Catholic Church fights against statute of limitation for sex abuse

Is anyone really surprised by this headline? Considering the fact that the Catholic Church has always exploited the fact there exists a statute of limitation for child rape, it’s really no surprise they are fighting a number of bills that would eliminate this convenient legal loophole. What worried them the most is the fact that victims could now sue offending priests retroactively, and this has the Church shitting bricks.

Michael C. Culhane, spokesman for the Connecticut Catholic Conference, testified last year that changing the rules retroactively was not fair. “We therefore request that any changes be prospective and not have any retrospective effect,” Culhane said in 2010.

So not fair! Think about all those molesters that could be brought to justice after they were so careful not to get caught in the time allotted. It’s almost like giving someone a cookie and then taking it away before they get to take a bite. Oh the humanity!

Bye asked Culhane why no other institution, beyond the church, had any problem with the bill. Culhane said he did not know why.

I think I can venture a guess: the systematic cover-up on every level of the church would make many high ranking officials also culpable of these crimes. It’s more than just the abuse going on: it’s also the effort of the Church to shield these evil men from prosecution, and this is what the Church fears.

United Nation fail

When I was a younger ideologue, I used to think the the United Nation was a force for good in the world, providing aid and protection to citizens of countries ravaged by war, famine, and instability. I have since realized this institution is a bloated corpse, capable only of furthering the interests of the few countries who have a permanent seat on the security council. If anyone else in the UN decides to do anything at all to try and improve the world, they usually allow racist, bigoted countries the right to reduce the protection of sexual minorities, or even defend religious violence by declaring no one is allowed to speak out against them. That’s according to Staffan di Mistura, Special Representative and Chief of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of offending culture, religion, traditions, especially when there are so many of us, both civilians and frankly military, in many parts of the world and particularly in Afghanistan. So I think the main blame we have is about the irresponsible gesture that was made on that case. The proof is that those who entered our building were actually furiously angry about the issue about the Koran. There was nothing political there.”

So Staffan, what the fuck is left? If freedom of speech doesn’t include “offending” religious traditions, am I left with only the ability to criticize politics? What am I supposed to do when the two are invariably intertwined, especially when it comes to Islam??

Freedom of speech means people are allowed to offend others. That’s kind of the point. Without the ability to offend, free speech has no teeth and it’s completely ineffectual. Whether it’s burning a Koran or a Bible, people should be able to say what they want when they want. Without this ability, how can we even be sure we live in a just society?

20 year old bigot thinks he speaks for God

Don’t you just love how Christians, convinced they are humble and meek, claim to speak for God? Even if such an entity did exist, why does this 20 year old dummy think he’s qualified to speak on “his” behalf? How is that not the height of arrogance?

“God makes Kings, and the rules by which they govern”. Hey kid, we actually rejected the notion of kings for the stifling, freedom killing bastards they were. Of course, if it was up to you and your buddies, we’d still be living under the yoke of dictators, albeit celestial ones.

Penn: Agnostics suck!

I agree that agnosticism is annoying as hell, especially those that start accusing non-believers of being dogmatic. Yeah, because rejecting a poorly constructed cosmogony means that you have a closed mind…How about showing me some fucking proof? That’s all we want. Until then, my own agnosticism will remain open to the possibility of someone showing evidence of an all powerful entity, and that’s about it.

Only criticism: the back and forth camera shit makes me dizzy, honestly.

An Atheist Bible?

In general, I find atheists need a unifying tome about as much as men need nipples. I’m of the opinion that to properly educate yourself on morality, ethics and philosophy, you need more than what a single book can provide; you need a lifetime of education, thought and what some would call “soul searching”; the act of reflecting on one’s actions.

Our general dislike of sacred tomes hasn’t bothered Professor AC Grayling, the president of the British Humanist Association. He’s recently written an “atheist bible” in the hopes of providing a useful, overarching guide for non-believers:

Without any reference to gods, souls or afterlives, it [the book] aims to give atheists a book of inspiration and guidance as they make their way in the world.

I’ll reserve my judgement until after I’ve read it, but I generally dislike this sort of publicity. It lends credence to the idea people need “manuals” for living their lives. Some of the most contemptible people in history have lived according to such doctrine, and I like atheism specifically BECAUSE we don’t bother with that nonsense. Still, I did like the comment of one religious commentator:

You might think that Christians would find such a book an insult to their own Good Book, but not Rev Dr. Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral.
If anything, however, Rev Dr. Fraser believes that The Good Book is a bit tame, a little “cheesy”, in comparison with the “full-blooded version”.

Yeah, it’s cheesy when you don’t have stories about rape, incest, murder and genocide, right? Now that’s the “full-blooded” shit we should all be reading!

Vatican upset over being called out on homophobia

When you hear the words “disturbing trend”, do you think of society’s growing acceptance of same sex unions? If you do, then odds are you’re being ostracized by friends and family members who feel embarrassed by your outdated views. A number of us have moved beyond the Bronze Age and recognize homosexuality as a development of evolution, the same way your eyeballs and fingernails are. A gay person can no more suppress their sexual attraction than a straight one. In any case, the distinction is archaic: we’re all fucking human.

Not according to the Vatican though. These assholes believe homosexuality is a sin because a bunch of stone age sheep fuckers decided a few THOUSAND years ago that such unions were against the will of their imaginary friend. And while they’ve abandoned an unbelievable amount of archaic beliefs that make it impossible to live in modern society (like stoning their children to death for swearing), they’re sticking with this one. Gays, as far as they are concerned, are an abomination, and they want the right to tell you so without feeling persecuted.

“People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex,” he told the current session of the Human Rights Council[of the UN].
“When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature … they are stigmatized, and worse — they are vilified, and prosecuted.”

The irony here would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic. A group of outright homophobes are upset that society is telling them to “shut the fuck up” with all this bigoted nonsense. They don’t like to hear their opinions aren’t welcome at the grown up table, and now they are crying to mommy.

We’ve seen the writing on the wall, written in the blood of young gay teens who took their lives because of feelings of shame and self hatred. This shame – a direct result of the campaign of hatred and intolerance from the Catholic Church – has fueled more than it’s fair share of fires that have ravaged the lives of millions of people. You’ll forgive us if we think you should stop being the bad guys for once. We’ve put up with your child raping and baby thefts, but I’m not sure why exactly.

Apple gets pressured to drop “gay cure” app

Over 80,000 people signed an online petition to pressure Apple to drop an app that was designed to help “struggling homosexuals” change their sexuality. As you can easily deduce, it promises to help users gain “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus”.

It used to be that just a few years ago, we would have let this shit slide as a society. Luckily, society has been intolerant of this kind of harmful bigotry, especially in light of all the young men and women who have killed themselves over their perceived “shame”. And who fans these kinds of thoughts? Why, it’s the Jesus-pimps, of course!

Long story short, the good guys won, and Apple pulled this vile bullshit off their app store. Who says I only report on bad news?

Doubt is not the begining of faith

The faithful often confound me with their tortured explanation as to why their own beliefs are somehow intellectually justified. They want to make faith a virtue; as though believing in God despite any solid evidence is far more brave and integrous than doubt and healthy skepticism.

A fan of the site showed me this article, which claims that it’s the faithful who truly have doubt, while “scientists” are close-minded fools who turn their backs on truth:

…scientists under normal circumstances strive to make their data conform to agreed-upon paradigms. They cling to these paradigms quite tenaciously, even when evidence mounts against them, and the scientific community will only switch paradigms as a last resort. The notion of a completely neutral and objective perspective from which to discern all truth – so crucial to the Enlightenment project – has been shown to be something of a myth, even in the so-called “hard sciences”.

It’s the rare scientist who will claim perfect objectivity, and are perfectly willing to throw out their own pet scientific theories. We know that every human being is prone to accept what confirms his own biases and disregard what doesn’t. This point, however, is irrelevant; science is a method, a way of discerning the truth. It doesn’t matter if a particular scientist is attached to his/her own theory. If it’s incorrect, the error correcting mechanisms of science inevitably weeds out good theories from bad ones.

There is no such method in the world of religion. The very existence of faith is the suppression of doubt, and the celebration of undeserved certainty. While the author claims that “Christian theology has often regarded doubt in a positive light”, he has ignored the legacy of his faith in regards to heresy (were the followers of Arius rewarded for their doubt in the Holy Trinity?) What are we to think of Mark and Luke’s passages that allude to eternal damnation if one even doubts for a moment the existence of the Holy Spirit? How many Christians confess to doubting the validity of the claims of divinity of Jesus, or the virgin birth itself?

Socratic doubt, as understood by Hamann, is the beginning of faith; it’s a form of repentance and confession before the Almighty. And it’s far more radical than any rationalist conception of doubt, which confines itself only to penultimate matters and never creeps into the depths of the soul. The scientist (as scientist) may be skeptical, he may be curious, but he can never really doubt. That is reserved for those who know only as they are known, in faith.

I have no problems believing that religious people have doubts like the rest of us. The difference is in their confidence their doubts are misplaced and ultimately wrong. Faith is a mask of assurance, a false certainty about matters for which there is little or no proof, and more often than not, evidence to the contrary. It should be celebrated the same way ignorance is.

Church foreclosures on the rise

While America didn’t make it into the 9 countries that are slowly losing their religion, you can rejoice at the knowledge church foreclosures are on the rise. Times have been hard for everyone, and when push came to shove, people chose to keep their money rather than to give it to purveyors of nonsense:

Religious denominations of all kinds have suffered in recent years as donations have declined, with many Catholic parishes closing and synagogues merging their congregations. But the property-financing problems have been concentrated among independent churches, which while seeking to expand lack a governing body to serve as a backstop to financial hardship.

Am I cruel for rejoicing in the failures of others? Yes, a little, but I’ve never claimed to be a nice man. I want a society free of superstitious ignorance, and I won’t apologize for seeing the decline of religion as one of the greatest signs of progress since the Enlightenment.

The 9 countries you want to live in

Since numerous studies have found a number of industrialized nations have a steadily declining rate of religious affiliation, a team at the University of Arizona made a model predicting the rate in which 9 countries will effectively have no more religion.

The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

If you happen to live in one of these Oasis of reason, you’re in luck. If not, then I suggest you find a way to get the fuck out of your backwards, moronic country as soon as you possibly can.

Hilariously enough, it seems as though the Canadian government doesn’t want anyone to know just how irreligious the nation is. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, himself a religious idiot, has changed the census form to no longer include the question of religiosity. The idea is to skew the data in favor of religion, since the “long form” will only be sent to a disproportionately small proportion of the population. If you happen to be one of those who receives it, it becomes even more important for you to fill it out correctly!

Congress wants to add “In God we Trust” in Public Schools

With no more problems plaguing America, politicians have decided that making the motto “In God We Trust” emblazoned in every public school is the best use of their time. Forget about trying to stem the tide of ignorance and the degradation of their educational system: everything will be fixed once we please this creator God by telling him we trust him.

The agenda for the House of Representatives contains a bill, recently reported out of the Judiciary Committee, that asks our elected officials to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as our national motto. News reports indicate the bill’s supporters appear particularly keen on having public school classrooms display the motto, so that children can spend their days gazing upon it.

Never mind the phrase is an obvious violation of the Establishment Clause; it seems as though no one gives a shit about that anymore. Legislators must see the writing on the wall. As religion begins to lose its foothold on society, desperate religionists will do everything they can to prop up their given belief system. While Texas is busy trying to pass a bill to make it illegal to discriminate against creationist idiots, you can expect more of this kind of theocratic legislation to rear its hideous head.

If you need more proof your government is at the service of God-pimps, I suggest you get your fucking head out of the sand.

Vatican “punishes” child rapist by barring him from saying mass

If I was a pedophile, I’d make sure to seek employment from the Vatican. I mean, how many institutions react to you raping a child with such leniency? Even when you get caught with your pants down, the worst you can expect is a slap on the wrist and a nice vacation in their pathetic “rehabilitation” centers (which is nothing more than a glorified retreat).

Take Father Fons Eppink, a Dutch bishop who served in Kenya for instance. When he was discovered in 2009 to have raped a young Kenyan boy, he was barred from saying Mass in public for 18 months, and the Vatican conveniently failed to notify any authorities of any crime. Case closed, right?

Apparently, it’s still possible for Eppink to be charged for the crime in the Netherlands, so long as charges are actually laid down. Since the Vatican knows exactly what crimes were committed and how, this is the perfect opportunity for them to show their “commitment” to prosecuting offenders. How much do you want to bet they actually protect this fucking scumbag instead?

Neil Tyson on how Islam destroyed progress

Religions claim not to be the enemy of science, but the history of all faiths is a testimony to just how antithetical they are to progress. Neil, school these religionists please!

Faith in UK is eroding

Some of you might recall the recent campaign in the UK encouraging people to mark “non-religious” on census surveys, and while the effort had positive results, there are still Britons who check-mark the religion they were born into.

Cognizant of that fact, a recent survey conducted by the British Humanist Association asked respondents two different questions designed to identify the percentage of people who still chose to incorrectly answer this question by including another one asking them if they were religious or not. The results were enlightening to say the least:

While 61% of the poll’s respondents said they did belong to a religion, 65% of those surveyed answered “no” to the further question: “Are you religious?

Among respondents who identified themselves as Christian, fewer than half said they believed Jesus Christ was a real person who died, came back to life and was the son of God.

The survey seems to indicate individuals are still identifying themselves with the religions of their parents, presumably because they’re reticent to accept the label of atheist.

Hey Britons, it’s time you fucking stopped pretending to be religious, and stop filling in your surveys incorrectly! If you don’t believe in a personal savior, then stop saying you’re a Christian. Trust me, the real ones think you’ll burn in hell anyways; why give them the satisfaction of thinking they are the majority?

Please stop asking me to “tone down” the language

I got another email today from a new fan of the show who felt that my use of language was preventing him from being able to tell friends about it, and that I would be better off not swearing at all:

I think it’s a pretty cool serving for young and or less discerning people but if I can make a suggestion, if you slow down on talking speed (this will allow you to choose your words more carefully) and the swearing (I have wanted to introduce your podcast to some friends but had to be careful about who as it contains bad language. It’s difficult enough to convince religious opponents without still attacking their idea of moral language

That’s EXACTLY the reason why I swear. The whole idea of “moral language” is just Victorian era bullshit that I have no time for. That’s why I’ve let Stephen Fry make the case for me. I will never stop swearing, and there’s nothing anyone can say that will convince me of it. You might as well make me shave my eyebrows off so they stop scaring little children!