Christian nation"? Take a look at Iran and how they deal with that:

Iran Launches New Crackdown On Universities

The Iranian government says it will restrict the number of students admitted to humanities programs at universities, RFE/RL's Radio Farda reports.

It follows criticism of humanities studies last year by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He called the humanities a field of study that "promotes skepticism and doubt in religious principles and beliefs," and that it was worrying that almost two-thirds of university students in Iran were seeking degrees in the humanities.

That is what religious leaders fear the most: Education. The more educated the people is, the less power the churches have. It's that easy.

Imagine if fucking Pat Robertson were the president of the US.
That's what the Iranians have to deal with

The Ayatollah is correct in one thing: humanities promotes skepticism and doubt in religious principles and beliefs. Those who study that need to view the world from an objective point of view, something very hard to do when having one's mind bound by outdated religious beliefs.

That Ayatollah and other religious leaders must be scared shitless of losing their power. Imagine that, people getting an education and challenging what they have been taught. That's dangerous!

Now, you might say that something like that would never happen in the western world. You may want to think that such disregard for education is something that only Islam can have. Yes, Islam can get very unscientific and totalitarian, and its adherents are more likely to go crazy for any reason. But Christianity is not very different. In 1925, Tennessee passed the “Butler Act”, which made it unlawful to deny the creation of man as written in the Bible. The law remained there until 1967, when it was challenged by the ACLU, an organization that the religious right dislikes a lot. Guess why.

But that wasn't the last we heard from creationism in schools, or, in other words, religious views imposed in state affairs (such as education). Earlier this year the Texas Board of Education approved the motion to study "all sides" of the theories regarding how we came to be. That puts creationism side-by-side with evolution. To the simple-minded, that might sound fair. But not for scientists, who actually know that creationism is no more than junk-science, compared to the theory of evolution.

Add to that other "faith-based" initiative that religious conservatives want to push in national policies, such as reproductive rights (against), sexual education (against), stem-cell research (against), gay rights (against, what else?) or freedom of religion for other religions (against, of course).

The nutjob at the left and all of those who think like him have no idea what they are talking about.

That is the kind of crazy shit we get when we put "God" (actually, its fans) in power. Iran, that's what we get. I'm sorry for the Iranian people who really want to get and education and understand the world, but, your religious government sucks. Seriously.

The “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy and the “US vs Them” dilemma

Actually, it should be called “The 2-blocks-from-Ground-Zero Not-exactly-a-Mosque” controversy. But if that were the case, there might be no as much controversy as there is right now.

The “Ground Zero Mosque” topic is right now the hot one on the news. Which is no surprise after the 9/11 attacks. To many, the building of a Mosque in/near the place in which many died because deranged Muslim fundamentalist killed thousands of people is a slap in the face to the American people.



Of course, by “American people” those who oppose the construction of the Mosque mean “non-muslim American people”.

It’s very easy to feel alienated against a minority group, especially if this group believes the same thing than those who killed so many people. However, it’s necessary to recognize that the Muslims that want to build this Islamic Center (that’s what it’s called) are not the same kind of people who flew planes into the towers. Yes, I know, they believe the same thing, the same nonsensical story very near to a Greek myth. But they are not willing to kill for it. At least they haven’t shown that.

According to The Economist

Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modeling his project on New York’s 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions.

Doesn't sound so bad. Even though he puts some responsibility on the West for the 9/11 attacks (I say "bullshit", but let's put that aside), an interfaith understanding is much better than to have a faith-based everyone-against-everyone.

Also, let's not forget that the ones who are going to benefit from it are Americans, muslim Americans, yes. Not al-qaeda jihadists. So, even if I dislike the construction of a religious place (which I do), I support it.

The US constitution provides freedom of religion to everyone, as much as it states a separation of church and state. If we are going to work with that "Wall of Separation" in mind, it's only consequent to protect freedom of religion. So that, in the future, Wiccans, Baha'is and other religions (less obnoxious, let's hope) can also worship in the way they want (without messing with others, let's hope)

Of course, not everyone understands it the same way. Notorious American moron Sarah Palin stated:

"Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.”

What the fuck does "refudiate" means? This woman has no idea how to use the English language, yet, she feels like she can interfere with other American's rights? Is this the person so many people wanted as Vice-president?

Anyway, Palin didn't like the idea of the (not a) Mosque (near, not in) Ground Zero. Pretty predictable. As much as average Americans shouldn't be victims of the rage caused by the American government, average American muslims shouldn't be a victim and see their rights shortened, by the rage caused by religious extremists.

If you still think that the "Mosque" is un-American, or an insult to the American people, compare it to going against the First Amendment of the Constitution. What do you think is more "un-American"?

Finally, what pisses me off the most about this issue is to have to speak out in favor of a religious group. It's certainly easier to put them all in the same bag and call them all "terrorists". But it wouldn't be the intelligent thing to do.



She is also a Muslim. Never forget that.

ZOMG! It's Cristina's Birthday!

Yes, today is Christina Rad, a.k.a. ZOMGitsCriss' birthday. Who is she? Well, she is something awesome, sarcastic, intelligent, hot, funny, brave, talented and beautiful like no one else. Oh, and she has one of the cutest accents I've ever heard

You can check for yourself:




I don't exactly remember when was the first time I saw one of her videos, but I'm sure I was totally stunned at her attitude and explanations to all the nonsense she sees. I always am.

Normally I don't watch videos of people looking at a camera and talking their mind. Those videos are usually made by people who are not very articulated and that assume that others will watch their video just because they have something to say. Some might like to do that. Not me. I'm still old fashioned and like to write blogs.

But she is not like that. As soon as you put one of her videos, you notice that there has been a great effort into assembling it. There has actually been some post-production, whether it is the effects on the video or the edition of the same.

There are even some others that definitely were planned and prepared. Like this one, for Valentine's Day:



I must have seen that poem around 10 or more times. I just couldn't believe so much awesomeness.

But there is more



Criss also takes on Islam and cusses. Besides all the ass-kicking she gives Islam, I was astonished as how well she does in front of the camera. She doesn't pause, she doesn't hesitates, she looks directly and manages to have a very nice body language instead of just standing there. That takes talent, far beyond memorizing a script.



That video was just perfect. And that includes her. Thunderf00t might be one of the best known Youtube atheists. But if I had to choose, I would choose Cristina a million times.



Miss Cristina, I salute you.

To watch more of her, visit her channel ZOMGitsCriss
She also has another channel for movie reviews: CrissReviews
She also has a blog, which she doesn't update very often, but fans of her will be pleased: k-rina
And finally, her Twitter account

Islam is associated with terrorism? No way!

Who would have thought so, right?

A majority of people in Britain associate Islam with terrorism and the repression of women, a poll has shown.

The survey coincided with the launch of an advertising campaign aimed at combating negative perceptions of Muslims.

In the online poll of 2,152 UK adults, 58% of people said they associated Islam with extremism and 50% associated the world religion with terrorism.

The poll also found that 69% believe Islam encourages the repression of women.

It was organized as part of the Inspired By Muhammad campaign that will see adverts featuring pictures of Muslim professionals including TV presenter and Islam convert Kristiane Backer on the London Underground, bus stops and taxis.

Organizer the Exploring Islam Foundation said the campaign aims to highlight the Prophet Mohamed's teachings to Muslims on the importance of the environment, gender equality and social justice.

For one, this is a good campaign that aims to bring out the moderate Muslims and try to erase the image of the mad jihadist with a bomb strapped to his back. And I say "try", because it will take more than that to make that image go away.

The title of the article comes out as if it were a surprise to the readers that Islam is related with terrorism, violence and misogyny. First of all, we have to admit that there are extremists everywhere, and that no philosophy or belief is totally safe. But the problem with Islam is that it seems as if in Muslim societies, this extremism were not shunned, but condoned.

What about the Christian fundies who shoot down doctors? We can argue that’s just one of them, all the others being annoying in different levels, but more or less civilized. However, when it comes to Islam, English people might have it pretty easy relating it to terrorism and everything bad when they see this images:















Seriously, when you have a group of people demonstrating on the streets, being angry about a cartoon, or a so-called "offense", threatening with making their backwards laws the rule of the country/world, it's not just nonsensical to tolerate that, but also suicidal.

This is where liberalism fails. And just to be clear, I'm referring to the kind of liberalism that argues that every culture and human group has to be accepted, along with their practices and customs. Western society has had its flaws during the past, but along with those flaws came the idea of social justice, tolerance and human rights that most of the world share. To allow a human group that rejects and shuns those ideals is not moving forward under the idea that by allowing that culture, we are being more progressive and tolerant. On the contrary, it's moving backwards by allowing not a own group, but a foreign one hijack those ideals.



The problem is not the color of their skin, or the beards they have, or the clothes they wear. It's the divinely-inspired idea that their religion-filled culture must prevail anywhere over any other. Some Muslims might and will adapt into a society that cherishes liberal values, that's wonderful. But it is not enough.

Your criticism towards religious abuse is appreciated. You misinformation is NOT

You see this picture and think, what?


Get all worked up after concluding that those grown up guys are marrying little girls? Start posting it all over your facebook, linking webpages as outraged as you are? Well, then you are no better than that douchebag in the Vatican who can’t get his story right. Because if you really think this is a marriage and those little girls are the brides, then you are wrong. And if you are making a whole case using that picture, then you are WRONG.

Hamas sponsors mass wedding in Gaza

Hamas dignitaries including Mahmud Zahar, one of the militant group's top leaders, were on hand to congratulate 450 grooms who took part in the carefully stage-managed event.

Each groom received a present of 500 dollars from Hamas, which said its workers had also contributed five percent of their monthly salaries to add to the wedding gift.

The 450 brides shared none of the glamour, taking seats among the audience of around 1,000 party guests: most couples had already taken part in religious ceremonies elsewhere, with more marriages planned for the next few days.

Those little girls, yes, share much of the glamour the grooms have. But they are not the brides.

While the poorest couples received a gift equivalent to $2,000, many others in less dire straits came away with only $200. “That’s the cost of a plank of wood for a bedroom suite,” said one disappointed bride, Ola Dalo, 21, as she leaned her head on her new husband, Ali Msabah, 24. […]

The 300 grooms were dressed in black pants, white shirts and colorful ties but no jackets, because of recent budget cuts. The brides, sitting separately among the women, wore head scarves and black robes over their evening dresses but were easily spotted by their heavy makeup.

So, my dear non-believers, get your facts right. If we are going to take pride on our reliance on fact instead of myth and lies, then do it. Don't be SO gullible. There are so many things outrageous regarding Islam, including child brides, sexual abuse and disregard for human rights. So there are many sources to spread and show how disgusting Islam can be. There is no need to use a picture like that. Instead, use this one:



This one is real. This one was featured in the New York Times. This one is of an 11 year-old girl an a 40 year-old man, married.

Want more? There are cases of acid throwing, abuse against women, against children, and the violence we are used to when someone criticizes Islam.

So, if you want to condemn the many fuck-ups Islam allows, especially regarding child abuse, use that one.

The Muslim Princess

I should have written this many days ago. Blame it on Lost. But here I am. And here she is:

I present to you Rima Fakih, Miss USA 2010

Beautiful, beautiful and delightful 24 years old middle eastern princess. Rima Fakih was born in Lebanon, but moved to the United States when she was still a kid. Before coming to the US, Rima studied in a catholic school; however, she is a Muslim, but also celebrates Christian rites.

Yes, you read it well, a Muslim.



An incredibly hot Muslim. I think this might be why Muslim men might want their women to be all covered. The desert is already too hot.

But if you think that is her hottest picture, think again. Besides winning the Miss USA pageant, she also won a pole dancing contest. The proof is here:







But wait, she is no airhead. Rima Fakih graduated from the University of Michigan-Dearborn with degrees in economics and business management, and plans to attend law school after her year-long reign. Truly amazing girl. Really, who needs 72 virgins? Whoever has love would already be in heaven.

But there is more. She also worries about others; she is an advocate for breast and ovarian cancer awareness. She also supports insurance paid birth control, an idea that many Christians reject. Which leads me to to most important of her characteristics,

Rima Fakih represents a liberal and successful Muslim, a woman who values education, who takes big decisions and who enjoys her sexuality. This is a double win, since, in on side, she sets an example for other Muslim women to break the chains that Muslim traditions have imposed on them; and, on the other hand, if that is not true, if there are many Muslim women just like her, then she makes an awesome job of putting them on the table and telling the world "Hey! We awesome Muslim girls do exist!"

Of course, not everyone likes her winning of the pageant. On one side we have the conservative muslims:

"To say that she is a Muslim is inaccurate. No Muslim woman can call herself a ... Muslim and be on stage with her bikini," Ghazal Omid, a Muslim scholar, posted on her Facebook page.

This is exactly the same attitude that some Christians use when saying that someone who doesn't comply with their points of view (even if they also believe in Christ) are not "Real Christians." According to Omid, Rima Fakih is not a "real Muslim" because of her enjoying of her sexuality, whether it is posing in a (wonderful) bikini or doing the pole dancing. My guess is that to be a "real Muslim" she has to use conservative clothes and do nothing that is related to sexuality. Pure bullshit.

On the other hand, we have the American conservatives, who I bet, see this as a threat to the establishment. So they are going to look for any reason to put the new queen down, even if it is a very stupid reason:

Debbie Schlussel claims (but presents no evidence) that "at least three of Fakih's relatives are currently top officials in Hezbollah and that at least eight Fakih family members were Hezbollah terrorists."

Sure, because fundamentalist terrorist would love to see a Muslim woman be presented in public wearing a bikini. Moreover, what do her relatives have to do with her? Furthermore, the accuser presents no evidence for this claim. Are these people for real?

Anyway, conservative stupidity/bigotry is no news. What is news here is that a young female Muslim might be a very important icon for the portrayal of Muslims in the media. Sayid Jarrah already did something. But now our icon is real. In a time in which Muslims freak out about cartoons and try to separate themselves from the rest of the world for not having the capacity to accept criticism, Rima Fakih shows that a set of beliefs and common sense can coexist in the same person.



A beautiful, beautiful person.

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...