Today the Catholic world celebrates the latest addition to the Catholic pantheon. John Paul II breaks the record for the fastest beatification and is now just one step from sainthood.
He has earned his wings
I think it's pretty obvious the reasons behind this fast process. The Catholic Church has seen a decline in the number of its followers, the reason being, of course, its boy-raping priests and the church's idleness to deal with it. As it was expected, the catholic Church didn't like this one bit. Giancarlo Zizola, John Paul II's biographer told Spanish newspaper El Pais:
These are bad times for the Roman Church and the beatification appears as trying an urgent therapy. It seems like they are trying to reproduce the massive consensus regarding the last papacy to cover the actual crisis. Zizola thinks that there is an interest among movements like Opus Dei and Communion and Liberation to appropriate John Paul II's figure to strengthen its actual role"
John Paul lived in another time, an easier time than the one Ratzinger has. John Paul II didn't have to suffer the internet diffusing with no restraints all the hypocrisy and perversion the Catholic Church is capable of. Catholics' selective memory was helped by that time's media, which never did many efforts to spread the sexual abuses committed by the priests. Add to that the fact that the secular movement wasn't as strong as it is today.
This is why John Paul II is remembered as someone sublime, almost like a modern-day saint. Considering the crisis the Catholic Church is suffering, why not take advantage of such fame? Doing so allows the church to create a bridge between it and the faithful who started to see estranged and away the church that for many years had control over so many people.Now this generation can say "We have a blessed among us! We have someone especial! God is still with us!"
We have to admit that John Paul did some good in the world, like his criticism towards the communists (you can say whatever you want about American capitalist imperialism, but I don't think a Soviet-controlled world would have been better) or helping Chile and Argentina to achieve peace. But this in no way erase his activism against contraceptives, especially in AIDS-ridden Africa, or against gays.
Most notoriously of all, John Paul took no action at all against the Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, who was beset by allegations of sexual abuse for decades. It eventually emerged that he was a drug addict who had fathered several children with two different women and had also committed numerous acts of sexual abuse, some with his own children. But Degollado was an authoritarian conservative after John Paul's own stripe, and John Paul would hear no ill of him. It was left to his successor to force him to retire to "a life of penitence".
"In more than 25 years as the most powerful religious figure on the planet," commented Barbara Blaine, head of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (Snap), "John Paul II did almost nothing to safeguard kids." Because of this she urged the church to postpone the beatification, to "avoid rubbing more salt into these wounds".
Maybe John Paul didn't really know who Maciel was. However, he knew exactly what he was looking for and what kind of people he needed to achieve it
For his battle, he needed an unconditional army. He had no use for Franciscans, Dominicans or Jesuits. They were to busy with the poor. Almost in the Marxist realm. Enemies of the powerful. Wojtyla found new recruits in the Opus, the Kikos, the Lumen Dei, the Communoin and Liberation and the Legion of Christ. Together they jumped in the time machine and went back to the 50s, to a church with a centralized power and with no place for dissidence. And decided that such church had to be the one of the new millennium. Maciel was one of the leaders
Marcial Maciel died without ever going to prison for his crimes, neither judged for them. If there is a miracle we can actually attribute to John Paul II, it is to have protected a rapist for so long and even after dead
This is the guy venerated by old people who see in him the one they were trained to love and obey, and by young ones, who they see as the wonderful figure with they grow up, go up to the altar and scratch the skies. They even have relics, a vial with John Paul II's blood, in case someone thought this couldn't get even more medieval, a time the Catholic Church would love to see brought back
This is a very clever move by the Catholic Church, but not really surprising. To take advantage of its followers' gullibility is just normal for them.
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.
"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.
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:
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:
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.
Not everything is black and white, and certainly, not all Catholics are Pope-loving communion wafer-adoring mindless zealots at the orders of the Vatican. At least not 100%. However, the fact that they still adhere to the label whether because of tradition or laziness to think things through still makes me disagree with them. But if they keep their issues to their own, without messing with other people’s lives, well, then I’m not concerned.
These two groups have had the guts and dared to get organized to vocalize their dissent with the Vatican’s policies, especially those, that, besides not making much sense, are bigoted and discriminatory.
Catholics for Equality empowers pro-equality Catholics to put our faith into ethical and effective political action on behalf of the LGBT community and their families.
Drawing on the rich tradition of Catholic social justice teachings, grounded in the Gospel message of Love, American Catholics are among the strongest supporters of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people of any religious group in the U.S.
I know it sounds crazy, but I think there some kind of truth in here. Compared to evangelicals, Catholics seem to be a little bit more tolerant. However, I think this is due to the fact that many Catholics arrived in to the United States as immigrants, first from Ireland and then from Latin America, and when one is the underdog tends to develop certain tolerance.
Yet, go to a country in which Catholics are a majority and see how much they support gays. You’ll find pretty much the same bigotry and hatred as you can find in the United States.
But this is good. While in general Catholics are not really nice to the gays, these guys are trying something different. Maybe they are getting Jesus’ message right, “love one another as I have loved you”, no matter if you are a Samaritan or something different and hateful. Oh, yes, to think that Jesus was real, and the miracles, and the resurrection, etc, is still nonsense. But if they are actually not messing with someone else’s life, why should I care? Yes, it’s nonsense, but right now, we have more important things to do.
Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children.
Which basically means, gays are worrying because, well, God doesn’t like them and neither do we.
So, kudos for those Catholics for equality, Rather than blasting them for being Catholics, let’s consider this a first step that homophobia is not the only nonsense in the Catholic church.
Another issue that the Catholic Church seems very concerned about is abortion. But not just abortion, the Catholic Church doesn’t like condoms or any other way of family planning that isn’t the rhythm method. In other words, the Catholic Church prefers to see a family with lots of children instead of two people using a condom.
Since not using a condom and just hope the woman doesn’t get pregnant is plain stupid, most rational people (catholic or not) will disregard this idea. But given that the official catholic position is against responsible family planning, there came a group that supports Catholics right to decide.
At CFC, we strive to be an expression of Catholicism as it is lived by ordinary people. We are part of the great majority of the faithful in the Catholic church who disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican on matters related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood. We are part of the great majority who believes that Catholic teachings on conscience mean that every individual must follow his or her own conscience ― and respect others' right to do the same. At Catholics for Choice, we believe that this is the world where the meaning of choice can truly be realized.
Same thing as the Catholics for equality. They disagree with a certain official position, but keep the label, because it’s nice to be a Catholic. But their effort is commendable, especially after Planned Parenthood might stop receiving federal funds. This doesn't mean only less abortions (which are not as common as many would like to thing), but less education, less choices, less knowledge. Of course, religions thrive in the absence of knowledge, so we can be pretty sure most Catholics aligned with the Vatican will be very happy about this. It might be time to bring another family planning device.
In few words, the Vatican opposes artificial family planning because every sex act is not for pleasure, but for reproduction, so sex has to be open to life. Such anachronistic, repressive, misogynistic and cruel vision of sex is certainly baffling. Nowadays we have the means to enjoy it without having to deal with a pregnancy, which might trunk a life. Sometimes two, but it's usually the woman who gets screwed (no pun intended). It's easier for a man to walk away. No wonder, since the Catholic church is run mostly by men.
So, it's a good step towards the future that a group of Catholics will notice how stupid it would be to stop using family planning methods just because the Pope says so. Again, instead of blasting for still using the Catholic label, lets give them a hand and consider this the first step away from insanity.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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: 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…
"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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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
"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.
The Nevada Senate candidate says abortion is always wrong because there is a divine purpose to all pregnancies
Manders asks her whether there is "any reason at all for an abortion," and she answers: "Not in my book." For clarity, he says: "So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?" And Angle replies with this reasoning: "You know, I'm a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things." You see, God planned your rape and pregnancy. Isn't that reassuring?
Chilling, isn't it? There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know exactly where to begin.
First of all, there is the idea that a woman can't decide for herself what to do with her body. Yes, I know, abortion is such a hard topic, but, as everything, there is no black and white. But a pregnancy will truly affect a woman's life and she should some saying in that.
Second, we are not talking about some girl that got knocked up. We are talking about a rape. I'm pretty sure no woman would want to have any reminder of such horrific moment, not even if it is a baby. But according to this woman, that doesn't seem to be very important.
Third, the idea that God plans for someone to get a rape. As one of my friends commented, I don't know what to say. This should mean that such God is the greatest asshole ever. According to Angle, God must have planned the Rape of Nanking. What a dick, isn't it?
And finally, the idea that such God does this for "a purpose" and that this purpose is inherently good. I would like to see someone trying to explain that to a rape victim: "Don't cry girl, be happy, this happened because God wanted it. Remember, God loves you"
This would have ended here, but there is more to the story.
I published this on Facebook, where one of my contacts (a pretty clever guy, for what I know) shared it, But he made it with the following comment:
"horrifying. Angle, you are not a real Christian"
To which I couldn't hold my horses and replied:
So, you mean that she must be a muslim, a jew or an atheist, and is making people believe she is a christian? What exactly is a "real christian"?
Maybe I was being too sarcastic, which might have bothered my friend a little bit. Maybe that prompted his long response:
"What exactly is a "real christian"?" that's a big question and u know im not going to try to define that here--nor is it necessary for me to do so. that said, while creativity doesnt have a precise definition in the scholarly community, people are ok with the "you know it when you see it" standard, and im applying that to identifying christians
lets put it this way ...someone might call themselves a biologist, and then go on to make things up about the natural world. biologists would say that they're calling themselves a biologist, but they're not even bad biologists, they arent biologists period. their calling themselves one would make them a false biologist. and Angle is by similar reasoning a false Christian.
I know that in your atheist mind, religion leads to evil ideas and Angle's are just another example. in your mind, the faithful are stupid fucks filled with bad ideas such as these. so according to your schema of christians, using the same 'know it when you see it' reasoning I am, she fits the bill.
our definitions of what a real christian is are different and probably unresolvable. our fundamental difference is that all the stupid shit in the belief system as practiced today, you think of it as a correct understanding of a crap doctrine, while I see it as an interpretation by man that is wrong and driven not by reason but by our less impressive motivations. it is best in this case if we agree to disagree. but I leave you with the thought that supreme court justices often have pre-formed opinions on matters and pretty much rule however the hell they want, spinning the constitution as needed--same happens w/religious texts.
finally, "you mean that she must be a muslim, a jew or an atheist" is a completely ridic statement Diego, and you know it. statements this poorly thought out are not conducive to productive dialogue, so please filter these from your future comments. I dont want to be a dick--and since you yourself know this statement was unproductive, I know you wont take this request the wrong way.
Very articulated, I have to say. Not the average God-soldier, Christ-lover, abortion-doctor killer, who fights in the pro-life side so strongly. Yet, that wasn't enough for me. I responded a longer and more tedious post:
Nice try with the biologist example, but, as far as I know, there is a standard for someone to be call a biologist, which is a degree a person gets from an educational institution. Before that you may call yourself a biology student, but, to be properly recognized as a biologist, you may want to have something "official" to prove it.
With belief it is different. I don't doubt that Angle is a Christian, as much as I don't doubt that Martin Luther King Jr was. As far as I know, both of them believe in Christ and therefore, they both can be called christians. Even the guys from the Westboro Baptist Church are christians because, they believe in Christ.
Now, in my (actually) atheist/agnostic mind, I see religion as something that can produce goodness and love from people, but at the same time evil and intolerance. You, on the other hand, seem to think that if someone doesn't fit the ideal of "good person", therefore, that person must not be a true christian. That reminds me of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, which you must be familiar with. In case not, you can google it.
The question of her being a muslim, jew or atheist, yes, was kind of tongue-in-cheek. Why? because I didn't think you would be saying that, because she holds so despicable views, therefore she must not be a "real christian." Maybe I was wrong.
Finally, the "True christian" label has been used by many (if not all) denominations to discredit others. In this way, protestants accuse catholics of not being real christians ("they adore images" they say), and catholics accuse protestants of not being true christians ("their church was founded by Martin Luther and not by Jesus himself" they say). That is just one example.
I don't know you in person, but taking it from what you usually put in your wall, you seem like a very intelligent person. So, I don't think anyone is being a dick here, but actually having a very interesting conversation.
I think I addressed everything my friend said. I would have liked to point out that his assumption of my "atheist" mind was actually a prejudice of what we all atheists are. But that would have been something too long for a Facebook discussion. Besides, I prefer to demonstrate that by acts and just by mere words. Like a "true christian" maybe.
Here is his response:
thanks for explaining your comment as tongue-in-cheek ... glad I was wrong about it being unproductive, and yes, we are two smart people enjoying a good discussionhmm ... i could be committing the no true scotsman fallacy
but let's take the extreme example of taliban's ideas about islam. based on a "rational" understanding of the islamic God... what talibs do (poison gas girls schools, fuck donkeys on thursdays b/c they think friday prayers absolve of all sins, etc) is in no fucking way a reasonable interpretation of what islam should be. they might 'believe' in the prophet muhammad (as Angle 'believes' in jesus), but the belief system they're constructing about the world and the divine is in every other sense fucking unrecognizable as reasonable abrahamic religion. what they're doing is not islam, but a belief system that's completely their own invention that just happens to have co-opted the prophet of islam. sort of how "gnostic christians" gave jesus some significance but then spun alongside him a crazy system that ... totally isnt compatible w/the christian universe.
YES ... gnostic christians are a good analogy here
And my response...
Ok, let's take extreme example of the talibans. Their understanding of the islamic god is repulsive to us and most muslims will say that "they are not true muslims". However, that is the same thing the talibans would say about other muslims; and the same thing the Westboro Baptist wackos say about other christians. It is nice to think that a reasonable interpretation of islam or christianity leads to goodness and only goodness. But the problem is that nor Muhammad nor Jesus will come down to explain what the scripture their followers follow actually mean. But we have to ask, "reasonable" in terms of what? I would say, based on the actual society's norms. But to some, that leads directly to a false interpretation, since it is not totally based on the early scripture, which nowadays is usually found unreasonable.
Now, coming back to the issue here, Angle seems to be very sure that she is a true christian, and I bet most of her followers will think so too.
As we heard, according to her, her idea that God plans rapes is founded in her belief in God and, like many, an interpretation of the scripture. You, and many, condemn her for being a “fake christian” based on the idea that according to Jesus (through the bible, I presume), is just trying to get votes from the “true christians.” Again, I have to ask how do we know which one is right? According to whom? It would be awesome if the heavens opened, and, at least an angel came down, blow a horn, a trumpet, even a vuvuzela, and said “This is what God REALLLY meant…” But, as a non-believer, I don’t think that is going to happen anytime.
Finally, this is so interesting, I would like to post it in my blog.
And this is how we got here.
I'm sure updates will be coming. As I said, I'm not talking with just any guy that reads, repites and memorizes scripture. This is a very educated person with a degree in something I don't remember, so I don't think he will pull back. Just like I wouldn't.
Update:
Yes, there was more:
First of all, I failed to notice this message before my last response:
OH DAMN ... got it Diego. good idea just happened sure one could define christians as all those who worship christ. or, in the case of gnostic christians, their belief system is SO diff from christianity that its more accurate to call them christian gnostics. here, christian is the adjective--but they're fundamentally gnostics.
when people spin their own belief system but co-opt just a few of another faith's ideas/figures, they're not members of that faith, they're members of the faith they pulled out of their ass (i grant that my judgment of these other faiths as "out of the ass" gives much credence to the atheist statement "i believe in only one less god than the rest"), and it is most appropriate to label them as members of their homespun faith--with the co-opted faith being nothing more than a modifier
admittedly, i dont know what I would call Angle's faith (also Palin's) =p. maybe "american redneck value system"?
So the next one didn't address this. If I had, I would have said that in such case, only catholics would be "real christians" since protestants pulled their own interpretation and believed what they wanted to believe. Their reasons to do so are not relevant, since they still differ from what at that point was the belief system. If so, we can call Palin and Angle just "fake christians" because they aren't catholics. But on the other hand, Martin Luther King wasn't a catholic either. And I wouldn't say he wasn't a christian.
Anyway, continuing the conversation, he responded:
Diego, yes, do post to your blog =D In this debate your position... See More's best hope of correctness rests on the following: it is possible, however unlikely (but in matters of religion the unlikely cannot be discounted), that one of the apeshit (in our opinion) interpretations of the divine (e.g. the taliban's) happens to be the one that God (if he exists) actually intends
however, all interpretations are created by the human brain ... and understanding of God's intention is just one of the many things that the brain can come to understand about the universe. Angle's brain has fucked up the interpretation of a lot of things. Think of the divine is just another thing on that list.
I have to admit it took me some time to decipher what this meant. I don't know if my reading comprehension is too low or my friend was using complicated wording to mess with my brain. But after a while I managed a response:
So, in other words, since interpretations of the divine are just another thing created by the human brain, they aren't really divine. I can live perfectly with that, but I don't think a believer would be a real believer with such position.
Now, again, you can argue that Angle has interpreted many things wrongly, but, as I said before, she (and her many supporters) can say the same thing about all others. I do think of the divine as something our brain makes to explain stuff we don't understand (it's not that simple, but we can leave it at that). But, made up by our brain our not, I thing Angle's belief is sincere, maybe misguided, maybe fucked up, but sincere. And, as with the christians who support gay marriage or abortion, I wouldn't discount her as one just because her view doesn't fit with that of one group.
Then came his:
haha, thanks for the complimentary things you said about your debater on your blog. my degrees are in biology and mathematics, but I am self-educated (wikipedia ftw) in numerous subjects. as we've seen here, religion and ideological histories thereof is one of those areas.
in all faiths, and in all scholarly disciplines, a reasonable mind can come to several interpretations; less reasonable minds will create some others, which are clearly wrong. in scholarship, some number of people whose minds generate with greater-than-acceptable frequency unreasonable interpretations of the natural world do somehow get through and are given degrees. if this kind of idiot gets a bio BS, in my opinion I still wont recognize them as a biologist. but many people would count them as biologists--and i recognize this position as reasonable, albeit disagreeing with it.
those undeserving degree holders are biologists according to a "if it quacks like a duck" standard, and that's the standard you're applying to angle in counting her as a christian. i suppose the undeserving degree holder is a biologist in principle, but fails to be so in practice due to lack of understanding, and hence is not a "real biologist" by my standards.
haha, i'll meet u halfway. quacking like a duck is the requirement for being a christian (which makes angle one), but coming to a reasonable understanding is a requirement for being a "real christian" (which angle aint), similar to the distinction between the "biologist" and "real biologist"
And finally, mine, all for this night I presume. I want you to read this last answer very carefully, especially the part that talks about the atheists who are as prejudiced as the woman at the beginning of this post
You're welcome on the comments; I thought it was necessary, given that some nonbelievers tend to think that those who believe in God are uneducated rednecks that have no idea of scienceor on how to carry a debate.
Now, starting from that point, I could be tempted to say that those are not real atheists, since an atheist, to my standard has to be committed to the search of reason and logic, and those who are prejudiced are not doing so, therefore, they are not "real atheists".
Then you would say I'm wrong. You would be right.
Unfortunately, since they claim not to believe in a god (the ones who I know behave like that and I have no reason to believe that they are lying) they are atheists. No matter how bigoted and prejudiced they can be, they are.
So, I cannot put my own standard to filter those the rational ones from the prejudiced, and call the first ones "real atheists", because a "real atheist" is committed to science and science cannot be prejudiced. I would like to think that way, but then I would become one of those I deplore.
In the same way, Angle can be all the prejudiced and wrong she wants, that doesn't change the fact that she believes in Christ as the savior and son of God. For your standards that might not be enough, but for her and for many, it is.
So what are the morals of the story?
1. Not all believers are uneducated rednecks who just spout scripture. In case someone didn't get that clear, that is not always the case. 2. A nice debate between believers and non-believers is possible. No, it doesn't consist on the non-believer saying "you are fucking deluded, religion is bullshit". It's much more difficult than that
Maybe more will come. But I'll be out most of the weekend. So, happy July 4, Godless America.
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 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.
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!"
"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.
If there is anything the Catholic Church received from God, it's a capacity to behave like a total asshole. It is as if someone in Rome wakes up and thinks "It's a nice morning, what can we do today to be more of a dick than we were yesterday? Let's see, we did already cover thousands of rapes and abuses by our own priests; we complained that the media was against us when they reported on the issue; and we also blamed everyone around for those crimes. Let's see these reports... oh, here is a great case:
Earlier this month, in something of a surprise, a nun at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix was excommunicated for approving a first-trimester abortion last year at that hospital to save the life of a critically ill patient. “An unborn child is not a disease,” said Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Phoenix diocese. “While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child.”
The irony here is thick: it has taken years, sometimes decades, to bring sex-abusing priests to justice, but this observant sister, Margaret McBride, was excommunicated in a matter of months for making a compassionate and impossible decision for one of her parishioners.
Indeed, the irony is thick as a log. Apparently, the Catholic church has done little next to nothing to prevent and punish priests who sexually abuse children. According to many reports, this has been going on for years. And it's just after everything explodes in the Pope's face, that there is an apology regarding the issue.
However, when a nun, probably committing the sin of using some brain and compassion to save a woman's life, approves a first-trimester abortion (not even a third trimester) she gets punished with the highest punishment the Catholic church gives to its sheep followers: excommunication.
Of course I don't give two shits about excommunication (actually I'd love to get one). But this seemed like a good woman who was trying to do good unto others. What is wrong with that? The woman she tried to save had her life at risk, is it too bad to try to save it?
The celerity with which this case was dealt with is also amazing. It takes years to bring a pedophile priest to court, but just weeks to excommunicate a nun for such a trivial thing.
If there is anything good about this case is that hopefully more women will reconsider wasting their life as nuns, where their will and judgment will be thwarted in order to comply with centuries-old nonsense. Hopefully more women will fully enjoy their lives. And hopefully, the nuns we will see around look more like this:
Finally, a couple of days ago, some idiots thought it would be funny to vandalize a church and stab a Virgin Mary painting in the face. Hopefully they get caught and get their asses thrown in jail. Just like priest who abuse kids should have theirs. This kind of insanity is never a solution.
Yet, I wonder what makes the Virgin Mary angrier: some vandals putting a knife on her image? Or people who say to represent God on Earth to guide His church and, at the same time, abuse and cover such abuses?
UPDATE: Nicholas D. Kristof from the New York Times says:
We finally have a case where the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is responding forcefully and speedily to allegations of wrongdoing.
But the target isn’t a pedophile priest. Rather, it’s a nun who helped save a woman’s life. Doctors describe her as saintly.
The excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride in Phoenix underscores all that to me feels morally obtuse about the church hierarchy. I hope that a public outcry can rectify this travesty.
I wouldn't be so hopeful. The Catholic Church has had countless opportunities to rectify the many fuck-ups it has had. Only has used some.
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.
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
If you thought that only the American Christian fundamentalists had the monopoly of stupidity when it comes to explaining the origin of quakes, think again:
A senior Iranian cleric has claimed that dolled-up women incite extramarital sex, causing more earthquakes in Iran, a country that straddles several fault lines, newspapers reported on Saturday.
Women's bodies will doom us all
I won’t even explain why this is retarded. I like to think that most people will notice that. But the Muslim leader (what? You thought it was a secular leader? In Iran? Do those even exist?) explains it:
"Many women who dress inappropriately ... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes," Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi told worshippers at Tehran Friday prayer.
Seriously, it’s hard to comprehend what kind of mind those “worshipers” have, that follow and obey such a cleric, a senior cleric, nonetheless, who is very likely to have been babbling these kind of stuff for a long time.
American Christians can go to serious extremes regarding outlandish statements. Fortunately the United States is still a pretty secular country, compared to Iran, a theocracy in which, among many rules declared so by the clergy, is the repression of women by means of covering their whole bodies.
What if the quakes were really caused by the stupidity of the Islamic law? Really, it is as likely as being triggered by women’s clothes. Both are retarded explanations.
Episcopalians Confirm a Second Gay Bishop A majority of bishops and dioceses of the Episcopal Church have approved the election of the church’s second openly gay bishop, the Rev. Mary D. Glasspool, a decision likely to increase the tension with fellow Anglican churches around the world that do not approve of homosexuality.
This is not something that happens very often. Usually christian churches don't like to see women leading the faithful, not to mention the bigotry against gays. So I guess this is a good thing.
Of course, not everyone is happy. Because, you know, she's a lesbian:
Conservative prelates in the Communion had asked the Episcopal Church to refrain from electing any more openly gay bishops, but Episcopalians passed a resolution at their convention in 2009 saying that the church should be open to the ministry of all qualified people, regardless of sexual orientation.
Bishop Glasspool, who has been serving in Maryland as an adviser to the bishops for nine years, said Wednesday in an interview: “I feel overjoyed. I feel relieved. I’m breathing again.”
How sweet. Hopefully the Episcopalian church will be an alternative for gays who still believe in a God and want to be part of a religious community without being hated, discriminated, ostracized or damned to hell.
Sounds a little bit weird, it will piss off conservatives, not to mention religious zealots, but when thinking about it, it makes sense. Just as there is a day to remember soldiers who serve our country out there facing lots of difficulties, it is only reasonable to at least thank doctors who provide abortions.
I’m really no big fan of abortion. I don’t like the idea of a couple having unprotected sex and then going to fix the problem after 5 or 6 months. But I am a big fan of freedom, freedom to choose and freedom to get educated. Abortion , while a not very nice solution is a solution to be taken into consideration, especially in cases that don’t involve irresponsibility from the couple.
I’ll quote two cases that depict why a day such as today is necessary.
Last year, in Brazil, a 9-year-old girl had been repeatedly raped by her stepfather, who got her pregnant with twins. According to the doctor, to carry on the pregnancy would have meant the little girl’s death, so the doctor determined that the best solution was to get her an abortion.
How did the catholic church react? By opposing to the abortion and threatening the doctor and the girl’s family with an excommunication. Apparently, for the catholic church the only thing that is important is the life of the babies that, very probably, would have had a very miserable life, since it’s very unlikely that the catholic church would have taken care of them. It doesn’t matter if the little girl dies, that’s “God’s law”:
The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church
Notice that, the doctor and the girl’s family were excommunicated, but not the stepfather. I can’t help but to think that the catholic church is kind of a fan of rape.
The doctor who performed the abortion was pressured not do his job, he was threatened with “excommunication”, which is not really a big deal, but there is always the danger that a Christian terrorist would take God’s law in his hands and attack the doctor.
Thank you catholic church. Thank you from discouraging a doctor from saving a life and putting his own in danger.
But the Catholics are not the only crazy about abortion. That’s a title that evangelicals have.
David Gunn never set out to be a symbol. He wanted to deliver babies. But then an abortion clinic asked for help, and because no other doctor would do the job, performing abortions in the rural South became Dr. Gunn's life. There were wanted posters with his name on them, people following him late at night, hate mail, death threats, protesters yelling "Murderer!" Dr. Gunn kept three guns in his car -- one in the glove compartment, one under the seat and one in the trunk.
I don’t think that doctors Tiller, Gunn and the Brazilian doctor like to do such a job. But someone has to do it when the circumstances arise. Christian fanatics don’t think further than the fact that life is being terminated and refuse to see other factors playing a role in the case. That is the kind of thinking that religion considers a virtue: A lack of critical thinking and a sheep-like mind that just does what it is told to do, regardless of how sense it makes and (in this case) without minding that another person’s life is at risk.
He has earned his wings
