"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." says Proverbs 13:24 and if the kid is severely injured or dies in the process, well that's ok because it's the Bible telling parents to do so.
First of all it's certainly frightening that a book like To Train Up a Child could be popular around the world. Responsible parents don't train a child, they educate a child, but apparently Christian parents tend to leave it up to God to educate them and I don't see that as being very responsible.
The "observing Christians" (which is just another way to say "religious freaks")who authored the book hold the typical arrogance of the preachers who actually believe their actions are manifestations of God's will, that Gods acts through them, and that whatever they do or say has a part in God's plan. Therefore, they won't see anything wrong in their message or the consequences such a violent and abusive message has. I bet it took the reporter a lot of self-restrain not to punch both of them in the face when one of them started hitting him lightly with his hand.
According to the authorities, the girl was beaten for seven hours with short breaks for prayer. I wonder what kind of person could pray, and what those prayers would be, before and after beating a child. My guess is that those parents also thought they were doing the correct thing because if God says so, well, how could it be wrong?
To regard the Bible as the word of God is to be nothing else but a card-carrying idiot. Sure, it could contain some interesting and useful content, but to obey it word by word because of its supposedly divinity is plain stupid. These kind of cases remind us that the idea of a God talking to people is a really bad idea and should be fought against if what we seek is a more rational an peaceful world.
Finally, if really God meant what that couple did and didn't lift a finger to stop them, He/She is huge dick. Or he just doesn't exist, which is the most probable.
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.
Holy Week supposedly ends with a great event, the (supposed) resurrection of Christ. I'll do the same. I'll finish this week of recommendations with a blast. You must already know about it and maybe you have already seen it. Well, it's only fair to watch it again.
On August 27, 2009, Penn & Teller's Bullshit made an episode about the Vatican. As you can expect from them, they didn't have nice things to say. But they hard true things to say. Not a truth that is said to be given by God through the Pope, or found in the Bible. "Truth" as in facts.
The interesting thing is that this episode is not listed on Penn & Teller's webpage, nor available on the DVDs. Why could that be? You tell me, who wouldn't want that episode available to anyone?
Fortunately the internet has made a miracle. We can watch the episode about the Vatican! Whoever didn't want this to be available can't be very happy about it, just like those who oppose to sharing information are when knowledge is made available to people.
These are parts 2 and 3. They have Spanish subtitles. So, if you can, please, send them to your Spanish-speaking friend, to that foreign student, to the lady who cleans your home, or to the guy who takes care of your garden. I write most of this blog in Spanish because I feel like the Spanish-speaking world needs to have this kind of knowledge.
In the United States there is a widespread idea that there is an ongoing "war on Christmas" waged by atheists and in general, people who prefer a secular government in which every person has the same rights. As usual, this idea is proposed by the whiny religious right (mainly conservative Christians).
"This is the time of year that the secularists, these atheists, choose to assault our Christianity and our religion," says Jeff Field with the Catholic League. "We decided that we're not going to sit by and let that happen." No turning the other cheek this time.
I don't think anyone believes the myths of Romus and Remulus, or Zeus and Hercules becase, well, those are myths. Yet, many get angry at rational people pointing out that this is also a myth. Just because many people like to believe it's real doesn't change that.
Oh, and atheists have been challenging religious nonsense for years. Where do you think a society that respects human rights comes from?
Some other times, Christians will whine at the secularization of Christmas, represented in "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas", or in the driving away of nativity scenes in public places. They would even make a movie about it:
Conservative Christians like to brag an boast about the constitution, but then tend to forget the establishment clause, which declares that the government can't favor one religion over another, or religion over lack of religion and viceversa. In other words, it can't use our money to put up displays about one religion.
Personally, I have no problem with Christmas and wishing someone else a merry one. Even Richard Dawkins hasn't one. But I'll still might say "Happy Holidays" just for the fun of it.
Of course this won't sit well with many of those want just and only their celebration around, which is why they despise the "Happy Holidays" (which includes everything that is celebrated this season) and prefer "Merry Christmas", which is only one of those celebrations.
Finally, if you want a real "War on Christmas" you might prefer atheists to do something like this:
On December 18, Hindu fundamentalists beat two dozen carolers, including young women, and took them to the police station in a Mumbai suburb, charging that by singing Christmas carols they had insulted Hindus.
Two days earlier, Father Thomas Chirattavayalil, who heads a mission parish at a remote village in the central Madhya Pradesh, was attacked at midnight by masked men who left him seriously injured. On December 12, statues of the Virgin Mary, St. John, and St. Mary Magdalene, were found decapitated and disfigured at a church in the Andra Pradesh state.
Well, that's a war con Christmas. The American atheists haven't done anything except exercise their right to free speech and demanded that the constitution be respected in regard of civil liberties. Why? Because that's the logical thing to do if we want a world in which equality is valued.
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.
If someone must know how disgusting it is to be accused of being a Nazi, that person must be Joseph Ratzinger. He did join the Hitler youth, but did so because he had no option. The young Ratzinger despised what the nazis did and eventually deserted.
However, here is the Pope, comparing atheists to nazis
The pope urged the UK to guard against "aggressive forms of secularism".
He said: "Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.
"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."
Despite the initial outrage and indignation, many other things come to my head
Second, notice that Ratzinger is so desperate and scared that he doesn't elaborate an intricate argument to accuse atheists of being nazis. His argument consists in that nazis wanted to take God out of our society, just like atheists and their "aggressive secularism". That's it. A supposedly educated person can't go further than just compare a group of people to the worst in the world's mind. Just look at the internet. What happens when someone is desperate to insult, discredit or has no argument against his opponent? Reductio ad Hitlerium
Third: Ratzinger is desperate to be seen as the polar opposite to evil. Why? Because he is being seen as evil right now. His protective attitudes towards priests and catholic officials whosexually abused children for decades have taken away much of the Catholic Church's credibility as a moral guide. His power is going down.
Fourth: That his power is going down might be the Catholic Church's own fault, but it's been mainly non-believers in a secular society that have told the world of the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church. Even though it's catholic children who have been abused, Catholics in general seemed pretty dyspeptic about it for decades. It's been critics of the church, such as atheists, who have made this known.
Fifth: Ratzinger is either a huge ignorant or a huge liar. The nazis did not committed their horrible crimes based on their lack of faith. Hitler himself seemed to get along pretty well with Christianity.
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." - Hitler to General Gerhard Engel, 1941
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Mein Kampf
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation." - Mein Kampf
Yet, let us remember that Nazism was not based on religion or lack of it. If anything, it had some pagan elements that favored the idea of Aryan supremacy. The Third Reich persecuted religious institutions withing Germany, as well as free-thinking or atheist groups. In other words, nothing had to distract the attention from Hitler and the Reich.
Ratzinger's cynicism is outrageous, but we have to understand his position. He is losing power and will do anything to keep it. Secularism gives its righteous place to all religions, a place in the people's mind and away from public policy if religious beliefs are unscientific or discriminatory. So, we are in the good path. Let's keep doing it.
With that ideal, I'll leave you with the Penn & Teller documentary about the Vatican. It's always good to remember it.
Yesterday I wrote about the Pope's reaction to Hawking's words. I thought about adding a series of videos to that post, but then realized that they needed their own.
In the last years child sex abuse by Catholic officials have been constantly in the news. The appearance of such cases in different parts of the world, during decades make the cases outrageous. But more outrageous is the attitude high authorities and the Vatican take regarding it. Catholic officials prefer to keep silent and simply "transfer" abusive priests to other locations, where they can keep abusing children.
Some people like to think that these are just isolated cases. They don't want to see the harsh truth, that high officials, such as cardinals prefer to keep rapers safe without caring for the victims
One of the most outrageous cases is the one of Marcial Maciel, a Mexican priest founder of the Legion of Christ. Maciel was investigated for child sex abuse, but was never brought to justice, in part then Cardinal Ratzinger did few to nothing to keep the investigations.
Maciel was very close to Pope John Paul, who also didn't do much to bring his friend to the justice. He died without going to jail.
If you still have any doubt about what the Catholic Church is capable of doing, pay attention to the next videos. This is an episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit in which they expose the Vatican and their bigotry, hatred, stupidity and power abuse. After the episode was broadcasted, the catholic lobby seems to have moved its influences. The episode is not available on DVD, and it doesn't figure in Showtime's webpage. So take a look at it while you can.
Certainly, it's not a happy thing to see. But just because you feel uncomfortable when watching the hypocrisy and cynicism in the Catholic Church, it doesn't make it less real.
It’s been already almost a week since Stephen Hawking declared that God wasn’t necessary for the existence of the universe. Predictably this caused weeping and gnashing of teeth among believers, who saw their beliefs and their God being beaten by one of science's heavy weights. As expected, religious leaders from around the world came out to defend their “creator” from being stripped of such title by one of the most important physicists in the world
“Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe" - Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
"Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being" - Lord Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth
Indeed, there is a strong current of secularist thought that aims to make God marginal in the lives of people and society by proposing and attempting to create a "paradise" without him. Yet experience tells us that a world without God becomes a "hell": filled with selfishness, broken families, hatred between individuals and nations, and a great deficit of love, joy and hope.
It's going to be hard to find such cynicism in so few words written by someone else. Ratzinger accuses secularism of creating a godless "hell" filled with selfishness and hatred. Yet, the Catholic Church has been one of the greatest sources of selfishness, where all the power is concentrated in a group of people, and where the money is served not to help those in need, but to save priests who have sexually abused kids. The Catholic Church has, and still inspires hatred towards homosexuals, by denying them the same rights heterosexuals have, or by comparing women's ordination as priests to child sexual abuse.
But there is more
On the other hand, wherever individuals and nations accept God's presence, worship him in truth and listen to his voice, then the civilization of love is being built, a civilization in which the dignity of all is respected, and communion increases, with all its benefits.
You don't need to thing a lot to notice that when Ratzinger wants nations to listen to God's voice, he actually wants nations to listen to his voice. God isn't coming down to talk to us, or to explain to us how the Bible should be interpreted. In such society dignity for everyone will never be achieved, since the Catholic Church refuses to acknowledge the same rights for women and gays.
Finally
Yet some Christians allow themselves to be seduced by secularism or attracted by religious currents that draw them away from faith in Jesus Christ. There are others who, while not yielding to these enticements, have simply allowed their faith to grow cold, with inevitable negative effects on their moral lives.
Ratzinger obviously dislikes those who refuse to be mindless sheep. But there are some who, while retaining their identity as catholics, look for a better world based on science and human rights for everyone. Naturally, this concept is seen as negative by Ratzinger
Ratzinger's arrogance and disdain for science when it contradicts his beliefs are astonishing. This comes just months after the sexual abuse scandals in which the Catholic Church has been involved, with some cases still surfacing during these days.
It's no wonder that neither the British, nor the Scotish want to pay for Ratzinger's visits to their countries. After the irresponsible way in which the Catholic leader has handled the child sex abuse cases in those countries, it's understandable that the public don't want to fund his visit. No one likes a pedophiles enabler in their country. At least no rational and moral person.
A billboard saying “There Is No Afterlife: Enjoy Life Now” placed in Watertown, Wis., by the Freedom From Religion Foundation on behalf of a local member, was vandalized. Paint was poured on the billboard posted at the entrance to Watertown at N8690 High Rd., apparently sometime overnight on Thursday, Aug. 26.
In my other post I already pointed out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be servants of a (supposedly) God of love, but can’t stand having different opinions around them. I won’t say that again.
What I would like to point out this time is how powerful the word of the non-believer is. It’s so powerful that it threatens the believer’s peace of mind and takes it out of his or her sit to do not just something, but actually something illegal. And they are supposed to be “good guys”. Yes, we non-believers get organized, go to conventions, etc, but none of that is illegal, nor a direct threat to religious freedom of expression.
Particularly, I dislike to go around and see a “One Nation under God” billboard in the highway. But I wouldn’t go and deface it with, let’s say, “One Nation under GodZILLA”, which would be funny, but wrong. I think that the fact that we haven’t seen many of those cases leads us to conclude that they are not very common and, while non-believers might dislike them, instead of defacing the billboard, will put one of our own.
However, it seems that the believer’s mind doesn’t work that way. Check this out:
The people interviewed agree with a message that clearly states that a portion of Americans should leave the country if they don’t like the idea of a nation based in religion, in other words, a theocracy. I wonder what would be the reaction if it were a message against blacks or jews. What these people basically say is that “it doesn’t matter if it is offensive or illegal, if it agrees with me, I like it”.
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.
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.
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.
Some months ago a friend of mine was giving me a ride. Somehow I told him about a difficult situation of mine and he just said “I don’t know what to say, I can only, pray for you”
That kind of reminded me of what I read once, about J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter’s creator), telling about how she was walking in a mall, and then suddenly a man told her “I’m praying for you!”, but in the same tone of voice you tell someone “Go fuck yourself!”
So very often in a debate regarding religion, non-believers will hear those words. “I’ll pray for you”, they say, with a condescending look on their face that basically means “Oh, you poor, undeluded thing, you can’t be happy because your imagination can’t take over reality”. Yes, that is what that “I’ll pray for you” means to most non-believers, especially when we hear it in that “heavenly” voice that many put after not being able to find a rational response to one’s argument.
But that is not how Rowling is said to have heard it. That “I’m praying for you” is not just condescending, but filled with rage, rage that another person is not seeing the same delusion the believer holds so dearly. The one spouting such words feels so weak and unempowered that lets his anger take control. The interesting thing is that such anger has its root and expression through a statement from a belief that advocates love.
Yeah, that is supposed to be love, doesn’t it? It can’t be hatred, because, well, that’s a sin, wrath, isn’t it? When I hear that kind of stuff, directed to me, it feels more amusing than threatening. It’s kind of hard to answer because you don’t know on what to focus your response. Should I take on the tone of voice? Should I take on the smugness of someone saying he/she will pray for me, as if that would change anything? Should I take on the fact that prayer doesn’t work? Should I just laugh it off? Or respond with a “Fuck you and your God”? No, hell no, I couldn’t do that, neither would I advise it.
But whatever you do, my non-believer friend, don’t get angry. You were just hinted that your opponent has no better answer. I would go for something like “sure, thanks, but prayer doesn’t work. No matter how much you like it, it doesn’t work.” If you need an example, you can cite this:
A Beavercreek couple who left their infant daughter's fate to God rather than seek medical treatment for a mass that grew over her left eye will face charges of first-degree criminal mistreatment.
The Wylands and their church reject medical care in favor of faith-healing -- anointing with oil, laying on of hands, prayer and fasting. The parents testified at a juvenile court hearing last week that they never considered getting medical attention for Alayna.
Disturbing picture, isn’t it? That’s what prayer does. Nothing. If God hears prayers, it either can’t do anything or just doesn’t care. And if it can’t help that baby, neither by miraculously healing her, or making those nutcases she has for parents understand that she needs medical care, God will certainly not be able to change a non-believer’s view.
Sometimes I thing believers do understand that, but the “I’ll pray for you” makes them feel better, like that they are doing something, useless, but something. Oh, and that they have a connection with a superior being that supposedly works miracles. That is always something nice to think; just like thinking you have a rich uncle that eventually will die and leave all his money to you.
Finally, going back to my ride-giving friend. Yes, he said he could only pray for me. But I didn’t felt any animosity or smugness in that. Maybe because he really wanted to do something for me, but couldn’t, and instead of saying “sorry bro, I can’t do anything” he chose to say “I can only pray for you”. That made me feel like he cared and he wanted to do something to ease my pain. That feels good, no matter from who it’s coming. He wasn’t trying to convince me or to convert me. Just being caring.
So, final words: please, non-believers don’t get angry when someone says “I’ll pray for you”. It’s a sign you are winning. It doesn’t matter if it’s condescending or insulting. Your arguments are powerful. And if it’s neither condescending or insulting, well, why get all worked up at all? It might just being someone who doesn’t know how to express their desire to help.
And believers (if any is reading this), save the “I’ll pray for you” only for occasions in which true concern is involved. Otherwise you are hurting your cause. Of course, I have no problem with that.
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.
Don't you love it when you get to see mainstream Christian's true colors? Don't you feel good to see that those who brag about loving the neighbor are just as, or even more bigoted than the average person? Isn't it reassuring that we are in the right path?
So, some days ago, this billboard was put up:
Pretty nice, I have to say. An excerpt from the Pledge of Allegiance before the "Under God" was added during the 50s. Very harmless, also, much less than the original ad that inspired the campaign.
Of course, this won't please Christians or other believers. It's not designed to do that. But I think that no matter how displeasing something is, I don't have the right to deface it or vandalize it, just because I don't like. Apparently someone doesn't think the same. After a few days, the billboard looked like this:
Very nice. So, if you don't like what it says, just scrawl something on it, it will make the message right. Because, well, God will be pleased that someone is committing crimes to defend Him from those who don't believe in it.
Now, someone could argue that such reasoning is just something I made up in my "atheist mind" to bad mouth "real christians". I'm sorry to tell you, but, no.
While vandalism should not be condoned, these recent events shed light on what some Americans will do when they feel that their freedom of speech is threatened. An atheist spokesman in North Carolina said their message is needed to “let people know we exist and that there’s a community here.”
Yet he failed to mention the concerted effort of atheist groups to stop religious Americans from freely exercising their religion. Not content with having the freedom themselves to worship or not as they see fit, militant atheists increasingly seek to shackle the beliefs of their fellow citizens through their own distorted interpretation of “separation of church and state.”
It is perhaps not surprising that some of those fellow citizens object.
So, what we have is a "yes but no" attitude that puts the blame on atheists for making efforts in speaking up. Maybe we should just stay at home and not speak of our non-belief. If we were to follow that reasoning, then I think we can go to that creationist museum and burn it down. Or go to someone who says evolution is not real and kick the crap out of him, because, well, he was asking for it.
But I'm not like that. Maybe the creationists, in their belief that their god created everything, and that such belief must be imposed by reason or force, will do it.
But there is more. Remember Mike Huckabee? The pastor who was running for president and won the republican (what else?) primaries in the redneck states? Well, this is what he said:
If people want to spend their money to tell everyone they don’t believe in God, the joy, beauty, and incredible greatness of America is that we let them do it and don’t shoot them for it… What I would hope is that people who believe, as I do, in the power of Jesus Christ like I do would put 10 billboards for every one like that.
Would it have been to fucking hard to say the vandalism shouldn't have happened? Wouldn't it have been gentlemanly to say so, even if one doesn't think so? Does this fucktard needs so desperately to appeal to his followers that he just passes the issue away and instead, hopes for something that already happens? Because, go along the road (especially in the South) and you will see much more church billboards and Jesus billboards, not to mention those put on the side of trucks.
And finally, from World Nut Daily, a columnist praises the vandalism saying it is her kind of vandalism:
Never would I encourage vandalism, but in this case I think I'll let it slide. Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot. When asked about the vandalism, William Warren, the spokesman for Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics, said, "It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation." Hmm. That's interesting, because the Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics felt its only recourse was to deliberately insult those who understand the importance of "Under God."
So, and excerpt from the Pledge of Allegiance is insulting? Is this girl serious? Really, you can recite the Pledge as much as you want, but to tell others how to do it by vandalizing a piece of freedom of speech is just overstepping boundaries. If you want, go put your own billboard, with "Under God" in big letters. But do you really want to vandalize it?
I don't know if would be capable to just "let it slip" if I saw someone who supported this kind of vandalism being beaten or raped. I think I appreciate humanity too much to do that without, at least, being outraged.
However, Christians, mainstream christians, christians who have lots of followers and who brag about their being so righteous would. Thank you guys. Thank you for making us non-believers understand that as much as others thing we are assholes, we can't get to your God-inspired assholery.
Thanks to the Friendly Atheist, who have been following the case.
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.
