The Damned

On CNN today twitter-themed anchor Rick Sanchez had Catholic League chief Bill Donahue, a frequent guest on CNN, appear to defend the church in light of questions of hiding the pedophilia scandal coursing through the institution. Through his clearly agitated ramblings, Donahue tried to make the points that because A) most of those molested were post-pubescent and B) most of those molested were boys; The problem was, in fact, not an issue of pedophilia, but an issue of homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, Donahue said, but most pedophiles in the church are homosexuals.

This is where I'm going to cut off his armchair psychology and pick apart all the things that are wrong with this and what he seeks to hide.

As can be seen in the documentary Deliver Us From Evil, a fantastic and unsettling first hand account of what it's like to be a pedophile priest, pedophilia is not necessarily gender specific. That is to say, there are pedophiles out there, like Father O'Grady, who don't seek victims of a specific gender. It's a psychological disorder, not a sexuality and the sooner people realize that, the sooner people are going to stop falling for this despicable stereotype of gay molester. In fact, it's not even true that most pedophiles go after young boys. It's been demonstrated that most pedophiles seek female victims. If it's Donahue's claim that most pedophile priests take male victims, he's got to qualify that with the fact that he's only referring to reported cases. (And even that isn't backed up by any facts or numbers). But to assume that because most reported cases involve a male victim that most cases involve a male victim is like assuming that because most cases were reported after a certain year, most cases happened after that year. Now, years later, we're seeing people come out everyday and say, 'yes it was the 60's, the 50's, the 40's and I was raped by father so-and-so then.'

OK, so the misinformation put forth by this Bill Donahue character is just off the charts and seeks to put your mind in so many places that distract you from the real lesson of this scandal. That priests are not trustworthy people.

The church depends on a community that trusts it so it does everything in it's power to gain and maintain that trust. Priests, religious leaders, are often mentioned among the roll call of adults that children should be able to go to for safety, along with police officers, friends' parents, and teachers. And even these people are to be trusted with a certain dose of suspicion. Priests shouldn't be immune from the same suspicion that children are taught to apply to a friend's parent or even their own step-parents.

But the Catholic church won't ever say that. They won't ever admit that a priest is not a person qualified to babysit, to educate or to unquestioningly trust. To do so would be the most damning possible scenario for the church. They depend on family devotion. That's why sacraments are centered around family activities, stages of life, rites of passage. The church only succeeds when families allow it to be integrated into their lives So they put the focus back on an old enemy: TEH GAYZ! They're not the traditional family. It's followers for the most part don't understand them. It makes it look like an insidious evil has snuck into their precious church. Perhaps queer 'ol Satan himself. They're playing to the base. It's the Bush/Rove strategy, if you rile up those who already support you, they'll make a stronger effort to support you.

Don't ever forget it. The lesson from the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church is that these are not trustworthy people, they are not qualified and parents would be fools to leave their children in the care of these people. And that's what they're really hiding.

A group of Christians, including a former atheist and a philosopher, have launched a new campaign that calls fellow believers to "pray for an atheist" beginning with April Fools' Day.

A tattered American flag is taped to the antenna of a van at the home of Thomas William Piatek Monday, March 29, 2010, in Whiting, Ind. Piatek is one of nine suspects tied to a Christian militia that was preparing for the Antichrist and are charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors said Monday. The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government, according to newly unsealed court papers. U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said agents moved on the group because its members were planning a violent mission sometime in April. (AP Photo/(M. Spencer Green)



I don't know if I can put it much better than Mark Potok explains it here. People are led to believe one thing and they act in a certain way based on those beliefs. Whether it's Jesus or an anti-Christ or the New World Order or some one-world government — these fears inform people's decisions. Are the people evil? Do they seek to harm because they delight in it? Or do they act in these reprehensible ways because their minds can't properly determine the difference between reality and fear? Of course people like this, whose fear-roasted minds instinctively act defensively, are going to stock pile weapons and attempt to kill hundreds. In their imaginations, police, government, the U.N., atheists, are their oppressors. This is what happens when people are taught that faith is a virtue. When critical thinking and rationality are replaced with dogma and fear.

This group, presumably, is acting in a way that they think is logical to overthrow their oppressors, among them, perhaps, the anti-Christ. But I'm willing to bet they haven't really considered that they are the crazy ones. That the U.N. don't seek to take over the world. That there is no anti-Christ. I wouldn't be surprised if they never even wondered why it is that they believe in an anti-Christ or whether it makes sense to accept that belief.

Some have told me that religion 'just is' as if it has a natural societal origin like trade or sex. Besides this being the naturalistic fallacy, it's not even accurate that religion is natural. It's a system devised to control people and even if that original control worked to most people's benefit, it clearly leads to unreasonable thinking today. It's expired. What once over-road people's base desires to eat rotten meat and rape left and right now only overrides reason and intellect. Had these people held their beliefs about Jesus or the New World Order or whatever up to the light and really examined whether it was true, they probably wouldn't have been sure enough to set a bombing plan into motion. But since religions often consider it an offense to question the religion, these people are prevented from developing the critical thinking skills that could have led them to see they were making terrible, terrible choices.

In one of the more telling comments in this piece, Potok says the group's name is a made-up word. They're a people with no connection to anything. Just angry, looking to hitch the star of their ignorance onto an equally ignorant wagon, and imagine the surprise that Christianity won their affection. (Christianity, and of course, certain cable news conspiracy theorists.)

I am proud to say that Alabama Atheists and Agnostics, the student organization of which I am vice president, has been centrally involved in contributing to and shaping the discussion. Our members have chalked the sidewalks, ...

In this scene from 'Persoplis' a young Margie tries to illegally buy western music. Just as she makes a deal to purchase some Iron Maiden, she is accosted by some nasty older ladies who disapprove of her 'punk is not dead' jacket and seek to turn her in to police. She cries and gets away, and loses the freedom to wear her jacket. The religion oppresses her, but later, in another scene, the music sets her free (even if it's only for a short time.) Art's influence on culture is so massive that is causes many Iranians to seek the freedom to experience it. Similar stories have been told about Beatles music is communist Russia. What bigots like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck could never understand is that this is what changes people for the better, not racial slurs and violent demands.

I spend a lot of time on this blog, obviously, talking about the harm caused by religious beliefs. What I don't spend a lot of time talking about is the solution to these problems. Obviously, I haven't got all the answers, if I did I'd probably be better off. But I'm able to recognize some of the solutions. I can at least tell them apart from actions that clearly do more harm.

Several months ago, for instance, I put forth the argument that it was a poor decision for France to take steps to ban the burqa. Without getting into that whole argument, the basic premise is you can't force people to change. You have to win them over and let them come around to a better way of living.

Muslims have a lot going against them. They've got a different skin tone than most Americans/westerners, speak wildly different languages, eat different foods, have different family structures, etc... They've got all the things bigots hate: a different lifestyle. So it's easy to forget that while we are appalled by the injustices that Islam brings upon its people, we aim to save the people, or at least offer them the choice to be free.

Here's a positive way to combat Islam, or at least Islamic rule:

Protesting in verse: A Saudi woman criticizes Muslim clerics' in a TV poetry contest

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — It was a startling voice of protest at a startling venue. Covered head-to-toe in black, a Saudi woman lashed out at hard-line Muslim clerics' harsh religious edicts in verse on live TV at a popular Arabic version of "American Idol."

Well, not quite "American Idol": Contestants compete not in singing but in traditional Arabic poetry. Over the past episodes, poets sitting on an elaborate stage before a live audience have recited odes to the beauty of Bedouin life and the glories of their rulers or mourning the gap between rich and poor.

Then last week, Hissa Hilal, only her eyes visible through her black veil, delivered a blistering poem against Muslim preachers "who sit in the position of power" but are "frightening" people with their fatwas, or religious edicts, and "preying like a wolf" on those seeking peace.

Her poem got loud cheers from the audience and won her a place in the competition's finals, to be aired on Wednesday.

It also brought her death threats, posted on several Islamic militant Web sites.

Hilal shrugs off the controversy.

"My poetry has always been provocative," she told The Associated Press in an interview. "It's a way to express myself and give voice to Arab women, silenced by those who have hijacked our culture and our religion."

Her poem was seen as a response to Sheik Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, a prominent cleric in Saudi Arabia who recently issued a fatwa saying those who call for the mingling of men and women should be considered infidels, punishable by death.

But more broadly, it was seen as addressing any of many hard-line clerics in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region who hold a wide influence through television programs, university positions or Web sites.

That's bravery. That's courage. That's the first step toward making a better society. Art, music, comedy
, these are the weapons in the battle for change.

What's not useful is what's never useful: Ann Coulter. Well, by Ann Coulter I, of course mean, bigotry, racism and nastiness. Cruel language designed only to enrage and divide. While the rest of the world is trying to reach some sort of peaceful union, Ann Coulter is out their trying to undermine the efforts of people far more intelligent than her by blinding them with her anger and ignorance. If only there was a single name that embodied all these things. Oh, there is: Ann Coulter.

Firebrand conservative Ann Coulter's lecture at a Canadian college was cancelled Tuesday night over fears students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims.

Security at the University of Ottawa scrapped the right-wing darling's talk when more than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying.

Coulter's tasteless comment came after previously she told a gathering that Muslims shouldn't be allowed on airplanes and should take "flying carpets."

The camel quip came when Muslim student Fatima Al-Dhaher challenged Coulter on the remark - and told her she didn't have a flying carpet.

"What mode of transportation?" Coulter responded. "Take a camel."

Students jeered Coulter's remarks, and showed up in mass Tuesday night let her know she was not welcome at the school.

Coulter tried to explain away her comments Tuesday as "satire."

And the problem is multi-fold. In one racist comment Coulter both sets back relations between the Muslim world and the western world (driving Muslims deeper into Islam and away from the 'hate-filled' west) and gives her fellow conservatives a bad rap. And these guys don't need it. The record of being on the right and wrong sides of history is pretty embarrassing for conservatives even without Ann Coulter's miserable and uneducated input. She may be promoting herself by talking shit, but she's also exposing herself as someone solely interested in self-promotion and not in any sort of reasonable goal for a peaceful world.

Glenn Beck also took an interesting approach to religion, recently. It was his claim that Catholic Church's in particular were promoting communism and Nazism. Are wild, unsourced conspiracy claims helpful? No, Glenn, they're just another manifestation of a hateful man's unending march against humanity. If he had talked about the real problems within the Catholic church, which there are plenty of, just read this blog, I'd at least address them, but to make these claims, is about as hateful and useless as Coulter's. You're not going to scare people out of Catholicism (or Christianity, or Islam), Glenn. They've got to be shown the true harm of religion (not just hateful rants) and shown that life without it is fine.

Look, I want people to leave their church's too, but I want them to choose to do it because they're appalled by the religion's history and actions and have seen that there's a better life without superstitions. And I don't even care if they leave their church's — I'm not interested in making people atheists. I'm much more interested in promoting a secular society, a secular government and showing religions for what they are, not some magic, untouchable topic. Religious freedom, necessarily, needs a secular government and a secular society surrounding it. This isn't want Beck and Coulter are promoting. They're only promoting themselves, and they're stepping on advances towards the liberalization and ultimately, the collapse of these institutions to do it.

There is a lot of noise made about “New” Atheists, “militant” atheists, “fundamentalist” atheists and “angry” atheists. All of these are, in my agnostic opinion, prejudicial and false. Atheism as being proposed int he media is neither ...

There is a lot of noise made about “New” Atheists, “militant” atheists, “fundamentalist” atheists and “angry” atheists. All of these are, in my agnostic opinion, prejudicial and false. Atheism as being proposed int he media is neither ...

James S. Spiegel has an uncomfortable thesis to propose. He contends: Religious skepticism is, at bottom, a moral problem.

I notice atheism revolutionaries are worried for atheists around the world being low in number. Another worry of ours is about having a negative label of non-believing. But in reality, both these perceptions are misplaced.

Parametric values
Godly preachers are large in number, this being their commercial activity. For them, it is a matter of commerce and not tat of faith. If they find some other business more profitable,they won't mind switching over to that. Theists hardly ave their individual consciences, they believe just because others have been believing. They will always go with the wind irrespective of their own logical conclusions. Some of such persons are intellectually mediocre and most of them are of low intellect

Comparatively, atheism revolutionaries are less in number but they are true atheists without attaching any commercial string to it. They are the persons of high intellect and go by their individual consciences. Each of them has derived his/her own conclusions for being an atheist. They are courageous for being standing alone against a crowd of theists.

So quantity of atheists is small but their quality is far more superior than that of theists. If we have scale of quality parameters and evaluate all the atheist and theists on that scale, sum total of atheists shall come out to be much larger than that of theists. 

Negativity of Label
Atheists are said to be non-believers as compared to theists being believers in God. This is a scale of theists, and not that of humanity. The most important human values are intellect, self-confidence, self-esteem and thoughtfulness. On all these parameters, each atheists shall get a positive label while most of the theists shall be negatively labeled. So, all atheists definitely have positive attributes while all the theists do not possess positive attributes.

If the above audio doesn't work, you may listen to it here.

Myths are dangerous, religious or otherwise (although especially religious ones). Which is why the Texas School Board's recent decision (albeit only a preliminary decision) to repaint history with a Christian conservative brush is so upsetting. Both Christianity and this particular group's definition of conservatism are soaked in myth.

What we see happening today on the politically right is an extreme example of what we've always seen from the politically right — Reactionary panic. From McCarthy to Murdoch, conservatives have often relied on a familiar pattern in which they unjustifiably feel victimized, have an extreme reaction, and ruin carefully designed institutions.

They see reds around every corner and 'progress and development' as threats to their comfortable lifestyles. They idealize bygone eras and whitewash over their negative aspects - they are revisionists. And few take it to a more dangerous level than the creationist-loaded Texas School Board.

The danger is that conservatives feel victimized because change scares them, so they react to their perceived victimizers. That's how FOX 'news' came to be. Conservatives since Watergate have felt victimized by the press and the fall of a two term far-right president. But the press wasn't attacking Nixon because he was a republican, they attacked him because he was a crook. It's the credo of the journalist to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. The right sees that as a threat to them, and they respond with a media outlet that is DECIDEDLY conservative. Journalism doesn't work that way. But when you try to tell supporters of FOX's policies that, they launch into fear-based slippery slope argument about liberals wanting to limit freedom of speech and the Fairness Doctrine and yada yada. Meanwhile, irresponsible propaganda machines disguised as news outlets are the driving force behind those who support the fairness doctrine. I agree that the government shouldn't tell news agencies how to act, but I agree with that because journalism has a system and ethical standards that work. If that comes off as liberal to conservatives than that's just too fucking bad and if they think by creating, say, the Washington Times, for the direct purpose of being a right wing outlet, they've crossed the bounds of journalistic standards and provided examples for those who don't think the journalism industry can police itself.

It's the same with schools. Some conservatives believe that schools are teaching children (note: Children) liberal ideology. Then, when pressed for examples, they start talking about college professors. How can that be argued, except to point out the obvious red herring. Children don't go to college, folks. Or, often times, I find they say something along there lines:

When everybody gets a participation trophy at the end of the season, it doesn't mean anything. Americans aren't about participation trophies or we better damn stop it. We're about telling the coach, take the trophy back. That's where you need to stand. Teach your children now. My son, my daughter didn't earn the trophy. They played hard. They played well, but they didn't win. We maybe will get the real trophy next year. Don't give me this bogus trophy.

Life isn't about the trophies. It is about improving yourself. It is about accomplishment.

That was Glenn Beck, again, talking about poverty, somehow. But it exemplifies a common conservative viewpoint, that schools and the general treatment of children is too sensitive, too touchy-feely, too feminine.

First off, what the FUCK this has to do with social studies and science, I have no idea. If anything, it proves them to be hypocrites, aren't these the people who FEEL the presence of a god? Secondly, this is a pretty meager argument. I won't even address why I disagree with the content of it, because it's dodge. It's a way conservatives feel victimized, and why the Texas BOE's makeup is the way it is. With no hard evidence for bias, the right-wingers get the reactionary guard out and insert DECIDEDLY right wing propaganda into textbooks.

And history education has a credo too. It's "Those who don't learn from their pasts are doomed to repeat it." Right? We've all heard this? That's the danger in selectively creating a DECIDEDLY pro-conservative or pro-American stance. But they see it as either pro-American or anti-American. Just like the ultimatum their precious George Dubya laid out, you're either with us, or against us.

It's not true, conservatives. I'm against a pro-American history textbook, because I'm for the truth. That's not to say the truth is anti-American. You're creating a false dichotomy and you'd better get it straight soon or you and your children will be DOOMED to repeat it.

What's biting conservatives in the ass now is that a lot of those reactionary guard they elected are actually Christian activists (see McLeroy) or corporate plants (like Dick Cheney) and the conservatives aren't really getting what they wanted. They'll NEVER get what they want, because what they want is 'the way things were.' Instead of focusing on how to best move forward in society, they seek to freeze their own upbringings. How egotistical! And, by the way, these people are starting to realize that McLeroy and Cheney have screwed them. And now they're split all over between tea parties and libertarianism and Beck/McCarthyism - this is why I'm predicting the republicans are going to have a harder time than they're expecting taking back the both houses.

THIS BLOG HAS JOINED UP WITH THE REBEL ALLIANCE OVER AT WORDPRESS. CLICK ANY OF THIS TO GET THERE!

I often lie awake in bed and imagine how awesome my life would be if I had superpowers. I'm a 30 year-old man.

About once a year I try my hardest to pee my pants. As of yet I've been unsuccessful.