religion » unsane

The problem with omniscience

Sep 112011

As an atheist, I find the notion of an omniscient deity hilarious. Why? Try this simple logical exercise:

An omniscient deity sees everything.
At any given time, there will be depraved people watching child pornography.
Every time someone is watching child pornography, an omniscient deity watches it too.
In fact, an omniscient deity not only watches the porn, but watches the creation of the porn.

Do you really want to pray to something that watches children being molested, and then watches the documentary evidence of it later?

I know I don’t.

It’s this sort of story that makes me realise the United States of America is largely a sick society. I’m not talking about people being unhealthy, I’m talking about a health system which is so crippled by profit margins and a general disdain for fellow citizens that people are denied absolute basic medical treatment.

As someone who lives in a country with reasonably comprehensive universal healthcare (ironically, dental is somewhat limited), this makes me sick to my stomach:

“A 24-year-old Cincinnati father died from a tooth infection this week because he couldn’t afford his medication … Kyle Willis’ wisdom tooth started hurting two weeks ago. When dentists told him it needed to be pulled, he decided to forgo the procedure, because he was unemployed and had no health insurance.

When his face started swelling and his head began to ache, Willis went to the emergency room, where he received prescriptions for antibiotics and pain medications. Willis couldn’t afford both, so he chose the pain medications.

The tooth infection spread, causing his brain to swell. He died Tuesday.”

Without Insurance, 24-year-old Dies of Toothache – ABC News.

Honestly, it’s sickening that basic pain killers and antibiotics – the simplest and cheapest of all medications – are unavailable universally to everyone in a western country.

And if you think I’m being harshly judgemental, you’re absolutely right.

It’s sad, and it leaves me sick to the core.

If this is the “victory” of your conservatives – the “grand old party” and the tea party, then it’s a terrible inditement. The people who achieved this victory are those “christian” and “god fearing” types who spout sanctimonious piousness but in actual fact only worship one single thing – money.

Please America, learn that there’s nothing wrong with caring for your neighbours.

Bigoted ‘logic’

Morality 4 Responses »

Aug 122011

I often get told by people who denounce homosexuality that they only do so because “Jesus would not approve”, or that “The bible is against it”.

One thing apologists and right wing Christians seem to take umbrage to is my firm denunciation of the worst elements of religion. Does that make me anti-religion? Yes and no. Yes, in that I am very much against the worst parts of organised religion. The hatred amongst fundamentalist groups (regardless of individual belief), the protection of child abusers in certain hierarchical faiths, and so on. Individual people who are religious? Well, I may personally believe their faith is incorrect, but I acknowledge they equally believe my atheism is incorrect. As long as we can agree to disagree – that’s what matters.

But what really gets my goat is the simpleton who makes the claim that the bible says homosexuality is bad, and therefore – fait accompli, homosexuality is bad. This is just a shield used by bigots to avoid confronting their own fears, blood lust, and perhaps even nascent same-sex attractedness.

Why?

Because if you cherry pick from the bible what is or is not a bad thing – if you can say in one breath “homosexuality is bad because the bible says so”, but then cast aside other biblical directions you find uncomfortable or unsavoury because they’re things that say, “need to be interpreted in a historical context”, or some other excuse – then that makes you a bigot.

For instance, one of the most common parts of the bible used to denounce homosexuality is Leviticus. Leviticus seemed like a pretty angry sort of of guy. The classic Leviticus quotes are:

18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

and

20:13 – If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

Yay! Proof that gays are bad. Except …

That same section of the bible says:

People who are infirm, blind, deformed, manifesting dwarfism, etc., are not allowed to “approach the alter” – i.e., worship. Basically, it seems to indicate that people of good faith should turn away anyone who isn’t worthy. (21:17 – 21:24).

So, if your church group has anyone with any blemish, or any dwarves, or anyone with an injury or disease, in it, and uses Leviticus to denounce homosexuality, you’re all bigots. And the blemished, diseased and injured in your groups are hypocritical bigots.

It also says that you can keep non-believers as slaves (21:44, 21:45) – and not only keep them as slaves, but their progeny also instantly become slaves to you at birth.

Leviticus just goes on and on. He’s a bit of a party pooper if you follow him rigorously. No shellfish, no pork, kill adulterers, etc.

Now, some would go on to say that Leviticus is old testament, and christians just go on the basis of the new testament. Well, for some, that may be true – but many seem to fall back to Leviticus when it comes to defending a hatred towards those of us who are attracted to the same sex. They also seem to forget what the focus of the christian faith said about homosexuality:

[_______________________________________________________________]

The argument I’m making here has admittedly been made ad nauseam, and the likelihood of me convincing a bigot to change his or her ways on the basis of this logic is slim. People who use these old quotes to cling to hatred rarely look for, or see the logic right in front of their eyes.

So, here’s the rub: if you claim that homosexuality, or homosexuals are bad because the bible tells us so, but you’re not 100% obeying all the directives in the bible, you’re not really against homosexuality because of the the bible. You’re just against homosexuality, and using the bible to defend that bigotry. It’s so you can sleep comfortably at night, excusing yourself for the hateful and spiteful things you say.

I think I know in that case which of is are the better person.

Fred Nile: Now seemingly as crazy as a shit sandwich

Life, Morality No Responses »

Aug 052011

Many of us thought that Fred Nile, an upper house MP and regular on-the-knees sideline participant for Mardi Gras was more than a bit whacko in his high moral campaigns, but this time he appears to have taken the cake. Having introduced a private members bill to kill off ethics instructions in NSW schools, he’s told the upper house that:

“(It is) a course which I believe does not teach children right from wrong but promotes the secular humanist relativist philosophy,” he said.

“I believe this is the philosophy that we saw during World War Two with the Nazis and the communists.”

‘Nazi philosophy’ behind ethics classes: Nile – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

At this point I have to interject and suggest that Fred has appeared to have graduated from whackjob to “crazy as a shit sandwich” status.

That’s certainly how I’d interpret the evidence. It’s usually what happens when Godwin’s Law is satisfied.

When does it end?

Morality No Responses »

Aug 032011

The Mirror reported 31 July, “Church child protection chief caught with 4,000 child porn pictures“. With slight edits, the report opens with:

A child protection official for the Catholic Church has been caught with 4,000 pictures of child porn.

[the] Father-of-four … was arrested after uploading pictures of children being abused to a website … a former social worker, [he] was employed by the church following sex scandals about pervert priests.

Child abuse in religion is not limited to the catholic church, but it certainly appears to have been the standard bearer for it over the last several decades.

My question over the ongoing child abuse scandals that come out of the catholic church is a simple one – when will it end? At what point will those in positions of power within the organisation actually apply for readmission to the human race and aggressively support the punishment of those who would harm children in this way?

Yes – apply for readmission to the human race. Those who either implicitly or explicitly shield child abusers rather than the children lose their status as genuine human beings. And they won’t really apply for readmission until they’re punished appropriately.

Yet, shielding the abusers has modus operandi of the church at seemingly the highest levels of the organisation. At best, nods and lip service to the notion of protecting children, but in actual fact – anything but. If you think that’s history, think again. Only today, The Age reported:

AN INDEPENDENT inquiry into dozens of suicides among victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests and brothers in Victoria would achieve little, a Catholic bishop says.

Police investigating the case of convicted pedophile Brother Robert Best believe at least 26 victims of sexual abuse at schools in which he taught have committed suicide. One of the investigating officers wants a parliamentary inquiry to investigate the deaths.

“If it helps the victims I’d be more than happy for it to go ahead,” Bishop of Ballarat Peter Connors said.

“I don’t think they’ll learn very much more … I’m convinced we’ve done the best we can in recent years.”

(“Suicide inquiry won’t shed light: bishop“)

That’s a mighty big and lumpy roll of carpet the catholic church keeps on using to sweep these ‘scandals’ under.

But here’s the thing: they still create the impression that the scandal is a priest being discovered molesting a child. After all, the bishop went on to say:

While conceding the abuse of children was wrong, he said that in the past it had not always been clear to everyone what was inappropriate behaviour.

“In the past a lot of ignorance was there on the part of lots of people. Parents didn’t understand, sometimes bishops didn’t understand. We have no excuse now.”

No, Bishop, you had no excuse then, either. At what point was it ever unclear that molesting children was inappropriate behaviour? Buggering or abusing an innocent is just that. Mitigating the blame by trying to suggest parents might have been at fault is tenuous and an exercise in self-absolution at best. It’s trying to suggest that it used to be normal, or at least, less abnormal. Just the way that Ratzinger himself claimed:

“In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children … It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than’ and a ‘worse than’. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

(Pope Benedict XVI Declares Pedophilia is/was ‘Normal’)

And if you think there was never any official policy in the church about protecting these beasts, think again –

A letter from the Vatican demanding that no pedophile cases be turned over to police has been uncovered … The letter dating from 1997 demolishes Vatican claims that they never instructed local bishops to withhold evidence from police about pedophiles.

(“A smoking gun letter reveals Vatican directly ordered pedophiles be protected”)

The international community recognises the notion of diplomatic protection of the leaders of countries, but even though it’s arguable as to whether this protection extends to the Pope (after all, the Vatican is not a member of the UN, just an ‘observer’), this protection does not extend to more heinous sins, such as crimes against humanity.

If you think I’m making a bad joke by suggesting this is a case of crimes against humanity, you’d be very wrong.

Oh it’s easy to quantify crimes against humanity when it’s people like Saddam Hussein, who gassed entire villages – or the various individuals involved in genocidal acts in Kosovo, etc. After all, that’s a more ‘tangible’ thing. If an entire village is wiped out, or ethnic cleansing is being performed, there’s gruesome images that can be shown on TV (with suitable warnings about ‘distressing content’ to attract more interest), then practically everyone can look at that and decry the events.

Yet the various countries, and United Nations do indeed qualify acts of mass rape as being crimes against humanity.

Has there been a greater example of mass rape than that conducted by catholic priests over the decades? Some examples include:

Based on the number of priests involved, if this were an army, there’d be no hesitation in calling it an act of mass, systemic rape. The catholic church has done its best to suppress and hide information as to the numbers of children abused by its priests, deacons, bishops, etc. Yet even the most casual of summations would put this over the last say, 5 decades, into the order of tens of thousands.

How does this not qualify as mass rape, and therefore crimes against humanity?

At what point do governments around the world actually acknowledge the hard fact that this is an organisation which has actively shielded pedophiles for decades, making excuse after excuse – including the increasingly pathetic newer ones of:

Morals change or
It’s not pedophilia, but instead hebephilia, if the boys are aged between 13 and 17.

The first excuse is one of outright bastardry. The second, outright sophistry. If governments and the United Nations believe that mass rape constitutes crimes against humanity, then there is no excuse for failing to act over the systemic and ongoing abuse perpetrated by and shielded by members of the catholic church.

When will it end? Only when we demand it ends.

"You're evil, and must be stopped!"

Life 1 Response »

Apr 042011

I still remember it clearly. Central Station Sydney, a mid-60s woman staggers back, as if physically assaulted, from the young man she’d been talking to, and shrilly screams, “You’re evil, and must be stopped!” She lets out a sharp sob of anger? frustration? horror?, and staggers away. People hurrying about their business stop for a moment, see that there’s nothing else to see, and keep going about their business. It’s a Sydney thing. It’s a city thing: unless you’re on fire, or being attacked, someone shouting random statements tends to be shunned.

It was either 1994 or 1995, making me around 21. I was not one of the observers. I was obviously not the old woman. I was, in fact, the young man that was the focus of the woman’s cry, “You’re evil, and must be stopped!”

What terrible, vile thing had I done? Had I actually assaulted her? Had I been rude? Had I bumped into her and refused to apologise?

None of the above.

I was sitting in the concourse, minding my own business. I’d been up since the wee hours of the morning, travelling from Parkes to Newcastle, and had a break at Sydney waiting for the next train. My eyes were sandy and red – I’d not slept much the night before. Maybe that increased my evil rating. I was tired, uncomfortable from travel and eager just to be back home in Newcastle where I’d be able to shower, grab something to eat, and have an early night.

In some ways I should be thankful to the old woman. I was just starting to doze. I’d waited almost an hour since I’d arrived, and if I’d fallen asleep I would have missed that next train to Newcastle, and my journey would have been even later.

“Ahem” – or something like that.

I blinked a few times, looked blearily around, and found a mid-60s woman leaning over me. At that stage, I’d not learnt how to quickly wake up – that wouldn’t come until after I had been doing on-call shifts for a while. So I smacked my lips once or twice – I was pretty thirsty, and didn’t have any money on me for a drink, and asked, “Hi – can I help you?”

“I’m wanting to see if I can help you”, she replied.

My immediate thought? I already knew by that stage that most times when I’m asleep I have nightmares, so I was already wondering whether I’d been looking odd while dozing off, and I discretely checked my mouth to make sure I’d just not dribbled in my sleep or something equally embarrassing. No dribble – didn’t remember any particular nightmares. Whatever could she mean?

And then she held out the pamphlet. A4, tri-fold. A big picture of some guy nailed to a cross on the front, with a bold headline, UNDERLINED TWICE, proclaiming “JESUS DIED FOR YOU”.

Sigh.

One of those people.

“Sorry I’m not interested.”

“Oh but you should be.” The pamphlet gets waved closer to my face. “Everyone should be interested in what their saviour did for them.”

I closed my eyes for a moment. Maybe she was the nightmare. Opened them again – no, she’s still there, still waving the pamphlet.

“Look, I’m really not interested. I’m just passing through, I’m not from here.” Why I thought not being from around here might send her on her way, I really don’t know. Years later I’d remember it and follow through with “I’m an alien, and I’m older than your planet”, and watched some Jehovas Witnesses scuttle back down the path to the front door as fast as they could.

But I didn’t there, and I really hoped that she’d go on her way. Some hints though can’t be taken, particularly by those who spend their time being obsessed with the state of other peoples souls so they don’t have to inspect their own. So the response was “You need to know how much Jesus loves you and wants to be part of your life.”

And so I pulled out the big guns. No, I didn’t swear at her. I was polite. I certainly didn’t punch her, or push her away. Instead, with the quiet dignity that can only come from a miniscule amount of sleep and a sore arse from interminably long bus and train rides, I simply replied, “Look, I’m gay, and I’m an atheist. I don’t think your Jesus is very interested in me, and I’m certainly not very interested in him.”

And so, that mid-60s woman staggers back, as if physically assaulted, from me, and shrilly screams, “You’re evil, and must be stopped!” She lets out a sharp sob of anger? frustration? horror?, and staggers away.

It was also the last time I travelled without headphones. Whackjobs don’t get far when you either can’t hear them, or pretend you can’t.

Apparently we're hijacking the civil rights movement

Equal Rights No Responses »

Mar 182011

That’s right, a leader within the NAACP (USA: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) has got a bee in his little bonnet, saying that the gay community is hijacking the civil rights movement. See here: NAACP Leader: ‘Gay Community Stop Hijacking The Civil Rights Movement’ | The New Civil Rights Movement.

According to the above article:

Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr., president of the Iowa-Nebraska chapter of the NAACP, spoke at a marriage rally in Des Moines on Tuesday, adding, “Deviant behavior is not the same as being denied your right to vote,” and calling any parallel between the African-American civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement an “insult.”

The lesson in this?

It’s an important one: bigotry comes in many forms, and we’d be foolish to assume that just because someone shares in persecution, they would actually understand that persecution, and the persecution of others.

And when we, the persecuted minorities, fail to understand that lesson – well, the bigots win.

The immoral discrimination litmus test

Equal Rights, Life, Politics 3 Responses »

Feb 152011

Conservative religious groups make much ado about the “right to religious freedom”, and specifically the subsequent demand that they be allowed to avoid prosecution from discrimination on the basis of those beliefs.

This, for the most part, is bovine fecal matter, since for the most part it’s actually about demanding legal freedom to be a bigot.

We can sort the legitimate concerns from the immoral bigotry with 2 simple litmus tests:

Replace any reference to gender/gender identity, sexual orientation, etc., with a specific ethnic group.
Replace any reference to life circumstances with a life changing injury or disease.

Let’s have an example, shall we?

The Victorian government, sliding backwards, is currently considering enacting changes to the discrimination act that would return it to NSW standards. In The Age, “Baillieu promised a fairer Victoria, but it looks like the opposite“, we’re told:

At the weekend, the state government committed to reforming [sic] Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in two ways: first, it will scrap measures to designed to actively promote equality, including stripping powers from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.

Second, it will expand the “permanent exceptions” that give religious groups and entities – including those that provide public services using public money – a free license to discriminate against de facto couples, gays, lesbians and single mums, among others.

So, let’s apply the litmus test then on that second sentence:

Second, it will expand the “permanent exceptions” that give religious groups and entities – including those that provide public services using public money – a free license to discriminate against diabetic couples, hispanics, negroes and one-limbed mothers, among others.

Litmus test: FAIL.

Organisations and individuals cannot – they must not – be allowed to claim religious freedoms that would violate these fundamental litmus tests. To allow them to do so is contrary to morality, common sense and acceptable social behaviour.

No Pope Ratzinger, you're wrong

Equal Rights, Morality No Responses »

Feb 132011

In a moderately homophobic article, titled “Gay ‘marriages’ to be allowed in church“, the UK Telegraph discusses the impending protests of religious groups in the United Kingdom when proposed legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry in churches passes.

The Telegraph goes on to say:

Pope Benedict said same-sex marriage was among the “most insidious and dangerous challenges that today confront the common good.”

Really? So allowing people who love each other – regardless of their gender and the gender of their partner – express that love by marrying is an insidious and dangerous challenge to the common good?

Dear Pope Ratzinger: you’re a dirty, filthy pig. In fact, that’s insulting to pigs. I had a pet pig once as a kid. It was loving and kind and friendly. You have none of those attributes. You head an organisation that for years has shielded pedophiles who bugger and molest children. Actively shielded pedophiles. You are an affront to decency and morality with your claims that:

“In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said.

“It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than’ and a ‘worse than’. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

So child buggering is not “good or bad”, because “nothing is good or bad”, but … oh shit, men marrying men, or women marrying women … that’s against “the common good”?

Fuck you Ratzinger.

Expel this!

Equal Rights, Life, Morality 1 Response »

Feb 122011

In ‘Appalling’ law lets schools expel gay students (Sydney Morning Herald), we’re told:

A SENIOR Anglican bishop calls it “appalling” and a gay and lesbian rights group condemns it as “deeply offensive”, but the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, backs a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.

The law, it turns out, was introduced in the Wran era in NSW politics, and allows private schools (with a particular focus, methinks, on religious private schools) to have the power to expel students for being gay. Except under the most lucky of circumstances, same-sex attracted teenagers have the most difficulty during those formative years, and don’t deserve this headache. You may say “sure, then don’t send them to a religious school” – but if you did, you’d be not thinking of the most simple fact: most kids don’t really get a say in what school they go to: it’s a parent/guardian decision.

Quoting the article further:

The chief executive of ACON, Nicolas Parkhill, condemned the law as “deeply offensive, patently unethical and damaging to our society on multiple levels. Recent research shows that young same-sex-attracted people are up to 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers and that 80 per cent of the verbal or physical abuse they experience occurs in schools.

“Allowing religious schools to reinforce this negative experience by giving them the right to expel the victims of homophobic attitudes is incomprehensible.”

Nicolas Parkhill is being remarkably restrained, I think.

That this hateful, mean spirited, spiteful, bigoted, moronic and evil law was ever introduced is enough of a stain on the spirit of NSW – that it remains, and has the current Attorney General still approve of it, is utterly disgusting. Yet, we shouldn’t be surprised – this is a state excessively dominated by religious pandering. The separation of church and state is a farce in Australian politics. Cults get special dispensation to exclude themselves from compulsory voting, then get to raise their “concerns” with how the country should be run to politicians. They also get to interfere with elections by helping to campaign against politicians they don’t like. Religious leaders get to have special forums with politicians to quiz them about how they’re going to behave spiritually if elected.

And arseholes get to expel kids from school for the transgression of how they were born, thanks to a legal shield.

You know what I’d like to see? A legal shield against bigotry. But to get that, we’ll need an Attorney-General who supports the ending of bigotry, rather than supporting bigotry.

Older Entries Newer Entries

unsane

The problem with omniscience

America, that's sick

Bigoted ‘logic’

Fred Nile: Now seemingly as crazy as a shit sandwich

When does it end?

"You're evil, and must be stopped!"

Apparently we're hijacking the civil rights movement

The immoral discrimination litmus test

No Pope Ratzinger, you're wrong

Expel this!

What I’m saying

Equal rights articles

Subscribe

Recommended Reading

Archives