The parties of God can always be counted on for a steady stream of aggression, force, and violence against undeserving people (usually the weaker victim the becomes their target of choice) but I think that Islam has become the new front-runner in terms of reliability and stupidity. Christians have had their murderous and immoral tendencies chilled by secular/enlightenment values, but Islam isn't having any of the "growing up" crap: they childishly hold that their vile brand of magic men and wish thinking is really true. And if you don't believe it, they'll kill you.
Luckily that wasn't the case for 64 year old Lars Vilks, a brave and wise Danish artist. Lars exercised his right to free expression and cartooned the image of the Islamic prophet, and in return he was met with the predictable violent reaction we've come to expect from those who believe in gods. They didn't manage to get the kill though, Lars survived the attack thanks to the intervention of the authorities. Yet another example of how religion poisons 'everything'. Can we not have simple cartoons? They want to ruin cartoons as well? Grow a backbone, are you really this delicate?
These kinds of religiously inspired attacks are commonplace, and I mention it not because it's a new occurrence, or even because it's incredibly noteworthy. I mention it for two reasons: firstly to call attention to the courage and fortitude of this 64 year old bro, and secondly so I can call more attention to this illogical notion that if you speak against Islam you're speaking racism.
The fallacious assertion that insulting Islam means you're also insulting a group of people based on their race is nothing more than another dishonest tactic employed by the faithful to give additional cover to their lethal doctrines and dogmas. This illogical and shifty insistence that criticizing Islam is equatable to the bigoted and practice of racism is something that must be rejected and denounced for every time it rears it's ugly head. When I insult christianity by calling it what it is -- as I frequently and dutifully do -- I don't insult the people based on their race, the same goes for insulting christians themselves. The ridicule is not aimed at them because they're white or any other color, it's aimed at them because they believe things my five year old nephew knows are idiotic, it has nothing to do with their race. At all. Not even kinda.
Islam plays by the same rules: when I condemn their illiterate and pedophilic prophet as a disgusting pig (yeah I said it) that shamefully married and raped a defenseless nine year old girl I'm insulting the faith, not the race of those who believe this garbage. To say otherwise is simply illogical, and I have zero tolerance for irrational people wasting my time with trumped up charges. I no more insult the ethnicity of the believers than I insult their preferences between cake or pie -- the two subjects are unrelated. I hope we resist this meme, and expose it for the dishonest rubbish that it is.
Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
This guy is pretty incredible.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
I'm in a bit of a grumpy mood today, so I'm going to tee off on theism/religion and some of the laughable things that come out of the mouths of their participants. This is going to get bumpy, you've been warned.
“We can agree to disagree.”
It's true, we can agree to not see eye-to-eye on this subject, but don't think for one minute that this puts both of our arguments on equal footing; one argument is clearly not as logical or reasonable as the other. Don't get it twisted, the theist world view is founded on myths that shouldn't survive elementary school, so if we agree to disagree don't mistake it as a nod of respect for your views or argument. The idea of gods is idiotic at best, and destructive to humanity at worst. I'll respect the person, but I steadfastly refuse to respect their cult, or their creepy beliefs. They get only a cold tolerance based on my respect for the freedom of religion, don't count on conversational tolerance if you start yammering about magic men in the sky and how real they are.
“God X is immaterial, and outside space and time.”
I don't have to waste time pointing out how silly this belief is, the theist does all that work for me. But as soon as they assert their god is undetectable, the opposition wins. Removing all the criteria we use to validate a claim doesn't somehow magically make it true, since we now have no way to determine it's existence we have to disregard its possibility of being true. The theist will literally argue their god into non-existence all the while thinking they're pulling a fast one – I don't think so scooter, try again.
“But it's true for me!”
If the god exists only inside your head – only inside your consciousness – then fine, have at it. But when you say it exists outside of your imagination, if you say it's actually true, that becomes a whole new ball game. If you want to say your god is real, that it exists in the outside world, you adopt a burden of proof to demonstrate your claim as being true, just like everyone else. Can't muster the proof? Tough shit, try again when you can. It's arrogant and childish to think the world outside your mind has any obligation to fit your demands – reality has zero responsibility to change itself to fit your idea of what it should be. If the burden of proof is too much for theists to handle, then they need to go stand in the back of the room with the rest of the cultists.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
After a break I'm back, and I bring Jon Stewart and the daily show...
*NOT WORK FRIENDLY* since it ends up with Jon Stewart telling Muslim Extremists to go fuck themselves. Nice.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
I never fail to laugh at Sarah Palin's latest antics. It seems like every time I see her in the news for something it's because she's lying or misleading people; which is par for the course in terms of christianity, but I was hoping that since she thinks herself worthy of leadership roles she would be just a cut above average in things like honesty, knowledge, wisdom, or virtue -- no such luck. She's a walking disaster, a talking train wreck.
This time she's lying through her teeth about the religious beliefs of our founders (as if that is relevant in some way...) and pushing more of this "Christian Nation" myth. I really don't understand the illogical nature of those who buy into this myth; but I'm not surprised to see someone of Palin's quality throwing in with them. She's a sort of perfect storm for the modern conservative: hopelessly under-informed about important things, thinks her opinion is synonymous with fact or reality, feels entitlement as if she's accomplished something significant on the national level, and feels it's her job to force her religion on others -- unconstitutionally -- through the power of the state.
Sarah, thanks for the laughs doll!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Here's a video that was shot at TED in 2007, and has just now surfaced. In it, James Randi takes an overdose of homeopathy sleeping pills -- don't worry he's fine since he took an overdose of fake medicine, not stuff that actually could hurt or help him. He makes some pretty good points though; it really is depraved to sell your claimed "psychic" powers to the grieving and heartbroken who are still coping with the loss of a loved one. Even to a heartless Atheist that seems just a little too predatory and disingenuous.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
There seems to be a few logical errors in the ideology and message work of the religious right, the same folks that want to force their views of God into your home and into your life. The topic of church/state separation illustrates one of their more revealing double standards, and sources of embarrassment. There's a forehead slapping contradiction in their ideologies and their propaganda of how Washington is supposed to interact with their lives: when it comes to their health-care, they say 'hell no' but when it comes to their personal beliefs about religion they resound with an approving 'hell yes'! So on one hand they tell us government is not the solution, but then they turn around and say how it most certainly and emphatically is the solution – to forcing their religion on others.
They want the gubment out of our homes, unless that gubment is pushing a goal that falls in line with the personal beliefs of the conservative movement – then they want the state in everyone's house. This is leftist thinking, isn't it? Are they not doing the very same thing they decry progressives and democrats for doing? If you're paying attention the answer is obvious.
They actually mean to say they welcome that bumbling, idiotic, wasteful government (they remind us of those qualities daily in their media don't they?) into their highly personal beliefs about God? They trust those 'crooks' in government with their God, but not their wallets, or their health-care? What does this observation say about their capriciousness in deciding what the state is allowed, or not allowed, to participate in? What can they offer against the argument that conservatives have a private agenda for the direction of government, just the same as progressives do, and are criticized by the right for having?
So, when these hypocritical and ideologically misguided rightists beg for help and handouts from those of us they routinely patronize and denigrate as “enemies of freedom in Washington” – why should those (now insulted) people in Washington not reply by first addressing their insulter's rude and contradictory behaviour? What kind of nonsense are religious conservatives trying to sell by pushing these shameful double standards on the rest of us? Are we supposed to accept that they should be the only ones to have access to the powers of the state? And thereby, would they not be usurping democracy as all of history has know it? What an embarrassingly stinky aroma to have to wear in public; a stench that warns of the deeper corruption that's reliably found in those people (authoritarians) who foolishly maintain double standards, and those that are also guilty of basic hypocrisy and special pleading.
I'd instead suggest that those in favor of using the state to spread their personal religious views correct these positions and messages before demanding by force and violence (read: using the powers of the state) that others should have to follow their rules, or accept those conservative views as reality. I submit that if you're a small government conservative that also believes in establishing an official religion for our secular state, you have an ideological tenant that isn't paying its logical rent.