This post over at Atheist Revolution got me thinking about Prohibition and what a monumental failure it was. So many dead, huge amounts of money & manpower wasted attempting to apprehend criminals who were, of all things, trading in alcohol. Makes you wonder how many extra criminals Prohibition created out of thin air! Now, we do have quite a few wowsers (aka "buzzkills") in this wide brown land of of ours Down Here, however - if anyone seriously asked us to stop drinking alcohol they'd be laughed out of town. But then, the Puritans who landed in the US in the 17th century (and then almost starved to death) left a lasting legacy of, well, puritanical behaviour (Exhibit A: hysteria over Janet Jackson's exposed boob - won't someone think of the children??!), where we down here were founded either by reformed/escaped criminals (e.g. Victoria, New South Wales) or by free settlers from across Europe (e.g. South Australia). Either way, we retained in our genes a love for the demon drink and a deep suspicion of anyone telling us we're not allowed to do stuff that we like doing.
Now, Vjack's post - and the comments thereafter, including some about the US War On Drugs (can't we go a decade without the US declaring war on poverty, terror or something else they'll never defeat because they think all they have to do is just shoot at it?) - also got me thinking about drugs. More specifically, how drugs are demonised in this country. Not all drugs and not as much as in the US perhaps, but certainly to a level occasionally approaching hysteria.
What I find interesting is this: in my home town of Adelaide in Australia, the dreaded weed is decriminalised. You get a fine for a small amount or for one plant, i.e. a quantity for personal use ("personal use" used to cover up to ten plants, amazingly enough - trust me, noone can smoke that much before it goes all dry and shitty). You don't go to jail unless you're clearly growing or stockpiling for distribution, and even then you have to be in posession of quite a bit. Basically, the law is set up to punish the greedy wannabe kingpins and slap the wrist of the casual grower. Fine with me. It's not cool to deal with guys who want to make a living out of it - who actually rent an entire house and grow weed in sophisticated hydro setups in every single room! Also, a lot of the time with guys like that it's not just weed they're into, and and it's not just them or their mate that's involved. I'm just saying, you don't want to deal with guys who for all you know are into some shit with speed-cooking bikers. You don't want to be around some dude's house buying some bush in preparation for a night with the bucket and the PS2 on the same night some amped-up Bandido decides to exact some Scarface-style revenge for something that didn't go so well. We've all seen those movies where a well-meaning but naive doofus gets into some serious shit and ends up dodging more bullets than a Fallujah ambulance driver. Besides, it's just a lot more friendly to hook up via a mate, or a mate's mate, who maybe has a plant or two in the laundry. It's also likely to be cheaper or a more generous deal.
Anyway, bullet-dodging aside, I could grow myself a little friend, get busted and not end up someone's bitch. However! If I were to grow my own tobacco - a legal, addictive & provably deadly drug) without government permission in the form of a producer license I could be jailed for 2 years! For one plant! OR be fined up to - well, over - $50,000. Source: Excise Act 1901.
Why? Because, as an unregistered tobacco grower, I'd be depriving the government of money. Tobacco taxes here are ridiculous - when I started smoking in 1991 at age 15, a pack of Marlboro 20s was about $4, now it's over $11 with like half of that being the tax. To put that into perspective, a glass of beer has gone up less than a buck in that time and CDs have remained the same at $30 - in a lot of stores they've gone down. I'm really glad I quit 6 years ago when my Peter Stuyvesant 20s were approaching 9 bucks.
So, if I grow one dope plant for personal use, I guess the law figures I'm not hurting anyone or depriving anyone of anything. So I get a small fine, no jail, no criminal record. I grow one tobacco plant - and deprive the government of a small chunk of one of its biggest income streams (along with alcohol and gambling) and I'm instantly a criminal who deserves jail time or to go bankrupt. For growing my own cigarettes! While my neighbour with his weed crop gets comparatively nothing!
Now, to me, this is laughable - we're expected to take drug policy in this country seriously while the government rakes in cash from the most dangerous & addictive drug this side of heroin (yet allows it to remain legal) and punishes severely anyone who tries to produce it without their approval (and associated piece of the action). This by any other name would be called a racket.
However, there's a positive, and a model to be examined: because of the government's racketeering, there's no real black market for tobacco. No prohibition-style gang wars, like when the righteous banned that most enjoyable of legal drugs - alcohol. No gangland drug deal-related murder sprees like those which rocked my home of Melbourne in recent years (check out the recent TV series "Underbelly" - it rules). No wannabes growing weed in every room of a rented house using off-grid, stolen electricity.
So, now I think about it, maybe I'm backwards on this - maybe the government should apply their tobacco policy to weed & other drugs and get into all of them - they could rake in the cash, clean up the drugs so noone's shooting drain cleaner up their arm or snorting sherbert powder & punish the hell out of anyone who gets in on their racket. At least that'd be consistent!
The main reason, in my estimation, that tobacco isn't trafficked like weed, or just grown in peoples' backyards, is because the government has had its hands tight around the production & distribution for the last however, century and a bit. They control who grows it, they tax the shit out of it, they legislate where you can smoke it, they punish unregistered producers. They even publicly rail against it, banning cigarette advertising pretty much across the board and requiring tobacco companies to plaster their packages with detailed, visceral images of smoking-related maladies - all the while taking gobs of money from the afflictee and the afflictor. Now, much as they do rail against smoking in all avenues (when they know they're being recorded) and pay lip service to various reps from the AMA and anti-tobacco lobby, the government can't ban smoking. Yet. Mostly because there's not yet a revenue stream that can adequately replace that of tobacco tax. Also, they're probably aware that the trade will go underground as surely as the liquor trade did during US Prohibition, creating a shipload more criminals where there weren't before. The effects on the economy through loss of jobs and exports would also be astronomical. At this point, it makes sense for the government to continue to tell everyone that smoking is evil but take a major cut of the profits from the activity. There are probably more reasons, maybe even more compelling ones, but those'll do for now.
So, the government have plenty of good reasons to continue to support & control tobacco production. The main ones being that they reap taxes and that it would be excessively counterproductive, even harmful, to ban or criminalise it. As a result, anyone over 18 can go into a store and buy, consume and get hopelessly addicted to tobacco, quite probably costing themselves & us (as taxpayers) billions a year through healthcare-related costs and anti-smoking campaigns - billions which, in part, would come from precisely the tax they paid on their cigarettes in the first place.
Now, while I'd like to see weed 100% legalised nationally, attracting no penalties at all for growing or consuming and not being under any governmental oversight - which would remove the criminal element from it entirely and allow anyone to have it growing next to their tomatoes and basil, guilt-free - I understand why the government wouldn't allow it. They would have no control if granny could pop in a couple of plants next to the petunias to help with her trick knee when the weather gets cold. It perhaps wouldn't be like people growing their own tobacco, as weed for most people is in no way as addictive (can be strongly habit-forming though, and very hard to stop for heavy users - but so can coffee, trust me on that), so nowhere near as many people would grow it. And, well, some people just don't like being stoned. Fair enough. Even those who do enjoy being stoned generally don't smoke a joint three or ten or fifty times a day like cigarette addicts do.
Still, though, if the government added weed to its drink & smoke racketeering, it would corner the market on recreational soft drugs in this country. The "Big Three" would be under the auspices of the government. You'd buy your gram from a store, licensed to sell weed the same way a bar is licensed to sell liquor & the government would get its cut from the distributor. The weed would come from an approved producer who pays his annual license fee, scaled according to the size of his operation. The government wouldn't make as much money as it does on ciggies because weed doesn't hook you in like tobacco does, but it'd be a nice little earner and they'd retain that all-important control of the product, all the way from the go stage to the "woah" stage. Not only that, you'd keep jails and courtrooms free of smokers & growers. You'd free up drug cops to chase smack rings and speed cookers.
Of course, in a flash of blinding irony, it would mean anyone caught growing their own weed without permission, but while it was legal, would get into even more trouble than they would if they were caught today while it's technically illegal. It may also mean that anyone wanting to get into drug distribution as a career move wouldn't bother with now-legal & tightly-controlled weed as a stepping stone. Here's the real "gateway" danger, kids - not that smoking weed would lead you to heroin, but that growing weed as a business venture may well lead you to thinking that dealing horse with the Triads or eckies with the Carl Williamses or speed with the outlaw bikers of this world is a quick, easy way to a pimped Hummer and a beach house with nine plasma screens and wall-to-wall hotties. Which, as any movie will have already told you, leads to ruin and maybe even an explodey, kickass death. Remember Scarface? New Jack City? Any druggie movie that ends in a hail of lead? Hell, forget fiction: Pablo Escobar, King of Medellin, the infamous godfather of all Latino smugglers, whose income once rivalled that of many multinationals, ended up with more holes in him than the plots of the Matrix & Minority Report combined.
So, in closing: perhaps it's better to keep weed technically illegal because the penalty for growing your own without permission under some tobacoo-style, tax-heavy governmental oversight would probably be worse than it is today.
Also in closing: I don't know what the hell to do about heroin, ice, coke, speed, eckies or any of the other shit I don't touch with a ten-foot clown pole. Maybe the government should get into everything! Take control of distribution (like the US did with the raw materials for quaaludes), clean it all up, oust the criminal element completely and shut every skanky backyard dealer, cutting up his shit with ground glass and icing sugar, down for good.
Pfft, whatever. If I wasn't at work I'd go have a smoke right now. My brain's a little hepped up on caffeine right now and I'm not thinking straight. Could use a chillout.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Vatican Watch: pretend country opposes decriminalisation of homosexuality
From [Reuters]:
Migliore, you stupid little shit, it's not about (ooh booga booga) gay marriage. People are being KILLED because they're gay and being gay is against the law in some countries. Killed fucking dead. Because they're gay. And you don't seem to give a shit about putting a to stop that. Which doesn't surprise me, considering that, when it comes to most of the rest of the developed world, including pretty much all of your European neighbours including the country that fucking well tolerates your presence in its capital, you are completely arse-backwards on basically every point relating to human sexual freedom. Sex before marriage? No, what if you liked it? You'd want to do it a lot but maybe not to conceive new Catholics, all fresh, branded with an Original Sin they had no fucking control over and ready to be "saved". The simple act of contraception? Hell no, then there'd be no abortions to wring your hands over and no fresh marinated Catholic bums on pews (and what precise passage forbids contraception anway? Did the ol' Jews know about the pill?). Homosexuality? Bah, give me strength. Sure, we don't execute them anymore but it's still wrong. And don't even get us started on female priests. Well, look - considering you're a pack of repressed virgins (except for the ones that rape children and are allowed to get away with it), I don't think you're any more qualified to hand out dictates about sexual behaviour than I am to hand out instructions on how to orbit the fucking Moon. If you don't know how it works, if you haven't had sufficient experience, don't goddam well presume to hand out an instruction manual. I wouldn't tell people how to "Shut The Fuck Up" unless I knew how to do it. Well ... I've got a fair grasp on the theory, so shut the damn hell fuck up.
Does anyone take these Papist fuckers seriously anymore? If so, why? Exactly what function does the Papacy serve at the UN? Precisely what is accomplished by giving this pretend country/museum of iniquity and horror a vote equal to that of other nations who actually contain real people and not glorified statue-polishers? These Janitors for Jesus seem to do sweet fuck all except provide enough soundbites to show the world just exactly how out of step they are with evolved modern societies. There's a reason Europe & the world shunned the Papacy and its Inquisitions & Dark Age in favour of democracy & knowledge and the Papists show this to us all at every opportunity with statements like those of Migliore. What, if anything, does the Vatican contribute to the UN except embarrassing anachronistic remarks? Who exactly does the Vatican represent? A billion Catholics? No! They're all citizens of the other 190+whatever proper countries with seats at the UN.
Seriously, what it is going to take for the UN to realise that the Vatican should be seen and not freaking heard? It's like the embarrassing great-uncle at Christmas time whose rude, racist, homophobic & generally offensive remarks everyone tolerates because he's been around forever, has tons of cash & everyone knows he's losing his mind. Everyone knows he won't be around forever, including him, so everyone's just holding their tongue until he pops his clogs. Noone really knows (or cares) how he fits into the family tree except for the oldest rellies, but they don't like him either.
So, yes, SIGH, Mandy's got another frickin Catholic hate-boner. Again, I must point out it's not actual Catholics that inspire this rage. From any post on this blog marked "catholic" it should be pretty clear it's the administration, the empire and its spokes-idiots that raise my bile. I know full-well that there are plenty of other religious organisations that deserve at least equal loathing & dark wizardry, but there really are none that compare to the Vatican - the 1500 year old Christian empire, constant enemy of knowledge, science and societal evolution, constant defender of gender/sexual inequality & child-rapists. No other religious organisation has been around for as long & has its own pretend country & corresponding seat at the fucking UN. For every Catholic city mission, nobly handing out blankets and feeding the homeless, there's a statement from some senior manager, laying out the official policy that anyone who's not a Catholic male is basically fucked. No other nation/empire has as lengthy or as reprehensible a history when it comes to human rights. Crusades, Inquisitions, Nazi appeasement, enabling child-rapists, lying about condoms & AIDS (condeming untold numbers to death), railing against masturbation, contraception AND abortion (effectively a three-pronged attack against sexual freedom of choice of any kind) and now, effectively condoning the executions of gays in tin-pot shitty little theocracies across the world.
Seriously, what the fuck is going to wake the UN up to this antiquated museum masquerading as a nation? Do they just keep them around to piss the Arabs off?
Bah, whatever, Merry fucking Christmas. Fuck the Pope and all his little wizards.
VATICAN CITY, Dec 2 (Reuters) - Gay rights groups and newspaper editorials on Tuesday condemned the Vatican for its decision to oppose a proposed U.N. resolution calling on governments worldwide to de-criminalise homosexuality.
The row erupted after the Vatican's permanent observer to the United Nations told a French Catholic news agency the Holy See would oppose the resolution, which France is due to propose later this month on behalf of the 27-member European Union.
Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.
"If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations," Migliore said. "For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure," Migliore said.
Migliore, you stupid little shit, it's not about (ooh booga booga) gay marriage. People are being KILLED because they're gay and being gay is against the law in some countries. Killed fucking dead. Because they're gay. And you don't seem to give a shit about putting a to stop that. Which doesn't surprise me, considering that, when it comes to most of the rest of the developed world, including pretty much all of your European neighbours including the country that fucking well tolerates your presence in its capital, you are completely arse-backwards on basically every point relating to human sexual freedom. Sex before marriage? No, what if you liked it? You'd want to do it a lot but maybe not to conceive new Catholics, all fresh, branded with an Original Sin they had no fucking control over and ready to be "saved". The simple act of contraception? Hell no, then there'd be no abortions to wring your hands over and no fresh marinated Catholic bums on pews (and what precise passage forbids contraception anway? Did the ol' Jews know about the pill?). Homosexuality? Bah, give me strength. Sure, we don't execute them anymore but it's still wrong. And don't even get us started on female priests. Well, look - considering you're a pack of repressed virgins (except for the ones that rape children and are allowed to get away with it), I don't think you're any more qualified to hand out dictates about sexual behaviour than I am to hand out instructions on how to orbit the fucking Moon. If you don't know how it works, if you haven't had sufficient experience, don't goddam well presume to hand out an instruction manual. I wouldn't tell people how to "Shut The Fuck Up" unless I knew how to do it. Well ... I've got a fair grasp on the theory, so shut the damn hell fuck up.
Does anyone take these Papist fuckers seriously anymore? If so, why? Exactly what function does the Papacy serve at the UN? Precisely what is accomplished by giving this pretend country/museum of iniquity and horror a vote equal to that of other nations who actually contain real people and not glorified statue-polishers? These Janitors for Jesus seem to do sweet fuck all except provide enough soundbites to show the world just exactly how out of step they are with evolved modern societies. There's a reason Europe & the world shunned the Papacy and its Inquisitions & Dark Age in favour of democracy & knowledge and the Papists show this to us all at every opportunity with statements like those of Migliore. What, if anything, does the Vatican contribute to the UN except embarrassing anachronistic remarks? Who exactly does the Vatican represent? A billion Catholics? No! They're all citizens of the other 190+whatever proper countries with seats at the UN.
Seriously, what it is going to take for the UN to realise that the Vatican should be seen and not freaking heard? It's like the embarrassing great-uncle at Christmas time whose rude, racist, homophobic & generally offensive remarks everyone tolerates because he's been around forever, has tons of cash & everyone knows he's losing his mind. Everyone knows he won't be around forever, including him, so everyone's just holding their tongue until he pops his clogs. Noone really knows (or cares) how he fits into the family tree except for the oldest rellies, but they don't like him either.
So, yes, SIGH, Mandy's got another frickin Catholic hate-boner. Again, I must point out it's not actual Catholics that inspire this rage. From any post on this blog marked "catholic" it should be pretty clear it's the administration, the empire and its spokes-idiots that raise my bile. I know full-well that there are plenty of other religious organisations that deserve at least equal loathing & dark wizardry, but there really are none that compare to the Vatican - the 1500 year old Christian empire, constant enemy of knowledge, science and societal evolution, constant defender of gender/sexual inequality & child-rapists. No other religious organisation has been around for as long & has its own pretend country & corresponding seat at the fucking UN. For every Catholic city mission, nobly handing out blankets and feeding the homeless, there's a statement from some senior manager, laying out the official policy that anyone who's not a Catholic male is basically fucked. No other nation/empire has as lengthy or as reprehensible a history when it comes to human rights. Crusades, Inquisitions, Nazi appeasement, enabling child-rapists, lying about condoms & AIDS (condeming untold numbers to death), railing against masturbation, contraception AND abortion (effectively a three-pronged attack against sexual freedom of choice of any kind) and now, effectively condoning the executions of gays in tin-pot shitty little theocracies across the world.
Seriously, what the fuck is going to wake the UN up to this antiquated museum masquerading as a nation? Do they just keep them around to piss the Arabs off?
Bah, whatever, Merry fucking Christmas. Fuck the Pope and all his little wizards.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Ray Comfort is a fucking idiot
"Fucking" being the operative word in this case. That is, he reproduces, or can or will reproduce (oh god, I sincerely hope not) sexually. With another person.
However, he is under the following mistaken impression about Darwinian evolution (a mistaken impression about evolution? Ray? Say it aint so!):
Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half).
Ray Comfort, you are a fucking, fucking, FUCKING idiot. At no point, ever in human history, or even pre-human history, have "we" (bipedal apes) reproduced via splitting in half. At no point, ever in Darwin's history, did he "theorise" that humans ever could or ever did reproduce asexually. That is possibly the most unimaginably, mind-bogglingy brain-rapingly stupid thing you've ever written on your blog (which is really, really saying something).
OK then, I shall attempt to be charitable. If you're not simply a fucking clueless idiot, then you're one of the following: (a) laughably, pathetically ignorant, (b) in complete understanding of what you read but flat-out lying through your teeth about what evolutionary theory says, for some reason, (c) unable to read & comprehend words of your own language that are put in an easily decipherable order that clearly & unambiguously describes a concept or idea or (d) deliberately baiting atheists with what you know to be complete falsehoods in order to rile them up and expose to your loyal cadre of credulous Raytheists exactly how unpleasant atheists are, all of the time (not just when responding to such blatant falsehood). It could even be (e): you're a cynical charlatan who takes great delight in simultaneously pissing off & misrepresenting atheists & scientists while taking the money of history's easiest, softest, most stationary targets: hardcore evangelists who take the Bible literally.
If it's simple ignorance or carelessness at the root of this ridiculous error, that could be excused - except that you frequently present yourself as some kind of authority or expert or, at the very least, a knowledgeable & educated layman in the areas of evolution and the development of life, all in order to lend credence and credibility to your supposed debunkings of it, which eliminates (a). Obviously you can read & write English and I've even seen you speak it on youtube while masturbating a banana, so (c) is out. Option (b) - you're a bald-faced liar - is very likely, I think, as is (d) - you just like baiting atheists or just anybody who believes evolution is a well-supported theory backed by literally millions of pieces of evidence gathered over 150 years by humans (including so many transitional fossils that it would pretty much require a textbook to list and describe them all), but amassed over the past 3.7 billion years by the natural processes of our planet, with much still waiting to be discovered. Option (e) - that you're a charlatan, ripping off credulous idiots in the full knowledge that what you're peddling is bullshit - is very, very possible (because you wouldn't be the first) but I don't think it's likely.
It's hard to tell which of those it is. You appear earnest and stupid and ignorant enough to believe what you're saying (which would require of even the most cynical of charlatans and gifted of actors a Herculean effort to either not burst out laughing at the idiocy of your statements and gullibility of your patsies or to simply not choke on the vomit that would arise in most rational people were they to attempt to portray your fantasies as truth) and you display a deep misunderstanding and dislike of people who aren't religious, or who just understand what science is (which would explain why might enjoy baiting them with your fabrications and seemingly deliberate misunderstandings on a website called 'atheist central'). Flat-out liar? Well, only if you know what you're saying is bullshit - you don't seem to know much at all that's useful, which really just leaves my original position: that you're a fucking idiot. Oh, and a charlatan - because you do take peoples' money - the fact that you believe your own bullshit doesn't change the fact that you are indeed a peddler of complete bullshit. And you're an ignorant cretin - the evidence you seek is all around you, yet you refuse to read & understand it. So, I suppose you're a mix of all of those ... you're a standard-issue creationist evolution-denier, ripping off the faithful and spreading ignorance, while simultaneously demonising anyone who disagrees with your narrow, literalist reading of the Bible, while at the same time completely misrepresenting the arguments and points of view of your opponents in order to argue against them (because I think we all know if you attacked the arguments of evolution as they actually are - and not how you see them - you'd fail dismally). So, you can add fucking liar to that list too.
It's hard to tell which of those it is. You appear earnest and stupid and ignorant enough to believe what you're saying (which would require of even the most cynical of charlatans and gifted of actors a Herculean effort to either not burst out laughing at the idiocy of your statements and gullibility of your patsies or to simply not choke on the vomit that would arise in most rational people were they to attempt to portray your fantasies as truth) and you display a deep misunderstanding and dislike of people who aren't religious, or who just understand what science is (which would explain why might enjoy baiting them with your fabrications and seemingly deliberate misunderstandings on a website called 'atheist central'). Flat-out liar? Well, only if you know what you're saying is bullshit - you don't seem to know much at all that's useful, which really just leaves my original position: that you're a fucking idiot. Oh, and a charlatan - because you do take peoples' money - the fact that you believe your own bullshit doesn't change the fact that you are indeed a peddler of complete bullshit. And you're an ignorant cretin - the evidence you seek is all around you, yet you refuse to read & understand it. So, I suppose you're a mix of all of those ... you're a standard-issue creationist evolution-denier, ripping off the faithful and spreading ignorance, while simultaneously demonising anyone who disagrees with your narrow, literalist reading of the Bible, while at the same time completely misrepresenting the arguments and points of view of your opponents in order to argue against them (because I think we all know if you attacked the arguments of evolution as they actually are - and not how you see them - you'd fail dismally). So, you can add fucking liar to that list too.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Comment Policy
1. You can say whatever you want.
Really. Go to town! It's all about robust discussion and the exchange of ideas and shit. I won't delete your comment. Probably.
2. Don't be a dick.
If you need that explained to you, it's already too late.
3. Don't be anonymous.
You don't need to use your own name (duh, this is the interwebs), but don't cop out. If a discussion breaks out, it's convenient to have a name to address responses to.
4. I reserve the right to change the rules at any time.
Mainly because I can and because this is my blog and not a democracy - free speech is a great love of mine, but you do not have the right be a dick on my blog. Hopefully I won't have to because you're all going to be nice to each other and nice to me, even though there may be disagreements over things we may hold sacred.
Thanks for your time.
Really. Go to town! It's all about robust discussion and the exchange of ideas and shit. I won't delete your comment. Probably.
2. Don't be a dick.
If you need that explained to you, it's already too late.
3. Don't be anonymous.
You don't need to use your own name (duh, this is the interwebs), but don't cop out. If a discussion breaks out, it's convenient to have a name to address responses to.
4. I reserve the right to change the rules at any time.
Mainly because I can and because this is my blog and not a democracy - free speech is a great love of mine, but you do not have the right be a dick on my blog. Hopefully I won't have to because you're all going to be nice to each other and nice to me, even though there may be disagreements over things we may hold sacred.
Thanks for your time.
On The Buses - everywhere but Down Under...
...but do I give a toss?
Recently, atheist bus ads have popped up in the UK and the US to much acclaim from freethinkers and much tiresome bitching & moaning from the usual suspects. Buses are so hot right now! However, an attempt by an Aussie atheist group to have their own ads on our buses has been unsuccessful. The Atheist Foundation of Australia wanted to buy ad space, the ad company, APN Outdoor, refused to sell it to them. And it seems they didn't explain why. I certainly don't see the harm in slogans like "Sleep in on Sunday mornings" or "Celebrate reason", but I guess APN have their reasons. Such as - they're a pack of bastards with double standards higher than Israel's separation wall. So, yes, it's disappointing. Even annoying! And refusing to take someone's freely-offered money is just goddamned un-Australian. Not to mention that glaring double-standard: the article explains that APN had buses in Adelaide plastered with the Bible verse John 3:16 - that's the one about God loving the world so much that he had himself (in the form of his hippy son) tortured & executed to forgive us all of our sins, especially the original sin committed by Adam & Eve, the guilt of which apparently extends several millennia onto every last one of us, from birth - conception - no less, giving us no damn choice but to accept the hippy as our saviour. Nice. World's oldest protection racket - "Say, that's a nice soul you got there...be a shame if anything, I dunno, happened to it..."
Now, some people might find the public assertion that we're all destined for eternal torment at the whim of a celestial tyrant, unless we accept that he had himself (his human avatar anyway) murdered to save us all from the Hell he created and could simply choose not to send us to, somewhat offensive. But an atheist wouldn't try to stifle someone's freedom to say so. They'd only ask for the same freedom to say something arguably less offensive - like "sleep in" or "celebrate reason". If one group can buy an ad saying "God exists and is awesome and will roast your soul", another group should have an equal right to ask "how can you be sure?" or "just be good!"
Anyway & however.
Apart from the 50-foot high, floodlit double standard on display from APN, I really don't think I care. Yes, people should have the freedom to say what they want. Equally, advertising companies, like any seedy bar with a handwritten sign, may "reserve the right to refuse service". Commerce isn't an equal opportunity industry - people can sell to whomever they choose and refuse the money of whomever they choose. Although, in this case, it seems the Aussie Atheists aren't able to buy space from anyone else, because it seems APN are more or less a monopoly when it comes to bus ads. And billboards. Which is a shame. Any time when one company has more-or-less total control of a particular medium, it's very easy for that company to exercise unfair control of the messages people want to spread. I think if TAFA have a good case to sue then they bloody well should.
But I just don't think a public awareness of atheism campaign is necessary in Australia. Most of the time when you hear religion in our media it's either about some whiner from Family First having an tiresome, sky-is-falling crack about the sanctity of marriage and how the gays want to take it from us and make all our kids gay, some cardinal something-or-other droning on about other peoples' sexual & reproductive rights (as if they have any first-hand evidence of sex with adults anyway) & reminding everyone exactly how out of touch his crew are with modern Australia and its evolving moral landscape, or some off-leash imam, comparing liberally-dressed Aussie women to uncovered meat (then failing to see what's wrong with that). Most people in this country tend to keep their religious beliefs private, and we (because we're such cynical bastards) tend to look on anyone who's oh-so-earnestly preaching anything with a sideways glance - even those ostensibly on the same side as the preacher. That's what I think would happen with this atheist campaign - people would see the atheist bus ads, go - derisively - "ok, righto, whatever mate, good onya" and get on with their day. Much as they do when they see a religious ad. Or an ad for oven cleaner. Much as I do when I see dreadlocked greenie ferals screaming hysterically at police when they break up a protest and start arresting people. Do yourselves, and the image of your cause, a good solid favour you stinky bastards - peaceful, non-violent resistance. Civil disobedience, not obscenity-laden tirades and throwing rocks and lighting fireworks to freak the horses out. Ghandi & MLK made enormous strides! I'm on your side and I love my planet too, but it'll get you a lot more respect and public support if you quit the usual drum-beating chants, face painting and screams of "fascist!" You're there to make a political point, not start a freaking roots festival on the steps of Parliament House.
Among my wide & varied circle of friends and family, religion doesn't come up at all, even amongst my fundy cousins or the few of my friends that I know for sure are religious (there are probably more than I'm aware of). Not because we actively avoid talking about it, it's just that it's considered a private matter and really isn't pertinent. My lack of religion is the same. My folks, brothers, friends & I have the odd cackle at nutters but we don't sit around discussing the finer points of non-belief. We all have more important and more fun things to do and to talk about, especially considering we only see each other twice a year. It's the same across the country. Put it this way: whenever a group of Aussies watch the Grammy awards, we play the "I wanna thank my lord and saviour Jesus Christ" drinking game and we're usually blotto before they even get to the hip-hop/r&b categories.
So ... back on topic: while I'm a tad miffed at APN refusing, for seemingly no good reason, to take money from the decent godless folk of TAFA, I didn't really see the need for an atheist awareness campaign in this country to begin with. We're not contending with a home-grown wannabe Taliban-for-Jesus like our Yank chums or with flamin' sharia courts like our Pommy inferiors (sharia courts, you idiots? WTF?). We're not fighting uphill against the active public bigotry & political marginalisation of the godless. We're not battling for simple acceptance. We're not the suffragettes or gays or blacks of our day (hell, the Aboriginals of right now are still getting screwed). We godless are already all over the place and most people wouldn't even know who believes what in Parliament House anyway!
But hey, bugger it - get the ads up there. I'd just like to see the reactions from the usual suspects! If nothing else it'd make good blog fodder.
Recently, atheist bus ads have popped up in the UK and the US to much acclaim from freethinkers and much tiresome bitching & moaning from the usual suspects. Buses are so hot right now! However, an attempt by an Aussie atheist group to have their own ads on our buses has been unsuccessful. The Atheist Foundation of Australia wanted to buy ad space, the ad company, APN Outdoor, refused to sell it to them. And it seems they didn't explain why. I certainly don't see the harm in slogans like "Sleep in on Sunday mornings" or "Celebrate reason", but I guess APN have their reasons. Such as - they're a pack of bastards with double standards higher than Israel's separation wall. So, yes, it's disappointing. Even annoying! And refusing to take someone's freely-offered money is just goddamned un-Australian. Not to mention that glaring double-standard: the article explains that APN had buses in Adelaide plastered with the Bible verse John 3:16 - that's the one about God loving the world so much that he had himself (in the form of his hippy son) tortured & executed to forgive us all of our sins, especially the original sin committed by Adam & Eve, the guilt of which apparently extends several millennia onto every last one of us, from birth - conception - no less, giving us no damn choice but to accept the hippy as our saviour. Nice. World's oldest protection racket - "Say, that's a nice soul you got there...be a shame if anything, I dunno, happened to it..."
Now, some people might find the public assertion that we're all destined for eternal torment at the whim of a celestial tyrant, unless we accept that he had himself (his human avatar anyway) murdered to save us all from the Hell he created and could simply choose not to send us to, somewhat offensive. But an atheist wouldn't try to stifle someone's freedom to say so. They'd only ask for the same freedom to say something arguably less offensive - like "sleep in" or "celebrate reason". If one group can buy an ad saying "God exists and is awesome and will roast your soul", another group should have an equal right to ask "how can you be sure?" or "just be good!"
Anyway & however.
Apart from the 50-foot high, floodlit double standard on display from APN, I really don't think I care. Yes, people should have the freedom to say what they want. Equally, advertising companies, like any seedy bar with a handwritten sign, may "reserve the right to refuse service". Commerce isn't an equal opportunity industry - people can sell to whomever they choose and refuse the money of whomever they choose. Although, in this case, it seems the Aussie Atheists aren't able to buy space from anyone else, because it seems APN are more or less a monopoly when it comes to bus ads. And billboards. Which is a shame. Any time when one company has more-or-less total control of a particular medium, it's very easy for that company to exercise unfair control of the messages people want to spread. I think if TAFA have a good case to sue then they bloody well should.
But I just don't think a public awareness of atheism campaign is necessary in Australia. Most of the time when you hear religion in our media it's either about some whiner from Family First having an tiresome, sky-is-falling crack about the sanctity of marriage and how the gays want to take it from us and make all our kids gay, some cardinal something-or-other droning on about other peoples' sexual & reproductive rights (as if they have any first-hand evidence of sex with adults anyway) & reminding everyone exactly how out of touch his crew are with modern Australia and its evolving moral landscape, or some off-leash imam, comparing liberally-dressed Aussie women to uncovered meat (then failing to see what's wrong with that). Most people in this country tend to keep their religious beliefs private, and we (because we're such cynical bastards) tend to look on anyone who's oh-so-earnestly preaching anything with a sideways glance - even those ostensibly on the same side as the preacher. That's what I think would happen with this atheist campaign - people would see the atheist bus ads, go - derisively - "ok, righto, whatever mate, good onya" and get on with their day. Much as they do when they see a religious ad. Or an ad for oven cleaner. Much as I do when I see dreadlocked greenie ferals screaming hysterically at police when they break up a protest and start arresting people. Do yourselves, and the image of your cause, a good solid favour you stinky bastards - peaceful, non-violent resistance. Civil disobedience, not obscenity-laden tirades and throwing rocks and lighting fireworks to freak the horses out. Ghandi & MLK made enormous strides! I'm on your side and I love my planet too, but it'll get you a lot more respect and public support if you quit the usual drum-beating chants, face painting and screams of "fascist!" You're there to make a political point, not start a freaking roots festival on the steps of Parliament House.
Among my wide & varied circle of friends and family, religion doesn't come up at all, even amongst my fundy cousins or the few of my friends that I know for sure are religious (there are probably more than I'm aware of). Not because we actively avoid talking about it, it's just that it's considered a private matter and really isn't pertinent. My lack of religion is the same. My folks, brothers, friends & I have the odd cackle at nutters but we don't sit around discussing the finer points of non-belief. We all have more important and more fun things to do and to talk about, especially considering we only see each other twice a year. It's the same across the country. Put it this way: whenever a group of Aussies watch the Grammy awards, we play the "I wanna thank my lord and saviour Jesus Christ" drinking game and we're usually blotto before they even get to the hip-hop/r&b categories.
So ... back on topic: while I'm a tad miffed at APN refusing, for seemingly no good reason, to take money from the decent godless folk of TAFA, I didn't really see the need for an atheist awareness campaign in this country to begin with. We're not contending with a home-grown wannabe Taliban-for-Jesus like our Yank chums or with flamin' sharia courts like our Pommy inferiors (sharia courts, you idiots? WTF?). We're not fighting uphill against the active public bigotry & political marginalisation of the godless. We're not battling for simple acceptance. We're not the suffragettes or gays or blacks of our day (hell, the Aboriginals of right now are still getting screwed). We godless are already all over the place and most people wouldn't even know who believes what in Parliament House anyway!
But hey, bugger it - get the ads up there. I'd just like to see the reactions from the usual suspects! If nothing else it'd make good blog fodder.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
US Court allows case against Vatican
*sailor-talk warning*
Excellent.
[source]
Hold the fuckers liable, make them accountable and make them PAY. A LOT. Not just money either, I want to see some people jailed. And perhaps [SOMETHING], very roughly, by a large, angry Aryan Brother. Or, poetically perhaps, shanked in the neck by some poor damaged junkie kid whose descent into the criminal underworld began at the hands of some cassocked nonce one night after vespers.
Excuse my French, but the only thing that fucks me off as much if not more than a rapist of children is someone convering up for a rapist of children.
From the Wall St Journal article:
Which is almost as bad as the abuse itself. If you personally know of a crime and neglect to report it, you become an accessory to that crime by allowing it to continue.
Well now, if you know of a crime being committed but have been specifically ordered by your employers/superiors/robed & mitred capos not to report it, then they're also accessories. Yes, also. No fucking way will "just following orders" get you out of this one. Didn't work for the last crew of brainwashed, uniformed, ignorant fucks who took over the world, powered by mythology and brutality.
Okay, I rag on Catholicism more often than most people. I definitely have a chip on each shoulder about the organisation. But only because the Papacy goddam well deserves it. It's not the regular everyday believers, the doctrines, the beliefs, the rituals - none of that shit matters. It's the Vatican's actions that define it and it's their actions that fuck me off. Crusades, centuries of Jew-hatred, Nazi sympathy. Constant, deadly lies and anti-human rights bullshit about abortion, contraception, premarital sex. And it's not just the child abuse - paedophiles are found in every scummy little corner of society. But the Papacy seems to have had a decades-old policy of denying, ignoring or flat-out enabling the sick bastards to continue with their depravity (and this organisation has the fucking nerve to oppose gay equality!).
The Vatican's hundreds of years old, has a billion followers and claims to be the one true church of the ever-lovin Christ-child, son of the one true god. It claims to be the halfway house between horrid, yukky Earth and totally awesome, sparkly Heaven. It claims to represent the one true god's all-loving persona...but the one thing that rankles me most: the Papacy's wizards go on frequent rampages about abortion & contraception, all in the name of the little children, God's dear children, those teeny lil' everyday miracles with their big eyes and innocence and for the love of god won't anyone think of the children!? Don't abort that clump of cells, it has a soul (never mind that between a third and a half of all pregnancies spontaneously self-terminate, often before the woman even knows she's pregnant - does that make God the world's most voracious abortionist?)! Don't use contraception, think of the soul you're not creating when you waste your more-or-less-infinite sperm (never mind that gazillions of sperm are wasted with every attempt at conception anyway, with every single wet dream, with every sample given for medical reasons and by every man who doesn't even ejaculate let alone conceive a child every single fucking day of his life, which is most of us)!
Well, OK Vatican, you claim you care about children, about new souls (I think you give more of a fuck about your membership drying up, but that's another post). Why, then, have you put so much effort over the years into protecting members of your organisation who have abused & raped the trust, minds, bodies and hearts of countless innocent CHILDREN? If reports of that 1962 memo from Johnny are accurate, does that not just shoot down your pathetic soundbyte-ready hand-wringing every time someone mentions "family planning" or "safe sex" down in hypocritical flames? Every time I see one of your frocked spokestrolls on TV with his concerned, bulbous face spouting about abortion or frangers being evil, I shout at the TV, "what the FUCK are you FUCKING HYPOCRITES doing about your FUCKING PAEDOPHILE ARMY?"
Or do you people only care about God's precious little children before they're born?
I hope similar decisions happen the world over - I'd like to see truly massive lawsuits come from every corner of the globe and millions of subpoenas land on the Vatican's gigantic fucking gold-encrusted doorstep. I can think of few better ways for the Papacy to go stone cold fucking broke than emptying its coffers & selling up all its zillions of acres of real estate settling with victims of the rapist priests they've been enabling for decades. I'd like to see irrelevant wastes of space like Ratzinger & Pell have no goddam choice but to take a vow of poverty. I'd like the Vatican's secret libraries wide open to the public, so we can all see exactly what they've been hiding from the world for so long (like what they left out of the Bible - and why). I'd like to see the Vatican cease being its own pretend country, lose its UN seat (how the FUCK did that even happen at all?), start paying fucking taxes and become the world's greatest museum - a monument to both artistic genius and extreme human greed, criminal hypocrisy and spiritual imperialism based on guilt & fear. Hell, I'd like to see the whole disgusting scam exposed for what it is and see a billion people freed.
Excellent.
[source]
Hold the fuckers liable, make them accountable and make them PAY. A LOT. Not just money either, I want to see some people jailed. And perhaps [SOMETHING], very roughly, by a large, angry Aryan Brother. Or, poetically perhaps, shanked in the neck by some poor damaged junkie kid whose descent into the criminal underworld began at the hands of some cassocked nonce one night after vespers.
Excuse my French, but the only thing that fucks me off as much if not more than a rapist of children is someone convering up for a rapist of children.
From the Wall St Journal article:
A federal appeals court has permitted a lawsuit over alleged sexual abuse to proceed against the Vatican, creating potential liability for the seat of the Roman Catholic faith for the activities of Catholic clergy in the U.S.
Monday's ruling, issued by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, marks the first time a court at so high a level has recognized that the Vatican could be liable for the negligence in sexual-abuse cases brought in the U.S.
The ruling is seen as a breakthrough by those allegedly abused by priests. Investigators and grand juries have found several instances where the church failed to report alleged abusers and covered up alleged misdeeds to protect them.
Which is almost as bad as the abuse itself. If you personally know of a crime and neglect to report it, you become an accessory to that crime by allowing it to continue.
One of the central pieces of evidence in the case is a 1962 memo, issued by the Vatican and disclosed by reporters in 2003, which directs Catholic bishops to keep silent about claims of sex abuse. The document was approved by Pope John the 23rd.
Well now, if you know of a crime being committed but have been specifically ordered by your employers/superiors/robed & mitred capos not to report it, then they're also accessories. Yes, also. No fucking way will "just following orders" get you out of this one. Didn't work for the last crew of brainwashed, uniformed, ignorant fucks who took over the world, powered by mythology and brutality.
Okay, I rag on Catholicism more often than most people. I definitely have a chip on each shoulder about the organisation. But only because the Papacy goddam well deserves it. It's not the regular everyday believers, the doctrines, the beliefs, the rituals - none of that shit matters. It's the Vatican's actions that define it and it's their actions that fuck me off. Crusades, centuries of Jew-hatred, Nazi sympathy. Constant, deadly lies and anti-human rights bullshit about abortion, contraception, premarital sex. And it's not just the child abuse - paedophiles are found in every scummy little corner of society. But the Papacy seems to have had a decades-old policy of denying, ignoring or flat-out enabling the sick bastards to continue with their depravity (and this organisation has the fucking nerve to oppose gay equality!).
The Vatican's hundreds of years old, has a billion followers and claims to be the one true church of the ever-lovin Christ-child, son of the one true god. It claims to be the halfway house between horrid, yukky Earth and totally awesome, sparkly Heaven. It claims to represent the one true god's all-loving persona...but the one thing that rankles me most: the Papacy's wizards go on frequent rampages about abortion & contraception, all in the name of the little children, God's dear children, those teeny lil' everyday miracles with their big eyes and innocence and for the love of god won't anyone think of the children!? Don't abort that clump of cells, it has a soul (never mind that between a third and a half of all pregnancies spontaneously self-terminate, often before the woman even knows she's pregnant - does that make God the world's most voracious abortionist?)! Don't use contraception, think of the soul you're not creating when you waste your more-or-less-infinite sperm (never mind that gazillions of sperm are wasted with every attempt at conception anyway, with every single wet dream, with every sample given for medical reasons and by every man who doesn't even ejaculate let alone conceive a child every single fucking day of his life, which is most of us)!
Well, OK Vatican, you claim you care about children, about new souls (I think you give more of a fuck about your membership drying up, but that's another post). Why, then, have you put so much effort over the years into protecting members of your organisation who have abused & raped the trust, minds, bodies and hearts of countless innocent CHILDREN? If reports of that 1962 memo from Johnny are accurate, does that not just shoot down your pathetic soundbyte-ready hand-wringing every time someone mentions "family planning" or "safe sex" down in hypocritical flames? Every time I see one of your frocked spokestrolls on TV with his concerned, bulbous face spouting about abortion or frangers being evil, I shout at the TV, "what the FUCK are you FUCKING HYPOCRITES doing about your FUCKING PAEDOPHILE ARMY?"
Or do you people only care about God's precious little children before they're born?
I hope similar decisions happen the world over - I'd like to see truly massive lawsuits come from every corner of the globe and millions of subpoenas land on the Vatican's gigantic fucking gold-encrusted doorstep. I can think of few better ways for the Papacy to go stone cold fucking broke than emptying its coffers & selling up all its zillions of acres of real estate settling with victims of the rapist priests they've been enabling for decades. I'd like to see irrelevant wastes of space like Ratzinger & Pell have no goddam choice but to take a vow of poverty. I'd like the Vatican's secret libraries wide open to the public, so we can all see exactly what they've been hiding from the world for so long (like what they left out of the Bible - and why). I'd like to see the Vatican cease being its own pretend country, lose its UN seat (how the FUCK did that even happen at all?), start paying fucking taxes and become the world's greatest museum - a monument to both artistic genius and extreme human greed, criminal hypocrisy and spiritual imperialism based on guilt & fear. Hell, I'd like to see the whole disgusting scam exposed for what it is and see a billion people freed.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Equality one step closer!
[doubled at Dangerous Intersection]
In the aftermath of California’s passing of the shameful Proposition 8, I bring good tidings (and hope) from Australia. I’ll post most of the article From the Canberra Times because it’s short and to the point:
Nice. Bi - actually, tri-partisan support for this historic decision! Makes me proud, not just of our elected officials and of the pollies I voted for but of the fact that I participated in the campaign led by indie non-partisan political campaign group GetUp.org, who have shown themselves in their relatively short political life thus far to be quite a major player in public participation. My voice was one of many, many thousands heard and heeded. But enough about me.
This historic event would never have happened under the Howard government (just given the arse, finally, after a dozen years of bullshit, borderline racism & almost six years of war). Former Prime Minister John Winston Menzies Howard, an old-school conservative, Bush supporter, Royalist and, well, lying bastard & refugee-hater (google: Children Overboard, mandatory detention, Nauru) naturally (as for most conservatives) held that homosexual people simply weren’t entitled to the same rights as everyone else (but, curiously, had exactly the same responsibilities - which they exercised by uniformly voting against him, bless their hearts). Howard may well have thought, like many conservatives, that being gay is some kind of choice or “kink”, and if people make the choice to play the game that way then they can jolly well watch the game from the bench and cut up the oranges for half-time. Or he may just have had a natural, ingrained, 1950’s white Australian slant against “bloody poofs”. Either way, there was no way gays were ever going to be equal while he was at The Lodge (aka the Aussie Whitehouse). This measure may well have had support from MPs from the Liberal Party (who, despite their name, are conservatives) during Howard’s reign, but they would always have felt compelled to vote along party lines. Not so this time - plus the emphatic Labour victory of last October & the gains for the Greens meant that the numbers for these votes were pretty much sorted.
Of course, this isn’t gay marriage per se, but removing the largest legal obstacles to equality is a giant step closer toward the inevitable. The fact that it has support from Liberal, Labour & Greens senators indicates that the prospect of gays being equal hasn’t seen them scurrying under their desks for a “duck & cover” drill. The three major parties have, finally, come together and exercised common sense, empathy and humanity. They’re not bollocking up & down, waving their Bibles around and shrieking about the sky falling or kids being taught Gayness at school, they’re shutting the f* up and working together for the good of all Australians, which is what they all swore an oath to do when they entered Parliament. And that makes me happy.
But then, we’ve always had flashes of political progression down this end. In 1893 our New Zealand cousins were the first to grant women the vote, with Australia beginning to follow suit two years later (in my home state of South Australia - go Crows!). Unfortunately it took until the 1960s for Aboriginals to be granted voting rights, but that’s another long & sad story.
Of course, I’m now waiting with bated breath for some button-down pontificator from some indignant branch of the God-squad to pop their talking head up on TV to have their obligatory 10-second crack at this long-overdue step in the right direction. My feeling is that it’ll be someone from either the Family First party (isn’t it curious how the word ”Family” in the name of a political party or group is pretty much always code for “God hates gays”?) or some collared clown from the Catholic church. Specky anachronistic twat Cardinal Pell is my odds-on favourite. Being something to do with sex, this is right up the Papacy’s alley (so to speak). Papists are like Pavlov’s dogs, salivating at the mere mention of gays in the public sphere. I’ll give an outside chance to someone from a fringe whack-job group like the Assemblies of God.
Anyway, three cheers and three beers for Australia! My loving, loyal, law-abiding, dog-registering, voting, tax-paying neighbours (who just happen to be gay) can now look forward to being on equal footing with everyone else on the street.
In the aftermath of California’s passing of the shameful Proposition 8, I bring good tidings (and hope) from Australia. I’ll post most of the article From the Canberra Times because it’s short and to the point:
Gay and lesbian couples are a step closer to equality before the law after
two Bills passed through the Senate.
The laws would extend the definition of a de facto relationship to include same-sex couples and allow homosexuals to leave superannuation entitlements to partners. The Bills also guarantee equality in tax, social security, health, aged care and employment.
Labor senator Penny Wong, who is openly gay, said the laws would deliver the sort of equality before the law that same-sex couples have never experienced.
”They [the Bills] deliver on a very important election commitment on an important day for us,” she told the Senate.
Uniting Care Australia’s national director Lin Hatfield Dodds applauded the Bills, saying it was ”about time” they were passed. ”These Bills are about citizens having equality before the law,” she said. ”They should cut across party lines, because it’s about respecting the inherent dignity of each person, and ensuring under the law there is opportunity for each person to express their sex and not be penalised for that.”
Liberal senator George Brandis said it was a historic day that signified an end to law reforms more than 40 years in the making.
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown, also openly gay and a long-time campaigner for same-sex rights, congratulated the Government for putting the legislation before Parliament within 12 months of its election.
Nice. Bi - actually, tri-partisan support for this historic decision! Makes me proud, not just of our elected officials and of the pollies I voted for but of the fact that I participated in the campaign led by indie non-partisan political campaign group GetUp.org, who have shown themselves in their relatively short political life thus far to be quite a major player in public participation. My voice was one of many, many thousands heard and heeded. But enough about me.
This historic event would never have happened under the Howard government (just given the arse, finally, after a dozen years of bullshit, borderline racism & almost six years of war). Former Prime Minister John Winston Menzies Howard, an old-school conservative, Bush supporter, Royalist and, well, lying bastard & refugee-hater (google: Children Overboard, mandatory detention, Nauru) naturally (as for most conservatives) held that homosexual people simply weren’t entitled to the same rights as everyone else (but, curiously, had exactly the same responsibilities - which they exercised by uniformly voting against him, bless their hearts). Howard may well have thought, like many conservatives, that being gay is some kind of choice or “kink”, and if people make the choice to play the game that way then they can jolly well watch the game from the bench and cut up the oranges for half-time. Or he may just have had a natural, ingrained, 1950’s white Australian slant against “bloody poofs”. Either way, there was no way gays were ever going to be equal while he was at The Lodge (aka the Aussie Whitehouse). This measure may well have had support from MPs from the Liberal Party (who, despite their name, are conservatives) during Howard’s reign, but they would always have felt compelled to vote along party lines. Not so this time - plus the emphatic Labour victory of last October & the gains for the Greens meant that the numbers for these votes were pretty much sorted.
Of course, this isn’t gay marriage per se, but removing the largest legal obstacles to equality is a giant step closer toward the inevitable. The fact that it has support from Liberal, Labour & Greens senators indicates that the prospect of gays being equal hasn’t seen them scurrying under their desks for a “duck & cover” drill. The three major parties have, finally, come together and exercised common sense, empathy and humanity. They’re not bollocking up & down, waving their Bibles around and shrieking about the sky falling or kids being taught Gayness at school, they’re shutting the f* up and working together for the good of all Australians, which is what they all swore an oath to do when they entered Parliament. And that makes me happy.
But then, we’ve always had flashes of political progression down this end. In 1893 our New Zealand cousins were the first to grant women the vote, with Australia beginning to follow suit two years later (in my home state of South Australia - go Crows!). Unfortunately it took until the 1960s for Aboriginals to be granted voting rights, but that’s another long & sad story.
Of course, I’m now waiting with bated breath for some button-down pontificator from some indignant branch of the God-squad to pop their talking head up on TV to have their obligatory 10-second crack at this long-overdue step in the right direction. My feeling is that it’ll be someone from either the Family First party (isn’t it curious how the word ”Family” in the name of a political party or group is pretty much always code for “God hates gays”?) or some collared clown from the Catholic church. Specky anachronistic twat Cardinal Pell is my odds-on favourite. Being something to do with sex, this is right up the Papacy’s alley (so to speak). Papists are like Pavlov’s dogs, salivating at the mere mention of gays in the public sphere. I’ll give an outside chance to someone from a fringe whack-job group like the Assemblies of God.
Anyway, three cheers and three beers for Australia! My loving, loyal, law-abiding, dog-registering, voting, tax-paying neighbours (who just happen to be gay) can now look forward to being on equal footing with everyone else on the street.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
A comment ...
Over at this post on Dangerous Intersection (where I'm known to lurk, occasionally leaping from dark corners to spew acid on passing lackwits and then devouring their liquidy flesh), a battle rageth with "Karl", a commenter intent on proving that The Gays shouldn't be allowed to get Gay-Married. He has his reasons. Most of them are to do with the fact that he's a copy-pasting conservative Christian spambot who thinks and does what he's told.
Anyway, as is my wont, I've been heckling him from the sidelines & challenging him to produce something, anything which makes banning gay marriage a reasonable choice. Of course, he has provided nothing but a vac-sealed package of Grade A bullshit. I'd call him Erik Brewer II but to the best of my recollection he's not mentioned The Gay Agenda yet...
Part of my latest comment:
The saga at DI will continue. Karl will respond. Hopefully. Firstly because I love seeing the other DI guys & gals lay into these hateful trolls and secondly because I have far from exhausted my Sarcasmo-Ray and I have no respect for those who have no respect for love, human rights or equality. And even less respect for those who attempt to justify their ingrained bigotry with transparently lame and ultimately fail-ridden attempts at reason and logic. And goddam do I love ripping into them. Even if it has no effect on their beliefs (I don't expect it to), I enjoy ridiculing the ridiculous and laughing at the laughable. Hell, you come to a humanist/secular/atheist/liberal-ish blog like DI and start throwing around homophobia and trying to disguise it as carefully considered sociological and political positions, don't expect a warm reception. Stalwart fundy Erik Brewer caught a facefull of strident atheist militancy, stormed off in a huff and hasn't returned. Yet.
Anyway, as is my wont, I've been heckling him from the sidelines & challenging him to produce something, anything which makes banning gay marriage a reasonable choice. Of course, he has provided nothing but a vac-sealed package of Grade A bullshit. I'd call him Erik Brewer II but to the best of my recollection he's not mentioned The Gay Agenda yet...
Part of my latest comment:
It would’ve been interesting seeing which side of the coin these Prop 8'ers would have been on during the Abolition/Suffrage debates…
“It’s tradition! We’ve always owned blacks/kept our women subservient/picked on gays, why should we set them free/let them vote/allow them equality? If we do that, society will crumble into chaos and anarchy with free negroes/chatty women/married gays dragging us into a bottomless pit of syncopated drumbeats/gossip magazines/interior design shows!”
The saga at DI will continue. Karl will respond. Hopefully. Firstly because I love seeing the other DI guys & gals lay into these hateful trolls and secondly because I have far from exhausted my Sarcasmo-Ray and I have no respect for those who have no respect for love, human rights or equality. And even less respect for those who attempt to justify their ingrained bigotry with transparently lame and ultimately fail-ridden attempts at reason and logic. And goddam do I love ripping into them. Even if it has no effect on their beliefs (I don't expect it to), I enjoy ridiculing the ridiculous and laughing at the laughable. Hell, you come to a humanist/secular/atheist/liberal-ish blog like DI and start throwing around homophobia and trying to disguise it as carefully considered sociological and political positions, don't expect a warm reception. Stalwart fundy Erik Brewer caught a facefull of strident atheist militancy, stormed off in a huff and hasn't returned. Yet.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
God Trumps - collect 'em all
A pithy pictarticle from New Humanist gives you, the lucky reader, a free card game featuring the world's major faiths. While it doesn't go into (any) detail (whatsoever) about the rules, I shall just say this: look out for the trump card, it's vicious.
Here are a couple that jumped out at me:
Here are a couple that jumped out at me:
"Ex-smoker of the religious world" - love it.
There are a bunch of others - got get the whole set!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Education: still the greatest enemy of organised religion
And this bloke [source] has his cassock in a twist over it:
Aw. My heart bleeds for you, Paddy. Quick primer:
Graduates = people who have spent years learning about The World and how it works (ostensibly, anyway - it's highly likely they've spent years learning to be alcoholics).
Bishops = people who have spent years learning about The Church and how it works whilst all but ignoring how The World works yet presuming to tell The World how it should work according to what The Church told them. Back to the bitching...
And that's a bad thing because ... oh, that's right. You people had absolutely nothing to do with any of it! In fact, much of this amazing progress (especially in the areas of cultural & social enrichment and scientific advancement) has been made in spite of the concerted efforts of monolithic religions such as yours. Hence this walloping serve of sour grapes:
Good golly, how dare anyone use any modes of thought or philosophy other than those sanctioned by That Humungous Tomb In Rome Which Pretends To Be A Country! How dare anyone consider living their life ethically and knowledgably and to the fullest extent possible without consulting That Great Big Confusing Unverified Book Of Fairy Tales, Torture Porn And Contradictions!
So I'm mistaken, am I? Pray, dear Bish, tell me exactly how I, one of your educated heretics, am currently living a happy & productive life with my gifted & gorgeous medical student wife and adorable dog and great band and vegetable patch (the lettuces are looking brilliant) and loving family (also mostly godless) and amazing, talented, beautiful friends (with whom I don't know that I've ever had any sort of serious religious discussion because it's simply not important enough a topic in our lives to discuss)? How is it that my wife & I are just as happy as those few friends of ours that are religious (not that we know exactly how many of them there are anyway because it doesn't come up)? How am I less happy than your average petrified, guilt-ridden Catholic because I go through life not fearing Hell, not fearing "temptation", not studiously avoiding evil "secular" knowledge & not feeling the eyes of God burning through my back as I muddle through life?
Jeez, Paddy ... you and your fellow befrocked ones say ignorant, insulting, out-of-touch shit like that and then you wonder why people are, in ever-increasing numbers, viewing your Church and the people who run it as anachronistic geezers with an unhealthy (and often hypocritical) interest in how other people run their private lives, and accordingly turning their backs on it.
Your Empire had a moral monopoly on Europe and much of the world for centuries. The Pope replaced the Roman Emperor as supreme monarch. You imposed your rule by force and enforced & expanded it brutally. Times changed though, and dispossessing rich heretics of their worldly goods and roasting the feet of your still-living enemies as their families watched and screamed in horror became, shall we say, passe. Since the roasting stopped, people have slowly realised that all The Church has left is guilt-inducing judgements & public denunciations of normal behaviour from people like you & Herr Ratzinger to keep people in line, keep bums on pews and keep the souls rolling in. Since people have realised that you have only words to throw at them, they've realised that the only power those words have is the power that they give to those words.
If you could just sit in your average pub and watch peoples' eyes roll (in a combination of mild amusement and apathetic boredom) the next time Ratzi or some collared clown (like, say, our own paedophile enabler, Cardy Pell) appears on TV, as if he's some kind of social/medical/artistic authority, to spout a soundbite denouncing something pretty ordinary, you'd have some idea what you're up against. People simply don't take any notice of your morality police on TV anymore. If anything they laugh at them. Not because people are becoming more evil or more secular (one and the same according to your capo di tutti capi), but because they just don't accept your self-appointed role as our moral superiors.
It isn't the 1950's anymore, where your local priest was the first guy you called in a pinch and not the cops or your lawyer or the milkman. People simply no longer accept that there's only one source for their morality and, what's more, they strongly resent hearing people like you (i.e. cloistered virgins with chips on your shoulders about anything fun) publicy denouncing them as hedonistic or self-obsessed or materialistic (or whatever other negative trait you can link to the modern world) just because they don't go to bloody church anymore. Sheesh, you drive people away from your precious Church by continually being ignorant of modern society and modern peoples' needs (not to mention being inert at best on the topic of child abuse) and insulting anyone who doesn't conform to your view, then you have the idiocy to wonder where all the Catholics went! Are you serious?
People change. As societies are made of people, societies inevitably change. Some institutions change along with the societies that support them. Sometimes a change is in fact necessary for the survival of an institution, e.g. the British Royal Family - no longer a monarchy with any real power, yet still existing in all its gilded glory, supported by their society (the French Royal Family, on the other hand, refused to change and they, well, got the chop). Those institutions who refuse to change, or do it very slowly or reluctantly, run the very real risk of becoming irrelevant or useless (or even harmful) to the society in question. The Catholic Church, constantly railing against, insulting, denouncing and harshly judging our ever-evolving society (while simultaneously ignoring its realities), as well as fruitlessly exhorting it to change back (presumably to pre-Henry VIII times when Papists ran Europe and just murdered anyone who stood up to them and then rifled through their pockets), runs the severe risk of becoming irrelevant.
But hey, Vatican, you've always been useless & irrelevant to me (except as a museum of artistic genius and great example of reprehensible social policy at the hands of an unchallenged absolute ruler). It would please me greatly if Catholics left you and your judgements behind in droves. Exodus-sized droves. Just keep up whatever it is that you're doing. You're driving far more Catholics away with your corruption & hypocrisy & unwarranted moral superiority complexes & unwanted, insulting, ignorant judgements than I ever could!
Just take solace from this, Papists: former UK PM Tony Blair just converted to Catholicism ... for some reason. I'm sure you'll all welcome your newest soul with open arms. He certainly won't be the first lying, mass-murdering, hypocritical piece of shit to eat your magic zombie-flesh and drink your magic zombie-blood.
The Rt Rev Patrick O'Donoghue, the Bishop of Lancaster, has claimed that graduates are spreading scepticism and sowing dissent. Instead of following the Church's teaching they are "hedonistic", "selfish" and "egocentric", he said.
Aw. My heart bleeds for you, Paddy. Quick primer:
Graduates = people who have spent years learning about The World and how it works (ostensibly, anyway - it's highly likely they've spent years learning to be alcoholics).
Bishops = people who have spent years learning about The Church and how it works whilst all but ignoring how The World works yet presuming to tell The World how it should work according to what The Church told them. Back to the bitching...
Bishop O'Donoghue, who has recently published a report on how to renew Catholicism in Britain, argued that mass education has led to "sickness in the Church and wider society". "What we have witnessed in Western societies since the end of the Second World War is the development of mass education on a scale unprecedented in human history - resulting in economic growth, scientific and technological advances, and the cultural and social enrichment of billions of people's lives," he said.
And that's a bad thing because ... oh, that's right. You people had absolutely nothing to do with any of it! In fact, much of this amazing progress (especially in the areas of cultural & social enrichment and scientific advancement) has been made in spite of the concerted efforts of monolithic religions such as yours. Hence this walloping serve of sour grapes:
"However, every human endeavor has a dark side, due to original sin and concupiscence. In the case of education, we can see its distortion through the widespread dissemination of radical scepticism, positivism, utilitarianism and relativism.
"Taken together, these intellectual trends have resulted in a fragmented society that marginalizes God, with many people mistakenly thinking they can live happy and productive lives without him.
Good golly, how dare anyone use any modes of thought or philosophy other than those sanctioned by That Humungous Tomb In Rome Which Pretends To Be A Country! How dare anyone consider living their life ethically and knowledgably and to the fullest extent possible without consulting That Great Big Confusing Unverified Book Of Fairy Tales, Torture Porn And Contradictions!
So I'm mistaken, am I? Pray, dear Bish, tell me exactly how I, one of your educated heretics, am currently living a happy & productive life with my gifted & gorgeous medical student wife and adorable dog and great band and vegetable patch (the lettuces are looking brilliant) and loving family (also mostly godless) and amazing, talented, beautiful friends (with whom I don't know that I've ever had any sort of serious religious discussion because it's simply not important enough a topic in our lives to discuss)? How is it that my wife & I are just as happy as those few friends of ours that are religious (not that we know exactly how many of them there are anyway because it doesn't come up)? How am I less happy than your average petrified, guilt-ridden Catholic because I go through life not fearing Hell, not fearing "temptation", not studiously avoiding evil "secular" knowledge & not feeling the eyes of God burning through my back as I muddle through life?
Jeez, Paddy ... you and your fellow befrocked ones say ignorant, insulting, out-of-touch shit like that and then you wonder why people are, in ever-increasing numbers, viewing your Church and the people who run it as anachronistic geezers with an unhealthy (and often hypocritical) interest in how other people run their private lives, and accordingly turning their backs on it.
Your Empire had a moral monopoly on Europe and much of the world for centuries. The Pope replaced the Roman Emperor as supreme monarch. You imposed your rule by force and enforced & expanded it brutally. Times changed though, and dispossessing rich heretics of their worldly goods and roasting the feet of your still-living enemies as their families watched and screamed in horror became, shall we say, passe. Since the roasting stopped, people have slowly realised that all The Church has left is guilt-inducing judgements & public denunciations of normal behaviour from people like you & Herr Ratzinger to keep people in line, keep bums on pews and keep the souls rolling in. Since people have realised that you have only words to throw at them, they've realised that the only power those words have is the power that they give to those words.
If you could just sit in your average pub and watch peoples' eyes roll (in a combination of mild amusement and apathetic boredom) the next time Ratzi or some collared clown (like, say, our own paedophile enabler, Cardy Pell) appears on TV, as if he's some kind of social/medical/artistic authority, to spout a soundbite denouncing something pretty ordinary, you'd have some idea what you're up against. People simply don't take any notice of your morality police on TV anymore. If anything they laugh at them. Not because people are becoming more evil or more secular (one and the same according to your capo di tutti capi), but because they just don't accept your self-appointed role as our moral superiors.
It isn't the 1950's anymore, where your local priest was the first guy you called in a pinch and not the cops or your lawyer or the milkman. People simply no longer accept that there's only one source for their morality and, what's more, they strongly resent hearing people like you (i.e. cloistered virgins with chips on your shoulders about anything fun) publicy denouncing them as hedonistic or self-obsessed or materialistic (or whatever other negative trait you can link to the modern world) just because they don't go to bloody church anymore. Sheesh, you drive people away from your precious Church by continually being ignorant of modern society and modern peoples' needs (not to mention being inert at best on the topic of child abuse) and insulting anyone who doesn't conform to your view, then you have the idiocy to wonder where all the Catholics went! Are you serious?
People change. As societies are made of people, societies inevitably change. Some institutions change along with the societies that support them. Sometimes a change is in fact necessary for the survival of an institution, e.g. the British Royal Family - no longer a monarchy with any real power, yet still existing in all its gilded glory, supported by their society (the French Royal Family, on the other hand, refused to change and they, well, got the chop). Those institutions who refuse to change, or do it very slowly or reluctantly, run the very real risk of becoming irrelevant or useless (or even harmful) to the society in question. The Catholic Church, constantly railing against, insulting, denouncing and harshly judging our ever-evolving society (while simultaneously ignoring its realities), as well as fruitlessly exhorting it to change back (presumably to pre-Henry VIII times when Papists ran Europe and just murdered anyone who stood up to them and then rifled through their pockets), runs the severe risk of becoming irrelevant.
But hey, Vatican, you've always been useless & irrelevant to me (except as a museum of artistic genius and great example of reprehensible social policy at the hands of an unchallenged absolute ruler). It would please me greatly if Catholics left you and your judgements behind in droves. Exodus-sized droves. Just keep up whatever it is that you're doing. You're driving far more Catholics away with your corruption & hypocrisy & unwarranted moral superiority complexes & unwanted, insulting, ignorant judgements than I ever could!
Just take solace from this, Papists: former UK PM Tony Blair just converted to Catholicism ... for some reason. I'm sure you'll all welcome your newest soul with open arms. He certainly won't be the first lying, mass-murdering, hypocritical piece of shit to eat your magic zombie-flesh and drink your magic zombie-blood.
Monday, November 10, 2008
So, they're dead now...so what?
Who's dead? Three of the little bastards who carried out the Sari club bombing in Bali in 2002. They've been sitting on death row since then and within the last 24 hours were shot dead by an Indonesian death squad. Their coffins, predictably, were paraded through the streets like trophies, held aloft by screaming family members and bellowing supporters who have made it very clear that their jihad against "the West" will continue. Naturally, a governmental advisory against travelling to Indonesia has been issued. Who knows who'll take up the jihadi cause now and decide that killing white tourists, enjoying the exchange rate and out for a surf, a beer, some cheap weed on the sly or those infernal hair beads, will make Allah happy.
OK, so some people might be rejoicing. These animals killed over 200 people in cold blood, 88 of them Aussies on holiday. They were mindless apes, jumping on the ol' jihad bandwagon at the urging of some bloviating hatemongering imam somewhere (these mental children do need to be told what to do after all; independent thought is not a hallmark of your average jihadi) and striking at soft targets with homemade bombs - with obviously no regard at all for the lives of fellow Indonesians, let alone fellow humans. But hey, that's what fundamentalism does to you: makes anyone who's not on your team fair game, even if they're a neighbour. It splits the world into enemies and friends, and all enemies deserve a gruesome death. The most infuriating thing was that footage of these - people - from their jail cells and from the courtroom showed them grinning like idiots and raising their fists in triumph, like they'd won gold medals. That grinning halfwit Amrozi, nicknamed "The Smiling Assassin" was the one everyone down here wanted to damn well smash in the face with a pint glass, me included. I wouldn't even have finished my beer first. He's killed 200 people and he's grinning like the cat who got the cream. Smug bastard. Smash!
But do I want him dead? No! Why? Because he believes when the Indonesian government murder him, he's going to Heaven to screw his brains out for eternity. He's getting exactly what he wants. He's fulfilled the orders of his bizarre & barbaric corruption of a god (head of the alleged "religion of peace") and is about to score bigtime. Which, to me, is the complete opposite of what punishment should entail. It's no punishment to kill a man when all he wants is to die and be martyred, a hero to his polluted herd, and achieve paradise. You commit a crime against society, you should be deprived of the privileges of being a member of that society. Take lives and your quality of life should be forfeit - but not your life itself. I'd much prefer if they kept the little shit alive, in the squalid filth of a Indonesian jail, until his lifeless flesh can be fed to sharks. Don't let him wear his little jihadi hat. Don't let him read his precious goddamned scripture. Don't give him a prayer mat. Let him have a skylight, not a window - don't let him know which direction Mecca is. It's his religion that turned him into a murderous, easily-led automaton - deprive him of all the comfort it gives him. It's his comrades that conspired with him to kill all those people - deprive him of their company & any comfort that they may give him. Let him befriend the guards (who should be under strict orders of complete silence) if wants company. Even better, let him have a TV behind a grille that plays nothing but evangelical Christian shows with the volume way up and don't give him the remote. Don't let him have any control over his life. Don't let him have anything he'd have on the outside, save food & water & light. And a nice cold hosing every month. Hey, it's a hot country. He'll be fine.
But, no. Indonesia, having a backward & reactionary justice system (which I define as "any system which includes death as punishment"), follows the law ... and lets these bastards have exactly what they want. Then their bloated corpses get treated like rock stars, crowd-surfing to the grave, held aloft by adoring fans.
Now, apart from wanting the little shit to suffer properly and apart from the fact that he & his chums wanted martyrdom and therefore should have been deprived of it, I don't believe the death penalty makes any sense as either a punishment or a deterrent. It didn't deter these primates. It didn't deter fellow mindless ape Tim McVeigh, the dim-as-a-two-watt-bulb drug-smugglers known as the Bali Nine (who still rot, awaiting their own Indonesian murder squad) or anyone else who's been executed lately. Anyone currently on Death Row, anywhere in the world, had to know the possible penalty for what they were doing yet they went ahead anyway (provided they were convicted fairly - another problem with death penalties is that you can't be sure 100% of the time that you have the right person). If the death sentence is meant to be a deterrent, news flash: it isn't damn well working.
The state, whether it straps someone to a table and injects lethal poison, ties them to a chair or electrocutes them, suffocates them in a gas chamber, breaks their neck on the gallows or just lines them up and has soldiers shoot them, is no better than the criminal they're ostensibly punishing. It's the 21st century for crying out loud. We're better than this. We have to be if we want to progress.
Anyway, Amrozi (and your fellow murderous intellectual cripples), now that you're dead ... I hope you go straight to hell. Which I suppose, to a randy little shit looking forward to deflowering children for the rest of eternity (and considering I don't believe in hell), would be not existing at all (which would be unpleasant as long as you knew you didn't exist anymore, which implies that you'd have to exist to know you didn't exist - quite a paradox I know, but I'm annoyed, so give me some latitude). To me, non-existence is no substitute for being treated like the animal you are for the rest of your sad little life, but I guess it has to be good enough for me. You might not be suffering, as the victims of your righteousness and their families still suffer, but it's at least nice to know that you're not getting your perverted little slice(s) of heaven.
OK, so some people might be rejoicing. These animals killed over 200 people in cold blood, 88 of them Aussies on holiday. They were mindless apes, jumping on the ol' jihad bandwagon at the urging of some bloviating hatemongering imam somewhere (these mental children do need to be told what to do after all; independent thought is not a hallmark of your average jihadi) and striking at soft targets with homemade bombs - with obviously no regard at all for the lives of fellow Indonesians, let alone fellow humans. But hey, that's what fundamentalism does to you: makes anyone who's not on your team fair game, even if they're a neighbour. It splits the world into enemies and friends, and all enemies deserve a gruesome death. The most infuriating thing was that footage of these - people - from their jail cells and from the courtroom showed them grinning like idiots and raising their fists in triumph, like they'd won gold medals. That grinning halfwit Amrozi, nicknamed "The Smiling Assassin" was the one everyone down here wanted to damn well smash in the face with a pint glass, me included. I wouldn't even have finished my beer first. He's killed 200 people and he's grinning like the cat who got the cream. Smug bastard. Smash!
But do I want him dead? No! Why? Because he believes when the Indonesian government murder him, he's going to Heaven to screw his brains out for eternity. He's getting exactly what he wants. He's fulfilled the orders of his bizarre & barbaric corruption of a god (head of the alleged "religion of peace") and is about to score bigtime. Which, to me, is the complete opposite of what punishment should entail. It's no punishment to kill a man when all he wants is to die and be martyred, a hero to his polluted herd, and achieve paradise. You commit a crime against society, you should be deprived of the privileges of being a member of that society. Take lives and your quality of life should be forfeit - but not your life itself. I'd much prefer if they kept the little shit alive, in the squalid filth of a Indonesian jail, until his lifeless flesh can be fed to sharks. Don't let him wear his little jihadi hat. Don't let him read his precious goddamned scripture. Don't give him a prayer mat. Let him have a skylight, not a window - don't let him know which direction Mecca is. It's his religion that turned him into a murderous, easily-led automaton - deprive him of all the comfort it gives him. It's his comrades that conspired with him to kill all those people - deprive him of their company & any comfort that they may give him. Let him befriend the guards (who should be under strict orders of complete silence) if wants company. Even better, let him have a TV behind a grille that plays nothing but evangelical Christian shows with the volume way up and don't give him the remote. Don't let him have any control over his life. Don't let him have anything he'd have on the outside, save food & water & light. And a nice cold hosing every month. Hey, it's a hot country. He'll be fine.
But, no. Indonesia, having a backward & reactionary justice system (which I define as "any system which includes death as punishment"), follows the law ... and lets these bastards have exactly what they want. Then their bloated corpses get treated like rock stars, crowd-surfing to the grave, held aloft by adoring fans.
Now, apart from wanting the little shit to suffer properly and apart from the fact that he & his chums wanted martyrdom and therefore should have been deprived of it, I don't believe the death penalty makes any sense as either a punishment or a deterrent. It didn't deter these primates. It didn't deter fellow mindless ape Tim McVeigh, the dim-as-a-two-watt-bulb drug-smugglers known as the Bali Nine (who still rot, awaiting their own Indonesian murder squad) or anyone else who's been executed lately. Anyone currently on Death Row, anywhere in the world, had to know the possible penalty for what they were doing yet they went ahead anyway (provided they were convicted fairly - another problem with death penalties is that you can't be sure 100% of the time that you have the right person). If the death sentence is meant to be a deterrent, news flash: it isn't damn well working.
The state, whether it straps someone to a table and injects lethal poison, ties them to a chair or electrocutes them, suffocates them in a gas chamber, breaks their neck on the gallows or just lines them up and has soldiers shoot them, is no better than the criminal they're ostensibly punishing. It's the 21st century for crying out loud. We're better than this. We have to be if we want to progress.
Anyway, Amrozi (and your fellow murderous intellectual cripples), now that you're dead ... I hope you go straight to hell. Which I suppose, to a randy little shit looking forward to deflowering children for the rest of eternity (and considering I don't believe in hell), would be not existing at all (which would be unpleasant as long as you knew you didn't exist anymore, which implies that you'd have to exist to know you didn't exist - quite a paradox I know, but I'm annoyed, so give me some latitude). To me, non-existence is no substitute for being treated like the animal you are for the rest of your sad little life, but I guess it has to be good enough for me. You might not be suffering, as the victims of your righteousness and their families still suffer, but it's at least nice to know that you're not getting your perverted little slice(s) of heaven.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Expelled Redux!
Duped over at Dangerous Intersection.
They've started advertising the DVD version of that infernal, mendacious, highly offensive, wilfully ignorant and misleading waste of megabytes known as Expelled. Bay of Fundie has scratched the surface of their advertising and revealed some new information.Now, given that this is the DVD release of Expelled, it makes me wonder what kind of special features they'll include. Of course noone can know for sure, but I have something of a wish list:
- a complete timeline of all the steps taken & communication entered into to secure the participation of such people as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, including a full explanation for the stark deviation from the premise of the original film: it was originally presented to Myers & Dawkins as a documentary named "Crossroads", detailing the intersection of religion & science, which it clearly did not turn out to be, either by name or nature
- full, uncut, unedited interviews with the abovenamed
- a full explanation from the film's producers of PZ Myer's own expulsion from a screening of Expelled by security staff before he'd entered the theatre, despite the fact that he'd registered to attend under his own name and hadn't attempted any kind of subterfuge, as was alleged early on by the producers (as well as an explanation of how Richard Dawkins, arguably more recognisable than PZ Myers, was allowed to enter unmolested)
- behind-the-scenes segments showing such things as exactly who comprised the audience in Ben Stein's opening, paranoid address to college "students"and a clear explanation of Adolf Hitler's alleged use Darwin's theory of evolution to justify his horrific experiments
- a demonstration that the producers of this film - and Ben Stein himself - actually understand what the theory of evolution says and, importantly, what it doesn't say: Stein is on record stating that evolution can't explain certain astronomical phenomena & processes, apparently ignorant of the fact that evolution only applies to terrestrial biological diversity
- an explanation of how "micro-evolution" differs from "macro-evolution", followed by an explanation of how a lit match can't start a bushfire
- an actual clear-cut, definitive definition of the theory of Intelligent Design, the predictions made by this theory and why this theory requires equal time in science classes (see below)
- results of any actual research into & testing of ID's predictions, including such information as the identity or even intent of the "designer" and the reason for the many, glaring inefficiencies, inconsistencies and illogicalities in biological "designs" from all branches of life. This should be presented by one or a combination of (but not limited to) the following high-profile design proponents: Michael Behe, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Phillip Johnston & we mustn't (nor will we ever) forget Ben Stein.
- a full explanation of the "controversy" that Stein & co wish to be taught to children, as it appears that the only controversy regarding the veracity of evolutionary theory is the one Stein & his partners in this endeavour have manufactured
- actual, scientific rebuttals of (or even credible challenges to) any aspect or aspects of the theory of evolution - without resorting to paranoid conspiracy theories or sweeping, unsupportable statements about "Big Science"
- an explanation of Stein's infamous remark from an interview on a Christian TV programme: "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."
- an explanation of how Intelligent Design is not based on (or simply is) Biblical creationism & an explanation of the actions of the obviously religiously motivated members of the Dover, PA school board (and their supporters from the Discovery Institute, authors of the infamous and clearly religiously-based "Wedge Document") which led to the famous trial of 2004
- a justification for singling out Darwinian evolution for special attention, while other fields such as Newtonian physics and Copernican astronomy each contradict Scripture in various ways but are (for the most part) left unmolested and uncontested by religionists
- one good reason why teaching children their parents' religion shouldn't just stay in Scripture classes, Sunday schools, churches and the family home and one good reason why it should be taught as fact alongside evidence-based science when, as is repeated often, religion & belief is a matter of faith, which by definition means "accepting a proposition without evidence"
...
Of course, it's all wishful thinking on my part. But no more so than Stein & Co's insistence that "Big Science" persecutes & expels religious professors for dissenting views, that "Darwinism" is a one-way street to concentration camps or, indeed, the insistence of many ID supporters that Big Religion played no part in attempting to usher Bible stories into science classes through the back door in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
I eagerly await my hopes to be dashed.
They've started advertising the DVD version of that infernal, mendacious, highly offensive, wilfully ignorant and misleading waste of megabytes known as Expelled. Bay of Fundie has scratched the surface of their advertising and revealed some new information.Now, given that this is the DVD release of Expelled, it makes me wonder what kind of special features they'll include. Of course noone can know for sure, but I have something of a wish list:
- a complete timeline of all the steps taken & communication entered into to secure the participation of such people as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, including a full explanation for the stark deviation from the premise of the original film: it was originally presented to Myers & Dawkins as a documentary named "Crossroads", detailing the intersection of religion & science, which it clearly did not turn out to be, either by name or nature
- full, uncut, unedited interviews with the abovenamed
- a full explanation from the film's producers of PZ Myer's own expulsion from a screening of Expelled by security staff before he'd entered the theatre, despite the fact that he'd registered to attend under his own name and hadn't attempted any kind of subterfuge, as was alleged early on by the producers (as well as an explanation of how Richard Dawkins, arguably more recognisable than PZ Myers, was allowed to enter unmolested)
- behind-the-scenes segments showing such things as exactly who comprised the audience in Ben Stein's opening, paranoid address to college "students"and a clear explanation of Adolf Hitler's alleged use Darwin's theory of evolution to justify his horrific experiments
- a demonstration that the producers of this film - and Ben Stein himself - actually understand what the theory of evolution says and, importantly, what it doesn't say: Stein is on record stating that evolution can't explain certain astronomical phenomena & processes, apparently ignorant of the fact that evolution only applies to terrestrial biological diversity
- an explanation of how "micro-evolution" differs from "macro-evolution", followed by an explanation of how a lit match can't start a bushfire
- an actual clear-cut, definitive definition of the theory of Intelligent Design, the predictions made by this theory and why this theory requires equal time in science classes (see below)
- results of any actual research into & testing of ID's predictions, including such information as the identity or even intent of the "designer" and the reason for the many, glaring inefficiencies, inconsistencies and illogicalities in biological "designs" from all branches of life. This should be presented by one or a combination of (but not limited to) the following high-profile design proponents: Michael Behe, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Phillip Johnston & we mustn't (nor will we ever) forget Ben Stein.
- a full explanation of the "controversy" that Stein & co wish to be taught to children, as it appears that the only controversy regarding the veracity of evolutionary theory is the one Stein & his partners in this endeavour have manufactured
- actual, scientific rebuttals of (or even credible challenges to) any aspect or aspects of the theory of evolution - without resorting to paranoid conspiracy theories or sweeping, unsupportable statements about "Big Science"
- an explanation of Stein's infamous remark from an interview on a Christian TV programme: "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."
- an explanation of how Intelligent Design is not based on (or simply is) Biblical creationism & an explanation of the actions of the obviously religiously motivated members of the Dover, PA school board (and their supporters from the Discovery Institute, authors of the infamous and clearly religiously-based "Wedge Document") which led to the famous trial of 2004
- a justification for singling out Darwinian evolution for special attention, while other fields such as Newtonian physics and Copernican astronomy each contradict Scripture in various ways but are (for the most part) left unmolested and uncontested by religionists
- one good reason why teaching children their parents' religion shouldn't just stay in Scripture classes, Sunday schools, churches and the family home and one good reason why it should be taught as fact alongside evidence-based science when, as is repeated often, religion & belief is a matter of faith, which by definition means "accepting a proposition without evidence"
...
Of course, it's all wishful thinking on my part. But no more so than Stein & Co's insistence that "Big Science" persecutes & expels religious professors for dissenting views, that "Darwinism" is a one-way street to concentration camps or, indeed, the insistence of many ID supporters that Big Religion played no part in attempting to usher Bible stories into science classes through the back door in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
I eagerly await my hopes to be dashed.
Monday, September 29, 2008
I see I'm not the only one ...
Tina Fey rules
You couldn't make this stuff up - the delightful Ms Fey pretty much didn't have to. Her ramble here is almost a carbon copy of Palin's odd spiel during her interview with Katie Couric (whose expression didn't shift very far from "what the hell is this clown on about - am I at the Miss Carolina pageant?"
Friday, September 26, 2008
"Your problem is with God, not me..."
A Dangerous Intersection post of mine (a duplicate of this one here) attracted, surprisingly for me, a quick splash of comments from users. One born-again young-earth creationist respondent, a Mr Brewer, after pasting the usual slabs of fundie garbage & evangelist catchphrases, decided it would be ok to label me "depraved" (precisely, that I had a depraved or useless mind) because I'm not down with Jesus (I was already familiar with Brewer's work as we'd had a brief stoush in a post of Erich Vieth's about sex education. A pet project for fundamentalist ignorance and arse-backwardness, their stance on sex-ed amounts to "don't tell 'em how to do it safely, just tell 'em not to do it at all." Right. Worked a treat for Bristol Palin). And, yes, being called "depraved" annoyed me somewhat, as my responses no doubt indicate. So I bit back a couple of times. Who is this guy to judge & insult me because I disagree with him? At least I was only trying to, respectfully but firmly, smack his arguments (such as they were) down without resorting to insulting the guy.
But, really, being insulted (someone who thinks the entire planet is younger than verbal communication, the discovery of agriculture and the domestication of animals, no less, thinks my mind is useless?) wasn't the problem. I can cop an insult, and "depraved" is pretty mild. Even so, I called him on it and pointed out that it's not how grownups talk to each other. I didn't expect an apology - at best, a cessation of such ad hominems in further posts would have been perfectly acceptable. Anyway, instead of an "ok, fine" or even just ignoring it and moving on (which would have been fine), he did it again. But this time he offered a justification - that it's God who thinks my mind is useless. My problem shouldn't be with Brewer whipping insults around the place in place of actual arguments, it should be with God. "Hey, don't blame me, talk to God about it! It's not me who thinks you're depraved, it's God. I'm just passing on his message. You can choose not to be depraved by accepting Christ! Gee, I'm sorry if you took offence at being insulted but hey, again, take it up with the Lord. I just want to help you poor pitiful atheists find Jesus because I care about you!" (I paraphrase here, but that's the thrust).
Interesting, Mr Brewer. Even though it's you who thought it and typed it and clicked "post" (repeatedly), it's not your fault. The depravity - the "useless minds" - of all atheists might not necessarily be what you yourself truly believe but because you think God thinks it, you have a duty to pass it on for our own sake because you care ... which is about the most gutless, laughable, pathetic and classically fundamentalist piece of rank bullshit I've ever heard. It's on a par with "the devil made me do it!" as a complete abdication of personal responsibility. It's a classic passing of the buck to someone who is completely unaccountable (and, to throw in my extra tuppence, whose existence is so gargantuanically improbable that it's more or less safe to say he's non-existent, or at least completely uninterested). You might think it's okay, as many fundies do, to just throw shit like that out there and absolve yourself of any responsibility by hiding behind your god's apron. "It's God's word, talk to him about it." Or, in more accurate parlance, "Don't blame me, blame my secret friend. He did it!". Hey, it worked when you were six, why not keep it up?
I guess your average fundie clown would see this kind of thing as an epic win: you get to call the nasty old atheist whatever you want, be it "depraved", "immoral", "stained with sin" or whatever else you want to paste in the comments box from your weekly, talking-point filled email from Answers In Genesis or Ray "Watch Me Wank This Banana" Comfort or Ken "Not That Much Smarter Than A Leg Of" Ham. Then, if anyone gets shitty you can just say "Don't blame me my friend, that's just what God says." Ha!
OK, I'm trying not to harp here. This isn't a BAWW because some troll called me a name. Like I said, I've had worse. This is just a simple, honest Fuck You because the guy weaseled out of it by laying blame at the feet of his God who, conveniently, isn't the kind who just answers you when you say "Oi, what's this shit about me being depraved?" Shit, if you're going to insult someone, have the balls to stand by it and accept whatever response you get and not refer me to your manager. Seriously, if you're going to stand there, insult a person and say "oh no, it's not me, it's God" then you can go fuck yourself. Such blatant hypocrisy is a lot more insulting than an actual insult.
It's really very amusing, and pitiful, in hindsight. Being accused of having a useless mind by a guy who is so mindless he won't even take responsibilty for his own words & who believes the Earth is 6000 years old despite centuries of evidence (evidence - remember that?) to the contrary is probably the best & clearest example of fundamentalist hypocrisy I've ever seen. Sticks & stones, Mr Brewer. Hell, not even your words faze me that much. Actions, though, are something different. When you accuse me of having a useless, depraved mind, deny your own mind as the source of your words and then attribute responsibility for those words to the mind of your god (who's conveniently unavailable for comment), you reveal yourself either as the worst kind of cowardly liar, eager to absolve yourself of responsibility for your own actions and pass it on to someone who's completely unaccountable, as a rank hypocrite or merely as an intellectual zombie - an empty vessel for the thoughts and opinions of others, be they your god, pastor, community or whoever it was who originally put that idea in your head.
To me, a truly useless mind is one that can be used by others for their own purposes as easily as yours seems to be, Mr Brewer. The pity I now feel for your empty mind is far more than any annoyance I previously felt at being insulted. I can think of no worse fate than being a mere vehicle for someone else's bigotry and ignorance. If I had a religious bone in my body, I'd pray for you.
But, really, being insulted (someone who thinks the entire planet is younger than verbal communication, the discovery of agriculture and the domestication of animals, no less, thinks my mind is useless?) wasn't the problem. I can cop an insult, and "depraved" is pretty mild. Even so, I called him on it and pointed out that it's not how grownups talk to each other. I didn't expect an apology - at best, a cessation of such ad hominems in further posts would have been perfectly acceptable. Anyway, instead of an "ok, fine" or even just ignoring it and moving on (which would have been fine), he did it again. But this time he offered a justification - that it's God who thinks my mind is useless. My problem shouldn't be with Brewer whipping insults around the place in place of actual arguments, it should be with God. "Hey, don't blame me, talk to God about it! It's not me who thinks you're depraved, it's God. I'm just passing on his message. You can choose not to be depraved by accepting Christ! Gee, I'm sorry if you took offence at being insulted but hey, again, take it up with the Lord. I just want to help you poor pitiful atheists find Jesus because I care about you!" (I paraphrase here, but that's the thrust).
Interesting, Mr Brewer. Even though it's you who thought it and typed it and clicked "post" (repeatedly), it's not your fault. The depravity - the "useless minds" - of all atheists might not necessarily be what you yourself truly believe but because you think God thinks it, you have a duty to pass it on for our own sake because you care ... which is about the most gutless, laughable, pathetic and classically fundamentalist piece of rank bullshit I've ever heard. It's on a par with "the devil made me do it!" as a complete abdication of personal responsibility. It's a classic passing of the buck to someone who is completely unaccountable (and, to throw in my extra tuppence, whose existence is so gargantuanically improbable that it's more or less safe to say he's non-existent, or at least completely uninterested). You might think it's okay, as many fundies do, to just throw shit like that out there and absolve yourself of any responsibility by hiding behind your god's apron. "It's God's word, talk to him about it." Or, in more accurate parlance, "Don't blame me, blame my secret friend. He did it!". Hey, it worked when you were six, why not keep it up?
I guess your average fundie clown would see this kind of thing as an epic win: you get to call the nasty old atheist whatever you want, be it "depraved", "immoral", "stained with sin" or whatever else you want to paste in the comments box from your weekly, talking-point filled email from Answers In Genesis or Ray "Watch Me Wank This Banana" Comfort or Ken "Not That Much Smarter Than A Leg Of" Ham. Then, if anyone gets shitty you can just say "Don't blame me my friend, that's just what God says." Ha!
OK, I'm trying not to harp here. This isn't a BAWW because some troll called me a name. Like I said, I've had worse. This is just a simple, honest Fuck You because the guy weaseled out of it by laying blame at the feet of his God who, conveniently, isn't the kind who just answers you when you say "Oi, what's this shit about me being depraved?" Shit, if you're going to insult someone, have the balls to stand by it and accept whatever response you get and not refer me to your manager. Seriously, if you're going to stand there, insult a person and say "oh no, it's not me, it's God" then you can go fuck yourself. Such blatant hypocrisy is a lot more insulting than an actual insult.
It's really very amusing, and pitiful, in hindsight. Being accused of having a useless mind by a guy who is so mindless he won't even take responsibilty for his own words & who believes the Earth is 6000 years old despite centuries of evidence (evidence - remember that?) to the contrary is probably the best & clearest example of fundamentalist hypocrisy I've ever seen. Sticks & stones, Mr Brewer. Hell, not even your words faze me that much. Actions, though, are something different. When you accuse me of having a useless, depraved mind, deny your own mind as the source of your words and then attribute responsibility for those words to the mind of your god (who's conveniently unavailable for comment), you reveal yourself either as the worst kind of cowardly liar, eager to absolve yourself of responsibility for your own actions and pass it on to someone who's completely unaccountable, as a rank hypocrite or merely as an intellectual zombie - an empty vessel for the thoughts and opinions of others, be they your god, pastor, community or whoever it was who originally put that idea in your head.
To me, a truly useless mind is one that can be used by others for their own purposes as easily as yours seems to be, Mr Brewer. The pity I now feel for your empty mind is far more than any annoyance I previously felt at being insulted. I can think of no worse fate than being a mere vehicle for someone else's bigotry and ignorance. If I had a religious bone in my body, I'd pray for you.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Anglican Bishops assembles A-Team to combat Dawkins; I pity da fool
[RD.net]
From the schedule:
Theology without resorting to "God of the gaps"? I'd honestly like to hear Professor Ward's argument. Although, with him presumably being a professor of theology, I have no choice but to assume there'd be a laundry list of mental contortions on display. I've really encountered nothing but when reading or hearing theological arguments, even from those considered the "best" in their field. I suppose when your field can be summed up as "proving the unprovable" or "preaching to the converted in such a way as to flatter their intelligence & justifying their blind faith in an unsupportable idea" you're not exactly starting in the fastest car on the grid.
Well, first let me put on my giant nerd pants and say Star Wars isn't science fiction. Space opera, science fantasy, a common swashbuckling pirate narrative transposed to space, really long commercials for toys, yes (especially the new ones), but not science fiction. Asimov, Banks, Clarke: these are true science fiction.
Nevertheless, this section would also be very interesting to see. Especially considering the recent Star Wars prequels, in which those Jedis or Sith Lords strong in the previously-referred-to-as-mystical "energy field" - the Force - now are revealed to simply be bursting with biochemicals known as "midichlorians". Young Anakin Skywalker's midichlorians were indeed "off the charts" which is seemingly the reason it was so hard for his master, Obi-Wan, to control him. So, instead of having a very strong bond with the energy field which binds everything in the Universe together, it now seems young Annie is reduced to being hyperactive & moody (& whiny - oh god the whining!) because of a gland problem. Maybe it was George W. Lucas's attempt to inject the "fiction" with a bit more "science".
So, the clergy is going to attempt to use the Force to combat Dawkins (and, presumably, all his little secular wizards).
Interesting as this segment might be, it still amounts to using fiction to justify fiction.
How indeed? How to inject the facts of the universe into mythology? How to tint reality with fable? How about not doing that at all and just enjoying nature for its own sake? What is exactly so wrong with the awe and wonder of the natural world that you can't simply enjoy it for what it is?
What I'd like to know is, are these guys going express awe over such wonders of nature such as HIV, ebola and ovarian cancer in Christian worship? Truly these are marvels of creation; tiny self-replicators able to spread rapidly and follow their design ruthlessly, often with proud, strong, intelligent humans standing by helplessly. Or are such inconvenient facts of life to be ignored? Really, if you're going to use nature's awesomeness as a way to exalt the Great One, you're only doing half a job if you just concentrate on little kitties and baby giggles and waterfalls.
Humbug.
Canterbury, England (ENI). The Anglican bishop of London, Richard Chartres, is to host a study day at St Paul's Cathedral in the British capital to help clergy counter the influence of the scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins. A keynote speaker will be John Cornwell, the author of "Darwin's Angel", whose subtitle is, "An angelic riposte to 'The God Delusion'". Cornwell will advise clergy on how to respond to the claims of Dawkins at a time when the apparent polarisation between religion and science raises many questions for people of faith."Oh, no, don't go in there! What if Dawkins' evil questions make you think about what you believe? Dear God, no!" What's wrong with people learning to think for themselves and find their own answers, o wise clergy?
Schedule of events
From the schedule:
11.05 am God Without the Gaps
One consequence of the current science and religion debate is that it makes theology appear reactive and defensive. Professor Keith Ward has for many years worked on developing a scientifically literate approach to theology. Today he goes beyond the ‘God of the gaps’ to explore a positive theological approach to science and its role in Christian formation.
Theology without resorting to "God of the gaps"? I'd honestly like to hear Professor Ward's argument. Although, with him presumably being a professor of theology, I have no choice but to assume there'd be a laundry list of mental contortions on display. I've really encountered nothing but when reading or hearing theological arguments, even from those considered the "best" in their field. I suppose when your field can be summed up as "proving the unprovable" or "preaching to the converted in such a way as to flatter their intelligence & justifying their blind faith in an unsupportable idea" you're not exactly starting in the fastest car on the grid.
2.00pm The Gospel according to Luke (Skywalker)?
Science plays an important part in fuelling our imagination though literature, films and television. In this session David Wilkinson, the author of The Power of the Force: The Spirituality of the Star Wars Films considers practical ways for clergy to communicate the Gospel using science fact and fiction in preaching and teaching. The session includes Q&A.
Well, first let me put on my giant nerd pants and say Star Wars isn't science fiction. Space opera, science fantasy, a common swashbuckling pirate narrative transposed to space, really long commercials for toys, yes (especially the new ones), but not science fiction. Asimov, Banks, Clarke: these are true science fiction.
Nevertheless, this section would also be very interesting to see. Especially considering the recent Star Wars prequels, in which those Jedis or Sith Lords strong in the previously-referred-to-as-mystical "energy field" - the Force - now are revealed to simply be bursting with biochemicals known as "midichlorians". Young Anakin Skywalker's midichlorians were indeed "off the charts" which is seemingly the reason it was so hard for his master, Obi-Wan, to control him. So, instead of having a very strong bond with the energy field which binds everything in the Universe together, it now seems young Annie is reduced to being hyperactive & moody (& whiny - oh god the whining!) because of a gland problem. Maybe it was George W. Lucas's attempt to inject the "fiction" with a bit more "science".
So, the clergy is going to attempt to use the Force to combat Dawkins (and, presumably, all his little secular wizards).
Interesting as this segment might be, it still amounts to using fiction to justify fiction.
3.30pm Eureka! Science in liturgy
How can we bring science alive as a part of Christian liturgy, and the Gospel alive in the light of scientific understanding? In this session Lucy Winkett, Precentor of St Paul’s Cathedral and David Wilkinson discuss practical ways in which the awe and wonder inspired by the natural world can be expressed in Christian worship.
How indeed? How to inject the facts of the universe into mythology? How to tint reality with fable? How about not doing that at all and just enjoying nature for its own sake? What is exactly so wrong with the awe and wonder of the natural world that you can't simply enjoy it for what it is?
What I'd like to know is, are these guys going express awe over such wonders of nature such as HIV, ebola and ovarian cancer in Christian worship? Truly these are marvels of creation; tiny self-replicators able to spread rapidly and follow their design ruthlessly, often with proud, strong, intelligent humans standing by helplessly. Or are such inconvenient facts of life to be ignored? Really, if you're going to use nature's awesomeness as a way to exalt the Great One, you're only doing half a job if you just concentrate on little kitties and baby giggles and waterfalls.
Humbug.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Greta C nails Palin
Greta Christina at the Blowfish Blog, in her typical straight-shootin' style, nails down exactly why Caribou Barbie (aka Sarah Palin) is unfit to be Vice President - concerns about her pregnant unwed teenage daughter aside.
I think her main, crucial point - apart from everything else that's completely retarded about McCain's VP pick - is this:
I can not imagine anyone more unqualified to be holding the codes to a staggering arsenal of nuclear weapons in the event of a serious military emergency than Sarah Palin. Neither can Matt Damon (no link for you! Google it :)).
Yes, people, all jokes aside, McCain is old. He's 72 and he might freaking well DIE and leave Palin in charge (nominally, anyway) of the most powerful military in the world (it's hard to imagine someone less qualified than George to run the US military, but fuck me - McCain found a DOOZY!). This is a woman who believes she lives in the End Times and that Armageddon's just around the corner and soon Jesus will arrive in his gleaming gold battle-mech and lay waste to the Hellish legions of orcs and trolls and whatever else she and her apocalyptic pastors can imagine. Does America want this lackwit staring down North Korea or reacting to a terrorist dirty bomb? Sheesh. I like America. I like the Americans I've met & spoken to & befriended. I KNOW that there are smart people there. But if you allow this woman access to the West Wing, well, that's it. You'll officially be the fucking stupidest fucking country on Earth and will reap the rewards. You think life sucks under Bush? Let Palin in the Whitehouse and you won't have seen nothin' yet.
Seriously. I'm worried about you guys. Please, this time, for the love of all that's good and decent, just vote with your brains & not with that part of you that thinks "Oh, she's nice, I'd have lunch with her." That's what got you eight years of George!
Hey, isn't it interesting how noone's talking about John McCain anymore? Talk about making yourself irrelevant.
I think her main, crucial point - apart from everything else that's completely retarded about McCain's VP pick - is this:
[The Vice President's] most important job is to be President if the President dies.
I can not imagine anyone more unqualified to be holding the codes to a staggering arsenal of nuclear weapons in the event of a serious military emergency than Sarah Palin. Neither can Matt Damon (no link for you! Google it :)).
Yes, people, all jokes aside, McCain is old. He's 72 and he might freaking well DIE and leave Palin in charge (nominally, anyway) of the most powerful military in the world (it's hard to imagine someone less qualified than George to run the US military, but fuck me - McCain found a DOOZY!). This is a woman who believes she lives in the End Times and that Armageddon's just around the corner and soon Jesus will arrive in his gleaming gold battle-mech and lay waste to the Hellish legions of orcs and trolls and whatever else she and her apocalyptic pastors can imagine. Does America want this lackwit staring down North Korea or reacting to a terrorist dirty bomb? Sheesh. I like America. I like the Americans I've met & spoken to & befriended. I KNOW that there are smart people there. But if you allow this woman access to the West Wing, well, that's it. You'll officially be the fucking stupidest fucking country on Earth and will reap the rewards. You think life sucks under Bush? Let Palin in the Whitehouse and you won't have seen nothin' yet.
Seriously. I'm worried about you guys. Please, this time, for the love of all that's good and decent, just vote with your brains & not with that part of you that thinks "Oh, she's nice, I'd have lunch with her." That's what got you eight years of George!
Hey, isn't it interesting how noone's talking about John McCain anymore? Talk about making yourself irrelevant.
Dangerous Intersection, indeed!
Erich Vieth over at Dangerous Intersection (the "DI" I don't think are a pack of well-funded LIARS FOR JESUS), upon seeing a comment of mine aimed at a commenter of theirs in the comments of this post, kindly invited me to be a contributor.
I just published my first post over there - it's a repost of my Ethics Gradient post "Why I am not an atheist" along with a small introduction.
I hope I can contribute in some small way to the continuing success & traffic of Dangerous Intersection. It's one of the stops in my daily blog cruise and it's quite an honour to be invited to contribute my, um, thoughts. I thank Erich for allowing me the opportunity and hope my future posts can justify his, um, faith in me ...
Hank
PS: I'm dropping the "Mandrellian" tag at this blog but I'll still be the sole contributor, unless I suddenly get swamped with traffic (lol?) at which point I'll hire a helper monkey.
I just published my first post over there - it's a repost of my Ethics Gradient post "Why I am not an atheist" along with a small introduction.
I hope I can contribute in some small way to the continuing success & traffic of Dangerous Intersection. It's one of the stops in my daily blog cruise and it's quite an honour to be invited to contribute my, um, thoughts. I thank Erich for allowing me the opportunity and hope my future posts can justify his, um, faith in me ...
Hank
PS: I'm dropping the "Mandrellian" tag at this blog but I'll still be the sole contributor, unless I suddenly get swamped with traffic (lol?) at which point I'll hire a helper monkey.
Friday, September 19, 2008
California Christians display epic self-pwnzage!!1
A recent Dispatch From The Culture Wars brings news of a queer situation in California:
Oh me, oh my, oh my Great Galactic Squid, the EPIC LULZ are almost too much for my mortal, carbon-based brain to withstand! In a bizarre, inexplicable, baffling display of OMGWTFBBQ, these two COMPLETE CRETINS have CHOSEN to inflict upon themselves the very situation they & their bronze-age ilk wish to (and in many cases do) inflict upon gay people across the entire USA. Read the rest of Ed Brayton's short & sweet dispatch. Pretty much sums it up!
Last thought, directed directly at Bird & Codding: mentally retarded goats who eat lead paint and live under power lines on toxic waste dumps no doubt approved by your tax & destroy Republican party have more of a clue than you, you pair of barely cerebrally evolved mental sub-mammals with whom I'm ashamed to share my DNA. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! You lackwits are voluntarily cutting yourself off from vital legal rights - rights that you were born with and never even had to break a sweat to earn - just to spite gay people who've been struggling for those very same same rights for decades. I'd admire the strength of your convictions if they weren't so completely misguided and arse-backwards and, ultimately, futile with any luck. Instead, I join the world in heaping epic lulz upon you!!
HA!
In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. "Bride" and "groom" became "Party A" and "Party B."
[Whackaloon Fundy Whingers]Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.
Oh me, oh my, oh my Great Galactic Squid, the EPIC LULZ are almost too much for my mortal, carbon-based brain to withstand! In a bizarre, inexplicable, baffling display of OMGWTFBBQ, these two COMPLETE CRETINS have CHOSEN to inflict upon themselves the very situation they & their bronze-age ilk wish to (and in many cases do) inflict upon gay people across the entire USA. Read the rest of Ed Brayton's short & sweet dispatch. Pretty much sums it up!
Last thought, directed directly at Bird & Codding: mentally retarded goats who eat lead paint and live under power lines on toxic waste dumps no doubt approved by your tax & destroy Republican party have more of a clue than you, you pair of barely cerebrally evolved mental sub-mammals with whom I'm ashamed to share my DNA. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! You lackwits are voluntarily cutting yourself off from vital legal rights - rights that you were born with and never even had to break a sweat to earn - just to spite gay people who've been struggling for those very same same rights for decades. I'd admire the strength of your convictions if they weren't so completely misguided and arse-backwards and, ultimately, futile with any luck. Instead, I join the world in heaping epic lulz upon you!!
HA!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)