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

When God loses an election II: Nevada & Delaware

We already talked about Brazil and its liberal candidate winning despite Ratzinger’s opposition. Today we have something similar: US congress elections.


In this race there were two candidates that were playing the “God” card. Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, both of them babbling bigotry and nonsense inspired in their belief in loving celestial father. Fortunately, both of them lost the election.

In Nevada, Sharron Angle, the Tea Party-endorsed Republican candidate lost to Harry Reid. This is very interesting, considering that Angle, when asked why she entered the race, she said that "the reason is a calling."

"When God calls you he also equips you and He doesn't just say, 'Well today you're going to run against Harry Reid,'" the tea party favorite said.

It seems that God doesn’t have the power to support the candidates He endorses. That, or Ms. Angle is just deluded and is hearing voices in her head, which apparently, happens to many of those who say God talks to them.

But there is more. Angle also stated that if a woman was raped, it’s because God wanted it and she shouldn’t have an abortion. Furthermore, she stated that a pregnancy after a rape is similar to having lemons and therefore, the opportunity to make lemonade.

She also supports the right of religious leaders making political endorsements and, of course, opposes gay marriage.

Lovely woman, isn’t her? The typical arrogant fundamentalist who thinks he or she can understand the will of a supernatural being whose existence they can’t prove, and use that “understanding” to further a conservative agenda. Now, after losing, she shuns the media, aparently protecting her ego from being reminded that, well, she lost.


So that was Ms. Angle losing in Nevada. But there was also O’Donnell losing in Delaware. While I didn’t pay much attention to O’Donnell it’s not that I didn’t have material for doing so. First of all, let’s go back in time and remember her views on… well, “self-pleasure”



First of all, you know that when “Savior” and ‘Truth are together in a sentence or phrase, we are approaching a huge pile of manure. This is no exception. “God says…”, “The Bible says…”, “God’s appropriate context”, “pure hearts, not adulterous hearts”, and “lust is committing adultery”. Seriously, not even my grandma, I think. But well, if she wants to have a traumatized sexual life, it’s her problem.

Now, her stupidity was confirmed when she failed to understand evolution:


O’Donnell: ‘Why Aren’t Monkeys Still Evolving Into Humans?’

O’DONNELL: You know what, evolution is a myth. And even Darwin himself –

MAHER: Evolution is a myth?!? Have you ever looked at a monkey!

O’DONNELL: Well then, why they — why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?

A real idiot, isn't her? But well, the US constitution gives its people the freedom to be idiots. But when she tries to run for office and represent a group of people with views like these…

Christine O'Donnell: Homosexuality an 'Identity Disorder'

Delaware GOP Senate Candidate Struggles to Portray Mainstream Image on Sexual Values

"People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder," she told Wilmington News Journal reporter Victor Greto.

... then we know we are talking about a bigoted person who uses her nonsensical beliefs to support her bigotry. Especially when…

Homosexuality has been considered a normal variation of human sexuality for nearly four decades. The American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association both declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in the early 1970s.

But I think, her biggest "jackass" has been her relationship with witchcraft and how hard she tried to deny it. She even made an ad addressing the issue, which was needed because her voter base were certainly aren't tolerant people who don't care about the candidates beliefs.

These are the people who run with a self-proclaimed endorsement from God. Arrogant, callous, deluded, bigoted, manipulative, ignorant, and proud of such ignorance. While this election has been big for conservatives in general, I am please to see these fundamentalists bite the dust. Hopefully one day we won’t even will have to hear about them.

When God loses an election I: Brazil

In our search for a civilized and proper society where human right prime over repression, the existence of a secular government is vital. This is the reason that the presence of religion in politics is necessarily associated with an unbalance in society, in which many time we will reach the point where an answer is “Just because” or worse, the non-sensical “Because God says so”

This is why it produces rejection to see a religious authority for or against a political position or figure. And this rejection scales to total disgust when this authority is our despicable Pope Ratzinger

Pope Calls Upon Brazilian Bishops to Speak out against Abortion as Election Approaches




Pope Benedict XVI is telling Brazil's Catholic bishops to speak out against ideologies that justify abortion, only days before a hotly contested presidential election in which the frontrunner has been accused of supporting the decriminalization of abortion.

The pope's words are likely to be read as an affirmation of Brazilian bishops and other religious leaders who have raised their voices in recent weeks against the ruling Labor Party and its frontrunner presidential candidate, Dilma Rousseff.

Rousseff and the Labor Party have publicly endorsed the decriminalization of abortion in Brazil, but during the election Rousseff has backpedaled from her previous stance. She now says that she is "personally against" abortion and even calls it an act of "violence" against women. She has signed a public statement stating her personal opposition to decriminalizing abortion, but has refused to say that she will veto pro-abortion legislation.

Three days ago, Ratzinger jumped in the Brazilian election telling, basically, not to vote for Dilma Rouseff, since she backs abortion rights for women, something Brazil really needs.

However, and as a proof of how incapable God is to do anything through his people (or just, proof that He/She/It doesn’t exist) Rouseff won.

Dilma Rousseff elected Brazil's first female president


Ms Rousseff won 56 per cent of the valid votes compared with 44 per cent for her opponent, Jose Serra, with 99 per cent of all votes counted.

“I’m very happy. I want to thank all Brazilians for this moment and I promise to honour the trust they have shown me,” Ms Rousseff told reporters in the capital Brasilia in her first public words after the result was announced.

It very relieving to see that fear and ignorance didn’t won in Brazil. But at the same time it’s outrageous to see Ratzinger’s arrogance by trying to hijack an election in a secular country. Ratzinger conveniently forgets the rapes committed by catholic priests and prefers to focus his words against abortion and gay marriage. If there is something God gave him, it’s an infinite capacity for cynicism.

One nation, indivisible

Today I became a U.S. Citizen.

I certainly don't feel the common attachment to my original nationality, given that nationalism seems very irrational to me, considering people take pride on something they didn't do anything to get, which is, being born in some specific part of the world. Yeah, kind of like religion.

Getting my citizenship is more a practical thing. Since the United States have been my home for the last 5 years and will be for many more, it just seems logical to get my nationality. Also, if I'll be living here, I would like to influence in its public policy, even if it is just by voting. I certainly will vote.



Yes, Democrat. I don't abhor the free market economy, but I won't be voting republican, at least not until they stop having candidates who can't tell the age of the Earth correctly.

The ceremony was pretty long, I think the judge arrived late. But it was worthy especially for the moment of the pledge of allegiance. The man who lead us to say it did it like this:

I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.

I was thrilled. I had a big smile in my face and in the end went looking for that guy. I had to thank him for that.

Anyway, today you can count another American Atheist.

Cuando “líder conservador” significa “atorrante al que el sufrimiento ajena le importa un comino"

Hace unos días se reportó el caso de una pareja que había estado burlándose de una niña de 7 años con una enfermedad terminal. Luego de que esto saliese a la luz, la pareja fue amenazada y su casa vandalizada en aparente solidaridad con el sufrimiento de la niña.

La forma en que se mostró el descontento ante el comportamiento de esta pareja puede no haber sido el mejor, pero es obvia la indignación ante un comportamiento tan inhumano. Uno pensaría que la gente normal tiende a sentir simpatía ante el sufrimiento de los más débiles.

Ahora consideremos que en los últimos días cinco adolescentes homosexuales se suicidaron luego de varios días de maltrato por parte de sus compañeros. Si bien los roces entre estudiantes son parte de la vida adolescente, un suicidio debido a esto significa que este maltrato se llevó demasiado lejos y a nadie pareció importarle. Uno pensaría que alguien que pretender ser un líder decente tendría algo de simpatía por este caso.

Pero en los Estados Unidos, los líderes conservadores no son esas personas.

DeMint habla sobre temas conservadores en reunión en iglesia de Spartanburg


El Senador DeMint dijo que si alguien es abiertamente homosexual, no debería enseñar en una escuela, al igual que una mujer soltera que convive con su pareja, tampoco debería enseñar en un salón de clase.

“(Cuando dije esas cosas) nadie salió en mi defensa” dijo. “Pero todos vino y me dijo por lo bajo que no debería disculparme. Ellos no quieren que el gobierno les quite sus derechos a la libertad de religión.

Así que, sin importar que varios adolescentes se hayan suicidado luego de largo tiempo de maltrato, aun hay quienes animan a sus seguidores a tener ideas que discriminan a los homosexuales, solo por serlo (y de paso, a las mujeres).

Más aun, cita el derecho a la “libertad religiosa”, como si esa fuera razón suficiente para mostrar intolerancia hacia un grupo de personas.

Me siento tentado a pensar que sí lo es. El cristianismo a dejado bien claro que el odiar a los homosexuales no es incorrecto, lo cual se encuentra en la biblia (aunque Jesucristo nunca dijese nada al respecto), y que juzgarlos, castigarlos y discrminarlos no está mal si es que es hecho en contra de alguien a quien Dios personalmente aborrece.



Pero este no es el único. David Barton, un ministro evangélico cristianoy activista republicano propuso “regular la homosexualidad” diciendo:

Si voy al Centro para Control de las Enfermedades y estoy preocupado por la salud, encuentro datos interesantes ahí y estos me pueden indicar qué hacer respecto al bienestar.

Los individuos homosexuales y bisexuales son siete veces más propensos a pensar en, o cometer suicidio. Ooooh, eso no suena muy saludable.

Los homosexuales mueren décadas antes que los heterosexuales. Eso no suena muy saludable.

Casi la mitad de homosexuales activos admite haber tenido 500 o más parejas sexuales y casi un tercio admite el haber tenido 1000 parejas sexuales en su vida.

Estas personas están tan llenas de odio que no consideran el que los homosexuales se suiciden debido al sufrimiento que les infligen aquellos con las mismas posturas intolerantes que ellos. En su estúpido razonar, los homosexuales merecen ser relegados y discriminados, y si se sienten mal por ello, es su culpa.

Estos dos salieron luego de los suicidios. Ya antes teníamos a Christine O'Donnell, candidata al congreso por Delaware, quien dice que la homosexualidad es una enfermedad; o Sharron Angle, candidata por Nevada, quien sostiene que los homosexuales no deben adoptar niños (a pesar que la Asociación Psicológica de Estados Unidos diga lo contrario)

Y también tenemos a Focus on the Family (la organización del Dr. Dobson) que dice que los programas en contra del maltrato en las escuelas son una forma de llevar a cabo los planes homosexuales. Lo que obviamente este grupo busca es que el maltrato sistemático a los homosexuales no sea visto como algo malo. Algo despreciable, por todos lados.

Es por esto que no puedo apoyar al partido republicano en Estados Unidos. Si bien sus ideales económicos no me son del todo repulsivos (en cierta forma, me agrada el libre comercio), sus posturas sociales son totalmente despreciables. Los republicanos y conservadores en general tienden a lanzar la razón y tolerancia por la ventana para así poder perpetuar sus posturas tradicionales a pesar de que estas causen dolor a otros. Tal vez es lo que Jesús haría.

Por otro lado, esto es lo que la gente consciente y que se preocupa por otros hace



Jesse Tyler Ferguson y Eric Stonestreet son dos actores que hacen de pareja gay en la serie “Modern Family” de ABC. Ferguson explica que cuando era adolescente, tuvo que cambiarse de escuela debido a lo mucho que lo molestaban por ser homosexual, y que actualmente está alcanzando el éxito, a lo cual Stonestreet añade que hay lugares para ayuda. Ambos se preocupan por el dolor que se causa a adolescentes distintos, dolor muchas veces basado simplemente en creencias antiguas.

Otras que (increíblemente) apoyan los derechos de los homosexuales son Cindy y Meghan McCain, esposa e hija de John McCain respectivamente. ¿Quién lo habría pensado? Si ellas pueden entender que los homosexuales son tan humanos como cualquier otro, entonces creo que aun hay esperanza para este mundo.

Finalmente, fotos de Meghan McCain, porque está buenísima.

When “conservative leader” means “callous asshole who doesn’t care about others”

A couple of days ago was reported a case in which a couple who had been making fun of a 7 year-old girl with a deadly disease, had been harassed and threatened, in solidarity with the girl’s family.

The way people showed their discontent with the couple’s action may bot have been the best, but the support for the suffering child is obvious. You would think that normal people tend to have that sympathy for those who suffer, right?

Well, now consider that in the last days, five gays have killed themselves because of bullying. While bullying is actually part of most teenager’s life, a suicide means that it has gone too far. You would think that normal people would feel empathy and speak against it, or at least, say nothing.

But conservative leaders are not such people.

DeMint addresses conservative issues at Spartanburg church rally

[Senator] DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn't be in the classroom.

“(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense,” he said. “But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion.”

So, regardless of gay teenagers killing themselves after suffering bullying, there are still those who will encourage his followers to discriminate gays, just for being gays (women in the way, too).

Moreover, he cites his right to “freedom of religion”, as if that were a reason to hate someone else.

I am tempted to think it is. Christianity has made it very clear that hatred against gays is not wrong, that it is actually in the bible (even though Jesus never said anything about it) and that judgment, punishment and discrimination are not wrong if it is against something God supposedly also hates.

But he is not the only one. David Barton, an evangelical Christian minister and Republican political activist proposed “regulating homosexuality” by saying…

So if I got to the Centers for Disease Control and I'm concerned about health, I find some interesting stats there and this should tell me something about health.

Homosexual/bi-sexual individuals are seven times more likely to contemplate or commit suicide. Oooh, that doesn't sound very healthy.

Homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals. That doesn't sound healthy.

Nearly one-half of practicing homosexuals admit to 500 or more sex partners and nearly one-third admit to a thousand or more sex partners in a lifetime.

These people are so hateful they would not consider that these gays killed themselves after a long time of suffering, caused by bigots, just like themselves. In their idiotic mind, gays deserve to be shunned and harassed and if they feel bad about it, it’s their own fault.

These two came after the gays suicides. We also have Christine O’Donnell, candidate for Delaware, stating that Homosexuality is an identity disorder, or Sharron Angle, a congress candidate for Nevada, say that gays should not adopt children (even though the American Psychological Association find no problem in that).

Last but not least, is Focus on the Family, which states that School Anti-bullying programs push a gay agenda. If what this group seeks isn't the unpunished harassing of gay teenagers, I don't know what they seek.

All these people base their hateful views on their Christian faith.

This is why I cannot support the Republican Party in the US. While their economic views are not totally repulsive to me, their stand on social issues is repulsive and despicable. Republicans and social conservatives tend to throw reason and tolerance throw the window in order to keep their dogmas in power. Maybe that’s what Jesus do.

On the other hand, this is what caring people do:



Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Eric Stonestreet play a gay couple in ABC's comedy "Modern Family". Ferguson is gay, but Eric not. Yet, they both understand how painful it might be to be gay in a society that hates them, in many cases, for no more reason than ancient beliefs.

Others who (unexpectedly) also support gays' rights, are Cindy and Megan McCain, wife and daughter of John McCain. Who would have thought so, right? If these two can understand that gays are as much of humans as everyone else, then I think there is still hope for the world.

Finally, pictures of Meghan McCain. Because she is hot.

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.

California says NO to bigotry, intolerance, and h8. Teh Gay can marry

Well, not exactly. It's not "California" meaning "the people of California" but actually a judge declaring that Proposition 8, which prohibited gays of getting married, unconstitutional

Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California



In a long-awaited ruling, Judge Vaughn Walker says the ban on same-sex marriage violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The decision is expected to reach the Supreme Court.

To most rational people, it's pretty obvious that Proposition 8 and any law that takes away rights from a certain group of people violates equal protection and due process. In fact, it violates equality, a value that has had to be fought and defended through the years, whether we are talking about natives, blacks, latinos or Japaneses.

Walker cited extensive trial evidence to support his finding that there was not even a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. Higher courts defer to trial judges on issues of fact, but still could determine that Walker was wrong on the law.

Here I want to emphasize the "rational basis" part. Exactly, there is nothing rational about denying gays (or any other human groups) the same rights others enjoy. The only basis under such position is takes is irrational. And, yes, I'm talking in great part about religion.

What? you thought this had nothing to do with religion? Even with the Mormons backing up Prop 8 from the beginning? Even with the religious right always portraying gays, in the best of cases, as sick people, and in the worst, as demon possessed? Come on, someone needs to point this out. Most politically-correct liberals will try to avoid touch the religion string, fearing being called "intolerant of others beliefs". Well, that's one reason so many people regard liberals as pussies.

Well, going back to the issue. Since there is no rational basis to oppose gay marriage, there should be rational basis to approve, right? Well, according to the American Psychological Association:

There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.

This is the conclusion of a document used in courts and issued by the APA. If you want, you can read the whole document, which is written in an English easy enough for the average person to understand. Of course, bigotry and intolerance makes it more difficult to understand these documents more than any flaw in the educational system or a bad English an immigrant could have.


If you don't want to look through the whole document, you can check the APA section on Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.

Be warned, what you will read is something you will likely hear from most liberals. Conservatives (I mean, social conservatives, a.k.a. Christian Right) will dismiss that saying that it's just liberals talking. Even if it's coming from the most prestigious association of psychologists, this is, scientists who have made all the research possible on the issue before making a statement.

But, when has it been a problem for conservatives to dismiss scientific knowledge when it goes against their own faith-based bigotry?

Now, there is another issue that bigo... I mean, Prop 8 supporters are making the case about. Prop 8 was put in the ballot some time ago, meaning that the people could choose whether to approve it or not. By declaring it unconstitutional, the judge is dismissing the 7 million votes that were in favor of Prop 8.

That seems to be a big problem in the US, the idea that "Teh govament" is taking away "the people's rights", in this casse, by forsaking the opinion of a big chunk of the Californian population.

The problem is that here we have the opinion of a lot of people against what scientists say is normal. You see the difference? Those who oppose gay marriage are either ignorant about what science says about it, or even knowing it, they cling to their bigotry, again, in many cases supported by religious ideas. In other words, we either have ignorant or stupid people voting against it.

I praise the fact that a judge had the bravery to oppose them and say that "according to the evidence, THIS is right and this is what should be done".

That's why I support atheism. Because it uses science as its main weapon, and thanks to scientific advancement we can actually know about ourselves, about humanity and then take the steps necessary to make this a better world.

Here a short video from CNN:



So, yeah, as you heard, this is going to be appealed. The war for equality is not over. Finalmente, y por si queda alguien que quiera argumentar que la homosexualidad es inmoral según la biblia, pues este video explica lo que realmente es "moral" según la biblia.

A call from God? No, Mrs. Angle, that's called schizophrenia

Why, republicans, why? Why is it so hard to make politics in a clear, intelligent way, instead to appeal to the religious retards who will follow anything that has the label "God" in it?

Sharron Angle says her race against Harry Reid is a calling from God

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Republican Sharron Angle says her campaign to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada is "a calling" from God and that her faith is helping her endure a fiercely competitive race in which Democrats have depicted her as a conservative extremist.

"When you have God in your life ... he directs your path," Angle told the Christian Broadcasting Network in an interview posted on its website Wednesday.

Asked why she entered the race, Angle said "the reason is a calling."

"When God calls you he also equips you and He doesn't just say, 'Well today you're going to run against Harry Reid,'" the tea party favorite said.

This is not a political blog and yet, I've written three times about this woman. A calling for God? Is she crazy? What does that mean? That God spoke to her, like, in a dream? This is either serious schizophrenia or just pure arrogance that pushes Angle to say she is little less than "the chosen one".

Since this is a blog about religion, I try to keep it separated from political shenanigans. Unfortunately religion has a lot to do with politics as it serves as a way to control those religious enough to love being sheep under a so-called shepherd. While I consider myself a liberal, this is mostly related to social issues (gay rights, abortion, etc). Economic policy is something I might agree with the right. However, it's hard to feel akin to a party whose candidates will go as far as declaring they are "in God's side".

How easy would it be for the liberals to also say "Jesus would help the poor", "Jesus wouldn't be at war" or stuff like that? I would be dick move, but might work. I would hate it, of course. It would be to appeal to those who can't think for themselves and prefer to mindlessly follow a shepherd.

If Angle wins she will be little less than those crazy Muslim leaders who do whatever they see fit "in the name of Allah"

Angle, a Southern Baptist, has called herself a faith-based politician who prays daily. Among her positions, she opposes abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest.

Really? Well, the nutjobs who flew the planes towards the Twin Towers were also "faith based". As for abortion and rape, well, we already know her stances. That is where a true christian stands, right? Nice, very, very nice. So full of love and comprehension. What a joke.

Here, check the video. Try not to puke in your mouth

"It's God's plan, bitch, as easy as lemons. Don't you try to keep your life as normal as you would like"

Remember that despicable woman who said that a rape victim should not abort because it went against God's will?. Well she refuses to back off and act like a considered human being.

Sharron Angle's Advice For Rape Victims Considering Abortion: Turn Lemons Into Lemonade

"There is a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it's location, age, gender or disability. So whenever we talk about government and government's role, government's role is to protect life and that's what our Founding Father said, that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

[...]

"I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade."

As easy as that. If you get raped, just have the baby. It is an opportunity, as much as having lemons is an opportunity to make lemonade. Seriously, can someone in their right mind get more cynical than this? She almost makes it sound as if rape were a good thing.

Angle, who is a republican (what else?) candidate for congress, talks of her own heart-warming experience. Good for you, and for the victim of rape who had to receive your advise. But that is it. Personal experience is hardly useful, given the huge amount of "personal experiences" several people can have. That is a bit of a problem in the United States: people are overrated. They tend to think that their opinions are valid for everyone else. Someone needs to stand up and say "I'm sorry, but that is bullshit."

Women who get abortion don't do it because they like to get them. It is already a hard decision, and in the case of rape, a hard decision after a traumatic experience. If we as a society cannot stop that, the least we can do is to provide all the tools and methods available for the victims.

Finally, the God's plan. I usually tend to mock on this because of the nonsensical nature of the plan. I already explain that a God that plans for a rape to happen is a huge asshole. But in the hypothetical case that it had a plan, would we know? Seriously, how would people know that God has a plan, and furthermore, what that plan is? Exactly, no one knows.

But, wait, there are some who know, or at least claim to know. Religious people, especially religious and conservative leaders. They will tell us what God plan is, a plan that usually suits their intolerant, homophobic and misogynistic agenda. These people will brag to the four winds that the know God's plan and consider themselves real, true believers. What a bunch.

I don't know if there is a God or not. But if there is, and he is all those people say about him, I prefer hell.

Pray, for goddamn's sake...

Yeah, today is supposedly "National Day of prayer."



And it's not just something people feel like doing for the sake of it. It's kind of an official holiday in which even the White House is involved.

Ruling won't stop National Day of Prayer this year

A federal judge declared the law unconstitutional last month, but the Justice Department is appealing the case on behalf of the White House.

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb in Wisconsin ruled on April 15 that the 1952 law creating the National Day of Prayer violates the ban on government-backed religion.

"[I]ts sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function," Crabb wrote in the ruling. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."

Obama and his friends are totally free to pray whenever they want, but to do it in a ceremony involving other federal institutions is the government overstepping its boundaries.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Remember that? It doesn't say "or prohibiting the free exercise using our tax money"

But that won't matter when the objective is to pander to the religious majority.

Oh, and by the way, even if it is not stated that we are only talking about just one religion, some are not going to be happy when it comes to beliefs other than Christianity




Every person has the right to pray whenever and to whoever. Every person has the right to get together and do it together. But while doing it, remember that...

“Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:5-6).

It's just 9 in the morning and I have already seen a couple of people with t shirts regarding the issue. Good thing I don't see scripture as infallible, otherwise, I should be telling them what a hypocrites they are.

Finally, one of the ads that Freedom From Religion Foundation plans to put on some buses:

The Texas Education Chainsaw Massacre

Remember that movie in which a group of cannibals killed a group of friends who were around? Well, nowadays we have our own massacre in Texas. This time, the victims were the textbooks to be used in schools, and the cannibals that slashed them, the members of the Texas Board of Education.

Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

In other words:
1. Capitalism is great, Amurricah is numbah 1!!!
2. The Founding fathers had no intention of making this a country with religious freedom
3. They were also republicans, the same kind of republicans we have today kissing big businesses asses and screwing the poor

I won’t say much about 1 and 3 (even though I should, but I’m pretty sure there are many out there who will do it better than me). But number 2 is important and must be addressed.

First of all, why is Texas so important when it comes to education and textbooks?

The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks.

Which means that the editors will do what they need to do to sell to the biggest buyer. And the rest? Well, fuck the rest, Texas is bigger.

And also, more stupid:

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.

First of all, it’s not a great idea to elect the board of education. When it comes to education, those who should be in charge are educators, the highest of the highest, meaning scientists, psychologists, mathematicians, linguists, etc. Not random guys that will represent the people. When it comes to policies it’s nice to represent the people, actually, it’s the best we have. But when it comes to education, people just don’t know. As a whole, they don’t know. Especially when these people will prefer to believe their favorite myth book than actual science.

This also apply when those nutjobs don’t want their bibles out of the state-given education:

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

I just found it, in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No establishment of religion, as simple as that. If the founding father had meant this to be a “christian nation” the first amendment would have read something like this:

“The Congress of the United States of America, by the power given by the Almighty God and His Only Son Jesus Christ establishes that our country in God will not prohibit free exercise of religion as meant to honor our dear Lord; will not abridge the freedom of speech, as our Lord has given us the power to speak out, or of the press, or of the people to assemble, especially in order to pray to our Lord or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

Remember that at that time there was no ACLU, or American Atheists, or Freedom From Religion Foundation, or U.N. If they had wanted to make of this a Christian Nation no one would have stopped them. But they didn’t. They clearly wrote down “No establishment of religion”. Is it that hard to understand?

Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”

It was defeated on a party-line vote.

After the vote, Ms. Knight said, “The social conservatives have perverted accurate history to fulfill their own agenda.”

Is it that bad that the government has a neutral stand regarding to religion, giving to all of them the same rights, in other words, giving equality to them?

To the normal mind, no. But to the religious zealots who are in power (and this also applies to the catholic church) it’s very important to keep the power, even if that means inequality right in our faces.

That seems pretty un-American to me. Yet those conservatives are the ones that claim to be “patriotic” and “all American”.

I bet the conservatives would be up in arms and forming Tea Parties if the Democrats had cut out some historical figure. But that’s what the conservatives just did:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

Oh come on. So these people just erase part of history, just erase part of a great idea so that their favorite myths book isn't displaced from education? What was I thinking when coming to this country and thinking I wound find a place in which knowledge and science and social liberties were cherished and respected? There is still so much work to do. Conservative ideas might have really good things to offer, but since they come usually entangled with such unscientific views and hypocritical positions, it is just hard to take them seriously.

Finally, Professor Eugenie Scott explains how Creationism is still crazy after all these years. Also she explains what is the position scientists have regarding this issue. She also talks about the influence Texas has.

Gay sex in the Vatican, gay marriage in DC

This is making me think that catholics in power like gay sex. It hasn't been more than two days since a conservative, anti-gay legislator was found coming out from a gay bar. Yet, we have news from another scandal involving gay sex. This time it's not just a catholic legislator, but people from The Vatican.

Vatican chorister sacked for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for papal gentleman-in-waiting

The Vatican was today rocked by a sex scandal reaching into Pope Benedict's household after a chorister was sacked for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting.

Angelo Balducci, a Gentleman of His Holiness, was caught by police on a wiretap allegedly negotiating with Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, a 29-year-old Vatican chorister, over the specific physical details of men he wanted brought to him. Transcripts in the possession of the Guardian suggest that numerous men may have been procured for Balducci, at least one of whom was studying for the priesthood.

A Gentleman of "his holiness"... and that is...

ceremonial ushers of the papal household. In the words of a 1968 ordinance, they are expected to "distinguish themselves for the good of souls and the glory of the name of the Lord".

The Lord must be thrilled. Especially since his church, the Catholic church (according to the catholics) states in its catechism that:

homosexual acts "are intrinsically disordered" and "Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, gay marriage is legal. Gays go and get in line to get married, a right they should have because they are citizens, just like anyone, and because by getting married they get lots of benefits that any other kind of partnership can't get. DC got what California, thanks to the bible-thumping bigots, could not get: Equality.

Anti-gay Republican Catholic senator arrested. Drunk. After leaving gay bar

That is the kind of headline I love to see. It just shows how much of a hypocrite these people are. They legislate against rights for homosexuals, usually under the assumption that their lifestyle is wrong and unmoral, only to be found doing the same.

Just like evangelical Ted Hagard

Just like congressman Mark Sanford

Or congressman Mark Foley.

Or congressman Larry Craig

Another one bites the dust. Another republican, social conservative, pro-traditional family (meaning, anti-gay), god-fearing, values champion bites the dust.

Anti-gay Senator Roy Ashburn arrested for drunk driving after leaving gay club


Police in California report State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.) was arrested early Wednesday morning for drunk driving. Cops say Ashburn was pulled over after leaving the popular Sacramento gay nightclub, Faces.


A police report also indicates Ashburn, a fierce competitor of gay rights who stands staunchly against gay marriage, was stopped with an unidentified man in the passenger seat of his state-issued car.

I wonder what this guy was doing at such bar. Maybe praying for those gay souls? Trying to get voters? Conducting a study on gay life? Encouraging gays to give up something for lent? (by the way, this guy is catholic). What do you think?

The Retards War. Starring: The former governor of Alaska

This isn't a blog about politics. But when it comes to Sarah Palin, politics and religion usually come together. Her position regarding creationism, the "protection from witches", supposed permission from God to invade Irak, and other positions akin to fundamentalist Cristians prove so. Is that a problem? It becomes a problem when such unscientifical thinking is cheered and supported by lots of people.

So, first of all, what does Palin has to with retardedness?

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Sarah Palin Uses a Hand-O-Prompter
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

So, Palin has no problem with using the word "retard", right? Well, that's why I use it in this entry's title. And that's why we are going to use it a couple more times.

If I'm not mistaken, in a colloquial environment, "retard" is usually used as a synonym for a person with Down's syndrome. Which brings me to the next case.



So, neither Palin, nor her daughter, Bristol, liked the reference, since they thought it as an insult to Trigg, who does have Down's Syndrome.

I don't think that is the case. I think the reference is to Bristol. Because it does take a really retarded person to choose abstinence as a way or birth control, have sex, without a condom or any kind of contraceptive, and then, lobby in favor of abstinence. And it takes another retarded person to try to be presented as a "traditional values champion" when her own daughter is pregnant.

Palin must have thought "I will come out and defend all people with Down's Syndrome from this insult. I'm such a great person. I have a kid with Down's Syndrome, so that is enough to make a defender of such."

Well, think again. Andrea Fay Friedman, the woman who did the voice of the character with Down's Syndrome came out with a great response:

And when I watched on Channel 4, on “Extra,” and I saw Sarah Palin with her son Trig. I’m like, “I’m not Trig. This is my life.” I was making fun of Sarah Palin, but not her son. [...] It’s not really an insult. I was doing my role, I’m an actor. I’m entitled to say something. It was really funny. I was laughing at it. I had a nice time doing voiceover. It was my first time doing a voiceover, and I had fun.

So, Ms. Palin does not represent all people with Down's Syndrome. Here is one, maybe the most concerned, speaking and explaining what that joke really mean to a person with Down's Syndrome. Yes, it makes fun of her, but not of her son. Of course, being a victim of such an insult against her kids, her most beloved kid, is excelent when it comes to get support.

Think of it as a joke "sent by God". He works in "mysterious ways", you know.



Yeah, they are more retarded than Peter Griffin.

Gay-marriage videos, lots of them

Prop 8 is being challenged in court after more than a year of having passed. For those of you who might not know, Proposition 8 is basically an anti gay-marriage law. If you want to know more about it, you can check it in Wikipedia. If you want to know about what is going on right now, you can check the LA Times.

Since it was going to take very long to talk about this, I preferred to put some videos about it, most of them funny and thoughtful. Enjoy them

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

This is a parody of this ad against same-sex-marriage. Some others also followed:














Here is another version of it, with only one guy talking in different areas


















And finally, a more serious but as funny video with Jon Steward and Mike Huckabee

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis