Category Archives: Blog

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.

Society needs less strict religious upbringing and more porn

Posted on by

Remember all those annoying religious wackos who keep trying to convince us watching porn is evil? Well, it turns out their fucked up message and restrictive religious instructions might actually increase the chances of someone becoming a rapist. That’s according to two psychologists, Michael J. Goldstein and Harold Kant (who’s body of work goes back to the 1970′s), who had figured out the link between porn and rape was utterly bogus, even back then.

It doesn’t surprise me a strict religious upbringing can fuck someone up, especially when the religion focuses so strongly on our impulse to breed. Look, you’re an animal, and there’s a part of you that can’t resist the idea of having hot, steamy sex. If you try and repress this urge, odds are it’ll manifest itself in some pretty scary ways, and no one needs that. Religions are like the thought police; they don’t even want you fantasizing for your own pleasure. Instead they try and teach you lustful thoughts are bad, and need to be suppressed. I can’t even begin to imagine the kind of psychological damage that’ll do to a human being…

As far as the benefit of watching porn, the good news seems to be as sexually explicit materials become more widely available, the number of sexual abuse cases don’t increase; in fact, they actually begin to decline. And what about the idea that watching porn makes men misogynistic? Well, that too has been refuted. So if you’re sitting at home so bored out of your tree you’re reading this shitty blog, might I humbly suggest you go do your civic duty and go watch a lot of porn instead?

Pope Benedict XVI shielded priests from prosecution

Posted on by

It should come as no surprise that any large and powerful organization always “looks out for their own”. The Catholic Church is no different; the whole controversy regarding child abuse is based around the fact that rather than punish their own members who were guilty of destroying the lives of innocent children, they instead kept everything quiet, transferring these offenders to different parishes where they would continue their campaign of sexual molestation.

The Pope keeps finding himself in the uncomfortable position of having to deny any knowledge of protecting church leaders who had a history of abusing children, but it’s now a bit harder to do so. A priest, identified only as “H” (you’ve got to love their transparency) known to have forced a young child into oral sex, was transferred under the watchful eye of one Cardinal Ratzinger in 1980. To no ones surprise, he offended again, and was given an 18-month suspended sentence and fined about 4,000 bucks (apparently, sexually molesting a kid will cost you the equivalent of a used Segway).

The Vatican is obviously trying to distance him from this decision, saying Ratzinger was unaware of the existence of this priest (he’s a shitty boss, I guess), and I’m sure his mindless fans will continue to believe he had no involvement whatsoever, regardless of what evidence is shown. It doesn’t matter how many times this organization is exposed as corrupt and evil; people will continue to believe their religious leaders piss Holy Water. Look, they’re only human, and yet their position allows them an unprecedented amount of power and influence, all based on the ignorant notion these individuals are somehow on “God’s speed-dial”. They are no more special than you and I, and they should not be immune from prosecution and the law. When will victims of the abuse of the Catholic Church finally see justice?

Repent Amarillo, before you get blown to holy bits!

Posted on by

If you’ve got a giant hard-on for Jesus and the military, you need to check out “Repent Amarillo”, a fundamentalist Christian organization that tries to look like an Army recruitment video, specifically because this image is attractive to them. As far as they are concerned, there’s a spiritual war going on, and they intend to fight it with full army gear. It’s a site that’s not welcoming to everyone. If you’re a pussy moderate Christian, you should know better than to question the word of the Lord!

While some of them support our efforts, and some may not, it is not about us and it is not about them. It is about Jesus Christ.

Not satisfied by just staying home and clutching their Bibles, these guys are taking on extra-curricular activities to help spread the word of the Lord your God (for is ruling over your life with an iron first not the most loving expression a deity can have over his monkey slaves?). Here’s a list of events they have dedicated themselves to crashing for the good of your eternal life:

1. Gay pride events. (Jesus hates gays, even more than he hates Fig trees)
2. Earth worship events such as “Earth Day” (apparently Jesus hates hippies)
3. Pro-abortion events or places such as Planned Parenthood
4. Breast cancer events such as “Race for the Cure” to illuminate the link between abortion and breast cancer. (Their “scientists” must also be wearing a lot of camo in the lab looking for that spurious link)
5. Opening day of public schools to reach out to students.
6. Spring break events.
7. Demonically based concerts. (I don’t know about your music, but how much of it is “demonically based”)
8. Halloween events. (Are they joyless?)
9. Other events that may arise the ministry feels called to confront. (Nothing spells comfort like crazy fundies in full army gear and guns, don’t you agree?)

They want to try and save our souls so we don’t go to hell, but is this accomplished at the end of a bayonet? I guess in their twisted world view, if they can’t save you from Hell, they’ll try their best to send you there pronto.

Family sees Jesus in Marmite lid

Posted on by

It’s not enough we have to put up with the fact that Marmite (also known as Vegemite) exists; we now have to deal with some of its fans thinking the face of Jesus has appeared on one of its lid. Look, if there is a god and he’s trying to communicate with you, do you really think he’s going to pop up in what is arguably the most disgusting substance known to man? I know I’ve got a lot of Aussie and British fans who can’t get enough of that yeasty bullshit, but even you have to admit how gross that crap really is (it’s a by-product of beer brewing, and if you’ve ever seen how beer is made, you probably wouldn’t drink it). Marmite reminds me of the goo that accumulates in my sink if I leave the dishes in there for a few days.

I don’t know what’s worse: moronic Christians who think a Marmite Cat Stevens is in fact Jesus, or the sticky black substance actually exists. I’m torn…

Study attempts to explain genetic origin of homosexuality

Posted on by

Here’s another study that homophobic bigots can casually ignore; Two evolutionary psychologists (yes, these guys are making the news a lot recently) have offered a unique explanation as to the evolutionary value of homosexuality. You see, since gays tend to not breed, the basic question of “why would homosexuality persist if the genes for it would be selected out” hasn’t yet been answered definitively.

I’m not sure if homosexuality is actually a genetic trait. I tend to agree it might actually be caused instead by embryological  development (the best explanation I’ve heard has to do with birth order and how the brain may be masculinized or feminized depending on the level of testosterone exposure in the womb, but I’m no scientist). Either way, I think it’s a pretty interesting study, especially in light of how they conducted it. They studied a relatively small tribe in the Pacific called the Samoa, who don’t seem to share our intense bigotry, openly accepting and identifying their gays. Because of their close kinship, they hoped to examine how our more primitive ancestors lived (we tend to be way too independent in North America). Homosexual men were more likely to help take care of their nieces and nephews, and the consensus is that these “super uncles” helped the fitness of their kin, and therefore could help pass on their genes (albeit a smaller portion of them) by being good helpers.

Atheist faces serious jail time for offending religious people

Posted on by

If religionists offend us by calling atheists “immoral”, “scummy” or just plain “evil”, we do what any rational and confident person of sound judgement does: we ignore them (or if you’re like me, you write steamy vitriol in your pathetic blog). That’s usually the extent of our outrage, but for religious folks, who benefit from the tyranny of their majority, the inverse reaction to being offended is not so muted.

Take the example of Harry Taylor, who left sexually explicit images of religious figures in the prayer room of John Lennon Airport (the irony, it burns!). He’s been  recently convicted of “aggravated intentional harassment” (is there any other kind of harassment other than intentional?). Although it might sound like a pretty mild charge, it carries with it a maximum penalty of seven years in prison. Yes, you heard right, Mr. Taylor could go to jail for almost a decade for offending a priest in an airport named after a guy who’s most popular song extols the joys of living in a world without religion. My head is officially about to explode.

The Crown Prosecution is trying to defend this draconian law, saying it looks at each case based on its own merits. What fucking merit is there in convicting a man for offending someone? No one has a right to “not be offended”. You live in a world where people have different opinions and ideas, and it’s inevitable some of those will offend you. Fucking deal with it.

The British government is cowardly for allowing such a law to exist, and it’s citizens should be ashamed such a case was even prosecuted. For a so-called “secular” country, you have a lot of house cleaning to do.

Catholic School kicks out student for having gay parents

Posted on by

It still amazes me gays and lesbians can still cling to their bigoted religion, even when these institutions have made it quite clear they aren’t welcomed. In Boulder, Colorado, a preschooler was booted from a private Catholic school because his/her parents were lesbians, and this violates the Church’s firm belief homosexuality is an abomination.

Now, due to the fact they are a private school, they can pretty much do whatever they like, and that means there are no reprisals for what essentially amounts to some pretty serious discrimination. If you think that’s acceptable, how would people react if the kid was kicked out of the school because her parents were black? We surely wouldn’t take it as lightly, and we’d be calling them on their racist shit. But because it’s just homos here, we barely skip a beat. It’s just sad how quick people are to defend the rights of a private institution and so slow to defend the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against. Sad, just sad…

America: land of the free, unless you’re pregnant

Posted on by

A few days ago, Carisa and I recorded a podcast about a rather disturbing law being proposed in Utah that would make “recklessness” during pregnancy a criminal offense, with a possibility of life imprisonment for feticide. Imagine my surprise to find these kinds of laws actually exist in 35 different states in the US.

Recently, a woman named Christine Taylor was arrested in Iowa for falling down a flight of stairs in her own home, and during her hospital visit, she confiding with her doctor that she had serious reservations about keeping the child. This sent alarm bells for the medical staff, who contacted the authorities.

Prosecutors chose not to go to trial because the fetus was still in the second trimester, and the draconian feticide law applies only in the final stages of pregnancy. If you don’t think this is outrageous, I don’t know what to tell you.

You can thank religious wackos for enacting these kinds of insane laws. The recognition of a fetus as a living entity entitled to the same rights as a sentient human being is a pretty spurious idea; how can an abortion be legal, but an illegal one be considered murder? These laws were originally intended to prosecute offenders (typically men who had no desire to become fathers) who would attempt to terminate pregnancies by assaulting women, but it’s now being used against women themselves. The religious right is working diligently to make all abortion illegal, but in the meantime, overzealous religious prosecutors (for these people are always motivated by their ridiculous religious convictions) with a distaste for abortion are using feticide laws to punish women who wish to terminate their pregnancies or have serious reservations about78jm being pregnant. This whole thing feels a lot like 1984, and any American even slightly interested in their personal freedom should be concerned.

(Update: Luckily the state did not pursue legal action)

Religious conservatives angry over atheist White House visit

Posted on by

For the first time in the history of unbelief, atheists are starting to have a voice. Recently, a coalition of secularists and atheists met with the Obama Administration to talk about three pressing issues: the death of kids due to “faith healing”, the increased presence of religion in the military, and faith based initiatives.

Although details of what was discussed are piecemeal at best, that didn’t stop religious leaders from complaining the Administration was essentially meeting with “hate groups”. Religious jackass Bill Donohue couldn’t stop himself from opening his ignorant mouth:

People of faith, especially Christians, have good reason to wonder exactly where their interests lie with the Obama administration. Now we have the definitive answer. In an unprecedented move, leaders of a presidential administration are hosting some of the biggest anti-religious zealots in the nation.

This from the same man who said the victims of child abuse who sued the Catholic Church were “gold diggers“. Yeah, he’s a real swell guy.

Apparently, it’s ok for scumbags like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson to visit the White House, but as soon as atheists try to seek some form of representation in government, we’re instantly labelled as anti-religious zealots. Don’t you just love religion?

Higher IQ linked with atheism

Posted on by

I took a few days off in light of my recent birthday, and while I was away, I received a ton of email concerning a study done by evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa that linked IQ with atheism, liberalism, and monogamy. I figured I should probably talk about it a bit.

Kanazawa believes the reason this is true is human beings are designed by natural selection to be more conservative (and therefore more religious) and care only for our kin. Intelligence itself was a fairly recent development meant to help us solve complex problems, but because the changes happen gradually over time, there were some who possessed more raw brain power than others, who tend to take on values such as liberalism, atheism, and monogamy (which actually might explain why religious folks have a higher divorce rate than atheists).

I read his book: “Why Beautiful People Leave More Daughters“, and although it was interesting and offered some pretty unique explanations to human behavior through the lens of evolutionary psychology, it’s important to note this is also the same man who believed that poor health was the result of lower IQ. This study was criticized for failing to take into account the fact people with lower IQs also tend to live in poorer neighborhoods, and their intelligence is more a sign of poor education rather than anything inherent about their brain power.

If you want to cling to the study to make yourself feel good, I’m not going to stop you. Intelligence is notoriously hard to measure, but as far as I’m concerned, the correlation is a lot simpler; atheists, agnostics and non-theists are more likely to have been exposed to a larger variety of ideas in the course of their lives (since they aren’t afraid to read religious and philosophical materials of other cultures), and that in itself may account for the difference in intelligence Kanazawa measured.  Let’s not all pat ourselves on the backs just yet; one study doesn’t prove shit; besides, do you really need some excuse to feel smarter than your religious counterpart?

Philippine Catholics lambaste government for condoms

Posted on by

I love condoms. They’ve been around since ancient times; Egyptians would make theirs out of ceramic (ribbed for her pleasure I hope), while in the 16th century Europeans made theirs out of sheep intestines. Although their primary use is contraceptive, these useful little devices are used for all kinds of purposes, from makeshift waterproof containers to improvised explosive devices. Apparently, having a rubber tube like structure is convenient for a number of reasons.

Almost everyone loves condoms, except for the Roman Catholic Church, who feels every sexual encounter needs to result in pregnancy. Not only is this view insanely impractical and dangerous (how are we supposed to support a geometrically expanding population?), it puts people’s lives at risk. By telling people condom use is forbidden, how many believers contract deadly diseases? How many women have unwanted pregnancies that put their own lives in jeopardy?

The reason the church hates condom use is almost entirely because of the story of Onan. It goes something like this: God tells Onan to impregnate his brother’s widow, but at the last minute he pulls out, spilling his “seed” on the ground (hey, sometimes you just slip out, you know?). God gets angry and strikes him dead. From this nonsense, the Church has decided God disapproves of contraception. Yep, that’s pretty much the only reason (other than their “be fruitful and multiply passage they like so much).

In the Philippines, ignorant and annoying Catholic leaders are actively killing the government’s plan to encourage its citizens to practice safer sex to prevent the spread of HIV. They incorrectly and deviously proclaim condoms are ineffective, saying the only real way to prevent AIDS is abstinence and forcing fidelity in marriage. Yeah, those values are really realistic, aren’t they?

It’s just another example of how out of touch with reality these assholes are. They would gladly let people die of AIDS and other diseases if it meant following the insane edicts of sexually repressed clergymen. Do yourself a service people; don’t take advice on sex from guys who have never actually HAD it. These are the same fuck-faces who can’t seem to stop molesting little kids. Why is anyone listening to these guys again?