RSS
email
0

Growing Up In Polygamy - One Woman's Nightmare

I just finished reading Carolyn Jessop's book about her life in the polygamous FLDS cult. It was a harrowing read. I never imagined it could be as bad as she described it. But it was worse. Polygamy is just one aspect of this Taliban-like controlled life. Women have no rights; not to their children, not to education, and certainly not to their bodies. These fundie Mormons, in my opinion, share a lot in common with radical Muslims. A woman's status is below that of a man and they have no reproductive rights or access to any type of birth control. After reading her book, I was sickened by the hell on Earth she had to endure and for what? So that her jackass, coward of a husband could be lifted up to heaven and then choose whether or not she joined him? Fuck that nonsense. If one believes in God, only he or she or it, should decide if one is lifted up, not some mere mortal. But this isn't about heaven; it's about power and lots of it, on Earth, in the here and now that matters to these men.

Now of course, not all of the men in the cult are power hungry and abusive bastards like Merril Jessop, but most of them are so brainwashed as not being able to see the misdeeds and hypocrisy of the powerful ones like the "Prophet" and his apostles. Warren Jeffs is of course the current prophet, not to mention a sociopath, and "Uncle Rulon" was the prophet before him.

Although life in the cult got progressively more extreme as Warren Jeffs took over for his ailing father, life under Uncle Rulon was repressive as well. Carolyn Jessop writes how the elite in the community engaged in behaviours which are grounds for excommunication like drinking beer and getting plastered. Uncle Rulon was one of them. Later, she writes, "[h]e started bitching about one of his wives who was obese after having sixteen kids, which he felt was a sign of pure rebellion toward him."

Ah, rebellion. The one word that would get a wife to shut up and fall in line. Whatever the husband didn't like about his wives and any trivialities were seen as rebellions it seems. A wife had to be in "harmony" with her husband, meaning she basically needed to be his clone. She had to like what he liked, do what he asked, and even if she did all these things there was always something to accuse her of doing wrong and then telling her she wasn't in harmony, which is a pretty bad thing.

The whole sect- or rather cult- is completely ludicrous and impossible. And those mainstream Mormons who are trying to distance themselves from these fundamentalists are insisting that theirs is a religion. I don't think so. Both are sects of Christianity. And even if both were religions, it wouldn't change the fact that one charlatan, a century and a half ago, invented it and called it some divine revelation. Give me a break. All religions are man made and there is nothing holy or supernatural in any of them. Everybody who is religious is brainwashed to some degree. Why else would children be brought up religiously rather than allowing them to choose when they are older and harder to manipulate? The answer is clear.
Read more
0

Pro-Lifers Are Such Hypocrites

Recently, I stumbled upon an article that gives new meaning to the word "HYPOCRITE." It's called "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" by Joyce Arthur. Eight years ago, Arthur compiled a number of anecdotes from doctors performing abortions and their staff at various abortion clinics on three continents; North America, Europe and Australia. After reading the article, the first words that came to me were HOLY SHIT.

There was this one woman who came in for an abortion at five and a half months. After the procedure she had the audacity to tell the doctor that she was still a murderer. What a lunatic. Five and a half months? Fucking idiot. What took her so long? I doubt the pregnancy was life-threatening, or she would have used that to justify HER abortion. Frankly, I have a problem with late term abortions unless it is a critical health issue for the mother. If not, then too fucking bad, it's too late now. At 22 weeks, babies can survive outside the womb, but not without problems. Aborting at this stage just because you couldn't make up your mind is wrong.

Most of these anecdotes are just as fucked up as the one above. Women who picket abortion clinics end up coming to the same clinic to get an abortion and then days later return to picketing the same clinic! Shit-for-brains hypocrites. Or like some others, they come in to get an abortion and look down on every other woman who is there to get the procedure, thinking that the other women's reasons are too trivial and only theirs aren't, thus making their abortion a moral one. Yeah, all the others at the clinic enjoy the procedure and use it as a contraceptive. Fucking dumbasses.

I hate these types of women and people in general. If you're anti-choice, pro-life, whatever you call it, that's fine. No one is forcing you to abort. What right do you have to force another woman to have a baby if she doesn't want to. Deciding to get an abortion is not an easy decision and even if it was, so what? It's legal and we don't fucking need your righteousness or your approval. And please refrain from quoting the fucking Bible. That crock of shit condones infanticide and so much other shit, so those who use it to justify the evils of abortion can just shove it up their asses. If the Bible is their moral compass, then that really doesn't say much about them, in my opinion. And one can cut out all the nasty passages and books in the Bible, it still makes no fucking difference. Because a holy book is either holy in its entirety or it is not, and the Bible clearly is not.
Read more
0

Morgentaler Deserves Appointment to Order of Canada

In my opinion Dr. Henry Morgentaler deserves the appointment to the Order of Canada. There's a bit of a controversy regarding his appointment. Whatever your stand on abortion is, no one can deny that Dr. Morgentaler had a profound impact in this country. He helped women when no one else would. The legalization of abortion in Canada is due in large part to him and others like him who fought for a woman's right to obtain safe and legal abortions. He was named to the Order of Canada just a few days ago, on Canada's 141st birthday, which was July 1, 2008. Dr. Henry Morgentaler was recognized "for his commitment to increased health care options for women, his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy and his leadership in humanist and civil liberties organizations." For all those anti-abortion activists, deal with it. He earned it and it's fucking wrong for anyone to try and minimize his impact in this country. If it wasn't for him, thousands upon thousands of women would have died with back alley botched abortions or suffered in silence and remained slaves to their reproductive organs. Thank you Dr. Morgentaler for having the guts to stand up and be the voice of every woman whose reproductive choices were in the hands of the government. Thank you for giving it back to us. Congratulations on your appointment to the Order of Canada. You truly deserve it.

Sources:
Morgentaler named to Order of Canada
Read more
0

Jefferson's 'Bible'

The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, cut up the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and basically created his own bible. The parts he left out are numerous. The four gospels of the New Testament are approximately 165 pages long while Jefferson's Bible is about 46 pages. So, out of the four gospels, he cut out over 70% of text. Pretty smart. He got rid of all the supernatural text, miracles and the resurrection. He basically only kept ethical and moral codes. He may have gone too far for some people, cutting the bible as pleased him and his beliefs. But I would have gone further. I would have cut up the whole fucking thing. In case you're someone who frowns upon desecrating the good book, here's what I have to say. All moderate Christians have done this too. Probably not literally but figuratively, yes. Most Christians only consider the New Testament as the "Bible." The Old one is completely ignored, and for good reason. You either accept the whole or you don't accept it at all. One can't just do an extreme makeover on the holy book and then say, "I only believe these parts." That just proves that the Bible was written by men and lo and behold it's filled with mistakes and inconsistencies and a lot of immorality. With so many different versions used by different sects, the whole thing loses any kind of authority it ever had. The Bible is just a crock of shit. If its only redeeming quality is ethical and moral codes, then we can be done with it for good. These ethics and morals were no doubt borrowed or stolen from other authors and put into Jesus' mouth. So, then there would be no good reasons left to still mass produce this crock of shit. There are far better books on ethics and morality that have been written by great philosophers and these works kick the Bible's ass.
Read more
0

Since When Does Canada Recognize the Supremacy of God?

While reading Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into effect in April 1982, I was dumbfounded to find this stupid sentence in the preamble:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Since when? The Constitution Act of 1867 never even mentions the word 'God' and there is nothing in the entire document that even alludes to this supremacy. So, what I want to know is who found it necessary to include such a retarded statement in the Charter where freedom of religion is guaranteed as a "fundamental freedom." Or does freedom of religion only mean freedom to practise any religion and not freedom from religion or religious belief? This statement is ludicrous and I guess it doesn't really make a fucking difference anyway but still, I want to know who came up with this and why it was included in the Charter in the first place. I guess I'll have to do some digging.
Read more
1

Morality In Non-Human Animals

While I haven't done much research in "animal morality" I did observe moral behaviour among one of my favourite species, the Emperor Penguins. While watching "March of the Penguins," I was moved to tears when one of them realized that the egg he was incubating was a lost cause. He was having trouble holding the egg in place and covering it to keep away the extreme cold. The way he reacted to the loss of his offspring made me cry. I could feel his pain. The next thing he did seemed a very irrational reaction to such a loss. But then again he must have been very distraught. He tried to replace the egg he lost to the elements by stealing one of the other penguin's eggs. A horrible thing morally but when the other penguins who were nearby realized what he was trying to do, they all fought him off. They just knew that this was wrong and it looked to me that he was being reprimanded for it by the others. He backed off when confronted by the others, and yet he looked so sad to me that I felt incredibly sorry for him. Obviously incubating the egg while the female went foraging for food, which could take months, a bond is formed with the incubated egg and the loss is devastating. The Emperor Penguins only breed once a year under the harshest conditions.

Photobucket


These are just my interpretations but I find it incredible and very suggestive of human beings, that morality comes from a natural source. No religion, no God, nothing supernatural about it. I don't know where it comes from but I'm fairly sure it does not come from above.
Read more
0

Religious Freedoms Cross The Line

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that churches cannot be held liable for trauma arising from an exorcism, whether forced or voluntary. The reason behind this majority ruling was the idea that exorcism is a part of the church's doctrine or is one of their core beliefs and under the First Amendment, certain religious freedoms are protected.

That's fine, but when those freedoms cause harm or suffering to human beings, whether they accept the beliefs or not, those freedoms should not be protected. If every religious belief is granted the same protection just because it's a "core" belief or principle of a certain church then polygamy should be protected under the First Amendment too. As should a parents' right to decide whether their children get life-saving medical care or not. If these things were protected like the "exorcism" nonsense, then the State wouldn't have indicted Ava Worthington's parents, who died from pneumonia and a blood infection. Instead, her parents opted for faith-healing; basically praying for her to get better.

Emotional trauma is not as serious as death, but where do we draw the line when it comes to religious freedoms. Religion is not supposed to harm or kill and yet it happens every day and the courts just point to the First Amendment and turn the other cheek.

When people start dying because of their religious beliefs, then you know something is fucked up and steps should be taken to prevent this sort of thing.
Read more
0

Abstinence Only Programs Losing Ground

Shocking, right? Abstinence-Only sex education doesn't work? Who knew? Well, I for one never expected it to work. I'm just surprised it lasted as long as it did. Billions of wasted dollars spewing religious propaganda. Abstinence until marriage. Give me a break. That's not a solution. Even if people did wait until marriage, that doesn't immunize anyone from contracting STD's. Given the fact that half of all people who do get married, eventually divorce anyway. So, waiting until marriage is ridiculous. Besides, it is nearly impossible for people to wait that long. Young people are postponing marriages until they are older and I'm not sure what the median age of marriage is these days, but I doubt it's in the early twenties. Not many are going to wait to have sex until they get married, except for the very religious. So, since the reality is that a large number of teenagers have sex, why not try and make it as safe for them as possible by giving them all the information they need and thus let them make an informed decision. I know many teenagers don't exactly have a reputation for clear thinking but still it would be better that they know all their options than raising them to be ignorant of human sexuality.

There are many options. It's hard for me to imagine that most teenagers who own a TV have never heard of condoms or the pill or even abortion. And if there are those who do not know, then it's very critical that they do. Virginity pledges and abstinence groups or whatever is not going to significantly reduce teen pregnancies. It's been studied and the results of abstinence-only programs is that it just doesn't work.

Thankfully I went to high school in Canada and was not taught this nonsense but I knew it was going on in U.S. high schools and it just made me laugh. No abstinence-only sex ed program would have prevented me from having sex. I knew what to do if I got pregnant accidentally and I also knew the best precautions to take to minimize that happening. First of all, using condoms was paramount as well as being on the pill or using the patch. Second, I knew if I had unprotected sex that I could go to the hospital or a clinic and ask for RU486, or the "abortion pill" as it is known. And if I encountered a doctor who refused to give it to me, I wouldn't leave until I got one. I would scream bloody murder until I was given that which I have a right to be given. Lastly, if all else fails, I would get an abortion. But that's just me. Abortion is not such a politically charged issue here as it is in the U.S. No doubt, due to religious fundamental evangelicals and the Christian Right. Of the top ten states with the highest rate of teen pregnancy, 6 of them are in the "Bible Belt." The other four are Nevada (ranked number 1), Nebraska (right behind Nevada at number 2), New Mexico and California, placed 4th and 7th respectively. So much for the theory that Hollywood is a bad moral influence. Georgia was right behind California and came pretty close to a tie. In the words of Christopher Hitchens, religion poisons everything.

So, I guess it would be harder for teenagers in the U.S. to prevent pregnancies given the religiosity of politicians and lawmakers and no doubt religiously-inspired programs like the abstinence nonsense. Not to mention the high cost of abortions there too. In Canada and Europe, abortion is covered under medical plans or national health plans. Also, in Canada the rate of teen pregnancies has been steadily declining since the mid '90s.

All of these obstructions to safe sex contributes to the high rate of teen pregnancies in the United States. It's time for the U.S. government to realize that what they're doing to reduce teen pregnancies is not working and maybe look to other countries' solutions who have managed to reduce the number of teen pregnancies.
Read more
0

It's A Crime To Insult Jesus

Is it a crime to insult Jesus? Apparently so, in Australia anyway. Oh and England too. Maybe it's a crime in Canada too, since it was once British and still has some weird ties to the Mother Country. Probably not since Canada actually has a Bill of Rights, unlike the people down under. Still, Canada's Bill of Rights can be easily manipulated under certain clauses. One can play the "incitement to violence" card in regards to just about any statement one finds offensive or doesn't agree with. An example would be the MacLeans article.

Anyway, since when is blasphemy illegal in secular countries? Why not charge anti-religious books and novels with "offensive behavior"? 'Cause that's what an Australian kid was charged with while wearing a shirt that defamed Jesus. Was he charged with defaming Jesus ben Sirach? Jesus ben Pandira? Jesus ben Ananias? Jesus ben Gamala? Which Jesus was it? Apparently there were a countless number of them. Does it even matter? Did the Christian Jesus even exist? I highly doubt it.

It's time to stop punishing religious dissidents and accord them the same freedom of speech that religious people enjoy.
Read more
0

Atheist Blogroll

I have joined Mojoey's Atheist Blogroll. It's a place for all atheist and agnostic bloggers. As of this writing there are over 700 member blogs listed. So, if you have a blog with an atheistic or agnostic perspective, consider joining the Atheist Blogroll.
Read more
0

Religious Drug Use Ok, Medicinal...Not So Much

I find it hard to believe that some religious people can get away with using illegal drugs while cancer patients who use marijuana for relief of nausea get charged and convicted. Medicinal marijuana use is illegal in the US while in Canada, it is not. The debates still rage among medical professionals and scientists as to whether marijuana is more harmful or beneficial to cancer patients, those with glaucoma, AIDS, MS, etc. Still, I think that people suffering from these diseases should be allowed to decide themselves whether to use marijuana or not. If it helps some people ease their suffering, why not let them? Marijuana, in my opinion, is no worse than alcohol. In fact, I believe that alcohol is far worse and far more damaging to our society than marijuana ever will be. And if you are one of those people who believe that marijuana is a gateway drug, then you'd be wrong and it would do you good to do some research.

It is more than a stretch to say that the legalization of marijuana would lead to legalization of cocaine or heroin; it's a bloody leap.

Among Christians in the US, opinion seems to be divided on the whole issue of marijuana legalization. Both sides can point to passages in the Bible to support their stands. But is this really the best way to decide whether to legalize marijuana? I think not. The Bible is notorious for contradictions and by using it to decide whether something should be legal or not in the 21st century is absurd. Killing disrespecting children is condoned in the Bible; it's actually the proper punishment. So, should we look to the Old Testament to decide what is allowable here and now? The New Testament, perhaps? How about neither?

The Bible is not the moral law of the United States, though many would like it to be, and as such it should have no bearing deciding the legality of anything. Religion just muddles things up.
Read more
0

Faith More Important Than The Life Of One's Child

I don't understand moderate religious people, much less Jehovah's Witnesses. Most people probably don't either. An Irish woman who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness, a cult of Christianity (all religions are cults in my book), was quoted saying that she would let her daughter die before consenting to a blood transfusion. I would understand if she wouldn't consent to a blood transfusion for herself but what gives her the right to decide whether her child lives or dies. When a medical situation is dire and a blood transfusion is necessary to save the life of the patient, I think it is pretty fair to say that the chances of survival without the transfusion are minimal or at least a lot less likely than with a transfusion.

What I find incredibly wrong is that this woman would give her daughter the "choice" to follow in her faith when she grows up while in the meantime she is bringing her up in that faith and refusing to allow transfusions. This whole religious nonsense is just wrong. Children end up dying because of their parents' beliefs. What about the child's right to life? I guess that's up to the parents.

The article I am referring to can be found here.
Read more
0

Hello, My Name is 'In God'

A Lake County, Illinois man has legally changed his name to In God We Trust. InGod or In God is his first name and WeTrust or We Trust will serve as his last name. How ridiculous can people get? No more ridiculous than Prince I guess who changed his name to a bloody symbol that no one could vocalize.

Isn't it enough to believe in God and go to church anymore? Everyone he comes into contact with will no doubt know how devoted his belief in God really is. What does it matter, for fucking out loud. Maybe I should legally change my name to that of this blog. Any thoughts?

Anyway, the whole point I'm trying to make here is why people, religious and nonreligious alike, find it necessary to label themselves at all. Identity problems, anyone?
Read more
0

Evolution vs. Creationism

I went online yesterday and along with reading a number of different blogs about the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, I also read some recent news articles, mostly US based. The fact that some states in the US have actually gone to court and won the right to teach creation as a scientific alternative to evolution appals me. To think that the one of the richest and supposedly most developed country in the world is not accepting of evolution is shocking.

The evidence for evolution is so extraordinary and powerful, while on the other hand the evidence for creationism is completely lacking. Scientifically lacking. So why is this stupid nonsense even allowed in public schools? To accommodate the religious freaks, no doubt, who couldn't possibly deal with the fact that their religious world view could be proved erroneous.

Religious accommodation, in my opinion, has gone too far. Why don't we introduce teachers who are willing to prove to our kids that babies are brought by storks. Surely, the evidence for this is no better than that of creationism. It's just a belief based on no evidence. Taken only on faith.
I think it's high time for religious belief to stop meddling with science.
Read more
0

My Ten Commandments

After reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion," I was inspired to write up my own version of the Ten Commandments. Here goes.

1. Thou shalt not let the Bible nor any other 'holy' book guide thee in any way whatsoever.

2. Thou shalt not kill anyone unless in self-defense.

3. Thou shalt not tell women what to do with their bodies.

4. Thou shalt not think thyself superior to any woman. Thou art equal.

5. Thou shalt not think thine own ethnicity superior to any other.

6. Thou shalt treat every human being humanely.

7. Thou shalt not kill animals for game nor for their skin for use in thine clothing.

8. Thou shalt not purposefully hurt, defame, or slander anyone with an opposing opinion.

9. Thou shalt not prolong any undue suffering on any human or any other sentient being.

10. Thou shalt not discriminate against any human beings that are different than thou.
Read more
0

Asinine Bible Passages Part II

In my ongoing search of the stupidest passages in the Bible, I give you the second installment. Below is a passage of the utmost unfairness from a benevolent and loving God.

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:6-7
This God believes in punishing the children of the sinful just for being the children of the sinful. The second book of Kings contradicts the above passage in Exodus.

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
Or maybe the passage from Exodus means punishment other than death. If so, then it's not a contradiction. It's worse. The innocent are still punished for the sins of others. This God really loves all his children, doesn't he?

Another passage from Exodus shows the intolerance of other religions that is condoned in the Bible.

Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah* poles. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Exodus 34:10-14
*According to Wikipedia, Asherah is a mother-goddess.

God is a jealous God. Straight from the Bible. Isn't jealousy one of the seven deadly sins?

God is vengeful.

Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them.

Numbers 31:3

And a sexist murderer who condones rape.

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Numbers 31:17-18

God also created evil.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version)

There is a discrepancy regarding the proper translation of the word evil. In the New International Version of the Bible, "evil" is replaced by "disaster" and in other versions by "calamity."

Either way, God created nastiness, so why blame people.

Human sacrifice is condoned and expected by God.

Then God said, Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Genesis 22:2

God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son. For what? To prove his loyalty to God. What kind of God would expect any of "his children" to kill their own for him. He sounds like a very reasonable God.

One more thing. For those parents who are deluded enough to let their children die rather than receive medical attention such as a blood transfusion, you disgust me. Any sane parent who loved their children would do anything to save them even if it meant sacrificing their own afterlife in heaven.

And one more passage. This one is very disturbing. Killing children for the most trivial reasons. (It's trivial to me. They're just ignorant kids. Give 'em a break. I thought God was forgiving.)

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths*.

2 Kings 2:23-24

*In the King James Version the youths are children, which is even worse. What do kids know.

Well there you have it. Straight from the cruel, evil, jealous, vengeful and intolerant mouth of God himself. God is male. You didn't know that?
Read more
0

An Atheist Video Game

The objective of a new computer game that hasn't been released yet, will be to stop the spread of Christianity and Islam. Players try to stop the spread of these two religions by killing the Bible's authors and the prophet, Muhammad. While I strongly believe in free speech and expressing oneself freely, I am a bit worried about the consequences for the creator. (He obviously is too, since he didn't want to reveal his name fearing his safety.) Most everyone knows what happened when that Danish cartoon of the Islamic prophet came out. That's what sucks in our society. Religious fundies get so fucking worked up that it's not unimaginable to resort to violence when it comes to their religions. But it's alright to attack the faithless and nonreligious. That really pisses me off. And while not all atheists are cool and collected, at least there is no history of suicide bombings and mass killings in the name of Atheism.

I just hope religious people don't overreact and see this as a threat to their beliefs. It's just an expression of someone else's beliefs. Namely, that the world would be a better place without Christianity and Islam. You don't have to agree with it but you also don't have a right to tell others how they can express themselves either.
Read more
0

YouTube Atheism Video

I found this video, 'Atheist Statistics 2008' yesterday on, well duh, YouTube and I thought it was pretty cool. Here is the gist of the video. It's mostly statistics and I'll reproduce the relevant ones below.

World Statistics

1990 - 7.5% of the population were nonreligious
2001 - 13.2% of the population were nonreligious
2008 - 16.1% of the population were nonreligious

I wanted to know the exact increase over the decades and since the population in 1990 was the not the same as the population in 2001 or 2008, I consulted the US Census Bureau for these numbers.

Between 1990 and 2000, world population had increased from 5.2 billion to nearly 6.1 billion. That's an increase of 13.2% in just one decade. The nonreligious population, on the other hand, increased by some 49% from 1990 to 2000. In actual population numbers, that means that in 1990, 400 million people identified themselves as nonreligious and by 2000 that number had grown to just over 800 million.

The current world population, according to GeoHive, is 6,671,202,855. So in the last seven or eight years, the nonreligious population has grown from 800 million to nearly 1.1 billion. Very Impressive. Christians are way ahead of us at over 2 billion and Islam has a couple hundred million more adherents than there are nonbelievers. I think that's very impressive.

Some other statistics mentioned in the video include:

Twenty-five percent of Americans between the ages of 18-29, have no affiliation with religion.

In Europe, 48% of the population does not believe in God, while 74% of Britons do not believe in a personal God. Also, among the young in Europe (ages 15-24), 56% do not believe in God. This makes me very happy since I was born in Europe. North America is still far too Christian for me.

And before I forget, divorce statistics are also included. Here are the percentages of divorces by religion/non religion (Atheism is not a religion, by the way):

Jews - 30%
Born-Again Christians - 27%
Other Christians - 24%
Atheists, Agnostics - 21%

Most importantly, a bunch of studies by someone (can't remember now), found a negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief. That is, the more intelligent one is and the more education one has, the less likely they are to hold religious beliefs. Well that makes sense. Intelligent people are harder to manipulate. No wonder religious people indoctrinate their kids while they're young.
Read more
0

More Reasons Why the Vatican Sucks

The following is a list of 21st century sins unveiled by the Vatican:
  • genetic manipulation (stem cell research)
  • pollution (climate change)
  • social injustice
  • drugs
Let's start with genetic manipulation. Stem cell research will hopefully one day lead to cures to the most debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Just because an embryo has the potential of becoming a human being does not justify banning stem cell research. And maybe the destruction of embryos will no longer be necessary. And when it comes to aborted foetuses, why not use the foetuses for stem cell research. The reality is that abortions happen and if the aborted foetuses can do some good, then so be it. Screw the Vatican. It's not like many people listen to them anyway.

On to pollution. Polluting is a sin according to the Vatican. Wow, I guess that was the only way of convincing religious freaks who don't believe scientists, that global warming is actually happening. Leave it to the church to convince idiots of scientific facts that most people already knew to be the truth. That is pathetic. Maybe the Vatican should declare that being an ignorant religious fucker is a sin too.

Ah, social injustice. My favourite. They dare to say that the gap between the rich and the poor is an "unbearable social injustice." Really? How much money does the Vatican have? A few billion. Fuckers. Isn't it their sole purpose to help people including the poor. But no, it's more important to have huge Cathedrals and stocks of gold to bribe politicians and influence legislation. The only way the Catholic Church or any other for that matter helps the poorest of the poor is by converting them to Christianity first. Like in Africa. Yeah, we'll feed you but only if you accept Jesus as your personal saviour. If I say no, can I still be fed? Give me a fucking break, you hypocritical fuckers.

And finally, drugs. Drugs. I love drugs. Not the illegal kind, but the painkilling kind. Girotti, an official at the Vatican for sins or some other nonsense, says that drugs "weaken the mind and obscure intelligence." Hmm, I thought religion did that. Oops, my bad. He was probably referring to illegal drugs which I guess I have to agree with. At least he's not recommending vitamins to treat psychiatric disorders like some dumb famous fucker that likes jumping off of people's couches who shall remain nameless.

Now that I've covered all the new sins for the 21st Century as put forth by the Vatican, there's only one thing left to say.

Fuck you, Vatican. You seriously blow.
Read more
0

Why the Vatican Sucks

Besides the fact that it's a religious patriarchal institution that's worth billions of dollars, it also sucks for threatening to excommunicate women and bishops who dare to ordain them. The Vatican is justifying this double standard by saying that Christ's apostles were all male. So what? Most philosophers and writers were male too. Does that mean that women should be banned from writing and philosophizing forever? I don't think so.

I hate religion as a whole, and the subordination of women is one reason. No religion has ever been fair to women and that is because it was invented by men who were taught that women were their property and that it was their right to rule over them. Or Jesus was a sexist too. Either way, religion works against women. And ultimately, against all of humanity.
Read more
0

Credit Where Credit's Due

The title of this post comes from an episode of Veronica Mars. I use it here because it is very fitting to this post. Anyway, I wondered why is it that when one is visited by good fortune, they find it necessary to credit a heavenly being with bringing about said good fortune. Even when people work hard and accomplish something, religious people tend to give credit and thanks to a god. But, on the other hand, when tragedy befalls, those same people never blame their god. They either blame themselves or others, or no one at all. I guess when bad things happen it's just bad luck or just life; shit happens, as people say.

And when a tragedy or some hardship is overcome by strength of will and character or whatever else, people again tend to attribute this to some sort of divine intervention.

How about giving yourself some credit for accomplishing things. Thank your families and friends for sticking by you or helping you out. And for Thanksgiving, how about thanking the cook who prepared your meal and the person who worked and bought the ingredients to make said meal. Finally, let's give credit where credit is due.

Read more
0

Asinine Bible Passages Part I

The following are some of the stupidest passages I found in the so-called "Good Book".

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

Deuteronomy 22:5
So I guess that means that God hates transvestites, cross-dressers and pretty much 90% of the female population, at least those women in the West who have the right to wear pants. Lovely.

The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion;

Isaiah 4:4
All the women of Zion are filthy. Again, how lovely. Nowhere did I find a passage that said the same about all men. And maybe there is some but I doubt it's as prevalent as the ones about women.

The following passage clearly shows that the Bible was written by a bunch of ignorant men who were terrified of the unknown, that is women's bodies in particular.

Say to the Israelites: A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.

Leviticus 12:2-6
For women who give birth to daughter, twice as much time has to pass than if she had given birth to a son, for her purification to be complete. How fucking retarded and sexist is that. I hate the damn Bible.

And here are some more fucked up passages.

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Titus 2:3-5
Not too much wine. Fuck that.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Here's more about menstruation. Oh yeah, these are the best. What a bunch of crapola.

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening. If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean. When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

Leviticus 15:19-27
After reading this nonsense I wonder how any self-respecting woman who calls herself a Christian could possibly believe that these passages came from God. And even if they did, then all women should silent and subject to their husbands and only wear dresses and skirts. I mean seriously, who does that nowadays. And yet there are so many women who call themselves religious and read the Bible. So why don't they see how sexist and degrading this word of God book really is. If it is the word of God then everything in it must be true and all Christians should then act in accordance with it.

The thing that annoys me is the way Christians would just pick and choose what to believe in the Bible and then find some retarded justification for the passages they didn't agree with.

The whole thing shows you, that is if you are not deluded, that the Bible was written by men in a time when women were secondary citizens who were treated as if they were children.

And maybe some of you really are if you can't see through this book of propaganda.

By the way, all this nonsense comes from the New International Version.
Read more
0

About

I am an Atheist and I am a Bitch, and by "bitch" I mean Joreen's (aka Jo Freeman) definition of it, as defined in her "BITCH Manifesto." I am a bitch because I am assertive, aggressive, strong-minded, hard-headed, competent, loud-mouthed, independent, stubborn, driven, achieving, ambitious, tough, scary...well you get the picture.

I am also a rational human being and religion has no place in my existence. I am not afraid to die nor of what may or may not happen after I do. I don't believe that people are born evil. In fact, I have a big problem with that Goddamn word altogether. If religion didn't exist, the word wouldn't exist. Most importantly, I don't believe that people need religion in order to be good. One should be a good person because they want to be good not because religion tells them they should be in order to avoid hell; another word I have a problem with. People use the word 'hell' as if it undeniably exists. Well fuck hell and the saving of souls. I am an atheist and a good person because I have a conscience and because I choose to be good, to hell with religion.
Read more

Contact

Read more

Blogroll

Read more

I just finished reading Carolyn Jessop's book about her life in the polygamous FLDS cult. It was a harrowing read. I never imagined it could be as bad as she described it. But it was worse. Polygamy is just one aspect of this Taliban-like controlled life. Women have no rights; not to their children, not to education, and certainly not to their bodies. These fundie Mormons, in my opinion, share a lot in common with radical Muslims. A woman's status is below that of a man and they have no reproductive rights or access to any type of birth control. After reading her book, I was sickened by the hell on Earth she had to endure and for what? So that her jackass, coward of a husband could be lifted up to heaven and then choose whether or not she joined him? Fuck that nonsense. If one believes in God, only he or she or it, should decide if one is lifted up, not some mere mortal. But this isn't about heaven; it's about power and lots of it, on Earth, in the here and now that matters to these men.

Now of course, not all of the men in the cult are power hungry and abusive bastards like Merril Jessop, but most of them are so brainwashed as not being able to see the misdeeds and hypocrisy of the powerful ones like the "Prophet" and his apostles. Warren Jeffs is of course the current prophet, not to mention a sociopath, and "Uncle Rulon" was the prophet before him.

Although life in the cult got progressively more extreme as Warren Jeffs took over for his ailing father, life under Uncle Rulon was repressive as well. Carolyn Jessop writes how the elite in the community engaged in behaviours which are grounds for excommunication like drinking beer and getting plastered. Uncle Rulon was one of them. Later, she writes, "[h]e started bitching about one of his wives who was obese after having sixteen kids, which he felt was a sign of pure rebellion toward him."

Ah, rebellion. The one word that would get a wife to shut up and fall in line. Whatever the husband didn't like about his wives and any trivialities were seen as rebellions it seems. A wife had to be in "harmony" with her husband, meaning she basically needed to be his clone. She had to like what he liked, do what he asked, and even if she did all these things there was always something to accuse her of doing wrong and then telling her she wasn't in harmony, which is a pretty bad thing.

The whole sect- or rather cult- is completely ludicrous and impossible. And those mainstream Mormons who are trying to distance themselves from these fundamentalists are insisting that theirs is a religion. I don't think so. Both are sects of Christianity. And even if both were religions, it wouldn't change the fact that one charlatan, a century and a half ago, invented it and called it some divine revelation. Give me a break. All religions are man made and there is nothing holy or supernatural in any of them. Everybody who is religious is brainwashed to some degree. Why else would children be brought up religiously rather than allowing them to choose when they are older and harder to manipulate? The answer is clear.

Recently, I stumbled upon an article that gives new meaning to the word "HYPOCRITE." It's called "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" by Joyce Arthur. Eight years ago, Arthur compiled a number of anecdotes from doctors performing abortions and their staff at various abortion clinics on three continents; North America, Europe and Australia. After reading the article, the first words that came to me were HOLY SHIT.

There was this one woman who came in for an abortion at five and a half months. After the procedure she had the audacity to tell the doctor that she was still a murderer. What a lunatic. Five and a half months? Fucking idiot. What took her so long? I doubt the pregnancy was life-threatening, or she would have used that to justify HER abortion. Frankly, I have a problem with late term abortions unless it is a critical health issue for the mother. If not, then too fucking bad, it's too late now. At 22 weeks, babies can survive outside the womb, but not without problems. Aborting at this stage just because you couldn't make up your mind is wrong.

Most of these anecdotes are just as fucked up as the one above. Women who picket abortion clinics end up coming to the same clinic to get an abortion and then days later return to picketing the same clinic! Shit-for-brains hypocrites. Or like some others, they come in to get an abortion and look down on every other woman who is there to get the procedure, thinking that the other women's reasons are too trivial and only theirs aren't, thus making their abortion a moral one. Yeah, all the others at the clinic enjoy the procedure and use it as a contraceptive. Fucking dumbasses.

I hate these types of women and people in general. If you're anti-choice, pro-life, whatever you call it, that's fine. No one is forcing you to abort. What right do you have to force another woman to have a baby if she doesn't want to. Deciding to get an abortion is not an easy decision and even if it was, so what? It's legal and we don't fucking need your righteousness or your approval. And please refrain from quoting the fucking Bible. That crock of shit condones infanticide and so much other shit, so those who use it to justify the evils of abortion can just shove it up their asses. If the Bible is their moral compass, then that really doesn't say much about them, in my opinion. And one can cut out all the nasty passages and books in the Bible, it still makes no fucking difference. Because a holy book is either holy in its entirety or it is not, and the Bible clearly is not.

In my opinion Dr. Henry Morgentaler deserves the appointment to the Order of Canada. There's a bit of a controversy regarding his appointment. Whatever your stand on abortion is, no one can deny that Dr. Morgentaler had a profound impact in this country. He helped women when no one else would. The legalization of abortion in Canada is due in large part to him and others like him who fought for a woman's right to obtain safe and legal abortions. He was named to the Order of Canada just a few days ago, on Canada's 141st birthday, which was July 1, 2008. Dr. Henry Morgentaler was recognized "for his commitment to increased health care options for women, his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy and his leadership in humanist and civil liberties organizations." For all those anti-abortion activists, deal with it. He earned it and it's fucking wrong for anyone to try and minimize his impact in this country. If it wasn't for him, thousands upon thousands of women would have died with back alley botched abortions or suffered in silence and remained slaves to their reproductive organs. Thank you Dr. Morgentaler for having the guts to stand up and be the voice of every woman whose reproductive choices were in the hands of the government. Thank you for giving it back to us. Congratulations on your appointment to the Order of Canada. You truly deserve it.

Sources:
Morgentaler named to Order of Canada

The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, cut up the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and basically created his own bible. The parts he left out are numerous. The four gospels of the New Testament are approximately 165 pages long while Jefferson's Bible is about 46 pages. So, out of the four gospels, he cut out over 70% of text. Pretty smart. He got rid of all the supernatural text, miracles and the resurrection. He basically only kept ethical and moral codes. He may have gone too far for some people, cutting the bible as pleased him and his beliefs. But I would have gone further. I would have cut up the whole fucking thing. In case you're someone who frowns upon desecrating the good book, here's what I have to say. All moderate Christians have done this too. Probably not literally but figuratively, yes. Most Christians only consider the New Testament as the "Bible." The Old one is completely ignored, and for good reason. You either accept the whole or you don't accept it at all. One can't just do an extreme makeover on the holy book and then say, "I only believe these parts." That just proves that the Bible was written by men and lo and behold it's filled with mistakes and inconsistencies and a lot of immorality. With so many different versions used by different sects, the whole thing loses any kind of authority it ever had. The Bible is just a crock of shit. If its only redeeming quality is ethical and moral codes, then we can be done with it for good. These ethics and morals were no doubt borrowed or stolen from other authors and put into Jesus' mouth. So, then there would be no good reasons left to still mass produce this crock of shit. There are far better books on ethics and morality that have been written by great philosophers and these works kick the Bible's ass.

While reading Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into effect in April 1982, I was dumbfounded to find this stupid sentence in the preamble:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Since when? The Constitution Act of 1867 never even mentions the word 'God' and there is nothing in the entire document that even alludes to this supremacy. So, what I want to know is who found it necessary to include such a retarded statement in the Charter where freedom of religion is guaranteed as a "fundamental freedom." Or does freedom of religion only mean freedom to practise any religion and not freedom from religion or religious belief? This statement is ludicrous and I guess it doesn't really make a fucking difference anyway but still, I want to know who came up with this and why it was included in the Charter in the first place. I guess I'll have to do some digging.

While I haven't done much research in "animal morality" I did observe moral behaviour among one of my favourite species, the Emperor Penguins. While watching "March of the Penguins," I was moved to tears when one of them realized that the egg he was incubating was a lost cause. He was having trouble holding the egg in place and covering it to keep away the extreme cold. The way he reacted to the loss of his offspring made me cry. I could feel his pain. The next thing he did seemed a very irrational reaction to such a loss. But then again he must have been very distraught. He tried to replace the egg he lost to the elements by stealing one of the other penguin's eggs. A horrible thing morally but when the other penguins who were nearby realized what he was trying to do, they all fought him off. They just knew that this was wrong and it looked to me that he was being reprimanded for it by the others. He backed off when confronted by the others, and yet he looked so sad to me that I felt incredibly sorry for him. Obviously incubating the egg while the female went foraging for food, which could take months, a bond is formed with the incubated egg and the loss is devastating. The Emperor Penguins only breed once a year under the harshest conditions.

Photobucket


These are just my interpretations but I find it incredible and very suggestive of human beings, that morality comes from a natural source. No religion, no God, nothing supernatural about it. I don't know where it comes from but I'm fairly sure it does not come from above.

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that churches cannot be held liable for trauma arising from an exorcism, whether forced or voluntary. The reason behind this majority ruling was the idea that exorcism is a part of the church's doctrine or is one of their core beliefs and under the First Amendment, certain religious freedoms are protected.

That's fine, but when those freedoms cause harm or suffering to human beings, whether they accept the beliefs or not, those freedoms should not be protected. If every religious belief is granted the same protection just because it's a "core" belief or principle of a certain church then polygamy should be protected under the First Amendment too. As should a parents' right to decide whether their children get life-saving medical care or not. If these things were protected like the "exorcism" nonsense, then the State wouldn't have indicted Ava Worthington's parents, who died from pneumonia and a blood infection. Instead, her parents opted for faith-healing; basically praying for her to get better.

Emotional trauma is not as serious as death, but where do we draw the line when it comes to religious freedoms. Religion is not supposed to harm or kill and yet it happens every day and the courts just point to the First Amendment and turn the other cheek.

When people start dying because of their religious beliefs, then you know something is fucked up and steps should be taken to prevent this sort of thing.

Shocking, right? Abstinence-Only sex education doesn't work? Who knew? Well, I for one never expected it to work. I'm just surprised it lasted as long as it did. Billions of wasted dollars spewing religious propaganda. Abstinence until marriage. Give me a break. That's not a solution. Even if people did wait until marriage, that doesn't immunize anyone from contracting STD's. Given the fact that half of all people who do get married, eventually divorce anyway. So, waiting until marriage is ridiculous. Besides, it is nearly impossible for people to wait that long. Young people are postponing marriages until they are older and I'm not sure what the median age of marriage is these days, but I doubt it's in the early twenties. Not many are going to wait to have sex until they get married, except for the very religious. So, since the reality is that a large number of teenagers have sex, why not try and make it as safe for them as possible by giving them all the information they need and thus let them make an informed decision. I know many teenagers don't exactly have a reputation for clear thinking but still it would be better that they know all their options than raising them to be ignorant of human sexuality.

There are many options. It's hard for me to imagine that most teenagers who own a TV have never heard of condoms or the pill or even abortion. And if there are those who do not know, then it's very critical that they do. Virginity pledges and abstinence groups or whatever is not going to significantly reduce teen pregnancies. It's been studied and the results of abstinence-only programs is that it just doesn't work.

Thankfully I went to high school in Canada and was not taught this nonsense but I knew it was going on in U.S. high schools and it just made me laugh. No abstinence-only sex ed program would have prevented me from having sex. I knew what to do if I got pregnant accidentally and I also knew the best precautions to take to minimize that happening. First of all, using condoms was paramount as well as being on the pill or using the patch. Second, I knew if I had unprotected sex that I could go to the hospital or a clinic and ask for RU486, or the "abortion pill" as it is known. And if I encountered a doctor who refused to give it to me, I wouldn't leave until I got one. I would scream bloody murder until I was given that which I have a right to be given. Lastly, if all else fails, I would get an abortion. But that's just me. Abortion is not such a politically charged issue here as it is in the U.S. No doubt, due to religious fundamental evangelicals and the Christian Right. Of the top ten states with the highest rate of teen pregnancy, 6 of them are in the "Bible Belt." The other four are Nevada (ranked number 1), Nebraska (right behind Nevada at number 2), New Mexico and California, placed 4th and 7th respectively. So much for the theory that Hollywood is a bad moral influence. Georgia was right behind California and came pretty close to a tie. In the words of Christopher Hitchens, religion poisons everything.

So, I guess it would be harder for teenagers in the U.S. to prevent pregnancies given the religiosity of politicians and lawmakers and no doubt religiously-inspired programs like the abstinence nonsense. Not to mention the high cost of abortions there too. In Canada and Europe, abortion is covered under medical plans or national health plans. Also, in Canada the rate of teen pregnancies has been steadily declining since the mid '90s.

All of these obstructions to safe sex contributes to the high rate of teen pregnancies in the United States. It's time for the U.S. government to realize that what they're doing to reduce teen pregnancies is not working and maybe look to other countries' solutions who have managed to reduce the number of teen pregnancies.

Is it a crime to insult Jesus? Apparently so, in Australia anyway. Oh and England too. Maybe it's a crime in Canada too, since it was once British and still has some weird ties to the Mother Country. Probably not since Canada actually has a Bill of Rights, unlike the people down under. Still, Canada's Bill of Rights can be easily manipulated under certain clauses. One can play the "incitement to violence" card in regards to just about any statement one finds offensive or doesn't agree with. An example would be the MacLeans article.

Anyway, since when is blasphemy illegal in secular countries? Why not charge anti-religious books and novels with "offensive behavior"? 'Cause that's what an Australian kid was charged with while wearing a shirt that defamed Jesus. Was he charged with defaming Jesus ben Sirach? Jesus ben Pandira? Jesus ben Ananias? Jesus ben Gamala? Which Jesus was it? Apparently there were a countless number of them. Does it even matter? Did the Christian Jesus even exist? I highly doubt it.

It's time to stop punishing religious dissidents and accord them the same freedom of speech that religious people enjoy.

I have joined Mojoey's Atheist Blogroll. It's a place for all atheist and agnostic bloggers. As of this writing there are over 700 member blogs listed. So, if you have a blog with an atheistic or agnostic perspective, consider joining the Atheist Blogroll.

I find it hard to believe that some religious people can get away with using illegal drugs while cancer patients who use marijuana for relief of nausea get charged and convicted. Medicinal marijuana use is illegal in the US while in Canada, it is not. The debates still rage among medical professionals and scientists as to whether marijuana is more harmful or beneficial to cancer patients, those with glaucoma, AIDS, MS, etc. Still, I think that people suffering from these diseases should be allowed to decide themselves whether to use marijuana or not. If it helps some people ease their suffering, why not let them? Marijuana, in my opinion, is no worse than alcohol. In fact, I believe that alcohol is far worse and far more damaging to our society than marijuana ever will be. And if you are one of those people who believe that marijuana is a gateway drug, then you'd be wrong and it would do you good to do some research.

It is more than a stretch to say that the legalization of marijuana would lead to legalization of cocaine or heroin; it's a bloody leap.

Among Christians in the US, opinion seems to be divided on the whole issue of marijuana legalization. Both sides can point to passages in the Bible to support their stands. But is this really the best way to decide whether to legalize marijuana? I think not. The Bible is notorious for contradictions and by using it to decide whether something should be legal or not in the 21st century is absurd. Killing disrespecting children is condoned in the Bible; it's actually the proper punishment. So, should we look to the Old Testament to decide what is allowable here and now? The New Testament, perhaps? How about neither?

The Bible is not the moral law of the United States, though many would like it to be, and as such it should have no bearing deciding the legality of anything. Religion just muddles things up.

I don't understand moderate religious people, much less Jehovah's Witnesses. Most people probably don't either. An Irish woman who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness, a cult of Christianity (all religions are cults in my book), was quoted saying that she would let her daughter die before consenting to a blood transfusion. I would understand if she wouldn't consent to a blood transfusion for herself but what gives her the right to decide whether her child lives or dies. When a medical situation is dire and a blood transfusion is necessary to save the life of the patient, I think it is pretty fair to say that the chances of survival without the transfusion are minimal or at least a lot less likely than with a transfusion.

What I find incredibly wrong is that this woman would give her daughter the "choice" to follow in her faith when she grows up while in the meantime she is bringing her up in that faith and refusing to allow transfusions. This whole religious nonsense is just wrong. Children end up dying because of their parents' beliefs. What about the child's right to life? I guess that's up to the parents.

The article I am referring to can be found here.

A Lake County, Illinois man has legally changed his name to In God We Trust. InGod or In God is his first name and WeTrust or We Trust will serve as his last name. How ridiculous can people get? No more ridiculous than Prince I guess who changed his name to a bloody symbol that no one could vocalize.

Isn't it enough to believe in God and go to church anymore? Everyone he comes into contact with will no doubt know how devoted his belief in God really is. What does it matter, for fucking out loud. Maybe I should legally change my name to that of this blog. Any thoughts?

Anyway, the whole point I'm trying to make here is why people, religious and nonreligious alike, find it necessary to label themselves at all. Identity problems, anyone?

I went online yesterday and along with reading a number of different blogs about the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, I also read some recent news articles, mostly US based. The fact that some states in the US have actually gone to court and won the right to teach creation as a scientific alternative to evolution appals me. To think that the one of the richest and supposedly most developed country in the world is not accepting of evolution is shocking.

The evidence for evolution is so extraordinary and powerful, while on the other hand the evidence for creationism is completely lacking. Scientifically lacking. So why is this stupid nonsense even allowed in public schools? To accommodate the religious freaks, no doubt, who couldn't possibly deal with the fact that their religious world view could be proved erroneous.

Religious accommodation, in my opinion, has gone too far. Why don't we introduce teachers who are willing to prove to our kids that babies are brought by storks. Surely, the evidence for this is no better than that of creationism. It's just a belief based on no evidence. Taken only on faith.
I think it's high time for religious belief to stop meddling with science.

After reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion," I was inspired to write up my own version of the Ten Commandments. Here goes.

1. Thou shalt not let the Bible nor any other 'holy' book guide thee in any way whatsoever.

2. Thou shalt not kill anyone unless in self-defense.

3. Thou shalt not tell women what to do with their bodies.

4. Thou shalt not think thyself superior to any woman. Thou art equal.

5. Thou shalt not think thine own ethnicity superior to any other.

6. Thou shalt treat every human being humanely.

7. Thou shalt not kill animals for game nor for their skin for use in thine clothing.

8. Thou shalt not purposefully hurt, defame, or slander anyone with an opposing opinion.

9. Thou shalt not prolong any undue suffering on any human or any other sentient being.

10. Thou shalt not discriminate against any human beings that are different than thou.

In my ongoing search of the stupidest passages in the Bible, I give you the second installment. Below is a passage of the utmost unfairness from a benevolent and loving God.

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:6-7
This God believes in punishing the children of the sinful just for being the children of the sinful. The second book of Kings contradicts the above passage in Exodus.

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
Or maybe the passage from Exodus means punishment other than death. If so, then it's not a contradiction. It's worse. The innocent are still punished for the sins of others. This God really loves all his children, doesn't he?

Another passage from Exodus shows the intolerance of other religions that is condoned in the Bible.

Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah* poles. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Exodus 34:10-14
*According to Wikipedia, Asherah is a mother-goddess.

God is a jealous God. Straight from the Bible. Isn't jealousy one of the seven deadly sins?

God is vengeful.

Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them.

Numbers 31:3

And a sexist murderer who condones rape.

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Numbers 31:17-18

God also created evil.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version)

There is a discrepancy regarding the proper translation of the word evil. In the New International Version of the Bible, "evil" is replaced by "disaster" and in other versions by "calamity."

Either way, God created nastiness, so why blame people.

Human sacrifice is condoned and expected by God.

Then God said, Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Genesis 22:2

God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son. For what? To prove his loyalty to God. What kind of God would expect any of "his children" to kill their own for him. He sounds like a very reasonable God.

One more thing. For those parents who are deluded enough to let their children die rather than receive medical attention such as a blood transfusion, you disgust me. Any sane parent who loved their children would do anything to save them even if it meant sacrificing their own afterlife in heaven.

And one more passage. This one is very disturbing. Killing children for the most trivial reasons. (It's trivial to me. They're just ignorant kids. Give 'em a break. I thought God was forgiving.)

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths*.

2 Kings 2:23-24

*In the King James Version the youths are children, which is even worse. What do kids know.

Well there you have it. Straight from the cruel, evil, jealous, vengeful and intolerant mouth of God himself. God is male. You didn't know that?

The objective of a new computer game that hasn't been released yet, will be to stop the spread of Christianity and Islam. Players try to stop the spread of these two religions by killing the Bible's authors and the prophet, Muhammad. While I strongly believe in free speech and expressing oneself freely, I am a bit worried about the consequences for the creator. (He obviously is too, since he didn't want to reveal his name fearing his safety.) Most everyone knows what happened when that Danish cartoon of the Islamic prophet came out. That's what sucks in our society. Religious fundies get so fucking worked up that it's not unimaginable to resort to violence when it comes to their religions. But it's alright to attack the faithless and nonreligious. That really pisses me off. And while not all atheists are cool and collected, at least there is no history of suicide bombings and mass killings in the name of Atheism.

I just hope religious people don't overreact and see this as a threat to their beliefs. It's just an expression of someone else's beliefs. Namely, that the world would be a better place without Christianity and Islam. You don't have to agree with it but you also don't have a right to tell others how they can express themselves either.

I found this video, 'Atheist Statistics 2008' yesterday on, well duh, YouTube and I thought it was pretty cool. Here is the gist of the video. It's mostly statistics and I'll reproduce the relevant ones below.

World Statistics

1990 - 7.5% of the population were nonreligious
2001 - 13.2% of the population were nonreligious
2008 - 16.1% of the population were nonreligious

I wanted to know the exact increase over the decades and since the population in 1990 was the not the same as the population in 2001 or 2008, I consulted the US Census Bureau for these numbers.

Between 1990 and 2000, world population had increased from 5.2 billion to nearly 6.1 billion. That's an increase of 13.2% in just one decade. The nonreligious population, on the other hand, increased by some 49% from 1990 to 2000. In actual population numbers, that means that in 1990, 400 million people identified themselves as nonreligious and by 2000 that number had grown to just over 800 million.

The current world population, according to GeoHive, is 6,671,202,855. So in the last seven or eight years, the nonreligious population has grown from 800 million to nearly 1.1 billion. Very Impressive. Christians are way ahead of us at over 2 billion and Islam has a couple hundred million more adherents than there are nonbelievers. I think that's very impressive.

Some other statistics mentioned in the video include:

Twenty-five percent of Americans between the ages of 18-29, have no affiliation with religion.

In Europe, 48% of the population does not believe in God, while 74% of Britons do not believe in a personal God. Also, among the young in Europe (ages 15-24), 56% do not believe in God. This makes me very happy since I was born in Europe. North America is still far too Christian for me.

And before I forget, divorce statistics are also included. Here are the percentages of divorces by religion/non religion (Atheism is not a religion, by the way):

Jews - 30%
Born-Again Christians - 27%
Other Christians - 24%
Atheists, Agnostics - 21%

Most importantly, a bunch of studies by someone (can't remember now), found a negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief. That is, the more intelligent one is and the more education one has, the less likely they are to hold religious beliefs. Well that makes sense. Intelligent people are harder to manipulate. No wonder religious people indoctrinate their kids while they're young.

The following is a list of 21st century sins unveiled by the Vatican:

  • genetic manipulation (stem cell research)
  • pollution (climate change)
  • social injustice
  • drugs
Let's start with genetic manipulation. Stem cell research will hopefully one day lead to cures to the most debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Just because an embryo has the potential of becoming a human being does not justify banning stem cell research. And maybe the destruction of embryos will no longer be necessary. And when it comes to aborted foetuses, why not use the foetuses for stem cell research. The reality is that abortions happen and if the aborted foetuses can do some good, then so be it. Screw the Vatican. It's not like many people listen to them anyway.

On to pollution. Polluting is a sin according to the Vatican. Wow, I guess that was the only way of convincing religious freaks who don't believe scientists, that global warming is actually happening. Leave it to the church to convince idiots of scientific facts that most people already knew to be the truth. That is pathetic. Maybe the Vatican should declare that being an ignorant religious fucker is a sin too.

Ah, social injustice. My favourite. They dare to say that the gap between the rich and the poor is an "unbearable social injustice." Really? How much money does the Vatican have? A few billion. Fuckers. Isn't it their sole purpose to help people including the poor. But no, it's more important to have huge Cathedrals and stocks of gold to bribe politicians and influence legislation. The only way the Catholic Church or any other for that matter helps the poorest of the poor is by converting them to Christianity first. Like in Africa. Yeah, we'll feed you but only if you accept Jesus as your personal saviour. If I say no, can I still be fed? Give me a fucking break, you hypocritical fuckers.

And finally, drugs. Drugs. I love drugs. Not the illegal kind, but the painkilling kind. Girotti, an official at the Vatican for sins or some other nonsense, says that drugs "weaken the mind and obscure intelligence." Hmm, I thought religion did that. Oops, my bad. He was probably referring to illegal drugs which I guess I have to agree with. At least he's not recommending vitamins to treat psychiatric disorders like some dumb famous fucker that likes jumping off of people's couches who shall remain nameless.

Now that I've covered all the new sins for the 21st Century as put forth by the Vatican, there's only one thing left to say.

Fuck you, Vatican. You seriously blow.

Besides the fact that it's a religious patriarchal institution that's worth billions of dollars, it also sucks for threatening to excommunicate women and bishops who dare to ordain them. The Vatican is justifying this double standard by saying that Christ's apostles were all male. So what? Most philosophers and writers were male too. Does that mean that women should be banned from writing and philosophizing forever? I don't think so.

I hate religion as a whole, and the subordination of women is one reason. No religion has ever been fair to women and that is because it was invented by men who were taught that women were their property and that it was their right to rule over them. Or Jesus was a sexist too. Either way, religion works against women. And ultimately, against all of humanity.

The title of this post comes from an episode of Veronica Mars. I use it here because it is very fitting to this post. Anyway, I wondered why is it that when one is visited by good fortune, they find it necessary to credit a heavenly being with bringing about said good fortune. Even when people work hard and accomplish something, religious people tend to give credit and thanks to a god. But, on the other hand, when tragedy befalls, those same people never blame their god. They either blame themselves or others, or no one at all. I guess when bad things happen it's just bad luck or just life; shit happens, as people say.

And when a tragedy or some hardship is overcome by strength of will and character or whatever else, people again tend to attribute this to some sort of divine intervention.

How about giving yourself some credit for accomplishing things. Thank your families and friends for sticking by you or helping you out. And for Thanksgiving, how about thanking the cook who prepared your meal and the person who worked and bought the ingredients to make said meal. Finally, let's give credit where credit is due.

The following are some of the stupidest passages I found in the so-called "Good Book".

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

Deuteronomy 22:5
So I guess that means that God hates transvestites, cross-dressers and pretty much 90% of the female population, at least those women in the West who have the right to wear pants. Lovely.

The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion;

Isaiah 4:4
All the women of Zion are filthy. Again, how lovely. Nowhere did I find a passage that said the same about all men. And maybe there is some but I doubt it's as prevalent as the ones about women.

The following passage clearly shows that the Bible was written by a bunch of ignorant men who were terrified of the unknown, that is women's bodies in particular.

Say to the Israelites: A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.

Leviticus 12:2-6
For women who give birth to daughter, twice as much time has to pass than if she had given birth to a son, for her purification to be complete. How fucking retarded and sexist is that. I hate the damn Bible.

And here are some more fucked up passages.

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Titus 2:3-5
Not too much wine. Fuck that.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Here's more about menstruation. Oh yeah, these are the best. What a bunch of crapola.

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening. If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean. When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

Leviticus 15:19-27
After reading this nonsense I wonder how any self-respecting woman who calls herself a Christian could possibly believe that these passages came from God. And even if they did, then all women should silent and subject to their husbands and only wear dresses and skirts. I mean seriously, who does that nowadays. And yet there are so many women who call themselves religious and read the Bible. So why don't they see how sexist and degrading this word of God book really is. If it is the word of God then everything in it must be true and all Christians should then act in accordance with it.

The thing that annoys me is the way Christians would just pick and choose what to believe in the Bible and then find some retarded justification for the passages they didn't agree with.

The whole thing shows you, that is if you are not deluded, that the Bible was written by men in a time when women were secondary citizens who were treated as if they were children.

And maybe some of you really are if you can't see through this book of propaganda.

By the way, all this nonsense comes from the New International Version.

I am an Atheist and I am a Bitch, and by "bitch" I mean Joreen's (aka Jo Freeman) definition of it, as defined in her "BITCH Manifesto." I am a bitch because I am assertive, aggressive, strong-minded, hard-headed, competent, loud-mouthed, independent, stubborn, driven, achieving, ambitious, tough, scary...well you get the picture.

I am also a rational human being and religion has no place in my existence. I am not afraid to die nor of what may or may not happen after I do. I don't believe that people are born evil. In fact, I have a big problem with that Goddamn word altogether. If religion didn't exist, the word wouldn't exist. Most importantly, I don't believe that people need religion in order to be good. One should be a good person because they want to be good not because religion tells them they should be in order to avoid hell; another word I have a problem with. People use the word 'hell' as if it undeniably exists. Well fuck hell and the saving of souls. I am an atheist and a good person because I have a conscience and because I choose to be good, to hell with religion.

Contact

Comments Off

Blogroll

Comments Off