The Accuser

Battle Cry

2006-06-06T08:36:00.000-04:00

Many apologies from the loyal readers of The Accuser. It's tough to keep things up, but I will try to do better.

A reader emailed me this interesting link. Battle Cry is a christian youth group, with the following mission, which they refer to as "The Crisis".

A stealthy enemy has infiltrated our country and is preying upon the hearts and minds of 33 million American teens. Corporations, media conglomerates, and purveyors of popular culture have spent billions to seduce and enslave our youth. So far, the enemy is winning. But there is plenty we can do. We need to take action. We need to answer the Battle Cry.

Creepy indeed, as my informant pointed out. Apparently, you can go to these rallies, indulge in a little god, and create a "battle plan" (with such useful actions like spending 10 minutes a day praying) and get other likeminded christian teens motivated.

My reader also brings up an interesting point: is there a way to get kids motivated who are the secular side of things. I'd say that this is a dangerous idea. Any ideological organization is highly susceptible to corruption. The best chance we have to get people to abandon religion is to make sure that the we diminish its effects in the world and let people come to their own conclusion. Atheists shouldn't minister. Leave that to the preachers.

While scary, I suspect this Battle Cry is ultimately harmless. If the concern is that it might create some psychopath who'd bomb abortion clinics, then chances are that person would become nuts in the first place.

Technorati Tags: Religion,
christian, Battly Cry, Atheism,

Hitchens Benjamin Debate - DVD Update

2006-03-29T08:57:00.000-05:00

Just got word from Scott Pelligrino, the president of popdebate.com who threw the Hitchens/Benjamin debate in February. He's informed me that once they should have DVDs of the event for sale on their site as soon as a few technical snags are worked out. Check back soon.

Technorati Tags: Christopher Hitchens,
Playthell Benjamin, religion, Iraq,

Abdul Rahman and the Curious Case of the Christian Convert

2006-03-22T08:40:00.000-05:00

In Afghanistan, apparently, a man by the name of Abdul Rahman could be facing trial, and execution, for converting to christianity.

While The Accuser appreciates the sentiment of such a law, the practical applications are a little extreme.

It points to a fundamental fact of religion... that they are intolerant, as previously discussed on this blog. In fact, they have to be intolerant by their very nature, otherwise, any authority they might have would disappear. How could you believe me to have the answers to the mysteries of the universe if I said this other guy had 'em too and they were also right.

The article also mentions that he may not be able to face trial because he is mentall unfit. Of course he is unfit. He's religious. Anyone who is religious should be deemed mentally unfit for all activities: trial, public office, medicine, teaching.

However, there is a deeper issue at play here. These countries, where we have fought to bring democracy, are now creating and enforcing legal systems based on religious law. That is a scary thing. Democracies based on religious beliefs are not democracies. And no, America is not a christian country, despite what the 700 club would attempt to have you believe.

Iraq also includes religious ideology in their constitution. To me, that is a big sign of problems to come.

Technorati Tags: Religion,
Abdul Rahman, Afghanistan, Iraq,

Gonzo is dead! Long Live Gonzo!

2006-03-14T09:13:00.000-05:00

Grievous day, readers of The Accuser!

Our good friend over at Deus Caritas Est has informed me that Bill Cardoso, the man who coined the word 'gonzo' died, February 26, of a heart attack.

Gonzo, if you recall, was a style of journalism embraced by the likes of Hunter S. Thompson.

But, the concept of gonzo has become much more than merely journalism. While defined in Webster's in 1979 as

meaning "bizarre, unrestrained, extravagant, specifically designating a style of personal journalism so characterized.

I think it's safe to strip out journalism and replace it with just about anything else. General writing, personal style of living, music, anything.

Cardoso's contribution was brilliant, and it's sad that he is gone.

Everyone should do something a little gonzo to remember him.

Technorati Tags: Gonzo,
Bill Cardoso, Hunter S. Thompson

Buddhist Bullshit - Revisited

2006-03-12T11:01:00.000-05:00

Faithful readers of The Accuser will remember a little story published here a few months ago, about Ram Bahadur Banjan, a 15 year old boy in Nepal who has been "meditating" without food and water for months.

It appears little Ram is back in the news. He's missing.

Followers of Ram Bahadur Banjan reported his disappearance and search parties on Sunday split up in the jungles of Bara, about 100 miles south of the capital, Katmandu, to investigate, said Santaraj Subedi, the chief government official in the district.

Gautam Raj Kattel, a police official, said eyewitnesses reported seeing the teen heading south before dawn on Saturday. His clothes were found near the spot where he had been meditating.

Kattel said officials did not believe Banjan had been abducted by communist rebels or robbers.

Don't really know what to say here. People actually believe that this boy has been surviving with no food, no water, motionless for nearly a year. And you could, until now, go see this miracle, with certain exceptions:

Visitors have only been allowed to view the Banjan between dawn and dusk from a roped-off area about 80 feet away. His followers kept him from public view at night, when they would place a screen in front of him.

Buddhism is a particularly dangerous religion. Mostly, I think, because the west has this soft attitude towards it: it's viewed more as philosophy than organized religion, and that it's all peace and serenity and tranquility. It's real dogma is obscured by a vague spirituality with which people approach it. There's a lot more to Buddhism that meets the eye, and The Accuser is going to try, at least, to bring some of its more nasty (and therefore, real) parts to light.

Technorati Tags: religion, buddhism, bullshit, atheism, Ram Bahadur Banjan

Hitchens Benjamin Debate Audio Recording Available

2006-03-09T00:08:00.000-05:00

An addendum to the Christopher Hitchens / Playthell Benjamin debate at Cooper Union on February 9, 2006.

I know a lot of you have been wondering if there is any recording of the Christopher Hitchens / Playthell Benjamin debate that took place on February 9th at Cooper Union in NYC. I have found that on WBAI, a local radio station, has copies available, if you donate to them, Here is the link

WBAI Donation Page

I haven't personally purchased one yet, so if anyone has and wants to comment on its quality or reliability, feel free to use the comment page or email me directly at editor@theaccuser.org.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Christopher Hitchens, Playthell Benjamin, debate, Atheism

Human Sacrifices: Absurd or Insane? or This Is Religion!

2006-03-08T08:51:00.000-05:00

Here is a beauty of an article from India this morning. It appears that human sacrifices are still going on.

Ten days ago Sumitra and her two sons crept to their neighbour's home and abducted three-year-old Aakash Singh as he slept. They dragged him into their home and the eldest son performed a puja ceremony, reciting a mantra and waving incense. Sumitra smeared sandalwood paste and globules of ghee over the terrified child's body. The two men then used a knife to slice off the child's nose, ears and hands before laying him, bleeding, in front of Kali's image.

This is religion. There is no clearer image than that of a "holy man" convincing an illiterate woman to kidnap and brutally butcher a child to death. It doesn't matter if it's one god, one hundred gods, aliens or whatever. All of it is insanity. The only difference here is degree. Catholics snack on Jesus' flesh and drink his blood every Sunday. Many Muslims think it's halal to strap a bomb to their chest and blow up schoolchildren. Some Jews practice oral suction during circumcision. There is no end to it.

Interestingly enough, this took place in Uttar Pradesh, the same province where Yaqoob Qureshi, minister of Minority Welfare, put out a 6 Million Pound bounty on the Danish Cartoonists.

I can't think what proof people need to wake up, if this doesn't do it.

Technorati Tags: Religion,
Hinduism, Human Sacrifice, India, Atheism,

Interesting twist on Religion and discrimination

2006-03-07T08:37:00.000-05:00

An interesting story out of Des Moines, courtesy of The Muslim News (courtesy of AP):

A Muslim woman who claims she was denied employment after she refused to remove a head scarf worn for religious reasons is accusing a Des Moines convenience store chain of violating her religious rights.

Here we have the corollary of a situation, involving Catholicism and Equal Employment Opportunity laws, that The Accuser brought up a few months ago. Is it really discrimination, or is it indulgence of religion?

I suspect that if a hasidic Jew came in for the job, wanted to wear a full black outfit, with tallis and a wide-brimmed hat, that Git-N-Go might say no as well. But is a conservative Jew came in, wearing only a yarmulka, there might not be such a big stink.

The truth, of course, in that case, is that is hypocrisy. You can't allow one type of religious garb (because it is more discreet) and not allow another. It's either all or nothing.

It's a difficult question to answer. On one hand, America is about freedom, to wear whatever stupid costume you might be inclined to don. I live in New York. I am well aware of stupid costumes. And I never liked the idea of judging a person on what they wear, even though that is usually, especially when it comes to people dressing up in the uniform of their particular subculture, rather accurate.

On the other hand, are two sides: First, that by allowing people to wear religious garb, we indulge religion. It's an example of how we can have something directly in our face (a silly hat, some robe, a turban, a smear of ash on your forehead) that embodies the absurdity of religion, and yet fail to acknowledge it as such. We should not indulge religion, in any of its manifestations.

Second, we should cease to categorize any deviance in behavior (like costumes, or rituals) as different than a secular behavior. Drinking wine at communion is no different than drinking wine with dinner. Performing a bris with oral suction (metzitzah b'peh) is no different than , forgive the crudeness, a man wrapping his lips around an infants penis.

A quick summary of the issue, but I think enough to lay it out. As much as I feel sorry for this woman for being discriminated against (and I suspect there may have been other factors at play against her), it is not the rest of society's responsibility to make room for her "faith." It is religion that needs to start accommodating society, not the other way around.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Islam, Dress,Discrimination, Equal Employment Opportunity, Atheism,

The Accuser's Editorial Notes - Part 2

2006-03-05T11:31:00.000-05:00

As you may know, The Accuser has been trying to figure out how we can reduce the influence of religion and aristocracy in the world. Clearly, the Soviet method didn't work, since so many of the people in the former Soviet republics, and Russia itself, and POURING back into Churches, Temples and Mosques.

So, what can we do? I first proposed, in an earlier post, that we no longer capitalize "god." Since meaning is not derived, it is ascribed, we can diminish the power of a word by ceasing to believe in its power.

Besides "god," what can we do?

1) Not refer to anyone by their honorific. No Sirs, Ladies, Dukes, Viscounts, Earls, Lords, etc.. Everyone is equal, regardless of what silly little name is given to them, by other people with silly little names.

2) If, you should ever have the opportunity to meet "royalty," do not, under any circumstances bow or show any respect, as they feel it should be done. That is not to say to be rude, but the idea of "showing respect" effectively means supplicating and subordinating yourself to them. Bow to no one. Stick out your hand. If they don't shake it, they are being rude, not you. The only reason they wouldn't, is because they feel they are superior to you. They're not.

3) None of this "Your Honor, Your Majesty or Your Holiness" nonsense. Mr or Ms is fine. If the Pope wants to go by some super-hero nickname, that is his business. His name is Joseph Ratzinger, not Benedict XVI. Likewise the president is Mr. Bush, not Mr. President.

4) Priests, Rabbis, Imams, Lamas, etc... should also be referred to by their real name. Not Father Jiminy, or Dalai Lama. Tell them the truth, if you don't think that they are the tools of god, let them know. Don't encourage or indulge them. One of the worst things a non-religious person can do is to pay respects to any religion. At the very least, it makes that person a hypocrite. At the worst, it contributes to the problem.

5) In fact, I would go so far to say, if you happen to meet someone who introduces themselves as a "baron" or "count", berate them. Mock them. Humiliate them. It's a joke that in the 21st century, people still give a damn about aristocracy. Chances are, those people did NOTHING to get their title. It is only a hangover from a dark period in human history.

These are only examples. However, a good rule of thumb is to examine how you are supposed to act. Is there something in "Tradition" that is really just a way to make you lower than the person, or situation, you are addressing? If there is, don't do it.

Technorati Tags: religion, aristocracy, titles, Atheism,

Ash Wednesday Update

2006-03-01T09:40:00.000-05:00

It's Ash Wednesday. Beware Catholics in black face.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Christianity, Ash Wednesday

Mega Churches: Bad Theology, Good Vibrations

2006-03-01T09:29:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting post on Megachurches, found courtesy of Religious News Online.

Megachurches, if you don't know, are those enormous suburban monstrosities you see in the USA, huge glass affairs that can fill up to 20,000 singing, dancing, worshipping christians. Think Nuremberg, before 1945.

It appears that the World Council of Churches feels that these protestant Megachurches are a bit shallow on theology. Here is the best quote:

"It has no depth, in most cases, theologically speaking, and has no appeal for any commitment," the Kenyan Methodist said at the WCC world assembly in this Brazilian city.

The megachurches simply wanted individuals to feel good about themselves, he said.

"It's a church being organised on corporate logic. That can be quite dangerous if we are not very careful, because this may become a Christianity which I describe as 'two miles long and one inch deep'."

This harkens back to a previous post on Peter Drucker, the management consultant who helped create the modern Megachurch movement

However, the beautiful thing about this quote is that the Samual Kobia, the WCC General Secretary, is upset that these churches want people to feel good. Perhaps he thinks it's not in the religion's best interest to make its followers feel good about themselves. After all, miserable people are much easier to manipulate.

Or perhaps they are upset at the cash that these Megachurches bring in. And he just wants a piece of it.

Technorati Tags: Religion,
Christianity,
Megachurches,
Peter Drucker,
Samuel Kobia,
World Council of Churches

Email to Domenico Bettinelli

2006-02-28T09:20:00.000-05:00

So, as promised, I will repost the content of the email I sent to Domenico Bettinelli this morning. As near as I can understand, he has blocked my account from posting in the comments section of his page for his article on saint Peter Damian from about a week ago.

Dear Mr. Bettinelli,

I was a bit surprised to see that my account had been blocked on your website, bettnet.com. I would hope that you were comfortable enough in your faith to allow a little dissenting voice. There were no nasty comments, at least from our part of the discussion, and your readers seemed to be enjoying it. I would urge you strongly to reconsider and allow Mr. Brisbois and I to continue our discussion on your forum. What could you possibly lose?

Cheers,

Leo Vladimirsky
editor, The Accuser
http://theaccuser.org

Technorati Tags: Religion, Christianity, Domenico Bettinelli, Homosexuality

Domenico Bettinelli Update

2006-02-28T09:11:00.000-05:00

Interesting developments in the little discussion with Domenico Bettinelli (of Bettnet fame and The Accuser and Lance Brisbois (of Deus Caritas Est).

It appears that my account has been blocked from posting. Which is surprising. You'd think a good catholic would like a little debate. To strengthen his faith.

I have sent him an email, the contents of which will be also be posted.

Anyway, to the readers of Bettnett who might come here, I say this: I will never block anyone from posting, and will never delete a comment, even if it is ad-hominem. I believe you have the complete freedom to say any damn fool thing that comes into your head. However, I would ask that you refrain from acting childish and try to engage in reasonable discussion. Please do. The Accuser loves to talk.

So, here is my latest post, that would have been on Bettnet, had he not blocked me.

A few points to address...
Melanie - Why is posting a name with a face the same as an attack? And I'd hardly consider posting an image "stealing." Besides, isn't there some bit in your bible about turning the other cheek?

Jason - You bring up an excellent point. Many of the saints (not to mention theologians, popes, preachers, etc...) say plenty of horrible things. It's these inconsistencies in the religious view that drive reasonable people away from religion.

General Question - I am trying to wrap my mind around the your (not all of you, just some) understanding of homosexuality in the greater view. As I can see it, in a religious view, homosexuality. Either:

1) It is created by god, and it is some sort of Job-like test for those who happen to have such inclinations. Also, if god decides to give it to some people, he doesn't give it to others.

or

2)Homosexuality is a choice, which everyone is faced with, and, therefore, it is something which most people ACTIVELY denies. Those who do not deny these inclinations are what we would all call homosexual.

Is there another understanding that I am missing?And, by the way, I am asking a serious question. Theology prides itself on being reasonable, at least the last time I read Aquinas it did, so there should be some reasonable explanation.

And please, no more ad-hominem attacks. I don't think god appreciates it.

Have at it boys.

Ante upped in Contracts on Danish Cartoonists

2006-02-27T13:53:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of capitalism, someone has raised the bid on killing off the Danish Cartoonists who so brilliantly illustrated precisely what would happen if someone dare comment on Islam, that religion of peace.

Except this time, it's not some idiot Muslim preacher, it's an OFFICIAL of the Indian government. Yaqoob Qureshi is minister of minority welfare (how ironic, devoted to tolerance) in Uttar Pradesh.

6 million pounds and his weight in gold, to the man who beheads a cartoonist.

Not much else to say... except where is the outrage in the west, and why haven't the Indian officials done anything about this?

Domenico Bettinelli vs Lance Brisbois

2006-02-24T18:12:00.000-05:00

The Accuser always stands up for truth. And nothing is more delicious than to see another great example of religion showing its ugly, truthful face.

The editor of Deus Caritas Est (full disclosure: he is a close friend of mine), happened upon an interesting, homophobic post on Domenico Bettinelli's blog, bettnet.com. Bettinelli quotes saint Peter Damian, an 11th century monk upset that his fellow clergy-men couldn't keep their penises in their pants.

Brisbois, editor of Deus Caritas Est, wrote a small entry on his blog, criticizing Bettinelli for being obsessed with homosexuals, whom he claims make up only 3% of the population. Brisbois is certainly correct, why should Bettinelli worry himself about such a small group of people.

The answer, of course, is because god, and his clergy, tell him to, through the bible, and their weekly (or even more frequent) conditioning events.

Regardless, Brisbois posted a deep-link to a photo of Bettinelli and his wife, to put a name with a face. He then posted a link to his criticism on Bettinelli's site as a comment. Which was responded to within ten minutes with an accusation from Bettinelli that Brisbois was a guilty of stealing his photo, and replaced the image on HIS server with an accusation saying:

The owner of this blog is a thief and an unscrupulous jerk who steals other people's work.

After this, the nastiness began. Brisbois' entry about Bettinelli's original post contained no ad-hominem attacks. It was merely a reasonable and appropriate analysis of Bettinelli's thinking. Bettinelli, however, deemed it necessary to cast aspersions on Brisbois, calling him a "typical homosexual stereotype: bitchy and mean."

I've known Brisbois for many years. Bitchy, occasionally. Mean, hardly. A stereotype, never.

He then accused Brisbois of attacking HIM, using the photo of his wife. This is paranoia at its height.

Brisbois then uploaded the saved thumbnail of the image of Bettinelli and his wife to his site, and then a few minutes later, replaced it himself with a rather humorous image that may very well describe precisely what is in Bettinelli's head most of the time.

Besides the pompousness and nasty tone in Bettinelli's response, this illustrates a deeper point: the fundamental and orthodox views of religion are always the accurate ones. This is what religion is: nasty, divisive, cruel and uncompassionate. They serve no other purpose but to strengthen one group against another. If I believed in such a place, I would say to hell with Domenico Bettinelli. Lucky for him, I don't.

Religion sneaks its way onto another government panel

2006-02-24T13:55:00.000-05:00

Governor Rod Blagojevich appointed Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam Minister of Protocol, Claudette Marie Johnson, to his Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes in 2005. Why this has just come up, is beyond me?

This gem, submitted by a reader, warrants special attention. Having lived in Chicago for some years, I’ve watched my fair share of public access television. On said TV, among others, Calypso Louie Farrakhan (oh, you didn’t know he used to be named Calypso Louie? Please click here to learn more) was often featured, giving his sermons to the Nation of Islam, boys on the left, girls on the right. Many of the times, I have heard him make legitimately anti-Semitic comments. This, by the way, is not surprising. All religions hate other religions. That is one of their prime functions. Interestingly enough, many of the christian preachers did the same thing. Remember all religions need to have an enemy.

What is amazing is that the NOI has such legitimacy. And now, the Governor of Illinois wants to listen to the thoughts of these religious lunatics. On the subject of hate?

Nevermind that hate crimes are a bad idea. It’s the thought that governments are soliciting the opinions of religious groups, who are guilty of the very thing that they are meant to advise on. Harkens back to a question from Aristotle: are judges who have committed crimes better than ones who haven’t? It’s the equivalent of asking the KKK to draft up civil rights legislation.

And what happened to separation of church and State? These cults have such a wonderful position… practically no taxation and over-representation. Lucky them. Dangerous times.

German Blasphemy Law intolerant of free speech

2006-02-23T17:48:00.000-05:00

Europe, as a whole, has demonstrated its TOTAL lack of respect for free speech with the whole Jyllands-Posten cartoon debacle.

Germany has taken it to a new low. A German man was arrested and convicted to 1 year in jail (suspended) and 300 hours of community service prison for breaking a law that bans insulting religion. Specifically, he printed the word KORAN on toilet paper and began selling it, on-line, to mosques and other interested parties.

I call this a blasphemy law, because that is precisely what it is. Article 166 of the German Criminal Code, which states:

Section 166 Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life

(1) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults the content of others' religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(2) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults a church, other religious society, or organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be similarly punished.

Found on Oxford University German Law Archive.

The fact that there is no outrage, no protests in the west, nothing other than a few buried stories (as far as I can tell) is not only outrageous, but terrifying. It is the same response that the west has had in supporting the Danish cartoonists. Cowardice and fear, supplicating Islam because we are afraid of them. Which is, by the way, the same response that many American's have when they see minorities get on the subway: clutching their pocketbook closer to their chest.

Still, that western countries have laws against BLASPHEMY is amazing. The fear of upsetting religion is so ingrained in people that they are still afraid of the dark. It's so unreasonable, but that is the nature of faith: suspension of reason, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But there is also a deeper question at work here: If god has such power and majesty, why can't he take a little joke?

The Accuser's editorial notes - Part 1

2006-02-23T09:18:00.000-05:00

The Accuser believes firmly in the meaning and power of words. Much like anything in this world, however, meaning is not derived... it is assigned. The reason the word fuck is so offensive is because we allow it to be offensive. Much like nigger or kike or chink. A good example of what I mean is the "taking back" of nigger, a very admirable action, I might add.

So, in light of this, we are going to make our own small in-roads into this game. Many of you know that God must always be capitalized. This needs to end now. The Accuser refuses to capitalize god. That small grammatical indication creates an enormous gulf between what the word actually represents versus what meaning is ascribed to it.

I urge all of you who read The Accuser to do the same. If you need to, change the auto-correct rules in Microsoft Word. You'd be surprised how trite that little three-letter word is without the imposing capital G.

Spread the word.

Religion is good for you.

2006-02-23T08:56:00.000-05:00

Sometimes there isn't much to say on the subject. This business of blowing up each other's mosques up illustrates the point quite nicely. Religion serves no good purpose. It is an evil institution, that can only be used to take power by creating an artificial enemy. By proclaiming you have the answers, and the others are offending god, everyone suddenly gets a sense of self-worth.

The tragedy here is that there are two classes at play: the clergy (or rabbis, or imams or whoever) and the believers (that would be everybody else). I don't see too many Imam's strapping dynamite to their chests and blowing up busses. Or flying airplanes into buildings. I only see poor, delude people doing that. While the clergy reaps the rewards. All on a lie that is SO obvious to see if you just remove the emotion surrounding religion.

Of course, this is nothing indigenous to Islam. Christianity has been doing this sort of thing for millennia. They've just calmed down a bit in the western world and focused their attention in the third world.

More divinely inspired massacres to come.

Tea, anyone?

2006-02-21T23:10:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court has just granted permission to an obscure, small Christian sect called O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal to drink hallucinogenic tea for their rituals.

The Accuser, as you may or may not know, holds a fairly libertarian point of view as far as drugs go. Adults are free to make their own choices. However, as you may have already guessed, we have a very strong opinion on the subject of religion.

It seems that here we have a two types of citizens, one religious, the other not. In a purely democratic society, shouldn't all people be treated the same? Why is it acceptable for one person, who believes certain fairy-tales to break the law, but another, who does NOT believe them, to be prosecuted?

It seem mighty unfair to treat one group any differently from another. Especially when your criteria (the Sherbert Test, recently upheld by this very SCOTUS decision) for allowing religious practices to break the law become so hypocritical that it's bad for society for some people to do drugs, but good for society if others do them.

Maybe instead of getting a prescription for medical marijuana from your doctor, you could visit your parish priest. He could fix you up.

The example of some tiny religion drinking happy tea is ultimately trivial. There are more grievous possibilities of this kind of decision. It's not hard to imagine one religion wanted to kill off another. Wouldn't they then have the legal backing to do so, all because we can't infringe on their precious religious rights?

Certainly, this is an extreme example. However, the idea that any group of people has special treatment is wrong. Categorically wrong. All people are to be treated exactly the same way. That is the nature of democracy. Of course, this assumes that our laws are just, which sometimes is not the case.

Joseph Smith Statue: Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb

2006-02-21T22:53:00.000-05:00

A new hero to The Accuser has been found, none other than loyal reader Dan McKinley, of McFunley fame! It turns out Dan has been keeping his eyes peeled in the dingy streets of lower Manhattan and found a huge infringement and colossal waste of our taxpayer money and did something about it. Go forth and read the article, and let's hope that Dan no longer has to be another contrarian toiling in obscurity.

Freedom of Speech in Europe? Hmmm.....

2006-02-21T09:05:00.000-05:00

The recent conviction of David Irving in Austria under their Holocaust denial laws is somewhat unsettling.

Not out of respect for David Irving, but rather for the sake of free speech.

Freedom of speech is about being able to tell the truth. Whether or not Irving was telling the truth (and the evidence is clear that HE IS LYING), there can be no laws specifically banning a topic of discussion. The Austrian law is too specific. If there are to be laws that infringe on freedom of speech, they need to be general: lying and deceiving people is wrong. It's clear that Irving was manipulating history and facts. This is wrong. But it is no more wrong than a priest defrauding his flock with the story of Jesus. Or Imams stirring up hatred against Danish cartoonists.

What was it that Voltaire said... "I disagree profoundly what you say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it."

I don't think he was talking about lies.

However, there comes a small practical matter if this is our criteria on free speech. There are plenty of examples of history ACTUALLY being false, and people being told to say things that are patently untrue: the Inquisition, Galileo, etc, even though the accused knew it to be true in the first place. How are we to deal with this? It's difficult. Our criteria implies that you can know whether a person is telling the truth a priori. Which is what torturers do. So then, we have to expand our acceptance of free speech and let people say whatever they want, and clean it up afterwards. By means of a law which punishes people for lying and intentionally deceiving. But not for a specific infraction against a specific piece of history. It must be general.

Patriotism: the last refuge of the scoundrel

2006-02-19T10:29:00.000-05:00

Normally, The Accuser, steers clear the hell away from partisan politics. It's nasty, ugly, unreasonable, and dangerously close to aristocracy. However, when a juicy bit like this comes up... it's too much for our hypocrisy detectors to keep quiet.

The United States Senate has passed, 96-3, the renewal of the beloved Patriot Act. Now, this would fine, except for the fact that for the last few years, the Democrats have at the throats of the Republicans (mostly the administration) for allowing these intrusions into our personal lives. Interesting, though, that when the chance comes to do something about it, they do nothing.

It's clear why. The political parties are effectively the same. With a few choice differences (abortions for some, tiny American flags for others), they have the same stance. And that should be terrifying.

Keep all this in mind when we are forced to elect "someone new" for president in 2008.

The following legislators are exceptions, and therefore worthy of admiration.

Russ Feingold, D-Wis
Jim Jeffords, I-Ver
Robert Byrd, D-W.Va

Send 'em a missive and tell them they are doing the right thing. And the next time you hear one of the great Democracy legislators crapping on about how George Bush is ruining the country, send them this link and remind them they had a chance to do the right thing, and they screwed it up. Again.

A Good Idea is a Good Idea...

2006-02-18T20:30:00.000-05:00

The Accuser is always on the lookout for interesting ideas. Here's one that was created by our good friend who runs Deus Caritas Est. It seems that this idea was also thought up by Andrew Sullivan. I'll let people make up their own mind.

Soliciting Ideas

2006-02-18T12:23:00.000-05:00

The Accuser needs your help. It's not easy patrolling the seas of the internet, searching for examples of the hypocrisy of man: after all, we are only one man. So here is where you can come in. If you read an interesting article, hear a news story, or have a tip that you might want to know the Accuser's point of view, let us know. Email The Accuser at editor@theaccuser.org. Help us help you!

Cleric Puts Out Bounty on Cartoonists

2006-02-17T13:45:00.000-05:00

The Religion of peace is at it again. Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, a Pakistani cleric, has put a million dollar bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonists, for their brilliant, satirical Mohammed cartoons. It’s unclear to me why this is allowed in Pakistan. Is it not illegal to make death threats or put out contracts on people in Pakistan? Can’t the Danish government take some action against Qureshi?

Oh, and where are the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression and religious tolerance now?

Italian Christ Lawsuit Thrown Out Of Court

2006-02-17T13:03:00.000-05:00

An update to a story that's been in the news...

An Italian atheist, Luigi Cascioli, sued a parish priest named Righi under an interesting Italian Law. Essentially, what was up in the air was the existence of Jesus. Cascioli accused Righi of intentionally defrauding people with the myth of Christ.

Here is a key piece from the original lawsuit, from 2002:

According to article 661 of the Italian Penal Code, there is an abuse of popular credulity when someone, by means of fraud, deceives a great number of people. In this particular case, the ministers of religion of the Catholic Church, like Righi in the present case, by committing historical falsity, therefore presenting invented facts as if true and actually occurred – but useful to religious doctrine – they deceive all the people that come into contact with the teachings of such religion, by inducing them to believe in that religion, not on the basis of purely theological reasoning (totally legitimate and admissible), but on the basis of a deceptive representation of the facts.

Absolutely brilliant. Cascioli, the man who sued the priest Righi, deserves a damn medal.

Sadly, the judge threw the case out. Cascioli is now considering bringing his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Muslim Holocaust

2006-02-16T08:54:00.000-05:00

The Accuser came across this article, published in The Daily Star courtesy of Religious News Online.

The author, Bouthaina Shaaban, likens the current trends against Muslims in Europe to the anti-Semitic feelings stirred up by the Germans (and Poles and more) in-between the first and second world wars.

Accusing the Muslims of violence and stripping Muslims of citizenship and rights is, as the article quotes, "the same taken against Jews in 1930s."

Shaaban is quite right. There is a strong anti-Muslim sentiment and, if it goes unchecked, it can escalate into something quite nasty. At some point, somebody will recommend putting them in camps for their own protection. It's not inconceivable.

However, the solution presented is not viable.

As Europe has recently passed a law that forbids doubting the Holocaust, today it should pass another law that bans racist insults against Muslims and Islam.

No. It should not. No law that abrogates freedom of speech can be allowed to pass in a liberal democracy. And the writer is comparing apples to oranges: Forbidding Holocaust denial is not the same as banning insults. They are in the same realm, but not in the same category. Denying the holocaust denies an actual, physical occurrence, which cost the lives of millions of people. Insulting a religion is the appropriate response to the superstition that religions are.

However, there is a very important point brought up in this article, that of the growing anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe. While we should not create laws that would prevent their feelings being hurt, we MUST ensure their safety and freedoms: otherwise what small headway we have made in liberalizing the world (and diminishing religion's influence in it) will be lost.

Jewish Humor

2006-02-16T08:43:00.000-05:00

It's almost as if someone has listened to the Accuser. An Israeli cartoonist has decided not to participate in the Iranian anti-Semitic cartoon contest but to throw his own.

Good News: God Is Love!

2006-02-15T09:29:00.000-05:00

Now... I occasionally have an argument or two with the man, but Lance Brisbois has my vote. Check out his blog Deus Caritas Est. It's good. Damn good.

A Joyous and Cargo-Laden John Frum Day To All Of You!

2006-02-15T09:17:00.000-05:00

Good Morning, dear readers, and a Happy John Frum Day to all of you!

What's that? You don't know who John Frum is? For shame, for shame. John Frum is the ideal messianic figure for liberal democracy.

Well, gather around, a little history lesson:

In WWII, the US used many of the islands in the pacific ocean as cargo-stations. Among them was Vanuatu. Turns out the islanders on Vanuatu were quite taken with American largesse: they'd never seen so much stuff. All kinds of stuff. Radios, cameras, canned food, toilets. Everything our glorious civilization has produced. So, life was a lot more interesting for the Vanuatuans during the war. But all things must pass, and after the war, America packed up its cargo and sailed away.

The Vanuatuans made an informed, intelligent decision: they must have been some sort of gods. And as all gods do, they will return. The embodiment of this largesse was an anonymous sailor named John Frum. He will come back and bring them cargo. Lots of it. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with the massive amounts of mildly hallucinogenic home brew called kava that Vanuatuans say is necessary for seeing John Frum

So, they started clearing landing strips. And building air-traffic control towers out of bamboo. And radios out of bamboo. And making bamboo rifles and marching around with USA painted on their chest. And still no cargo came. But faith, dear readers, is powerful. Very powerful. And so they wait.

And today is John Frum day. If you happen to go to Tanna, a small island in Vanuatu, you can catch the celebrations.

Now don't laugh. It's no more stupid than any other religion. In fact, the head chief says so himself.

From the Smithsonian:

As we look down into John Frum's fiery Tanna home, I remind him that not only does he not have an outboard motor from America, but that all the devotees " other prayers have been, so far, in vain. John promised you much cargo more than 60 years ago, and none has come," I point out. "So why do you keep faith with him? Why do you still believe in him?"

Chief Isaac shoots me an amused look. "You Christians have been waiting 2,000 years for Jesus to return to earth," he says, "and you haven't given up hope."

Some further reading:
Smithsonian
Wikipedia

Hitchens Benjamin Debate at Cooper Union a Travesty

2006-02-10T10:17:00.000-05:00

I will depart, slightly, from the usual discussion of religion on "The Accuser" to give you, my dear reader, a small review of a debate I had the displeasure of attending last night.

Billed as the "Thrilla in Manhattan-illa," it was meant to feature Christopher Hitchens debating Playthell Benjamin (couldn't find a good link, but he writes for The Black World Today). Hitchens was for the war, Benjamin was not.

It started out ominously, with a terrible act by Imani Coppola, whose voice is pretty, but musical decisions are awful.

Once that was over, we were given permission to wait, because Playthell Benjamin was late. He arrived, and the debate, such as it was, began.

The moderator was a fine man by the name of Michael Wolff, of Vanity Fair fame. He set out the rules, 5 minute opening statements, followed by questions asked by Wolff. Benjamin opened. His approximately 13 minute polemic made wild accusations about war criminals, conspiracies, PNAC and all sorts of alleged "proof" why the war in Iraq is wrong. Which is fine. However, he did not actually make a point beyond the typical "Bush is bad, so the war is bad" kind of thing. Which, upon closer inspection, is what Vonnegut would refer to as a granfalloon. Benjamin also felt it necessary to refer to countless intellectuals, writers, poets who had won all sorts of awards... from Pulitzer's to Nobels, etc... I suspect he believed that by associating himself with luminaries, he would raise his own arguments somehow.

Hitchens opening was clean, concise, well-thought out and argued. In fact, an actual opening statement. He set out, and this is important because it was the only point he was allowed the make the entire debate and not be interrupted, why he supported the war and why the war was just. He mentioned the four conditions under which a country is allowed to be invaded (of which Iraq had broken all). He mentioned the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the legislation unanimously passsed by the US Senate (and near-unanimous House).

I'm not going to repeat Hitchens' arguments here. He has done a much better job than I ever will through his writing. Go here to read them.

Playthell, on the other hand, did not make a single argument. And for an atheist, he certainly preached an awful lot. And... like a bunch of trained seals, the audience learned to bark at the right comments (PNAC, Blood for Oil, George the Second, etc). Hitchens came to debate, and instead, he got to watch a grown man yammer on and had to endure an audience that preferred Playthell's ranting to a reasoned debate.

It's the sort of thing one goes to Church for... to listen to someone who says exactly what you believe. But that is because people are afraid to listen to reasoned arguments. Because to discuss something using reason, means to open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong. It means you have to think about what you believe, instead of just believing it.

Wolff then cut off this travesty to open it up to the audience. The questions were just prepared statements from the audience against Hitchens and for Benjamin. The first or second audience member actually admitted that she was invited to the debate by Benjamin to make a statement. It got worse from there. Some idiot starting saying "Great Satan" referring to the US and it's attitude towards Iran in 1979.

This is the problem when people think they are politically savvy, but are really just being taken in by hucksters and charlatans. Playthell Benjamin is a joke. Hitchens should be given an award for putting up with him as long as he did.

Open Entry for Iranian Holocaust Freedom Of Speech Cartoon Contest

2006-02-07T10:00:00.000-05:00

So, it appears the wonderful nation of Iran has decided to throw a little freedom-of-speech test to the west... A Holocaust Cartoon contest. They think it can intimidate the west and demonstrate our hypocrisy to the world.

But I think we can do them one up.

I say we enter the contest. And win it. Show 'em what real freedom of speech is all about.

In case you missed the link, here it is again. Go nuts. Defend our freedoms!!

UN Supports Restrictions on Freedom of Expression

2006-02-06T13:33:00.000-05:00

An interesting development in this tale of the abrogation of freedom of speech in the west. On November 24, 2005, a letter was sent from the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (Asma Jahangir of Pakistan) AND the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (Doudou Diène of Senegal) established by the Commission on Human Rights to Mary Louise Overvad, the Danish Ambassador to the UN. It makes for a very interesting read. Apparently the UN believes that limitations can be placed on the freedom of expression (which is clearly why it tolerates genocide in Sudan, which is entirely a different matter). I have transcribed the text of this letter below.

Excellency,
We have the honour to address in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance established by the Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2004/36 and 2005/64 respectively.

In this connection, we should like to bring to your Government's attention information we have received concerning cartoons representing the prophet Mohammad and published in a newspaper.
According to the information received, cartoons representing the prophet Muhammad in a defamatory and derogatory manner were published in the news paper Jyllands Posten in the course of September 2005. It is reported that the series of cartoons were published after a writer complained that nobody dared illustrate his book about Muhammad. Following the publication, two cartoon illustrators allegedly received death threats.

While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations and believing that limitations to the right to freedom of expression have to be applied in a restrictive manner, we would like to express our concern regarding actions that seem to reveal intolerance and absence of respect for the religion of others, particularly in the aftermath of 11 September 2001. Such actions may also constitute threats to the religious harmony of a society, and the source of incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence on the basis of religion which are prohibited by article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Moreover, it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report these cases to the Commission, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts alleged in the above summary of the case accurate?

2. Has a complaint been lodged by or on behalf of the persons affected by the consequences of these publications and has any judicial or administrative decision been taken so far?

3. What are the existing policy measures to promote religious tolerance and the ones to closely monitor that kind of developments?

We would appreciate a response by sixty days. We undertake to ensure that your government's response to each of these questions is accurately reflected in the reports we will submit to the Commission on Human Rights for its consideration.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration

SIGNED

Asma Jahangir
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief

Doudou Diene
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

I have altered the article in only one way... to bold the line about restrictions on freedom of expression (the first bolded line was done so in the original.)

I don't quite know where to begin. For one, the UN has admitted that it believes freedom of expression demands restrictions. Also, it feels that it's the UN's responsibility to act as censor to the world's press.

A previous post discusses anti-Semitic cartoons in the Arab press. How many of these letters do you suppose Asma and Doudou have sent to the ambassadors from Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, and Syria and all of those Arab countries which indulge in their own unique brand of "Freedom of expression." I suspect not too many, but I could be wrong.

I think we know that this is all hypocrisy. The UN gives voice and acknowledges countries that have no business being recognized. It's mission of avoiding war is successful... and that is why we continue to have Genocide, ethnic cleansing and so on. But as long as they keep the reins on the presses around the world, they are assured of minimal criticism.

Arab Government Complicity in riots and protests?

2006-02-06T08:19:00.000-05:00

Well, by now the Arab world (or at least the part of it reported on by the media, has proven the accuracy of the cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten four months ago. This is not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless. The Religion of Peace hosts peaceful demonstrations where buildings are burned, people are sent to the hospital and death threats are issued. Very peaceful.

And yet... no one discusses the influence of the Arab governments in these protests. It seems to me that not only are the governments doing nothing to stop these protests, they are in fact encouraging them. Why? For the same reason all countries with despotic governments, limited civil rights and little hope for the future instigate civil unrest: by putting attention onto something irrelevant (like these cartoons), the Arab government help distract their populations from the fact that there is no money (for many of them), people are oppressed, they live by, frankly, fascistic theocratic laws. So the government organizes huge protests, busses people in and lets them go loose. Does anyone think that governments, which we already know are prone to violence, for some reason now can't control their people. Of course not. They are letting their people get away with it, so they don't wake up and pay attention to the misery of their situation. But... I doubt this will be a popular position.

Incidentally, I would point the readers to one of the first postings on the The Accuser, Religion and Occam's Razor. Some points brought up there are particularly valid when people start throwing around the "you've insulted their religion" line.

Jyllands Posten Danish Mohammed Cartoons

2006-02-03T10:21:00.000-05:00

A lot of people seem to coming here for the Jyllands-Posten Cartoons. So, I am making sure they are top of mind by reposting them up for those curious. I also firmly believe that it is our responsibility to post, repost and repost these images. Nobody has the right to take away freedom of speech, certainly not some religion. Print em out... hand em out on the street... post em on walls.
Newer posts are below.

Anti-Semitic Cartoons!

2006-02-03T10:17:00.000-05:00

Now, we wouldn't be a fair blog if we didn't show the whole story. Look at these cartoons. As a loyal reader, and fellow editor of New York Toilets pointed out, there was little outrage, calls for fatwa, riots, massive demonstrations, flag-burning and general hooliganism when these cartoons were printed.

I keep forgetting. We are dealing with a "Religion of Peace."

A modest proposal.

2006-02-02T07:42:00.000-05:00

Following a discussion about terrorism last night with a friend, we came to a few conclusions.

1) The "War On Terror" makes no sense. As pointed out in this article, that makes as much sense as saying we were fighting the blitzkrieg in WW II.

2)What we are really fighting, is Islam. I think it's fair to say this. Islam has shown itself to be what religions, at their core, really are: violent, dangerous, and serve to control men. How can a "religion of peace" start issuing fatwas, burning flags, threatening people over a cartoon. A cartoon, by the way, which pointed out the very fact that this is what would happen if someone made cartoons about Mohammed. We are only so lucky that Christianity is so liberalized these days that we only really have one religion to deal with.

3) Since we have accepted the fact that we are at war with Islam, we all need to be soldiers. So, The Accuser proposes a subversive plan: bring it down from the inside. The only way to sway public Muslim opinion, is to show how our way of life is superior to theirs. SO.....Start sending over beer, pornography, movies, books, magazines, music, food, candy bars, cowboy hats.... Anything you think represents the best of western culture. Pick a name out of the Tehran phonebook. Just start deluging them with our wonderful excess. If you lived a life of asceticism, denial and fear of stoning for looking at a woman's calf, I think the latest issue of Hustler would be a powerful incentive to revolt.

More to come on our new John Frum Movement...

Jyllands-Posten Mohammed Cartoons!

2006-02-01T17:59:00.000-05:00

Ok, so if you don't know... A few months ago a Danish newspaper (Jyllands-Posten) printed several cartoons that portrayed the Prophet (or Profit, as you will) Mohammed. These were found to be totally offensive to the otherwise rational radical Islamists, so they began boycotting Danish products, burning flags, shouting Jihads and otherwise trying to stomp on everyone's freedom of speech. So, recently, this has come up again, as other papers start re-printing them. In the spirit of internet journalism, The Accuser offers them up below.

If we don't reprint these, we are cowards. Let that be a lesson to the American papers that won't show these cartoons.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE PICS!!
Originally found on zombietime

Jyllands-Posten Danish Mohammed Cartoons - Part 3

2006-02-01T17:54:00.000-05:00

Jyllands-Posten Danish Mohammed Cartoons - Part 2

2006-02-01T17:50:00.000-05:00

Jyllands-Posten Danish Mohammed Cartoons - Part 1

2006-02-01T17:49:00.000-05:00

Word of God - now on sale.

2006-01-29T10:41:00.000-05:00

Well, I am shocked that anybody is shocked at this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1692693,00.html

The Pope has decided to charge to reprint his words - you know, those brilliant missives that come from God's vessel on Earth? It appears people are upset at this. Why should the word of God and the Pope be sold?

It appears that people have forgotten that the Church exists to make money. This is no surprise. Kudos to Benedict XVI for doing what religion does best.

The Accuser! - Now Uncensored!

2006-01-25T09:44:00.000-05:00

Good News Everybody!!!!

I just checked http://www.google.cn and The Accuser is not censored by the Chinese Government. Hurrah!!!!

The Lord's Resistance Army

2006-01-24T12:01:00.000-05:00

I doubt anyone could sum up the appropriate point of view on this subject better than Christopher Hitchens. Check out his article on the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army), one of Uganda's premier child armies. Turns out they are Christian. Hot dog. Imagine, a Christian army recruiting children. Hmmm.....

http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060109roco03

Hajj Death Toll Watch! Part 1

2006-01-12T11:36:00.000-05:00

It's Hajj season, folks, that magical time of the year for all Muslims when they trample, stampede, and crush each other to death to rush back to Mecca and get as close to the Kaaba as they can. And every year, there's death....lots of it. Because Allah certainly takes care of his own.

A few days ago, a hotel collapsed (which naturally was full of pilgrims).

Today, we have a stampede.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-12T161728Z_01_DIT247894_RTRUKOC_0_US-HAJ-SAUDI.xml

Barbara Walters covering all her bases

2005-12-21T09:53:00.000-05:00

It's been a while. Sorry to my faithful reader.

Last night, intrepid journalist Barbara Walters did an in-depth, hard-core investigative piece on Heaven: Where is it? How do we get there?

It would be near impossible to write a satirical title for fake journalism more hysterical than this.

Anyway, Walters fawned over every sort of religious idiot for a while. When she came to Ellen Johnson, the president of the American Atheists, her fawning stopped. She immediately took on a smug attitude and began asking all sorts of stupid comments like "You can't prove that God doesn't exist." and so on. Johnson, clearly an intelligent, capable human being, responded appropriately...to the tune of "It ain't my job to prove a thing doesn't exist. The burden lies with the person positing something."

Hurrah.

What sickened me was the complete lack of respect for Atheism, and treating it like it is some sort of immature belief that people outgrow. Unlike the superstition of religion. Which is sane and mature.

Megachurches closing for christmas

2005-12-08T09:59:00.000-05:00

Apparently, some of the megachurches around the country are closing for christmas.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/06/D8EB5R608.html

This one is a no-brainer - They're closing because they're businesses. All businesses are closed for christmas.

Child molesting priests are gay, not pedophiles.

2005-12-06T11:40:00.000-05:00

The Vatican has released a new document on homosexuality. Apparently, it rehashes some of the old business about sexuality being on a sliding scale (a la Kinsey). Which is all fine and dandy.

The scary thing is that it attributes priest abuse of children to homosexuality, rather than pedophilia. A quote from the interview...

Given the present crisis in the Church, with 80% of the abuse involving
homosexual assaults of adolescent males, seminarians and those in formation in
religious communities with same-sex attractions have a serious responsibility to
protect the Church from further shame and sorrow.

They are also claiming that it can be cured, and that they've had some success. The only thing they are really successful at, is driving people into parks late at night to indulge in unsafe sex, because they are denied to ability to have a healthy relationship. Kudos.

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=81164

Rejoice Sinners! You Can Be Saved!

2005-12-01T14:19:00.000-05:00

O Glorious Day! It turns out there is hope for all of you, my sinning little children…Benedict the Umpteenth says that you can be saved. Thank God.

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80888

I have some ideas on how we might be saved: burning at the stake usually works pretty well (historically).

Church stirs up anti-semitism

2005-12-01T14:14:00.000-05:00

It appears that Papa Ratzi is all about making the Church the way it used to be. Like stirring up old anti-semitic feelings by condemning usury. Hmmmm….how much money do you suppose the Church has invested. Any of it in bonds? Oh wait, I remember….The Church primarily puts all of its money in real estate. And doesn’t pay taxes on it.

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80486

Papa Ratzi shows true face. Welcome back to the dark ages.

2005-12-01T14:08:00.000-05:00

Interesting times, folks.

It seems the Pope nee Grand Inquisitor just doesn't like people getting along. Hence, he put the Franciscans under a new system of threefold-control, including a Papal overseer. Which is in direct contradiction to the Autonomy that JP^2 granted 'em in the 60s.

All because the Franciscans used to act as the link between the Church and society.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801707.html?sub=AR

Church vs Homosexuality. Again.and Again. and Again.

2005-11-30T09:45:00.000-05:00

The Church has really set me straight. Apparently, homosexuals destabilize people and society.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17417706%5E663,00.html

Wow.

I need to ask my homosexual friends exactly how they do this. Because, surprisingly, the article tells me nothing about how Monsignor Tony Anatrella (a French Jesuit and psychologist and the author of the paper), proves this point.

If any of my copious readership knows how to get a hold of the article, I'd be much obliged. Until then, keep your eyes out for those wily homosexuals: they might just be destabilizing you.

Catholic Church violates employment laws, again.

2005-11-29T09:55:00.001-05:00

Teacher Sues Catholic Church

Seems this woman was doing what all healthy human beings do: engaging in a little sex. But, sadly, it resulted in her getting pregnant.

Unfortunately for her, she is Catholic school teacher. And she is not allowed to behave in a manner unbefitting a catholic. So they are firing her. Lucky for her, the NYCLU is taking the case on her behalf.

Again, I ask my readers, why should the Church be allowed to discriminate on grounds that are not allowed for any other Fortune 500 company. Wouldn't making exceptions be a violation of the 1st amendment. One could argue about that being a prohibition of the free exercise of a religion, but we certainly don't allow sacrifices or stonings, which appear to be status quo for many religions around the world.

Shouldn't the church at least be happy she didn't get an abortion.

Burden Of Proof

2005-11-28T13:11:00.000-05:00

Some more ruminations (you know, like a Sacred Cow)...

The burden of proof should lie with the party that is asserting something. So if you say that something exists, you have to prove it: like God, for instance.

Why would I have to waste my time disproving something that has never been proven to exist in the first place.

This is typically the process we approach everything with: from our justice system (innocent until proven guilty) to science (a hypothesis is posited, then proven).

Unless, of course, all good religious folks believe that God can be proven "reductio ad absurdem." And absurdity is about the only way that one can imagine god existing in this world.

Buddhist Bullshit

2005-11-22T09:27:00.000-05:00

Time to focus on another religion. Buddhism. Check out this gem of an article from the Telegraph.

Meditating Boy

It seems that a 15 year old boy has been meditating, without food, water or even shitting (though why would he need to shit if he hasn't been eating) - for SIX months.

Your bullshit meter should be going off.

They had doctors come to verify it, although they weren't allowed any closer than 5 yards. They failed to reach a conclusion, although they did determine he was alive.

It should be going off stronger now.

AND they've been selling photos and all sorts of knick-knacks around the boy.

BING BING BING. Your meter should be exploding right now.

Obviously, this is nothing more than a way to exploit people and get their money. And the mother need to be put in prison for allowing her son to be exploited like this.

Technorati Tags: religion, buddhism, bullshit, atheism

Someone we can blame for the modern evangelical movement

2005-11-21T09:45:00.000-05:00

An interesting piece from Peter Drucker's obituary in The Economist. Drucker was the most important management thinker of the 20th century (according to the Economist).

Full link underneath.

One perhaps unexpected example of Druckerism is the modern mega-church
movement. He suggested to evangelical pastors that they create a more
customer-friendly environment (hold back on the overt religious symbolism and
provide plenty of facilities). Bill Hybels, the pastor of the 17,000-strong
Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, has a quotation
from Mr Drucker hanging outside his office: "What is our business? Who is our
customer? What does the customer consider value?"
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5165460

Pretty scary, the way religion is reverting back to the way it was in the middle ages. They way the are trying to trick people into believing and attending (and don't forget donating).

Oh wait...it never changed.

Technorati Tags: religion, Peter Drucker, megachurch, atheism

About God Damn time

2005-11-21T08:21:00.000-05:00

Finally.

NPR has been running a little program called "This I Believe." It's meant to be a touchy-feely, good-time, spiritual romp through America. To date, nearly all of them have revolved around various people's belief in God, and how it bolsters them against a cruel world, full of difficult decisions and tragedies (which, naturally, have nothing to do with a benevolent old man in the sky).

It was getting pretty toxic: every week another intellectual (and they especially love to show scientists who believe in God) would bray on about the wonders of faith and God's mysteries.

Until, today, O happy day.

Penn Jillete comes to our rescue. Check it out.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

I couldn't have said it better myself. Cheers to Penn.

Technorati Tags: religion, public radio, This I Believe, Penn Jillete, atheism

Some thoughts on Missionaries

2005-11-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

This article in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/giving/14newman.html

got me thinking: are missionaries now masquerading as businessmen, and introducing their dogma that way? That is kind of terrifying. The fact that these "Christian Businesses" see it as their divine duty to spread their businesses and faith around is creepy.

Just shows that their is scriptural support for anything you can dream up. Except reason.

Technorati Tags: religion, god, missionaries, atheism

Is Theology a science?

2005-11-15T09:44:00.000-05:00

I suspect not. Mostly because a science, or a scientific inquiry, does not presuppose a source for answers. While in Physics (or whatever) we do have a hypothesis, this is what we are trying to prove or disprove. With Theology, the answer will inevitably not contradict either 1) religious teachings or 2) the existence of God. So, it cannot be a science because things cannot be disproved.

Technorati Tags: religion, god, theology, science, atheism

IRS, the religious right and you

2005-11-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

Our new friends at Heathen Middle wrote up an interesting piece on the IRS tax-exempt scandal going on in California. It's worth taking a look.

http://heathenmiddle.com/

More proof that religion is nothing more than a political tool.

Technorati Tags: religion, IRS, religious right, atheism

Pope picture worth more than little girls dignity

2005-11-12T11:13:00.000-05:00

So, I was reminiscing over our dear departed near to be Saint Pope John Paul 2. I remember a little incident where a singer named Sinead O'Connor tore up a little headshot of him on a broadcast of Saturday Night Live, and effectively had her career terminated. Everybody was incensed: Catholics, Seculars, Jews...the whole gamut. How could they she be so insensitive? Sacrilegious?

Fine. People get indignant about all kinds of things they don't really care about. But, when compared with two other "Artists" who performed certain public indiscretions, I am incensed that a torn photo pisses people off more than these other.

R. Kelly. Takes a video of himself pissing on teenage girls. Video gets distributed. He continues to win awards and be heralded as a great artist.

Roman Polanski, drugs and rapes a 13 year old girl. Gets convicted. Flees the country. Then manages to get the right to sue a publication for defamation of character by VIDEO, because if he shows up in person in the UK, he might have to do time. He continues to win Oscars and is heralded as a brilliant film-maker. (I happen to like a couple Polanski movies, but that ain't the point).

O'Connor's career was over. She was forced into the clergy. But those two pieces of shit continue. Nobody seems to care that a couple of little girls were humiliated and violated. But God forbid a photo of some old man with a big hat get torn up, that is the outrage.

Where is everyone's priority?

Technorati Tags: religion, god, pope, atheism, Sinead O'Connor, R Kelly

God needs your Dough

2005-11-11T09:00:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting article from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Religion-in-the-News.html

Looks like there is a problem. People aren't giving their Churches enough money.

No worries. That is where ParishPay comes in. They've set up an electronic tithing system. Discretionary, of course. How interesting. I have to say I am all for a company that helps reduce the amount of money that people give to religious institutions, tax free. ParishPay takes a little bit out of each payment. Good for them. I'd say they aren't taking enough.

But, there more interesting thing about this article was the amount of money a Church said it made. The Church of the Presentation in Upper Saddle River, NJ, is really raking it in. Turns out their donations went from 16k-21k a month during the summer to 20-22k a week once they started using ParishPay.

So...If they claim that the summer are their poorest months for their extortion racket that means this Church is scamming their 1100 parishioner families out of over a million dollars a year.

Not bad.

According to the United States Council of Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/comm/cip.shtml), donations to the Church were at $7.375 billion in 2000. Sunday donations were increasing at about 5% a year, so we can extrapolate that by now (2005) that donation income is approximately $9.4 Billion.

Let's pretend that the Church was a business. If it had, in income, 9.4 billion dollars a year, it would hit the Fortune 500 at #212, making it a bigger corporation than Gillette, Occidental petroleum and Heinz.

But, we shouldn't only pick on the Catholics. Let's go after all religions.

According to the same Council of Bishops, religious donations to all institutions is at $74.3 Billion in 2001. So, that makes RELIGION, as a whole, the 11th biggest corporation in the country, after AIG and before HP.

Who says America isn't a religious country?

Technorati Tags: religion, god, democracy, atheism, catholic, money

Violation of Equal Employment Opportunity

2005-11-10T09:38:00.000-05:00

A flagrant violation is happening in our country. Right under our noses. Many of our religious organization are REFUSING to hire women, gays and minorities. They say that they are unfit for the position of Priest (or Imam or Rabbi or whatever).

This is intolerable. Not too long ago, they said blacks couldn’t hold jobs. Or vote. And ought to be slaves.

And now religions, those bastions of tolerance, are saying that certain people are not to be allowed to take a job, because of criteria outside of their control! That is criminal discrimination.

Someone should file a lawsuit.

If we take separation of church and state literally, then this is unfair. Why should a religious organization be exempt from rules that apply to the rest of the country.

God must be on their side.

Technorati Tags: religion, god, democracy,
Equal Employment Opportunity

Religion and Occam's Razor

2005-11-09T11:31:00.000-05:00

People have an unusual understanding of religions. They seem to think that they are, inherently, some sort of good, positive structure. And that any corruptions, violence, and abuses that are done in the name of religion are people corrupting it, and not being real Muslims, or Christians or Buddhists or whatever.

Bullshit.

Here you have structures which for MILLENIA have murdered, oppressed, enslaved, tortured and impeded man. But, somehow, in their “true” form (which has never actually been revealed), these things wouldn’t happen. How is it we know that there is some “true” or “real” version of these religions. And whatever happened to Occam's Razor? Why are people willing to hold on to these horrible organizations and make excuses for them, when the truth is right there, in history books, in the newspaper…everywhere?

The true versions of these religions is exactly as we see them: structures of control, enforced through fear. They are meant to murder, exclude, abuse and torture. That is how they give power to those in control of them.

Pretty terrifying the convolutions we put ourselves through just because of fear and superstition.

Technorati Tags: religion, god, atheism

A modest proposal

2005-11-08T09:00:00.000-05:00

In a democracy, the popularly elected public officials serve one end, and one alone: the people. A democracy is created to make life for the people better. All people. So, it should follow that if you are elected in a democracy, you need to put that goal ahead of any others you might entertain.

That means that being religious render you ineligible for public office. A person who is religious must ultimately put somebody else higher than his fellow man: God. How can a person whose (real) sole purpose in this world is to please the old man in the sky every be trusted to be carrying out legislature and decisions that are in OUR best interest. All this official wants to do is secure his seat in heaven and not piss of the big man.

That is even further made evident by the separation of Church and state.

The democratic state is not created to serve God. It is here to serve man.

Technorati Tags: religion, god, democracy, atheism

Some thoughts on Theology, the noblest of all sciences.

2005-11-08T00:41:00.000-05:00

In the great aggregation of Theology, the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas brings us a remarkable little gem. He PROVES that Theology is the noblest of the sciences.

So many great minds have been wasted in theological pursuits. Consider one of the main learnings of the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas' great contribution to the world: That theology is nobler than the other sciences. His brilliant reasoning: because a proverb (9:3) tells us so.

I think there is a term for this kind of argument. Sophistry comes to mind (if we wish to be polite). If we don't feel that way, bullshit also applies.

Interestingly enough, though, this particular bit of the Summa may help to point out how Theology is precisely NOT a science. With some fancy application of meta-mathematics, I think we might be able to show how using the bible as a text to back up a science may prove that Theology is incomplete, and that not all of the assertions of it can be proven.

Or, we could more general and just point out that he is using a book that is already labeled as inerrant to back up assertions that reinforce that very label. This one boils down to "it's in the bible, so it's true." Brilliant Theologian.

Technorati Tags: religion, theology, god, atheism, Aquinas,

Saint Watch

2005-11-06T18:23:00.000-05:00

Thank God that Pope John Paul Squared is on the fast track to becoming a Saint.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4409070.stm

It's interesting the criteria that one must pass. For example, I believe he needs to have performed three miracles. Ok, here we go:

He "defeated" communism. This is quite a feat. No armies, intellectuals, insurgents, rebels or revolutionaries could do it. But he could. An actor-turned Pope. If he were still around, he'd be perfect for American politics.
He canonized more people than all the other Popes before him combined. It has to be a miracle making up with enough reasons to canonize so many people.
Hanging on as long as he did. He was so brave in defying God's will at crippling his body and ruining his health. Though...If he was defying God's will, maybe it wasn't a miracle after all. Let's find another.
Oooh, I've got one...He presided over the largest shrinking of influence in Church history.
Another...He bravely managed to not see, or act, on any of the sex abuse scandals going on throughout the world. It was miraculous that he knew all those children were lying.
He expressed sorrow at "past" Catholic mistreatment of the Jews. Not any current, or future mistreatment, mind you. A corollary miracle to this is his prescience that Ratzinger would succeed him, since he knew of the to-be Pope's penchance for mistreating Jews.
Isn't it miraculous that the Church apologized for the persecution of Galileo?

I'm convinced. He is a Saint.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Catholic, Saints, Christianity, Atheism,

Sunday Secular Sermon #1 - Living a good life

2005-11-06T11:02:00.000-05:00

Good morning, sinners.
This is the first in what will be a treat for all of you on a nice Sunday morning. It is, after all, the lord's day. I realize that this may be a day off or so (Sabbath-wise) for other religions, but...You can't please everyone.

Today's topic is living a good life as an atheist.

A lot of religious types like to say that morality can not exist without their particular creed. Of course, those people have not read any philosophy that pre-dates Christ. Morality and religion are not inclusive.

But...If we are not supposed to live our life to please the bearded Sky-Captain and make sure He, in His infinite power and majesty and so on, doesn't get too angry with us, then what should we do?

I'd say we only have one power to answer to: the rest of humanity. If we try to act in a way that is positive for all men, then we can be assured of some utility, and nobility, in our lives. That would be true altruism...Not this simpering, pandering religious view of the world which is nothing more than making sure you don't get punished. Morality, and good, comes not from fear but from something more like love.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Morality, god, Atheism,

A few thoughts on Orthodoxy

2005-11-05T20:02:00.000-05:00

There is a lot of discussion whether the Catholic church should allow female priests, or homosexual priests, or priests to marry. Certainly all of these would help the Church appear more progressive, more liberal, more accepting.

But...that is not what a Church is about. What, exactly, should a Catholic (or any other religion ruled by dogma and doctrine) believe? Is the Bible the final authority? If so, then there is no debate...homosexuality is wrong (whatever that means).

So why do people want to change it? If they don't think homosexuality is wrong, why would they choose to follow a church that did. Who are they to argue with the immutable word of God and his theologians?

Changing a Church is an attempt to bring rationality to a fundamentally irrational organization. Anyone can tell you that religions are built on faith, which is a suspension of reason. You could argue it is, in fact, a denial of reason. You HAVE to believe what is prescribed. Changing it would only make God angry. So the good Catholic who is trying to make his church better is actually a bad Catholic. Religions at their core are strict, orthodoxical structures that CAN NOT allow room for interpretation. They are built to demand belief in certain precepts. Changing them means you are denying a certain on of their core elements.

Which is absurd. If you don't like it, leave. It's obvious that so many people have issue with fundamentals of their religion, but stick around anyway. Use your head. If there is one thing you find offense to, then there are probably more.

So you can either you take it whole-hog or don't. Grand inquisitor Papa Ratzi will make sure of that.

Technorati Tags: Religion,
Catholic, Orthodoxy, Fundamentalism, Atheism,

A mild case of spirituality

2005-11-03T10:25:00.000-05:00

I’m not sure what is more dangerous – full-blown religion or mild spirituality.

One might say religion without thinking too much. Certainly, organized religion has been a root cause of the majority of human suffering throughout history. It serves to divide without purpose. It gives people a sense of accomplishment without doing anything. And it makes followers feel superior for no good reason, other than that they have been duped by a different holy-rolling shyster, who claims that everyone else’s religion is wrong.

But, with full-blown religion, at least the victim believes in something (no matter how absurd it is). Regardless of how they have been convinced, there is some conviction, and some understanding of their beliefs in relation to others’.

A mild case of spirituality, however, seems innocuous at first. So we have a soul. So I don’t quite understand how it works. That is what god is for. See how easily I can meld reason with irrationality. “God” is man’s explanation of everything science can’t comprehend. (of course if that were true, then science would never have existed in the first place). Let’s believe in ghosts.

I hope you see what I am getting at.

Just like tuberculosis becomes resistant to treatment when a patient starts feeling better and stops taking his antibiotics, man has stopped his medicine after the enlightenment and now has just a mild case of spirituality. And that spirituality will eventually grow into something much more dangerous…a serious case of fundamentalism from a religion that has yet to be invented.
If you doubt it, look at the resurgence of fundamentalism around the world.

We had a chance to bring people around to living lives ruled by reason and thought, instead of fear and superstition. But we blew it, with our fear of communism (which is as related to atheism as capitalism is to democracy), and our fear of the unknown. Now we are seeing that fear manifest itself in nonsense spirituality.

Dangerous times lurk ahead.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Spirituality, god, Atheism,

Nation Public Religion...er...Radio

2005-11-02T11:24:00.000-05:00

Once again, NPR has shown how wonderfully liberal and accepting of everything it is with National Geographics Radio Expedition trip to "heaven." Heaven, as it turns out, is somewhere just downstream of Delhi, on one the most polluted rivers in the world. There, people live in contentment, knowing they have been reincarnated , worshipping Krishna, one of Hinduism's many, many gods.

All this would be fine, if it weren't for the interviewers and interviewees braying on how Hinduism is such a tolerant, friendly religion. They seem to forget a little insitution known as the Caste System. In case you were unaware, reincarnation, that lovely idea, states that the depending on how good or bad you were in a previous life, you will be reincarnated a cat, or a squid or a human. Sounds innocent enough. Until you bring in the Caste System. That wonderful sorting mechanism which puts the blame on poor, innocent people who can do nothing other than shovel shit and dig corpses out of the sewer, because it is their fault that they are untouchable. And how do we know it's their fault? Because of reincarnation. They must be in the untouchable caste because of some transgression their immortal soul made in a past life.

What a sensitive, friendly, all-embracing religion. Sign me up.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Hinduism, Public Radio, Atheism,