Radical Atheist

THE Vatican has extended its list of mortal sins to include 21st-century problems and issues such as genetic experimentation, pollution, drug abuse and excessive wealth.

Published in the Vatican’s official newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, the revised list was revealed at the end of a week-long refresher course for priests on the sacrament of confession. Traditionally, mortal sins are those which are a breach of the Ten Commandments – murder, adultery, theft and lying, to name a few.

But now to this list has been added genetic experimentation, tampering with the order of nature, pollution, social injustice, causing poverty, accumulating excessive wealth, and drug abuse. (Source)

Finally, some good news for the religious right. There’s still a place where they can go to find those who share their philosophies and world view. The only downside is they’ll all have to become Roman Catholic.

That should pose no problem. As long as you get to be religious and right, the rest is just dressing.

Next week, Falwell declares excessive text-messaging a result of Satanic possession.

Theists often contend that belief in gods has always existed and that atheism is a later development. They say that atheism is nothing more than a rejection of theism, a desire to sin and party without fear of divine retribution.

We can’t possibly know what humans believed prior to recorded history. We can logically suppose that they were superstitious, inventing stories to explain the natural phenomena for which they had no better explanation. We can suppose that because we can imagine and empathize. We can imagine ourselves in their position and conclude that’s what we’d do.

We do know that for every god mankind has invented there have been those who didn’t believe in them. They may have lived in a country where that god was unknown or not worshiped. They may have simply not accepted the priest’s or shaman’s stories. For pretty much every unsubstantiated belief there are those who don’t buy it.

The non-belief in gods is a base state of thought. No child has ever been shown to be born with a belief in any divine entity. We all start out from a position of non-belief. Once we are told about gods or a particular god we can move into disbelief. Non-belief is born of ignorance, disbelief is born of knowledge.

Heidi Klum, who dressed up as Hindu goddess Kali, who symbolises death and destruction, for her Halloween bash, has left the Hindu community in America fuming.

And now upset Hindus have asked Klum to make a public apology for posing as a sacred figure.

“Goddess Kali is highly revered in Hinduism and she is meant to be worshipped in temples and not to be used in clubs for publicity stunts or thrown around loosely for dramatic effects,” Contactmusic quoted Indo-American statesman Rajan Zed as saying.

He added: “Hindus welcome Hollywood and other entertainment industries to immerse themselves in Hinduism, but they should take it seriously and respectfully, and not just use the religion for decoration or to advance their selfish agenda.

“Casual flirting sometimes results in pillaging serious spiritual doctrines and revered symbols and hurting the devotees.”

Other than Zed, various Hindu leaders, including Jawahar L. Khurana of the Hindu Alliance of India, and Bhavna Shinde of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, have condemned Klum for posing as Goddess Kali.

They went to the extent of calling Klum’s act as “denigrating”. (Yahoo)

The Muslims are all heady now. Their religion is finally being noticed again after being relegated to the status of a 3rd or 4th rate religion for last few hundred years.

Yeah, they were something once. Muslim contributions to Mathematics, Astronomy, and Philosophy in the Middle Ages are well documented. Then they started putting more emphasis on religion and turned their backs on their own discoveries. Their religion became as irrelevant as their culture until Islam started being interpreted by clerics with political aspirations as well as the means to control their people’s minds.

But now they’re famous, everybody’s aware of Islam these days. And like many celebrities Islam is getting a little carried away with its new-found fame. It’s getting a little snooty, it’s taking itself a bit too seriously.

It’s not enough that Islam is now acknowledged as a major religion. Islam’s own teachings, as interpreted by modern (only about 1500 years out-of-date) clerics, demand that non-believers are not acceptable.

There’s a lot of similarity between Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. They both lack a sense of humor. Neither can laugh at themselves, they are humorless theologies.

They both operate under the misconception that respect can be demanded of everyone without even trying to earn it. They can conceive of no reason why everyone shouldn’t share their beliefs, so they see nothing wrong with forcing their beliefs on others.

Well, sorry guys, but not everyone buys it. Not Islam, not Christianity, not Scientology, none of you. All your posturing and demanding respect makes no impression on us. Your threats of eternal damnation or worse don’t intimidate us. We are not awed by your displays of wealth, influence and firepower.

Those of us blessed by genetics with a sense of humor take you no more seriously than we take ourselves. We are happy blasphemers. We defend ourselves from you with mockery and exposure.

Quit being such drama queens and join the human race. Get over yourselves. Grow up. You won’t get your way by throwing a tantrum.

(Note: I’ve had a few comments asking if I was confusing Islam with Hinduism. No, but I wasn’t completely clear in the transition from the article quoted and my commentary. The attitude of the Hindus was illustrative of the current attitude of many religious, especially Muslims and fundamental Christians. Everything in my commentary applies equally to Hinduism, though they aren’t as obnoxious and demanding as their theological cousins usually.)

Lot’s of people have what you and I would probably agree are screwed up moral codes. Humans are imperfect. To touch on the old Hitler “was an atheist” chestnut, he was raised with strict religious (Catholic) morals. Somewhere along the line he took what he believed and twisted it into a perverse belief system. A person who acts “immorally” is by definition not acting out of a belief in any moral code, theistic or atheistic. They’re acting without morals of any kind.

People behave immorally (according to so-called Christian morals). Are they all atheists? Hardly. A fellow atheist and friend, Mojoey, blogs about ministers caught molesting children. He’s been doing this for a while and his list is extensive. Surely these men were raised with good so-called Christian morals. What went wrong? Are these so-called Christian morals not strong enough to overcome our common flawed humanity? When I see so many people commit horrible acts against their fellow man and know that they were raised with so-called Christian morals, I have to ask; what about Christian morals makes them worthy of emulation or respect?

How many average criminals, people acting immorally or unethically, are atheist? I don’t know exactly, but I would expect they are represented among the criminal class to about the same degree they are generally in society. I suggest the majority of those we’d call immoral and unethical criminals are religious believers, raised on some sort of religious moral code.

I further submit that the majority of atheists in America live lives indistinguishable from the average theist’s. If they can melt successfully into society, they must be living ethically/morally enough to escape notoriety.

All our ethics/morals are instilled in us at an early age. We are all taught the rules for membership in our society. We are taught early on how to get along in this Western society.

In reality, there are no Christian or atheist morals; there are social morals that are different in each society. If morality was absolute, different cultures would all behave identically. All morals are relative to the context in which they are applied.

It may be from The Onion, but that doesn’t mean it ain’t the truth.

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation’s broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, “It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can’t catch a break.”

Hardly.

But hey, don’t strain yourselves.

James Pinkerton, a contributing writer to the Fox News blog The Fox Forum, has decided to try a new tactic in discrediting Obama. Instead of barely believable innuendo, he’s stooping to bat-shit insane fantasy.

In an article entitled “The Devil Is In the Details: Another Obama Connection You Ought to Know About” he shares his delusions with whoever reads this crap and takes it seriously:

Could Lucifer play a role in this presidential election? It may sound crazy, but one of the candidates in this race has publicly praised, even emulated, a writer-activist who himself paid tribute to Lucifer.  That’s right, Lucifer, also known as the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub—you get the idea.

Do you think that admiring a Lucifer-admirer would make a difference to some voters?

If you’ve never heard of this true fact—and most Americans obviously haven’t—well, that might help to explain why John McCain is behind in the polls.

OK, you might be asking, where is this Lucifer stuff coming from? It comes from a man named Saul Alinsky, who devoted his life to left-wing agitation in Chicago.  He also wrote two seminal books, “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals,” still regarded as key how-to manuals for left-wing activists.

But Alinsky was more than just a leftist; he was a genuine out-there crazy, someone who loved to shock and stun, just for the helluvit. And so in the first edition of “Rules for Radicals,” published in 1971, he offered this astounding dedication: “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgement of the very first radical, from all our legends, mythology, and history … the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

This dedication is no secret.  David Freddoso wrote about it in his book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate;  and the inimitable Ann Coulter noted it, too, just last month.

I won’t subject you to the full article, I’m sure you value your mental health. If you’re interested and fully inoculated against rampant stupidity , follow the links for the full “story”. He got one thing right. Ann Coulter is indeed inimitable. No one else would willingly sacrifice their credibility and expose their ignorance by trying to imitate her.

I’m not even sure why anyone at Fox is still defending McCain’s candidacy. After all, Fox News Executive Vice President John Moody already posted that if the Ashley Todd story was a hoax, McCain’s candidacy was over. The fat lady has sung.

With no disrespect to the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBTH), may I present a religion for the 21st century.

Say ‘Hebbo’ to Tarvuism!

Say Hebbo! from Torvakian on Vimeo.

Islamic law isn’t based on a single interpretation of the Qur’an. “Islamic jurisprudence is not codified law: it is a series of formulations developed across generations by scholars and clerics. Depending on the Islamic school or historical era, these formulations can differ and even contradict each other.” (from the following article)

Iran follows a form of Islam that’s perhaps the most brutal and disgusting of any Muslim country. In 2005 two Iranian teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari (16) and Ayaz Marhoni (18), were both sentenced to death for what some human rights groups claimed was “consensual gay sex”. And now they are endorsing the killing of Christians and others they identify as apostates.

Eighteen years ago, Rashin Soodmand’s father was hanged in Iran for converting to Christianity. Now her brother is in a Mashad jail, and expects to be executed under new religious laws brought in this summer.

A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled “Islamic Penal Code”, which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against.

Imposing the death penalty for changing religion blatantly violates one of the most fundamental of all human rights. The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the European Convention of Human Rights. It is even enshrined as Article 23 of Iran’s own constitution, which states that no one may be molested simply for his beliefs.

And yet few politicians or clerics in Iran see any contradiction between a law mandating the death penalty for changing religion and Iran’s constitution. There has been no public protest in Iran against it.

For one woman living in London, however, the Iranian parliamentary vote cannot be brushed aside. Rashin Soodmand is a 29-year-old Iranian Christian. Her father, Hossein Soodmand, was the last man to be executed in Iran for apostasy, the “crime” of abandoning one’s religion. He had converted from Islam to Christianity in 1960, when he was 13 years old. Thirty years later, he was hanged by the Iranian authorities for that decision.

Today, Rashin’s brother, Ramtin, is also held in a prison cell in Mashad, Iran’s holiest city. He was arrested on August 21. He has not been charged but he is a Christian. And Rashin fears that, just as her father was the last man to be executed for apostasy in Iran, her brother may become one of the first to be killed under Iran’s new law.

Not surprisingly, Rashin is desperately worried. “I am terribly anxious about him,” she explains. “Even though my brother is not an apostate, because he has never been a Muslim – my father raised us all as Christians – I don’t think he is safe. They assume that if you are Iranian, you must be Muslim.”

But six months later, the police came back and took her father away again. This time, they offered him a choice: he could denounce his Christian faith, and the church in which he was a pastor – or he would be killed. “Of course, my father refused to give up his faith,” Rashid recalls proudly. “He could not renounce his God. His belief in Christ was his life – it was his deepest conviction.” So two weeks later, Hossein Soodmand was taken by guards to the prison gallows and hanged.

Life for Rashin, her siblings and her mother became extremely difficult. Some Muslims are extremely hostile to people of any other religion, never mind to those who they consider apostates: Ayatollah Khomeini declared that “non-Muslims are impure”, insisting that for Muslims to wash the clothes of non-Muslims, or to eat food with non-Muslims, or even to use utensils touched by non-Muslims, would spoil their purity.

“After the revolution of 1979, Iran’s rulers wanted to turn Iran into an Islamic state, and to abolish the secular laws of the Shah,” explains Alexa Papadouris of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a human rights organisation that specialises in freedom of religion. “So the clerics instituted a mandate for judges presiding over criminal cases: if the existing penal code did not include legislation on whether a certain kind of behaviour is an offence, then the judges should refer to traditional Islamic jurisprudence.” In other words: sharia law.

There is another factor: President Ahmadinejad. “The President didn’t initiate the law mandating the death penalty for apostates,” says Papadouris, “but he has been lobbying for it. It is an effective form of playing populist politics. The Iranian economy is doing very badly, and the country is in a mess: Ahmadinejad may be calculating that he can gain support, and deflect attention from Iran’s problems, by persecuting apostates.”

The new law is not yet in force in Iran: it requires another vote in parliament, and then the signature of the Ayatollah. But that could happen within a matter of weeks. “Or,” says Papadouris, “it could conceivably be allowed to drop, were there a powerful enough international outcry”. (Source - The Telegraph)

As a non-religious humanist I denounce the killing of anyone for their religious beliefs. It’s not only inhumane but inefficient. You can’t kill a viewpoint.

It’s not only humanists who should be loudly opposing this violation of basic human rights. Christians and those of other, non-Islamic religions should be protesting this as well.

Islam will never be viewed by Western, may I say humane, societies as a peaceful and loving religion until these crimes against humanity have been forever renounced and abandoned.

Why does the Religious Right demand that only abstinence should be taught to teenagers when according to their own Christian mythology Jesus was born of a girl who practiced abstinence. A whole lot of good it did her.