Author Archives: Jacob Fortin

Home Grown Terrorist arrested in Michigan

Posted on by

Normally, if you hear about a plot by an armed civilian militia trying to kill government officials, you figure it’s happening in some unstable developing country. It’s hard to believe in this day and age, the most powerful and wealthy country in the world also seems to have similar problems with armed maniacs trying to overthrow the present authority.

A few days ago, police and FBI agents arrested 9 home grown “terrorists” who were planning on killing a cop in order to later murder a bunch of police officers at his/her funeral. The small militia is composed entirely of Christian fundamentalists, and claim the name of the group, the”Hutaree” means “Christian warrior” (although by all accounts the word is simply made-up).

These religious nutjobs are very anti-government, and are convinced the former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, is actually the Antichrist. Their plan is simple: to defend Christianity by waging war on those who oppose the divine authority of Jesus Christ (in other words, anyone who has half a brain). Their “About Us” page says it all* (including the fact it’s illegible at times):

“We believe that one day, as prophecy says, there will be an Anti-Christ. All Christians must know this and prepare, just as Christ commanded…The Hutaree will one day see its enemy and meet him on the battlefield if so [sic] God wills it.”

This has to be the part of their scheme that confuses me the most. The Bible “predicts” the Antichrist will come, but this is all supposed to lead up to the event Christians call the Rapture, where true believers get whisked up to God’s magical-sky-playland. Only non-believers will be “left behind” to face-off against Jesus in the final conflict. So what exactly do these fundamentalists think their job is? Do they think they are responsible for bringing down the Anti-Christ and failing to let prophesy be fulfilled?

Of course you could argue religious nutbags simply find in their respective texts whatever they want to find; in this case, these paranoid weirdos needed some kind of moral justification for the twisted evil they were about to commit. This is what makes religions conviction so frightening; anyone wanting to find reason to harm, torture or kill their neighbor can find plenty of religious passages encouraging violence in their respective holy texts; there’s no limit to the kind of twisted logic you’ll be capable of if you put enough time and effort into looking for it. If you think there’s a difference between these assholes and the fuckfaces who blew up the World Trade Center, you’re underestimating just how crazy fundamentalists really are.

*(Update: The site now sells outdoor apparel and cowboy hats)

Pope thinks abuse scandal is “petty gossip”

Posted on by

It must be nice to not have to answer to any authority whatsoever when you’ve committed a series of heinous crimes. While the secular world tries to grow enough balls to bring Pope Benedict XVI to justice (I really wouldn’t hold my breath, people), the pontiff is still free to try and play down the seriousness of the allegations against him and other senior officials in the Vatican. Recently, the Pope sent out a broadcast on Vatican radio praying for the victims of earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, and for “all the victims of child abuse”.

Isn’t just like a Christian to do something wrong and then ask for forgiveness? It’s a lot easier than actually bothering to do the right thing or actually bothering to pay for your crimes. Hey, don’t they believe a 2000 year old dead Jewish guy has already paid for their past and future sins? Must be nice to not have to deal with anything and instead beg some invisible sky-daddy to be absolved.

During his address, he stated “From God comes the courage not to be intimidated by petty gossip”. Yes, I’m sure it takes a lot of courage for you to simply ignore your role in furthering abuse by priests, and harboring them from prosecution. You’re so brave! All that “petty gossip” about hundreds and thousands of kids being abused must really bother you when you’re enjoying all the luxuries afforded by your position.

Every time this sack of shit opens his mouth, he’s sending a big “fuck you” to the rest of the world that doesn’t believe in his fairytale bullshit. We’re too damn gutless here in the West to do anything about it, lest it offend people of “religious faith”. Yep, because he’s a religious leader, we’ll kick up some dust and condemn his actions, but it’s doubtful we’ll have the balls to do much more. If we could finally start standing up to these religious loonies, we would live in a much different world, that’s for damn sure.

NZ Christians won’t allow woman the right to end her own life

Posted on by

When health care reform was first proposed in the United States, one of the talking points raised by conservative idiots trying to scare the general public was the dreaded “death panels“, a supposed government entity that would be “whacking” old people willy-nilly. Rational minded policy makers failed to dissuade the public (who were spoon-fed this nonsense by right wing talking heads) that this threat was simply a fabrication. The controversy ended up being about “end of life” services; essentially giving people the ability to chose when they want to stop receiving treatment for terminal ailments, rather than letting the choice be made by other people. It’s a responsible way to look at the realities of death; not everyone wants to keep fighting when they’ve been in pain their whole lives.

In the end, the real controversy about “end of life” services is actually over the fact the religious right abhors euthanasia, which they regard simply as “a sin”. Take the story of this New Zealand woman who can’t seem to be able to die in peace: After suffering a cerebral hemorrhage 20 years ago and living in pain ever since, she’s recently decided to stop eating and simply let herself die. Her own fellow citizens, however, are trying to prevent this, motivated by the primitive thought a supernatural being would not approve of her actions:

Margaret’s life is important, she is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation. The taking of one’s life is contrary to the moral law. Our life is a gift from God. We are but stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. The decision to kill oneself, is not a rational decision. She has been assessed by psychiatrists as being lucid, but was she also assessed as being severely depressed and if so, why is she not being treated for this condition?

The problem for these religious folks trying to force Margaret Page to eat is this is actually a form of assault in their country, so although it’s apparently illegal for someone to kill themselves (a law I’ve come to realize is entirely motivated by religious sentiments), it’s also illegal to shove food down their gullets to keep them alive. Hello paradox!

The doctors may still choose to keep her alive if she become unconscious from malnutrition, since it’s unlikely they would be charged with assault (I’m hoping of course this won’t happen). The religious organization “Right to Life” is asking the authorities to save her, but when is someone actually going to bother to listen to the person who’s actually living that life? She no longer wants to suffer and wishes to die, but religious opposition is making even this simple request impossible. This is the degree of control religion wants to have over every single human being. They may mask it under the guise of “respecting life”, but their need to dominate all aspects of human life makes it impossible for them to respect anyone’s right to actually make their own choices.

**NOTE** She recently succeeded in choosing to end her own life. You can read all about it here.

Sinead O’Connor was way ahead of her time

Posted on by

Man, remember when Sinead O’Connor tore up the picture of Pope John Paul II saying “fight the real enemy”? Well imagine she did that same stunt today but with Raztinger’s picture instead; I’m not sure she would cause as big a firestorm now. I can’t imagine how much courage it took back then to take a stand against such a large institution, but we owe a lot to the bravery of folks like Sinead who chose to speak their mind even when it wasn’t the popular thing to do. It might seem trivial today to be able to call on the resignation and punishment of religious leaders over their treatment of children, but only a decade ago that was some pretty taboo shit.

New York Times fingers Pope

Posted on by

Yes, I’ve always wanted to use a headline like this, and today seemed like the perfect time to do it. Plus it helps that it’s completely true; the New York Times has supposedly come up with definitive evidence that Ratzinger was not only aware of Reverend Peter Hullerman (formerly known only as “H”) had molested children and, rather than notify authorities, simply transferred him to another parish despite a letter saying he was still a potential “danger”.

Of course, the problem here is no one is going to do anything about this. The only way he can get fired is if his Invisible friend in the sky decides he needs to go, and since he’s supposedly a voice only Ratzinger can hear, I have a feeling “Sky-man” won’t call for his resignation anytime soon. Would you want to stop living in the biggest and most luxurious palace in the world? He eats on gold plates for fuck’s sake; that was pimp even back in the Middle Ages.

You have to wonder what kind of weird power struggles go on in the Vatican. I mean, it can’t please everyone Pope Benedict is dragging the whole church into the ground, and even though they can’t force him to resign, there still has to be a lot of folks within the halls of power who never liked him in the first place. It’s just like high school, except the prom queen used to be a Hitler Youth.

US priest accused of molesting hundreds of boys

Posted on by

Pope Benedict XVI is again being implicated in another abuse scandal, this time out of the state of Wisconsin. Reverend Lawrence C. Murphy worked in a school for deaf children, and while Benny was alerted in two letters that the priest had been suspected of molesting dozens of children, he failed to do anything at all. Unsurprisingly, Murphy was transferred from the school when the heat got too high to another parish where he continued to have unfettered access to young children. In all, it’s estimated he may have molested over 200 young boys.

I have to wonder what kind of spin the Vatican is going to try to put on this story; it’s yet another clear example of Ratzinger’s complete indifference towards the plight of abused children by the hands of his own employees. If he was a manager at a Denny’s he would not only have already been fired, he would also have gone to jail for failing to report such serious crimes to the police. But no; since he’s a religious figure living in his own tiny country, no one can touch him. I have to agree with Hitchens on this and say there’s a serious stink of evil coming from the new Pope (even though I hate this kind of rhetoric). We can only hope his failures as both a cardinal and a Pope are enough to make his sheep realize they’ve put their trust in the wrong man. I won’t hold my breath…

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

Posted on by

Here is Sam Harris’ talk he gave at TED very recently. I realized most of you have already seen it, but for the uninitiated, it’s a great presentation that deserves your attention. Because there are such great time constraints at these events, we unfortunately don’t get to hear everything about Sam’s ideas (why are you so harsh on time, TED!), but I’m looking forward to see how they develop, and I’m eager to read more in the coming future.

Billionaire donation to Catholic church fulfills “pact with God”

Posted on by

Albert Gubay, founder of Kwik Save (a grocery chain in the UK) has put his business into a trust in order to keep a promise he made to an invisible sky deity after he asked his help to become a millionaire. Now, at 82, this Catholic is now donating almost a billion dollars to various Roman Catholic charities (you may recall these are the same institutions that use homeless people and orphans as pawns in their fight against equal rights for gays).

I know what you’re thinking; how awesome would this headline be if it said “pact with the Devil” instead? It would certainly highlight the fact it wasn’t a pact with a supernatural entity that made this guy successful, but rather hard work and determination (and probably stepping on a few throats too I assume). I’ve never been a huge fan of charities (especially not the religious kind), but it is nice this guy feels the need to donate such a large amount to those less fortunate; I just wish it wasn’t all tied to a religious organization that places the well being of molesting priests above that of children.

Why journalists put “evolution is wrong” in their headlines

Posted on by

I regularly read “The Guardian”. They normally have a pretty decent science coverage, but the latest article entitled “Why everything you know about evolution is wrong” outraged me enough I felt the need to talk about it. The article starts simply enough, referring to the burgeoning science of epigenetics, and how some researchers are finding genes that become expressed due to environmental factors can effect subsequent generations. So far so good. However, at one point in the article the author jumps completely off the deep-end and begins to suggest this now proves evolution by means of natural selection is under scrutiny, and natural selection might not be a real force at all. All of this stems from a book he read that seems to have convinced him in some way something fishy must be going on in the world of evolutionary biology.

The book in question is called “What Darwin Got Wrong“, and is written not by biologists (a good start, right?), but rather by a philosopher of the mind and a cognitive scientist. Their central argument is nothing more than a simple language trick: they claim in order for natural selection to do its “selecting for”, there has to be intentionality (meaning a kind of willpower to make the selection happen at all). If this sounds completely idiotic, it’s because these guys have no idea it isn’t nature “selecting” anything; species who have a reproductive advantage in their specific environment will have more offspring and suffer from less predation, and that it turns means their particular genes will be more abundant. So really, the only thing the two authors manage to do is try and attack the language framework of evolution (and fail miserably), and find their insight so brilliant they think they’ve disproved natural selection.

Now, as far as the motives behind journalists publishing such literary rot is concerned, it’s simply to gain recognition; rather than come up with novel ideas, it’s easier to tarnish or question the discoveries of people that are smarter than you. And because of the resistance of many Americans to accept his scientific contribution, Charles Darwin is the easiest target. You don’t see many journalists tackling the fallibility of the ideas of men like Einstein or Heisenberg in mainstream media; going up against these scientific geniuses is a Herculean effort in comparison, and not likely to generate much attention from anyone.

At the end of the day, journalists want their articles to be read, and with evolution still a hot button issue in the US, if the title of your article seems to suggest it’s wrong, you’ll get your audience. Even when that’s not the motivation, many journalists believe the truth in any story can only be discovered if you present both sides of the argument equally. This isn’t at all how a scientific truth is discovered at all (for instance, I don’t need to know about creationism to know anything about evolution); science is not a democracy, and nobody votes on whether a particular theory is the right one or not. It either works or it doesn’t, and evolution works. Until more journalists understand there really is no story here other than “more idiots undermine one of the most tested scientific theories in history”, this kind of shit will keep happening.

Pope issues apology for child abuse, blames secularism

Posted on by

Imagine this hypothetical situation: you’re implicated in a child molestation scandal in your powerful and influential organization, and the whole world eagerly anticipates your response to these allegations. Would your strategy be to issue an ambiguous “apology” for the suffering of the victims followed by laying blame a completely esoteric scapegoat? The only way you could ever get away with such weaksauce is to command the only position in the world where it’s absolutely impossible to be fired (and I’m not talking about a Supreme Court judge here, people). I’m referring of course to the Pope, who’s been under intense scrutiny since it was revealed that under his watch, a rapist pastor who forced a young boy to give him oral sex was whisked to a variety of parishes where, unsurprisingly, he offended again.

The Vatican’s pastoral letter to the victims of child rape reads as follows:

“You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry, Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen”

Tell them something they don’t know, Razty. This pathetic attempt to sweep everything under the rug is followed by the usual “we promise to try and do something secretly on our own, and just trust us we’ll make this all go away” bullshit that’s been the M.O. of the Church since the whole mess started. You might recall Pope Benedict XVI was the one responsible in the 80′s of “sniffing” out molesters, and he did such a bang up job that one of the people helped him become Pope was none other than Archbishop Bernard Francis Law of Boston (known primarily for his involvement in covering up the abuse scandal in that state).

The most nauseating thing in all of this is at the end of his bullshit apology, Benedict blames secularism on the declining morality of society in general (where do they get their stats?). Not only is it baffling (does he think this would have been avoidable if society was more religious?), it’s also just more scapegoating. The Church used to do the same thing with Jews until that went terribly out of “fashion”. Now secularism and homosexuality are their new targets. Hey, when you can’t take responsibility for your own actions, blame someone else entirely! It’s the formula they’ve been using for centuries, and it’s not about to stop any time soon, people.

Saudi Arabia condemns TV host to death for “sorcery”

Posted on by

If you’ve ever spent time reading tarot cards, playing with a Ouija board, or working for a psychic hotline, I suggest you avoid Saudi Arabia as a travel destination. Recently, Amnesty International has been trying to pressure the government to release a man by the name of Ali Hussain Sibat, who was sentenced to death in November 2009 for the supposed crime of “sorcery”. Sibat had a show on a Beirut satellite TV channel where, before a studio audience, he would predict the future and give advice. If that sounds familiar, it’s basically a Lebanese ripoff of “Crossing Over with John Edward” (if diplomatic relationships fail, can we send them Edward in exchange?).

Now because Islam is a political religion, there’s no rational legal body at work here; instead, a religious court based in outdated and superstitious laws are responsible for punishing offenders, and punish they do. A court in Medina convicted Sibat of witchcraft, and in accordance to their holy text, his sentence is nothing less than execution. There you have it folks, the Koran doesn’t mess around with issues of legality, human rights or even common sense; as far as the book and its murderous peddlers are concerned, you need to kill witches, and fast (Sibat tried to appeal this decision, but it didn’t take long for them to be overturned)!

I can’t imagine a clearer example of why religion and politics don’t mix; a father of 5 is being sentenced to death for the crime of reading dumb people their fortunes on TV. Yep, the world is officially fucked up.

(Update: Sibat was apparently allowed to return to his native country of Lebanon, but that has yet to be confirmed)

Girl mutilated and left for dead for “shaming” family

Posted on by

I sometimes get depressed writing about all of the horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion. Once in a while I’m tempted not to post anything entirely, simply to avoid having to languish in the anger and resentment I feel towards superstitious belief.

If you feel like having a good day, then avoid this story altogether; a young woman named Bibi Aisha in Afghanistan had her ears and nose chopped off for the “crime” of embarrassing her husband’s family.

The story is simple enough; when Aisha was 8, she was already promised to a much older man, and when she turned 16 she was handed off to the man’s father in law, the husband being away fighting for the Taliban in Pakistan. She was essentially treated as a slave, and soon tried to escape. The women who offered to help her turned out to be untrustworthy, as they tried selling Aisha to another man. She escaped this fate only to be arrested for being a runaway.

To punish her for her “crime” of trying to be free, she was sentenced to three years in jail, although that sentence was reduced to five months when Hamid Karzai became president. When she finally left the prison, her new husband was there to “greet” her, and she was brought to a special Taliban court, which ruled that her nose and ears were to be cut off  as punishment (since evidently a few months in jail was not enough for these religious zealots). The ordeal described in the article is too much for me to repeat, but though she was left in the mountains to die, she survived, and her tale has inspired others to help.

Afghanistan is a nightmare for any woman living there, and this is entirely because of a culture that finds refuge in ancient traditions and piety. The population is afraid of the fundamentalist Taliban, who either coerce or encourage Afghans to follow their brutal religious law. Aisha lost her nose, ears, and almost her life for trying to escape her horrible new family. Women like her aren’t free; they are treated as property, suffering physical, mental and sexual abuse. So long as the religious hand of the Taliban is at work in the country, they will never be safe.

Abuse is not an opportunity for redemption

Posted on by

The aspect I find the most disturbing of the Catholic faith (and there are many things, let me assure you) is their singular obsession with sin. Since Jesus is supposedly commissioned with forgiving us and, in ritual consumption of his flesh and blood, absorb these supposed sins, it’s a cottage industry of suffering and redemption.

Their obsession with salvation is like a giant set of blinders that makes even the most well-meaning priest unable to see the very corruption and villainy of his own institution. In some cases, the need to defend this organization stretches the limits of imagination, and more particularly, sanity. The National Post (perhaps my least favorite Canadian newspaper) has a resident man of the cloth, Father Raymond D’Souza, that they call upon every once in a while to try and explain away the ludicrous actions and behavior of the world’s single biggest religious organization. As you would expect, it’s a bunch of apologetic nonsense:

Aside from the sins themselves, the principal failing of the scandals is that those who should have been seized with moral outrage reacted instead as bureaucratic managers seeking damage control. The Lord Jesus willed the Church to be governed by bishops, not bureaucrats.

So is “bureaucracy” his way of explaining away the rape of children and the subsequent cover-up of this “boy’s club”? I can assure you in even the most corrupt non-religious organization, it’s doubtful anyone would knowingly protect known child molesters (can you imagine any major corporation surviving such a scandal?). Even in fucking prisons (a place bustling in “sin”), it’s understood child molesters need to be kept separate from the general population, otherwise there’s a chance their stay might be “cut” a little short. But wait, it gets better:

If the Church should be the place where more cases are exposed rather than fewer, that is for the good, for there is the possibility of grace and healing. Consequently, if the Church as a whole feels the pain of shame and disgrace, that can be an expiatory suffering for a sexually dissolute and depraved age. Expiatory suffering is, amongst other salvific things, what the Church exists for.

Let me tell you something: there is no amount of shame or pain the Church can feel that will ever fucking compare to what a child victimized by rape has to go through, not even by a long shot. Even if all guilty individuals were exposed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it does not change the fact the Catholic Church systematically protected these men and sheltered them from their crimes. If anything, these scandals have highlighted the fact they have lost all of their supposed ability to redeem anyone of sin. How dare D’Souza call this world “depraved” and sexually dissolute when these are problems in his own Church rather than society at large? The rest of us are not so morally blind as to shelter and protect those who would harm innocent children. So far I find the only thing depraved here is the indifference the author has over the fact that the very institution he is trying to defend is so corrupt as to be unable (and unwilling) to punish known child rapists. How much more scandal do believers need before they shake off their delusional bubble and finally say “enough is enough”?

I gets me some mail

Posted on by

Dayton in Oslo sent me this interesting email (I cut out the sycophantic niceties for the sake of brevity)

I wanted to inquire about your opinions regarding the issue of respect in relation to other peoples’ religious or spiritual beliefs. I believe Jacob made it clear in episode 75 that he’d confront someone about their beliefs if he felt they were wrong. (This was, however, regarding a person who Jacob would enter into a relationship with.) But do you differentiate between a lack of respect for the person who has a belief in such and such or a lack of respect for the belief system? The latter train of thought would enable you to maintain respect for the individual…or could it? I’m not entirely confident that one could maintain respect for the individual if one felt their belief system, that they used to raise their children, give meaning to their actions and understand their place in the universe, was completely and utterly full of crap.

Richard Dawkins’ TED video on militant atheism sounded the gong to mobilize atheists (and other non-believers) to come out of the closet and toss out the respect for religion that has been indoctrinated into society…yet, how can this movement really gain momentum if the issue of respect is not addressed? If respect for the individual who promotes a belief system and the respect for the belief system itself are under attack, I don’t see militant atheism getting very far at all.

That’s a pretty awesome question, Dayton, which is why I wanted to answer it on the blog rather than a simple email. As a kind of “evangelizing” atheist (the irony here isn’t lost on me), I’m often accused of not giving people their proper dues, and that accusation also usually implies as much as you can dislike someone’s opinion, you still have to maintain some semblance of respect for them. The general consensus is if you don’t at least try to put yourself in the shoes of others, and merely debase them for believing in nonsense, you’ll fail to convince them of the truth of your assertion and “harden their hearts”.

But I don’t generally agree with this notion. I don’t have to respect the opinions of absolutely everyone, the same way I don’t have to listen to the medical opinions of people who have no formal training in medicine. If some quack homeopath is insulted when I lambaste him for believing water has memory, and is able to cure symptoms of disease, I shouldn’t have to placate his illogical ideas simply because his feelings might be hurt in the process.

I think there are lots of variation on the tactics and techniques people use to try and convince others of their ideas. Some people take the soft approach, like this guy. The problem I have is the supposed need for people to “respect” various religions is merely a ploy to shield various faiths from criticism and honest inquiry. If I have to respect a religion that seeks to enslave and pacify our natural curiosity about the world, how am I supposed to properly object to it?

I’ll be honest; I’m no diplomat, and I have no intention of becoming one anytime soon; unlike some atheists I know, appeasement has no appeal to me. I recognize the important fact that in the whole recorded history of mankind, my objection to religion has only been possible in relatively few countries, and in a relatively recent time. Had I been born only a few centuries ago even in this “civilized” world, my words and actions would have merited a slow and painful death. There are still countries around the globe that execute apostates and doubters; am I to tread gently to avoid hurting the feelings of their murderers? I don’t take history for granted, and I certainly won’t convince myself the liberty I have to disbelieve in God is immune from attack. If there’s one thing I do know for sure, it’s reason doesn’t always win the day, and it’s not worth sacrificing for the sake of a few bruised egos.

Catholic charity gets the right to exclude gays from adopting

Posted on by

Amidst the heady swirl of controversy surrounding the Catholic Church (with more and more evidence of priestly misconduct and of their highly organized protection of these offenders), a UK judge has allowed a Catholic adoption agency to openly discriminate against gay couples wanting to adopt. They are now allowed exemption from sexual orientation regulations that make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of their homosexuality.

The Church had threatened to cut all of their services if they were forced to comply with the law (which essentially amounts to nothing less than blackmail), and it appears that, unlike Washington DC which upheld their right to pass laws the way they see fit, this tactic has succeeded in England (with an atheist faces blasphemy charges).

The Bishop of Leeds had this to say about the victory:

We look forward to producing evidence to the Charity Commission to support the position that we have consistently taken through this process: that without being able to use this exemption children without families would be seriously disadvantaged

So what he’s saying is without the ability to openly discriminate and violate the law, children would be “seriously disadvantaged” by being adopted by loving gay parents. Yeah, he’s a real fucking swell guy, and honest to boot.

I’m sick of this bullshit, and I’m especially tired of the way ignorant bigots like Leeds try to make themselves look like the good guys. They go around pretending they don’t disrespect or hate anyone, when it’s quite clear they do. They treat gays like sub humans, and deny them the ability to invite children in their loving homes, all because of a few Bible passages that claim God hates the idea of gay men and women having sex with one another (why don’t you mind your own fucking business, you overbearing father figure?). If it’s a crime for people to love one another, then your God has no place in this world.