Author Archive for Mike DanielsPage 2 of 13

Religious symbols cause London Olympics uproar. Why not leave them at home?

Published

on May 8, 2012

Once again, attempts to accommodate multiple faiths, instead of telling people to do their praying at home, has led to disruption and conflict . . . as such accommodation most always does. The flash point?

The lapel pins for “chaplains” at the Olympic and Paralymic Games.

When a BBC sitcom about the Olympics featured a clash of religious faiths no one thought that life was about to imitate art – but it has.

Religious symbols have been banned from a "faith" badge designed for chaplains at the London Games in case they cause offence.

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog) asked its advisory committee of faith representatives to suggest ideas for the lapel pin, which is intended to be the lasting symbol of the role of religious leaders for London 2012.

But plans for a design featuring symbols of each of the nine faiths represented on the committee were rejected — because not all religious believers would feel "comfortable" wearing symbols of other faiths.

In episodes of the BBC comedy Twenty Twelve broadcast in March and April, the "Olympics deliverance team" faces a crisis when plans for its "shared belief centre" offend the Algerian team, which threatens to boycott the event.

Yep, reality imitated art. And just like the TV show, the real organizers went into a tizzy.

The final badge — presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury and eight other faith leaders when they toured the Olympic park — simply features the word “faith” and a globe, alongside the Olympics and Paralympics logos.

Mr Morton said it was “perfect” material for the sitcom — albeit too late for the final three episodes which will be broadcast before the opening of the Games in July.

He said: “You can just imagine the discussions, and what’s really funny and sad is the amount of care, thought and sensitivity that has gone into producing something that is so utterly bland.

“By the time any possibility of offence has been addressed then any meaning has been washed away as well.”

Why is the Archbishop of Canturbury touring the park with other (competing) faith leaders in the first place? Is this a religious event? Not the last time I checked!

Here’s an idea. How about one of these options:

Lapel pins that say “Chaplain”.
Lapel pins that say “Chaplain” with a symbol of the particular chaplain’s religion(s) of choice.
No chaplains. If teams want to bring religious leaders with themselves, let them do so on their own dime. Funded by donations, not tax dollars, thank you very much.

Which do you prefer? I’m sure you can guess which I’d favor.

Barbaric “halal” and “kosher” butchering now commonplace in Britain

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 8, 2012

The barbaric Jewish and Muslim practices of “kosher” and “halal” slaughter–slashing the throats of animals without stunning them–have become commonplace in the UK. Worst of all, most consumers are blissfully unaware that about 1 in 4 animals are so brutally tortured to death.

The Telegraph (no, not the Daily Mail) spoke with a leading expert:

Prof Bill Reilly, ex-president of the British Veterinary Association, said cutting the throats of lambs, chickens and other animals without stunning them breaches legal requirements because it causes significant pain, fear and distress.

British and EU law permits the method of religious slaughter to account for Muslim and Jewish dietary practices, but stipulates that the animals must not be caused "unnecessary suffering."

Prof Reilly called for the practice to be dramatically curbed, suggesting that some slaughterhouses are refusing to stun animals simply to cut costs, rather than for religious reasons.

Writing in the Veterinary Record, he said the number of animals having their throats slit while still fully conscious – a practice known as non-stun slaughter – was "unacceptable".Referring to a report by the former Animal Welfare Council he claimed that "such a massive injury could result in very significant pain and distress", particularly because the throat has a large number of nerve endings.

It is often said by freethinkers that “your religious liberty ends where my face begins”. It seems in the case of methods of slaughter, that needs to be extended to “your religious freedom ends where tolerable treatment of livestock begins”.

Or, at the very least, I as a consumer should have the right to know if my dinner was tortured to death, shouldn’t I?

Not in the European Union!

In 2010, the EU proposed new regulations requiring the labeling of all halal- and kosher-tortmented meat. Seems many producers were following these barbaric guidelines not to meet the demands of religiously-observant Jews and Muslims, but because slaughtering without stunning is cheaper. The response?

Animal-welfare legislation in Europe requires that abattoirs stun all animals prior to slaughter unless they are being ritually killed according to the practices of a non-Christian religion.

The move to require halal and kosher meat producers to provide consumers with more information on the packaging of their products has enraged Jewish and Muslim organisations, with the latter claiming that the move has little to do with animal welfare but, rather, reflects a pan-European bias against Islam.

Earlier this year, members of the European Parliament, by a vote of 559 to 54, passed Amendment 205 to the food-information regulation, which would require all meat from ritually slaughtered animals to be labelled: “Derived from animals that have not been stunned prior to slaughter.”

A committee of the EU Council of Ministers vetoed the measure earlier this month . . .

Yep, the EU-wide legislation was vetoed despite 10 to 1 support in the European Parliament. It’s “Islamophobic”. Or, more likely, it’d cut their customer base.

The UK tried to at least provide information to its consumers . . . and failed last month:

Conservative MP Philip Davies wanted customers in the UK to be fully informed about what products they bought however Labour’s Gorton MP Sir Gerald Kaufman spoke out.

MPs voted to block the Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat) Bill 73 to 70, a majority of three.

Mr Davies said while Muslims make up three per cent of the UK population it is estimated Halal meat makes up around 25 per cent of meat sales in Britain.

He said: “There are some people in this country who would wish to ban Halal and Kosher meat on animal welfare grounds. I am not one of those people – I’m happy for people to make the decision themselves – but they should be allowed to make an informed decision.

“My Bill does not favour one or the other – it is to help everybody.”

Why should this fail? Can you guess?

Sir Gerald said he did not believe Mr Davies’ Bill was anti-Semitic, but said he strongly opposed it because it was inconsistent by picking out only the practices of Muslims and Jews.

Sir Gerald told the Commons: “This has profound connotations of religious feelings and I would be letting my own faith down, my family, I would be letting my many, many good decent, fine religious Muslims in my constituency down if I did not state my total opposition to this Bill.”

That’s right, politically-correct “multiculturalism” wins again. Who loses? UK consumers, who want to know where their food comes from. And livestock that are tortured to death for the sake of Bronze Age superstitions. They lose, too.

I predict that wise producers who stun before slaughter will begin labeling their products accordingly.

I further predict that they will in short order be decried as anti-Semites and Islamophobes breeding division for so doing.

Think I’ll be proven wrong? Stay tuned and let’s find out!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, dinner’s ready. Grass-fed beef that was killed instantaneously and painlessly by a bullet to the brain. Yes, I do know where my meat comes from and how it was slaughtered. Do you?

No related articles.

Cannibalicious! South Korean officials find 17,000 capsules of powdered human baby

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 8, 2012

Mmmmmm . . . People!

Did you ever ask whether baby powder was “made with real babies”?

Seems some people believe that baby corpses have magical healing and vitality-enhancing powers. They are selling powdered baby capsules.

Thousands of pills filled with powdered human flesh have been discovered by customs officials in South Korea, it was revealed today.

The capsules are in demand because they are viewed as being a medicinal ‘cure-all’.

The grim trade is being run from China where corrupt medical staff are said to be tipping off medical companies when babies are aborted or delivered still-born.

Seems dead babies, rhinoceros horns, and human placenta powder have been sold for years as part of Chinese “medicine” to promote health and vitality.

You’ll be thrilled to know it’s illegal–the dead baby powder, anyway–and the dead baby pills have been confiscated.

Horrific as we sophisticated Westerners may find this bizarre form of woo, let us not forget that it wasn’t too long ago that your local pharmacy just might be able to get you human corpse powder:

Amazingly, however, mummy smuggling not only still happens today, it was once so common that enough mummies were available to be ground up and sold as powder, archaeologists reveal.

“Mummy powder was something you could buy in pharmacies up to 1920, because people thought it was a type of medication,” said Egyptologist Regine Schulz, curator of ancient art at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore.

Yes, it was only less than a century ago that Americans and other Westerners gave up cannibalism. (The ritual cannibalism of Catholicism excepted.) Sure, ours were somewhat more aged than theirs, but dead human powder is dead human powder. Perhaps a good protein source, but not much else.

We can only hope that our Asian neighbors will catch up with Western society and stop consuming corpses for supposed health benefits soon.

These days, we have sugar pills instead.

Canadian author: A vast conspiracy is trying to malign Christianity

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 8, 2012

Canadian author Michael Coren thinks that there’s a vast conspiracy to malign and discredit Christianity. I agree.

Trouble is, we disagree on who’s doing the discrediting. I think it’s the Christians. Like him.

MICHAEL Coren is on a mission to prove that there is a monumental conspiracy to destroy Christianity:

I believe the evidence is overwhelming … that Christianity is the main, central, most common, and most thoroughly and purposefully marginalized, obscured, and publicly and privately misrepresented belief system in the final decades of the twentieth century and the opening years of the twenty-first century.

This quote appeared in the National Post last week in an interview with the Toronto-based writer and broadcaster, who has just published Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity.

In a Q & A session with religion reporter Charles Lewis, Coren said:

Christians are marginalized, they’re mocked, they’re told their views don’t belong, they’re told to keep their views out of the public square and keep their religion at home. And where it can be quite sinister is at universities where Christian students they’re told that their ideas are stupid. I’ve even seen it with my children who are in university. Somehow Christianity is not a valid area of thought any longer. You can bring your socialism, your feminism, your homosexuality, your anti-Zionism into the class but if you bring your Christianity that’s not to be taken seriously.

Hmm. Let’s see what the things “you can bring” are, and compare them to Christianity, shall we?

Socialism: An economic system and political/ethical debate about what areas of life in which government should be involved.
Feminism: Social theory and political debate about the civil rights of women.
Homosexuality: Social theory and political debate about the civil rights of non-heterosexuals.
Anti-Zionism: Political debate about the ethical issues surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel by European colonial powers, and the ongoing actions of that state in relationship to its displaced prior residents. Also, concern over the billions of US tax dollars exported to support said state.
Christianity: A religion which grew out of Judaism, often used as justification for opinions and attitudes toward all of the above. Based on faith (that is, the assertion of knowledge without evidence), rather than reason or empirical investigation of evidence or circumstances.

One of these things is not like the other. Can you guess which?

Coren is right that Christianity is the religion most focused upon as problematic in Western civilization. Why? Because it’s the dominant religion.

If the United States were dominated by Muslims with their Shari’a law, or Hindus with their caste system, or Cthulics with their . . . um . . . human sacrifices to raise Cthulhu so he can eat us all, well, then that religion would be the primary focus of attention by those of us who don’t want our government’s laws, and the distribution of our tax dollars, decided on the basis of someone else’s religion.

But Christianity is the dominant religion. A religion which wants to keep women and homosexuals second-class citizens. A religion which demonizes any form of government “safety net” (well, other than subsidies to agribusiness and oil companies) as “socialism” because it means that vulnerable people turn to the state for help instead of the churches . . . and that those vulnerable people aren’t forced to hear about Jesus in order to get food. A religion which promotes sending billions of dollars to Israel each year, with no concern whatsoever for that state’s actions against its neighbors.

Who’s discrediting Christianity again?

God Virus? Wait, you mean on my computer?

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 7, 2012

Seems the God Virus is real. Or at least the viruses you can get from godly websites!

Symantec (creator of Norton Antivirus software) released information about the top sources of malware on the Internet. Porn sites likely won’t give you viruses, but religious and ideological sites? That’s another story.

Web wanderers are more likely to get a computer virus by visiting a religious website than by peering at porn, according to a study released on Tuesday.

"Drive-by attacks" in which hackers booby-trap legitimate websites with malicious code continue to be a bane, the US-based anti-virus vendor Symantec said in its Internet Security Threat Report.

Websites with religious or ideological themes were found to have triple the average number of "threats" that those featuring adult content, according to Symantec.

"It is interesting to note that websites hosting adult/pornographic content are not in the top five, but ranked tenth," Symantec said in the report.

"We hypothesize that this is because pornographic website owners already make money from the Internet and, as a result, have a vested interest in keeping their sites malware-free; it’s not good for repeat business."

I think this is just another example of a failure to be specific in wishmaking. When Rick Perry had his day of prayer for rain in Texas, he got what he asked for; he just didn’t specify a rain of water instead of fire.

And we all know that religious site developers, eager to be the next smash hit, are always rubbing their genie lamps, Bibles, Korans, or other inanimate objects and wishing that their latest blog post or video will “go viral”.

They want this:

They get this:

Hey! That's not what I meant!

Haven’t they ever seen the Wishmaster movies?

Has anybody seen the Wishmaster movies?

No related articles.

SCA’s new Exec Director Edwina Rogers: Who is she, how was she chosen?

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 5, 2012

The Secular Coalition for America is a 501(c)(4) lobbying organization, working inside the system to promote secular government.

This week, they announced the selection of a new executive director, Republican lobbyist Edwina Rogers.

While it is well within SCA’s rights to interview and select a director by any means they desire, the how and why of Ms. Rogers’ selection raises some questions.

Crommunist comments,

I don’t know what the process was, and neither do most people who are hearing the news. Those who do know are being very quiet about it, aside from a couple of puff pieces on their website that barely scratch the surface. They would very much like us to believe that there exists a large, untapped well of secular support to be had on the political right, and that Edwina Rogers is just the person to mobilize it. I hope that pans out for them, because they’re at serious risk of losing their momentum and support through a stupid decision that was handled badly.

It’s hard to argue that SCA could have handled the announcement better. Far better. SCA has allowed the story to get ahead of them, instead of coming out and staying in front of the story. They didn’t frame the discussion.

Isn’t that what a lobbying organization is supposed to do? Isn’t that what a new executive director would instruct her staff to do?

Crommunist offers his advice:

If you’re going to make a decision like this that you know is going to be controversial, you line up a bunch of opinion leaders and get them to lend their full-throated support. You put the reasons why you made this choice front and centre. You go on a full media blitz (which, in this case, would mean getting guest posts up on Skepchick and Pharyngula and RDF and CFI and anywhere else you have a bunch of people looking), defending your choice and explaining the myriad reasons why you found the best person for the job. You have all this put in place before you make the announcement.

I’m not so concerned that SCA picked a Republican, even if it is a Republican who contributed to Rick Perry’s Presidential campaign. OK, maybe that bit does concern me.

You remember Rick Perry, right? The man who launched his Presidential campaign with “The Response“, a radical-Christian-Right prayer festival where evil secularists were bashed almost as frequently as homosexuals and feminists and Muslims?

She also donated $2,300 to John McCain in 2008, and $2,000 to GW Bush in 2004.

I’m sure that was just part of her job. Greasing the skids, as it were.

But considering Rogers very recently (3rd quarter of 2011) was donating to one of the most vociferously anti-secular GOP candidates on the primary circuit, how does she explain her apparent change of heart? It’s not like she was donating to Jon Huntsman, who came across as quite possibly more pro-separation than Obama.

Well, that’s pretty much the problem. She doesn’t touch on why she contributed to Perry, or McCain, or GW “faith-based initiatives” Bush:

Have you always been a secularist? How do you describe yourself and your beliefs?
I am a nontheist, but tend to shy away from labels, because I think they have a way of creating division within the movement. I have always been a firm secularist and an ardent supporter of the separation of religion and government. I am passionate about increasing the respect for nontheists in the United States and protecting the secular character of our government. I think that America is a place where there should be no religious test for participation in political life. I certainly feel that theists should be fully able to participate in public life—but no more than nontheists. I am not here to end religion.

And in the introductory interview, SCA didn’t ask. Maybe they did in the job interviews; we don’t know.

Now, it’s entirely possible that Ms. Rogers has the best skill set of the available applicants to enhance the SCA’s standing and influence. It’s also possible that she gave money to candidates specifically to aid her own chances of getting work.

But Rick Perry? How can an “ardent supporter of the separation of religion and government” turn around and donate to a man who used taxpayer funds to promote an evangelicals-only prayer rally, which he used to launch a Presidential campaign?

And as Crommunist aptly pointed out, why weren’t these matters addressed and these questions answered before the “hey, we hired her, ain’t that great?” announcement? Did nobody at SCA think the questions would be asked? Did they expect that SCA would be immune to criticism or questioning?

I truly wish Ms. Rogers the best, and hope she lives up to her employer’s expectations and does an excellent job with SCA. I look forward to seeing great things from her.

Perhaps as her first act, she can teach her staff how to frame their message.

Austrian law shows why church-state separation is so important

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 4, 2012

Austria has a new religion law. It establishes religious “boards” with representatives from recognized congregations, who can then make decisions about doctrine for all members of that particular faith . . . with or without individual congregations’ consent.

This is the antithesis of religious liberty.

Or Chadash, a Liberal congregation in Vienna, has applied for official status to ensure it has a say in religious matters under Austria’s new religion law.

On Tuesday, the European Union for Progressive Judaism launched a letter-writing campaign urging Austria’s minister of education, arts and culture, Claudia Schmied, to recognize the progressive congregation’s application to become a “Kultusgemeinde,” or official Jewish community, under public charter.

Liberal Jewish leaders say the new religion law passed April 19 and due to go into effect within weeks would concentrate power in the hands of Orthodox Jewish groups on all religious matters — from conversions to marriages to burials. The law, which applies to all religions in Austria, establishes so-called religious corporations, or boards, consisting of representatives from state-recognized religious communities.

The five recognized Jewish communities in Austria are Orthodox, and they would be empowered to make religious decisions, including whether or not to approve recognition for a new community, for the nation’s approximately 10,000 Jews. At stake is state funding for schools, teachers and infrastructure.

Thus, proponents argue, it is urgent for the 20-year-old Or Chadash to be granted official status before the law goes into effect.

Interestingly enough, the European Union for Progressive Judaism is petitioning only to see this Liberal congregation accepted as an “official” Jewish community, so it has a vote on the religious boards.

They are not fighting instead to overturn the law, a law which infringes upon the human rights of the people of Austria to worship according to their conscience.

Can you imagine a world where the official, government-sanctioned “religious board” decides who can and can’t get married, or who’s worthy of burial in a particular cemetery? And where those boards also get to direct state funding to the schools their majority prefers, thus perpetuating their own stranglehold on the body politic?

This law is a horror. Why aren’t we hearing an uproar about this disaster in the making?

The end is near, or at least 22% of Americans think so

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 4, 2012

Yesterday, I shared with you a little story about the 666 Cult, which believes that Armageddon and “transformation” will come June 30, 2012. Today, a new poll indicates that about 15% of the world’s population, or 1 in 7, thinks the world will end in their lifetimes.

Not to worry, Americans are far ahead of the average, as always! Er, because nearly 1 in 4 (22%) Americans think the world will end within their lifetimes:

Nearly 15 percent of people worldwide believe the world will end during their lifetime and 10 percent think the Mayan calendar could signify it will happen in 2012, according to a new poll.The end of the Mayan calendar, which spans about 5,125 years, on December 21, 2012 has sparked interpretations and suggestions that it marks the end of the world.

“Whether they think it will come to an end through the hands of God, or a natural disaster or a political event, whatever the reason, one in seven thinks the end of the world is coming,” said Keren Gottfried, research manager at Ipsos Global Public Affairs which conducted the poll for Reuters.

“Perhaps it is because of the media attention coming from one interpretation of the Mayan prophecy that states the world ‘ends’ in our calendar year 2012,” Gottfried said, adding that some Mayan scholars have disputed the interpretation.

Responses to the international poll of 16,262 people in more than 20 countries varied widely with only six percent of French residents believing in an impending Armageddon in their lifetime, compared to 22 percent in Turkey and the United States and slightly less in South Africa and Argentina.

These beliefs persist despite the high-profile failure of Harold Camping’s Family Radio “Rapture” non-event last year. Why do you suppose that is?

Is it because people are eager to feel important, and being part of the “last generation” gives them meaning?

Is it a response to stress, seeing climate change and war and poverty and rapid population growth?

Is it simply the proliferation of religious fervor and end-of-the-world nonsense in the media, from movies to books to the “Left Behind” video game series?

We do know a few things: The less educated, the poor, and the young are more likely to think the world will end soon:

Gottfried also said that people with lower education or household income levels, as well as those under 35 years old, were more likely to believe in an apocalypse during their lifetime or in 2012, or have anxiety over the prospect.

Unfortunately, it appears that the poll did not gather data on why people think the world will end, or what “end of the world” means to them. Nuclear war? Ecological collapse? Civilization imploding? Asteroid impact? Or the planet being physically destroyed by an imaginary deity?

Seems there’s more polling to be done to get to the bottom of this. Not to worry; the world won’t be ending any time soon.

No related articles.

666 cult anticipates “transformation”, destruction of nonbelievers on June 30

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 3, 2012

A cult called “Growing in Grace International” worships Jose de Luis de Jesus. Mr. JdLdJ uses the number ’666′ to identify himself and his followers, and claims to be the second coming of Jesus Christ.

He has declared that he will be “transformed” June 30 of 2012, along with his followers. Check this one out:

Doris Rosado watches her teenage daughters, Ninette and Kiara Mongrut, get the numbers “666” tattooed on their wrists, beaming with pride. The number typically conjures up biblical symbolism tied to the Antichrist, but this St. Catharines, Ont., family belongs to a obscure Christian sect for which “666” is a positive symbol of their group’s messianic leader.

“They wanted to do it,” Ms. Rosado, 45, said at the St. Catharines tattoo parlour where her daughters were inked. “But now it’s more important because we’re counting down… I’m so proud.”

For this family, and other members of Growing in Grace International, these tattoos are a way of demonstrating their faith as true believers of Jose de Luis de Jesus — who they fervently believe is the second coming of Jesus Christ — before a day of reckoning they believe will wipe out most of humanity.

But there’s more!

Mr. de Jesus also predicts that the “transformation” will endow him, and his loyal followers, with superpowers, such as the ability to fly and walk through walls, said Axel Cooley, the bishop’s daughter.

“[We can] run and not get tired. Go through fire and not get burned…. I could be talking to you right now, and then I could go through that wall. So, you’ll know there is a difference,” Cooley said.

The global economy will collapse as currency markets “fail” and governments around the world will be forced to resign. These predictions are based on biblical passages, she adds.

“The world’s not going to end. What is going to end is the system…. All the governments and the currencies will fall. The new government of the 666 will take over,” she said.

Growing in Grace has followers in 130 nations around the world.

While I don’t anticipate any apocalypse June 30, is it possible that crazed cultists will attempt an insurrection? It sure sounds that way:

In a video posted on YouTube and on their website, cegenglish.com, Mr. de Jesus called for his followers to enter into the final countdown until, he says, their government will come into power. “A government where we will govern everything with a perfect order. This is my last farewell for you. The time is finished… We will see each other soon in Armageddon.” [Emphasis added.]

Guess we’ll find out July 1.

Action Alert: Ask Obama to end National Day of Prayer

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 3, 2012

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is urging President Obama to protect freedom of conscience by ending the unconstitutional National Day of Prayer.

In order to get its ‘We the People’ petition into the hands of the president, FFRF needs to gather 25,000 electronic signatures at the White House website by May 31. ‘We the People’ is set up by the White House to offer the public a way to petition the President.

Each year by Congressional decree, the prayer day takes place on the first Thursday of May. FFRF notes that evangelicals such as Rev. Billy Graham “hijacked the Constitution” when they lobbied to establish the National Day of Prayer in 1952, and set the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer date, by act of Congress in 1988.

The petition reads:

“We petition the Obama Administration to: End the unconstitutional National Day of Prayer, which violates the 1st Amendment. God & government are a dangerous mix.

Congress, in 1952, abridged freedom of conscience when, at the instigation of Rev. Billy Graham, it designated a National Day of Prayer, ordering the President to proclaim ‘a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.’ The U.S. President has neither the moral nor the constitutional authority to dictate to Americans to pray, much less to tell citizens what to pray about or set aside an entire day for prayer. Whether to pray, or believe in a god who answers prayer, is an intensely precious, personal decision protected under our First Amendment as a paramount matter of conscience. Don’t let Christian evangelicals hijack our secular Constitution.”

Even though FFRF boasts over 18,000 members nationwide, it needs your help for this petition to go “viral” and garner the requisite 25,000 signatures ensuring Obama will respond. FFRF asks members and avid social media users to pass this along to friends and family.

FFRF has been challenging the National Day of Prayer for years, and, in 2010, won a historic federal court ruling declaring the public law unconstitutional. In her eloquent ruling, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb stated: “The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy.” She affirmed that Congress may no more declare a National Day of Prayer than it “may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.”

Obama appealed the ruling and an appeals court threw out the case, not on its merits, but on the question of standing. FFRF has two other ongoing lawsuits challenging gubernatorial prayer proclamations.

Thomas Paine advised: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must undergo the fatigue . . . of supporting it.”

Please take a moment to add your name to FFRF’s petition to the White House.

INSTRUCTIONS: SIGNING THE PETITION

(Senior citizen freethinkers may wish to elicit the help of a grandchild and encourage him/her sign the petition too!)

1. Open your web browser and ‘copy’ and ‘paste’ either of the two links into the address bar:

http://wh.gov/EUP

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/end-unconstitutional-national-day-prayer-which-violates-1st-amendment-god-government-are-dangerous/b0nPWrTK

2. If you don’t already have a ‘We the People’ account at the White House website, follow the steps to create a username and password. (Note: The White House prompt on passwords specifically encourages at least six characters, a few numbers, and upper and lower case letters.)

3. Either choose ‘sign in’ or ‘create an account’

4. Once you’re logged in, click the green ‘sign the petition’ button

5. Click ‘promote the peition’ and share it with your friends on Facebook and Twitter.

CALL THE PRESIDENT

Tell the White House that you are offended and excluded by the National Day of Prayer Presidential Proclamation and that you don’t believe in a god that answers prayer, much less that government has a right to push citizens to pray.

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

P.S. If you use Facebook, remember you can find freethought graphic choices to use as your Facebook Timeline cover photo. Several specifically are geared to be used on the National Day of Prayer (tomorrow, May 3) as a protest.

Thank you for your help!

Come on, kids, let’s destroy the crops!

Published

Mike Daniels

on May 2, 2012

Ophelia Benson at Butterflies and Wheels has found a petition for us. But first, a little backstory:

Good old “activists” – anti-vax activists, pro alt med activists, anti-GM crops activists. Hooray for crop failure and famine!

Scientists working on a new generation of genetically modified crops have sent an open letter to anti-GM protesters pleading with them not to destroy “years of work” by attacking their research plots.

The activist group, Take the Flour Back, has pledged to carry out a “decontamination” at a test site in Hertfordshire, where agricultural researchers are growing the world’s first genetically modified wheat that can repel insect pests by emitting a repellent-smelling substance.

Seems the “Take the Flour Back” Luddites think destroying research plantations is a good way to . . . um . . . ensure we don’t make progress in improving crop yields, or something.

Sense About Science has a petition you can sign and circulate.

The Religious Right hasn’t leapt onto the anti-GM bandwagon . . . yet. But I won’t be surprised if they do. After all, isn’t it a matter of scientists “playing god”?

Related articles:

Farah: Gays And Radical Muslims Working Together To Destroy America

Robertson: Asteroid Will Destroy The Earth

Attack of the killer porn

Published

Mike Daniels

on April 30, 2012

Can you find the subtle reference to The Ring? Look closely!

Did you ever wonder what would happen if the brilliant minds behind Reefer Madness got stoned, watched The Ring, and then cast Hustler’s Larry Flynt as the title character in a remake of Poltergeist?

No? Me neither.

But (un)fortunately for us, someone has. And they’re making a movie!

Titled “Harmless”, this latest addition to the overexposed “found footage” genre has a simple plot with all the subtlety of a nuclear warhead. A man finds in his home a box of pornography. Viewing it releases unspeakably evil demonic forces into his home, destroying his family. Because, you see, pornography is not “Harmless”.

Starring and directed and written by Richard Praytor, and starring and produced by Beverly Taylor, and featuring kids who happen to be theirs, this flick is sure to be a blockbuster in the church-basement circuit.

Check out this trailer. And watch for the oh-so-subtle influence of The Ring. It’s like a sly inside joke!

By “sly inside joke”, of course, I mean “primary component of a major film franchise directly lifted and inserted into this steaming pile of ‘found footage’”.

Says Beverly, “This is a really important movie because I think that it communicates to families not only how quickly a thing like pornography or sexual addiction can affect a family, but how in particular it affects women.”

According to “Hopeless”–er, “Harmless”–it affects families by making doors open and close on their own (as in every haunted house movie ever made), and by causing children to see and draw terrible scary monsters (I’m sure this started before The Amityville Horror, but that’s my first recollection), and by having the girl from The Ring appear in a cemetery.

What a cemetery has to do with a movie about pornography, I’m not sure. Maybe it’s a really sexy cemetery.

Beverly promises it will be “a really scary movie”.

Scary like Reefer Madness, I expect.

Are there serious issues around pornography? For some people yes, absolutely. A clip from the movie does touch on one aspect, as the wife “Jennifer” (played by Beverly) complains about these perfect women in the porno and how she can’t compete with that. And yes, there are cases where sex addiction or an obsession with pornography can exacerbate an already weak relationship. Jealousy and increasing emotional distance can become serious problems.

But a box of porn can’t throw your wife down the stairs, no matter how much you might want it to.

Praytor and Taylor are taking a serious issue and creating a propaganda piece about it–attempting to scare people from the “demonic influence” of pornography–rather than tackling the real issues head on. Why?

It’s a matter of agenda. If their agenda were to find ways to help families, couples, and singles struggling with pornography, there are a number of ways to go. A comedy. A serious drama. A documentary. Any of these could be used to help those who have a problem recognize it as such, and figure out how to get needed assistance and relationship counseling.

Their agenda is instead to (quite literally) demonize pornography. In their view, pornography is not something that has any place in a relationship, or in any Christian home.

What’s that? Who said anything about “Christian”? Onslaught Media is a Colorado Springs-based firm, a significant component of whose work is Christian-missions/ministry in nature. Prayton himself stars in the “Men’s Ministry” video.

So, we see their aim. This film is setting out to be the Reefer Madness of pornography, and will likely be taken about as seriously by the same sort of people. Prayton and Taylor will be preaching only to the smut-shunning choir.

Note:

How, you ask, can this hamfisted propaganda piece possibly be made? Why, with help from crowdsource funding site Kickstarter, of course.

Or not. Oops.

I’m almost sorry for them.

You see, Kickstarter allows you to set the amount you wish to raise, and set the time limit–up to 90 days. If you don’t reach your target amount within that time frame, you don’t get funded.

Seems that with only 15 days left to go to reach their $12,500 goal, the makers of “Hopeless” (dang, I did it again!) have found 5 backers for a total of $225.

Could it be that Kickstarter wasn’t the place to go for a right-wing, anti-pornography propaganda piece?

No related articles.

Sorry, but Christianity doesn’t cure depression

Published

Mike Daniels

on April 28, 2012

Physics student and skeptic Emily Band takes on outspoken evangelical Malcolm Bowden on the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” page, eloquently taking him to task for his ridiculous, damaging assertion that the root causes of depression are arrogance, self-centeredness, and rebellion against Bowden’s god. Bowden’s solution? Submission to his imaginary friend, of course.

"Breakdowns are good for you" said the text glaring from the website of Malcolm Bowden, the same evangelical Christian who just a few hours earlier had been on Channel 4′s 4thought promoting his ideas about the root causes and cures for clinical depression (transcript available here). Bowden claims that depression and many other mental illnesses are "very deliberately decided" by the person suffering from them and that the former is a "behavioural problem, rooted in pride, self-centredness, and self-pity". The proposed solution? To submit ourselves to the Christian God in total humility, and to find peace with this deity through living our lives for others.

The irony is that many common thought processes associated with depression actually fulfill most of these criteria: the lack of self-esteem or belief in talents are examples of taking humility to extremes, and the near constant concern about what others are thinking can drive us to live our lives according to the will of other people. Advocating these as cures is highly questionable when they are both key symptoms of the illness . . .

Maybe Bowden is advocating a form of homeopathy?

Nah.

Band’s youth does not preclude her being entirely correct. Just this evening I spoke with a retired psychologist on the supposed value of faith in treatment; after all, for some, faith in a deity of some sort can be very freeing. Meditation (with or without a religious context) can lower blood pressure and improve concentration, for example. Through faith, the individual can abdicate all responsibility for his current condition, and lay it on an external force to fix. This is the very foundation of the highly successful (if you consider a 5% success rate “highly successful”) twelve-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous. “Let go, and let gods.”

The psychologist’s response? She informed me that her goal, and that of any responsible psychologist in her opinion, is to encourage the patient to take personal responsibility. Only through taking responsibility and letting go of what she called the “Big Tit in the Sky” could the patient grow and self-actualize.

Bowden is advocating the opposite. He thinks that those with clinical depression should not grow, should not take responsibility. They should instead be shamed for not considering themselves powerless and giving an imaginary friend credit for their successes and blame for their failings. Bowden preaches self-inflicted infantilization as treatment. They should “Let go, and let Sky Tit.”

Band concludes by offering Bowden a spoonful of well-deserved shame for his opportunistic, parasitic “evangelizing”:

Using the distress of people suffering from depression to further a potentially destructive and harmful opinion for personal gain is not virtuous behaviour.

Can I get an “Amen”?

Egyptian parliament proposes legalizing necrophilia for “farewell sex”

Published

Mike Daniels

on April 27, 2012

Had you been thinking that the Arab Spring and the overthrow of the Mubarak regime was going to bring exciting new freedoms to Egyptians? You were right!

High on the Islamist-dominated Parliament’s agenda is allowing every man up to six hours after his wife’s death to have “farewell sex” with her corpse. Oh, and also giving girls the freedom to not be burdened with silly things like education or employment. And lowering the minimum marriage age for girls to 14, freeing them from the burden of waiting for adulthood before marriage.

Secularists in Egypt, along with most rational people, are outraged.

Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.

The appeal came in a message sent by Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, addressing the woes of Egyptian women, especially after the popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.

She was referring to two laws: one that would legalize the marriage of girls starting from the age of 14 and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death.

According to Egyptian columnist Amro Abdul Samea in al-Ahram, Talawi’s message included an appeal to parliament to avoid the controversial legislations that rid women of their rights of getting education and employment, under alleged religious interpretations.

“Talawi tried to underline in her message that marginalizing and undermining the status of women in future development plans would undoubtedly negatively affect the country’s human development, simply because women represent half the population,” Abdul Samea said in his article.

I still haven’t figured out where the US’ Religious Wrong gets the idea that American secularists want to team up with the Islamists. Have you?

No related articles.

Countdown . . .

Published

Mike Daniels

on April 27, 2012

At some point in the next couple of days, the address will transition to the new site. It could be by morning, it could take until Monday. This notice will not exist on the new site. Related articles:

Islamic extremists go multicultural

Published

Mike Daniels

on April 26, 2012

Islamists, perhaps recognizing that their conquest of Europe can’t occur via immigration alone, have developed outreach programs to convert European natives to radical Islam and recruit them into terrorist activities.

Why blow yourself up when you can get an “infidel” to convert and blow himself up instead?

Police Oracle reports:

Islamic extremist groups in Europe are becoming more diverse, ethnically mixed and are attracting an increasing number of new Muslim converts, an analyst has said.

Speaking at the Counter Terror Expo, Lorenzo Vidino – an academic specialising in Islamic extremism issues – said fundamentalist websites previously only seen in Arabic were also now being translated into [a variety of European] languages.

He went on the point out that the dynamic of Islamic extremism across Europe had also been changing with countries such as Germany – which had previously not been affected in any meaningful way – now facing an issue.

Further, recruits are ethnically diverse, including European natives; terrorists are finding roles for men, women, and recent converts. Aiding in recruitment, so-called “jihadist entrepreneurs” are developing and distributing video games focused on engaging in terrorism.

No, you can’t get them at Best Buy. At least not yet.

But surely that’s just a sign of American failure to fully embrace multiculturalism, right? After all, it’s working out so well for Europe.

No related articles.