Thousands flock to funeral of India guru Satya Sai Baba (BBC News, 27 April 2011)
Once more it is clear for all to see that BBC News is a bastion of religious apologetics and a haven for irrationalists of all hues. The lengthly article is full of praise for this con artist, charlatan, and quack.
There is one short passage with critical notes: "They say that he was a persuasive fraudster [...]". But this is immediately followed by "These charges were always strenuously denied by the guru and his followers, and were never proved."
For a more informative account of the life of Sai Baba, see:
India would have been a better place without Sathya Sai Baba by Sanal Edamaruku (New Humanist)
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Thursday, 24 March 2011
moral compass
Vatican tells U.N. that critics of gays under attack (Reuters, Tue Mar 22, 2011)
Vilifying gays is ok. Vilifying those who vilify gays is not ok. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
(Morality according to the Vatican.)
Vilifying gays is ok. Vilifying those who vilify gays is not ok. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
(Morality according to the Vatican.)
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Dinner-table test
Viewpoints: Anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe (BBC News, 20 January 2011)
Viewpoints? Points (plural)?! The BBC's idea of fair and balanced is to balance a religious apologetic point of view against more of the same. For goodness's sake, don't let anything remotely controversial be said.
To be fair, it seems that also The Telegraph has after reconsideration found the topic too hot to handle. I recall that hundreds of comments were posted yesterday while now none remain. This is confirmed by Richard Dawkins.
Warsi's claim that criticism on an ideology equals prejudice, hatred and bigotry is untenable. In a healthy debate, had any been allowed in the mainstream media today, it would have been possible to challenge such a claim.
Viewpoints? Points (plural)?! The BBC's idea of fair and balanced is to balance a religious apologetic point of view against more of the same. For goodness's sake, don't let anything remotely controversial be said.
To be fair, it seems that also The Telegraph has after reconsideration found the topic too hot to handle. I recall that hundreds of comments were posted yesterday while now none remain. This is confirmed by Richard Dawkins.
Warsi's claim that criticism on an ideology equals prejudice, hatred and bigotry is untenable. In a healthy debate, had any been allowed in the mainstream media today, it would have been possible to challenge such a claim.
Saturday, 25 December 2010
wishes
Happy Celebration-of-a-biological-impossibility, everyone!
Virginity Claims Despoiled... (Melon Farmers, 24th December 2010)
Virginity Claims Despoiled... (Melon Farmers, 24th December 2010)
Friday, 1 January 2010
next decade
As a belated Christmas present, see:
Cassini Holiday Movies Showcase Dance of Saturn's Moons
Who needs religion when there are true wonders.
See also:
Those who use and abuse the term "new atheism" ought to listen to this interview with Bertrand Russell in 1959, who sums up all the relevant arguments and counter-arguments in a nutshell. E.g.:
Irrespective of his sharp mind and exceptional eloquence, Bertrand Russell in fact only repeated existing arguments. For example, the suggestion that there is a causal relationship between belief in a god and morality was already convincingly refuted by Socrates.
So what is "new" about "new atheists"? Perhaps it is that theists feel more threatened than ever, now that they seem to be losing ground to the voices of reason, at least in the Western world. By calling their opponents "new", they demand that atheists justify their position from scratch, as if such justification hasn't been around for at least two and a half millenia. By bickering about the "tone" of the arguments set forth by "militant" or "fundamentalist" atheists, they attempt to distract attention from a lost cause on the intellectual and scientific battleground, trying to take the discourse into the realm of cowardly irrational sentiments and ad hominem attacks.
Belief in, and promotion of something that is patently false isn't morally defensible, and has never been. What may have changed over the last decade is the growing awareness that religion is a serious threat to civilisation. The Aids epidemic in Africa can be largely blamed on Christian and Muslim interference in prevention programmes. G.W. Bush's motivations for the disastrous war in Iraq were his wacky beliefs in Old Testament prophesies, and he found his ally in Tony Blair, whose deranged religious convictions were still in the closet at that time.
As to the 9/11 attacks, there is no rational basis for criticising Islamic fundamentalism without criticising Islam, and similarly, there is no rational basis for criticising Islam without also criticising Judaeo-Christian beliefs and related forms of delusion, including pseudo-science. Suppressing criticism because of the assumption that believers are such vulnerable weaklings that they would be unable to cope with rational arguments could well be regarded as a form of racism. Respect is due to people, but no respect at all is due to a mistaken belief, whether it is astrology, homoeopathy, Scientology or Islam.
At the top of the list of my hopes for humanity in the coming decade is therefore that religion will continue to lose its unwarranted air of respectability, and that some of the most serious forms of quackery will follow suit.
Some more pointers:
'The Evolution of Confusion' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009
'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009
Scientology 2009…Year Of Epic Fail
Cassini Holiday Movies Showcase Dance of Saturn's Moons
Who needs religion when there are true wonders.
See also:
Those who use and abuse the term "new atheism" ought to listen to this interview with Bertrand Russell in 1959, who sums up all the relevant arguments and counter-arguments in a nutshell. E.g.:
It seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it is useful and not because you think it's true.
Irrespective of his sharp mind and exceptional eloquence, Bertrand Russell in fact only repeated existing arguments. For example, the suggestion that there is a causal relationship between belief in a god and morality was already convincingly refuted by Socrates.
So what is "new" about "new atheists"? Perhaps it is that theists feel more threatened than ever, now that they seem to be losing ground to the voices of reason, at least in the Western world. By calling their opponents "new", they demand that atheists justify their position from scratch, as if such justification hasn't been around for at least two and a half millenia. By bickering about the "tone" of the arguments set forth by "militant" or "fundamentalist" atheists, they attempt to distract attention from a lost cause on the intellectual and scientific battleground, trying to take the discourse into the realm of cowardly irrational sentiments and ad hominem attacks.
Belief in, and promotion of something that is patently false isn't morally defensible, and has never been. What may have changed over the last decade is the growing awareness that religion is a serious threat to civilisation. The Aids epidemic in Africa can be largely blamed on Christian and Muslim interference in prevention programmes. G.W. Bush's motivations for the disastrous war in Iraq were his wacky beliefs in Old Testament prophesies, and he found his ally in Tony Blair, whose deranged religious convictions were still in the closet at that time.
As to the 9/11 attacks, there is no rational basis for criticising Islamic fundamentalism without criticising Islam, and similarly, there is no rational basis for criticising Islam without also criticising Judaeo-Christian beliefs and related forms of delusion, including pseudo-science. Suppressing criticism because of the assumption that believers are such vulnerable weaklings that they would be unable to cope with rational arguments could well be regarded as a form of racism. Respect is due to people, but no respect at all is due to a mistaken belief, whether it is astrology, homoeopathy, Scientology or Islam.
At the top of the list of my hopes for humanity in the coming decade is therefore that religion will continue to lose its unwarranted air of respectability, and that some of the most serious forms of quackery will follow suit.
Some more pointers:
'The Evolution of Confusion' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009
'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009
Scientology 2009…Year Of Epic Fail
Friday, 6 November 2009
comparisons
Iran protesters hijack 30th anniversary of US embassy seizure (Guardian, Wednesday 4 November 2009)
Iran may aspire to have nuclear weapons. Britain has nuclear weapons.
At the head of Iran's government there are nutcases who might one day start a war against Israel motivated by religious beliefs. Britain got involved in the war in Iraq thanks to Tony Blair's divine revelations. Our next PM doesn't seem to be much of an improvement, to put it mildly.
Misogyny is widespread among Iran's political elite. The same can be said of Britain.
Iran has the Basij militia, who are answerable to no one. In Britain, MI5, MI6, special "anti-terror" forces, and even the regular police appear to be answerable to no one. (See here and here and here and here.)
Many judges in Iran are also clergy, passing sentences while firmly believing in fairy tales from the Arabian peninsula. In Britain, the legal system is dominated by bigotted clown in wigs, and juries who believe anything they read in the Daily Fail.
In Iran there are show trials against the leaders of the opposition. In Britain, people can be held in custody for 28 days without even being charged.
Speaking out against Islam can get one seriously in trouble in Iran. Speaking out against quacks damaging the health of patients can get one seriously in trouble in Britain.
There are reports of torture in Iranian prisons, Britain mostly outsources torture to third-world countries.
The Iranian authorities ban some films for vague reasons. (One such film is Crimson Gold, which I much recommend.) Similarly, cinemas in the UK are receiving "free advice" from police not to show certain films.
The Iranian government reveals its authoritarian nature by implementing software to monitor and filter internet traffic. This corresponds to mandatory data retention and IWF block lists in Britain. And more is to come.
Iran has a democracy in principle, but the government does not reflect the will of the people. The British government is currently supported by perhaps one fifth of the electorate, and will continue to give democracy the finger until the summer of 2010, when another political party will take over that doesn't care a jot about democracy, justice or common decency.
The people of Iran are showing exceptional bravery and dignity, becoming of the Persian culture, with its recorded history going back 5000 years. This may in the end break them free from tyrany. The people of Britain...
Ah, forget it! What's on the telly tonight?
Iran may aspire to have nuclear weapons. Britain has nuclear weapons.
At the head of Iran's government there are nutcases who might one day start a war against Israel motivated by religious beliefs. Britain got involved in the war in Iraq thanks to Tony Blair's divine revelations. Our next PM doesn't seem to be much of an improvement, to put it mildly.
Misogyny is widespread among Iran's political elite. The same can be said of Britain.
Iran has the Basij militia, who are answerable to no one. In Britain, MI5, MI6, special "anti-terror" forces, and even the regular police appear to be answerable to no one. (See here and here and here and here.)
Many judges in Iran are also clergy, passing sentences while firmly believing in fairy tales from the Arabian peninsula. In Britain, the legal system is dominated by bigotted clown in wigs, and juries who believe anything they read in the Daily Fail.
In Iran there are show trials against the leaders of the opposition. In Britain, people can be held in custody for 28 days without even being charged.
Speaking out against Islam can get one seriously in trouble in Iran. Speaking out against quacks damaging the health of patients can get one seriously in trouble in Britain.
There are reports of torture in Iranian prisons, Britain mostly outsources torture to third-world countries.
The Iranian authorities ban some films for vague reasons. (One such film is Crimson Gold, which I much recommend.) Similarly, cinemas in the UK are receiving "free advice" from police not to show certain films.
The Iranian government reveals its authoritarian nature by implementing software to monitor and filter internet traffic. This corresponds to mandatory data retention and IWF block lists in Britain. And more is to come.
Iran has a democracy in principle, but the government does not reflect the will of the people. The British government is currently supported by perhaps one fifth of the electorate, and will continue to give democracy the finger until the summer of 2010, when another political party will take over that doesn't care a jot about democracy, justice or common decency.
The people of Iran are showing exceptional bravery and dignity, becoming of the Persian culture, with its recorded history going back 5000 years. This may in the end break them free from tyrany. The people of Britain...
Ah, forget it! What's on the telly tonight?
Monday, 3 August 2009
Facebook criticised by Archbishop
Facebook criticised by Archbishop (BBC News, Sunday, 2 August 2009)
There are many bad things one can say about Facebook. The many bugs and browser-specific features reveal it was built by incompetent dimwits. The privacy policies, or their absence, one should be extremely wary of as well.
Nevertheless, after taking precautions, I signed up and I now find Facebook useful to keep informed about social events, where I meet people face-to-face. I concede however that other people may interact with their friend online in place of face-to-face meetings.
So does Facebook on the average lead to more face-to-face meetings, or to fewer? Well, there is this revolutionary new idea to find out things about the world. It is called scientific inquiry. One study on Facebook is for example:
Are Facebook Friends Like Face-to-Face Friends: Investigating Relations Between the Use of Social Networking Websites and Social Capital (Annual meeting of the International Communication Association, 2008)
One major disadvantage of science is that it requires effort. It is much easier to become the leader of some fruity club that worships pink unicorns, celestial teapots or whatever other garbled hogwash. And then you can say whatever you want, without obligation to offer any empirical support whatsoever. Your words will be jotted down by open-mouthed BBC News churnalists desperate to reach their quotas, and published on the front page of their website.
There are many bad things one can say about Facebook. The many bugs and browser-specific features reveal it was built by incompetent dimwits. The privacy policies, or their absence, one should be extremely wary of as well.
Nevertheless, after taking precautions, I signed up and I now find Facebook useful to keep informed about social events, where I meet people face-to-face. I concede however that other people may interact with their friend online in place of face-to-face meetings.
So does Facebook on the average lead to more face-to-face meetings, or to fewer? Well, there is this revolutionary new idea to find out things about the world. It is called scientific inquiry. One study on Facebook is for example:
Are Facebook Friends Like Face-to-Face Friends: Investigating Relations Between the Use of Social Networking Websites and Social Capital (Annual meeting of the International Communication Association, 2008)
One major disadvantage of science is that it requires effort. It is much easier to become the leader of some fruity club that worships pink unicorns, celestial teapots or whatever other garbled hogwash. And then you can say whatever you want, without obligation to offer any empirical support whatsoever. Your words will be jotted down by open-mouthed BBC News churnalists desperate to reach their quotas, and published on the front page of their website.
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Family see Jesus image in Marmite
Family see Jesus image in Marmite (BBC News, Thursday, 28 May 2009)
Just when I thought BBC News churnalism couldn't get any sillier, this comes along.
Just when I thought BBC News churnalism couldn't get any sillier, this comes along.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
national victory
Susan Boyle mentioned in Simpsons (BBC News, Wednesday, 20 May 2009)
How blessed are we, for our cultural achievements are acknowledged even in the US. So the Americans remembered their aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe.
The function of crappy TV shows is to detract attention from true horrors. Did you think Susan Boyle looked out of place on the stage of a television show? If you seek a truly toe-curling experience, watch the interview with Hazel Blears (Guardian, Tuesday 5 May), pretending to have a clue and to be qualified to be cabinet minister.
But stupid me, we shouldn't criticise our overlords, as this might drive them to suicide or erode confidence in democracy. So let's collectively stick our heads in the sand and when we look up, Britain will have magically transformed into a modern democracy with responsible leaders.
How blessed are we, for our cultural achievements are acknowledged even in the US. So the Americans remembered their aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe.
The function of crappy TV shows is to detract attention from true horrors. Did you think Susan Boyle looked out of place on the stage of a television show? If you seek a truly toe-curling experience, watch the interview with Hazel Blears (Guardian, Tuesday 5 May), pretending to have a clue and to be qualified to be cabinet minister.
But stupid me, we shouldn't criticise our overlords, as this might drive them to suicide or erode confidence in democracy. So let's collectively stick our heads in the sand and when we look up, Britain will have magically transformed into a modern democracy with responsible leaders.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Inherit the wind
Last Thursday was the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, who contributed the single most powerful theory that shaped our understanding of who we are and where we come from. This November, it will be 150 years ago when On the Origin of Species was published. Those who still harbour religious beliefs are incorrigeable fools, and that's official now.
Before anyone objects that evolution must not be equated to atheism, it should be pointed out that the suggestion that evolution implies atheism originally stems from religious circles. If for no other reason than the spectacular acting, highly recommended is: Inherit the wind, the 1960 film related to the Scopes Monkey Trial, with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.
Before anyone objects that evolution must not be equated to atheism, it should be pointed out that the suggestion that evolution implies atheism originally stems from religious circles. If for no other reason than the spectacular acting, highly recommended is: Inherit the wind, the 1960 film related to the Scopes Monkey Trial, with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.
Modern Liberty
Let the convention on Modern Liberty at 28th Feb 2009 be a turning point after a decade of unbridled erosion of civil liberties by New Labour. Some of the keynote speakers are strange bedfellows, such as David Davis, whose motives in the context of the rejected 42-day detention legislation seemed to be about electoral opportunism more than anything else, and Shami Chakrabarti, who has done so much for freedom of religion at the expense of freedom of expression and freedom from religion. Let us hope that ideological differences between the various participants of the conference will be set aside in favour of effective opposition to the government's totalitarian aspirations, and its ever growing disregard for democracy, justice, common sense, scientific evidence, in short a disregard for any but their own petty-minded, deluded thoughts.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Dutch protest Britain's ban of right-wing lawmaker
Dutch protest Britain's ban of right-wing lawmaker (Yahoo News, Tue Feb 10, 2009)
'Community harmony'? What 'Community harmony'? The community harmony of putting innocent Muslims in jail or shooting them in the shoulder? The community harmony of shooting alleged Muslims in the head (seven times, with hollow-point bullets)? The community harmony that improved so much after we started the illegal war in Iraq, which has been interpreted by almost the entire Muslim world as directed against them?
We shan't blame the Dutch if in retaliation they declare David Miliband and his fellow buffoons persona non grata. In fact, we should do that. I'm sure there is some banana republic somewhere where they'd fit in nicely.
By the way, Geert Wilders' crime seems to be that of suggesting there is a link between Islam and Islamic terrorism. See also:
HENTOFF: The cost of criticizing jihadists (The Washington Times, Monday, February 9, 2009)
Further:
Banned from Britain, Dutch campaigner against Islam (Independent, Wednesday, 11 February 2009)
English 'bishop' Richard Williamson is certainly extreme in his denial of the Holocaust. Will his entry into the UK henceforth be denied? Some called the atheist bendy-bus campaign extreme. Will foreigners who donated to it be kicked out now? I happen to extremely dislike the Labour government and find freedom of expression extremely important. Will I be sent to jail for this?
Update:
Apropos "community harmony", basically the same rhetoric has been used to justify the arrest of an editor in India who published an article by Johann Hari:
Johann Hari: Despite these riots, I stand by what I wrote (Independent, Friday, 13 February 2009)
Well put. More by Johann Hari in:
One Law For All - No Sharia (YouTube)
Wilders said the embassy letter informed him he was being refused entry because his views "threaten community harmony and therefore public security" in Britain. [Full letter here.]
'Community harmony'? What 'Community harmony'? The community harmony of putting innocent Muslims in jail or shooting them in the shoulder? The community harmony of shooting alleged Muslims in the head (seven times, with hollow-point bullets)? The community harmony that improved so much after we started the illegal war in Iraq, which has been interpreted by almost the entire Muslim world as directed against them?
We shan't blame the Dutch if in retaliation they declare David Miliband and his fellow buffoons persona non grata. In fact, we should do that. I'm sure there is some banana republic somewhere where they'd fit in nicely.
By the way, Geert Wilders' crime seems to be that of suggesting there is a link between Islam and Islamic terrorism. See also:
HENTOFF: The cost of criticizing jihadists (The Washington Times, Monday, February 9, 2009)
Further:
Banned from Britain, Dutch campaigner against Islam (Independent, Wednesday, 11 February 2009)
Last night, the Home Office refused to comment on Mr Wilders' case. But a spokesman said: "The Government opposes extremism in all forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.
English 'bishop' Richard Williamson is certainly extreme in his denial of the Holocaust. Will his entry into the UK henceforth be denied? Some called the atheist bendy-bus campaign extreme. Will foreigners who donated to it be kicked out now? I happen to extremely dislike the Labour government and find freedom of expression extremely important. Will I be sent to jail for this?
Update:
Apropos "community harmony", basically the same rhetoric has been used to justify the arrest of an editor in India who published an article by Johann Hari:
Johann Hari: Despite these riots, I stand by what I wrote (Independent, Friday, 13 February 2009)
They said I had upset "the harmony" of India, and it could only be restored by my arrest. But this is a lop-sided vision of "harmony". It would mean that religious fundamentalists are free to say whatever they want – and the rest of us have to shut up and agree.
Well put. More by Johann Hari in:
One Law For All - No Sharia (YouTube)
Thursday, 25 December 2008
star of wonder
My Christmas message? There's probably no God (Guardian, Tuesday 23 December 2008)
Polly Toynbee's article doesn't contain much that we didn't know before, but we need more of this as long as media such as the BBC continue to feed us theist crap like this, disguised as science reporting:
Star of wonder (BBC News, Tuesday, 23 December 2008)
Basically the same 'story' the BBC have been recycling year after year, e.g. December 24, 1998; February 23, 1999; November 28, 2003; December 22, 2005; May 8, 2006.
Polly Toynbee's article doesn't contain much that we didn't know before, but we need more of this as long as media such as the BBC continue to feed us theist crap like this, disguised as science reporting:
Star of wonder (BBC News, Tuesday, 23 December 2008)
Basically the same 'story' the BBC have been recycling year after year, e.g. December 24, 1998; February 23, 1999; November 28, 2003; December 22, 2005; May 8, 2006.
Saturday, 20 December 2008
Most 'do not believe in nativity'
Most 'do not believe in nativity' (BBC News, Saturday, 20 December 2008)
I know the BBC see it as their task to cater for a wide audience, which includes those who suffer from organised delusion. That is no reason however to quote an 'expert' whose comments are very unlike those of a scholar and very much like those of a propagandist.
Looking at biblical writings from a sound historical perspective is the realm of biblical criticism, which, unlike theology, is a serious discipline. Its study of the origins of among other things the New Testament is often reported by believers (and former believers) to be a powerful antidote to literalism, as it lays bare the fatal weaknesses of any suggestions that events must have taken place exactly as reported in the four gospels from the New Testament.
There is solid evidence that Mohammed actually existed, and did at least some of the things the Quran reports he did (which includes some quite nasty stuff, as everyone knows or should know), whereas very little is certain about the life of Jesus, except maybe that he must have been a much nicer bloke. Should we therefore take the Quran as the Word of God™, just because it is more archored in history than the New Testament is?
We? Speak for yourself. The great lie of our time is that atheism would have existed only since Charles Darwin. Although On the Origin of Species delivered the death blow to theism, at least among those in possession of full mental faculties, there is solid evidence that the 'connection with God' has been tenuous throughout the ages, and religious beliefs had to be hammered into the flock, by force, by threats of force, or merely by lies and trickery. The many crackpot 'proofs' for God's existence by Thomas Aquinas and hordes of other 'thinkers' from the middle ages only show just how familiar the concept of not believing in a god was to many people. And those who genuinely believed may not have had the same 'connection with God' as some sufferers of schizophrenia quoted by BBC News.
Merry Christmas by the way.
I know the BBC see it as their task to cater for a wide audience, which includes those who suffer from organised delusion. That is no reason however to quote an 'expert' whose comments are very unlike those of a scholar and very much like those of a propagandist.
Simon Gathercole, a new testament scholar at Cambridge University, said people were sceptical because they were not aware the origins of Christianity were anchored in real history.
Looking at biblical writings from a sound historical perspective is the realm of biblical criticism, which, unlike theology, is a serious discipline. Its study of the origins of among other things the New Testament is often reported by believers (and former believers) to be a powerful antidote to literalism, as it lays bare the fatal weaknesses of any suggestions that events must have taken place exactly as reported in the four gospels from the New Testament.
"Jesus was born while Augustus was emperor of Rome just before Herod died... we're talking about events that are anchored in real history not in ancient Greek myths."
There is solid evidence that Mohammed actually existed, and did at least some of the things the Quran reports he did (which includes some quite nasty stuff, as everyone knows or should know), whereas very little is certain about the life of Jesus, except maybe that he must have been a much nicer bloke. Should we therefore take the Quran as the Word of God™, just because it is more archored in history than the New Testament is?
"There's something in us that misses that connection with God that we sometimes feel our historical forebears had," he said.
We? Speak for yourself. The great lie of our time is that atheism would have existed only since Charles Darwin. Although On the Origin of Species delivered the death blow to theism, at least among those in possession of full mental faculties, there is solid evidence that the 'connection with God' has been tenuous throughout the ages, and religious beliefs had to be hammered into the flock, by force, by threats of force, or merely by lies and trickery. The many crackpot 'proofs' for God's existence by Thomas Aquinas and hordes of other 'thinkers' from the middle ages only show just how familiar the concept of not believing in a god was to many people. And those who genuinely believed may not have had the same 'connection with God' as some sufferers of schizophrenia quoted by BBC News.
Merry Christmas by the way.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Pope urged to admit common ground
Pope urged to admit common ground (BBC News, Tuesday, 4 November 2008)
So we're all doomed!
The idea that we should look to religion as the source of world peace has lost its last shred of credibility a long, long time ago, and the opposite seems much closer to the truth. The alleged motives behind the creation of a body claiming to represent all Muslims in Europe should receive a fair amount of scepticism, whether one represents the Pope or whether one is an atheist in possession of full mental faculties.
See also:
Is Europe Trying to Build a Fundamentalist Islam? (by Prof. Philip Jenkins, Pennsylvania State University; Qantara.de, 04.11.2008)
When 138 senior Muslim scholars and clergy tried to establish the common ground between Islam and Christianity last year, they said the very peace of the world hung on the outcome.
So we're all doomed!
The idea that we should look to religion as the source of world peace has lost its last shred of credibility a long, long time ago, and the opposite seems much closer to the truth. The alleged motives behind the creation of a body claiming to represent all Muslims in Europe should receive a fair amount of scepticism, whether one represents the Pope or whether one is an atheist in possession of full mental faculties.
See also:
Is Europe Trying to Build a Fundamentalist Islam? (by Prof. Philip Jenkins, Pennsylvania State University; Qantara.de, 04.11.2008)
When governments recognize particular clerical and religious groups as the official spokesmen for their communities, they are treating ordinary people as members of collective religious/cultural entities, holding rights as members of those groups, not as citizens and individuals.
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
'No God' slogans
'No God' slogans for city's buses (BBC News, Tuesday, 21 October 2008)
Can Stephen 'Birdshit' Green not be prosecuted for incitement to cause damage to property? Or is his phrasing not direct enough for that? In that case, I should be surprised if, after this ludicrous statement, the attributes of Green's own theist campaigns did not attract graffiti.
This is a good occasion to witness again that not all religions and branches of religions are created equal:
It should be 'interesting' to hear the views of the Muslim Council of Britain on this matter. But don't bother.
Addendum:
The 'veiled' threats by Green are in fact more concrete than the BBC News article might suggest. He even includes a practical hint related to causing said damage, where he writes, at Christian Voice:
Perhaps it should be pointed out that legislation on hate crimes also covers theist incitement to commit crimes against atheists, according to www.homeoffice.gov.uk:
"I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti.
Can Stephen 'Birdshit' Green not be prosecuted for incitement to cause damage to property? Or is his phrasing not direct enough for that? In that case, I should be surprised if, after this ludicrous statement, the attributes of Green's own theist campaigns did not attract graffiti.
This is a good occasion to witness again that not all religions and branches of religions are created equal:
Spirituality and discipleship officer Rev Jenny Ellis said: "This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life."
She added: "Christianity is for people who aren't afraid to think about life and meaning."
It should be 'interesting' to hear the views of the Muslim Council of Britain on this matter. But don't bother.
Addendum:
The 'veiled' threats by Green are in fact more concrete than the BBC News article might suggest. He even includes a practical hint related to causing said damage, where he writes, at Christian Voice:
'I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti. People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it. The advertising space on a bendy-bus is just the right height as well.
Perhaps it should be pointed out that legislation on hate crimes also covers theist incitement to commit crimes against atheists, according to www.homeoffice.gov.uk:
This law, which came into effect in 2007, makes it a criminal offence to use threatening words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred against any group of people because of their religious beliefs or their lack of religious beliefs.
Sunday, 19 October 2008
sex in public
Sex-on-beach trial Britons guilty (BBC News, Thursday, 16 October 2008)
Those cursed Muslims in Dubai with their outdated morals! We in Britain are more open-minded. Aren't we? Well, apparently the following is still not self-evident:
Police leniency call on park sex (BBC News, Friday, 17 October 2008)
Those cursed Muslims in Dubai with their outdated morals! We in Britain are more open-minded. Aren't we? Well, apparently the following is still not self-evident:
Police leniency call on park sex (BBC News, Friday, 17 October 2008)
Monday, 29 September 2008
CNN
The BBC is not yet as bad as CNN. Just checking:
Tomkat protests (CNN, September 22, 2008)
Brooke Whatever:
April Somethingorother:
Brooke Whatever:
The protesters want to remain anonymous and wear masks because Scientology pursues its critics, short of employing polonium-210. Try explaining to cunts from CNN Showbiz that some people go out of their way to make the world a better place, and that this does not include reporting on which celebrity accidentally exposed how many nipples during which award ceremony.
In a next post, I may write about Larry King, also known as the King of Paranormal, giving free publicity to 'psychics' and other scum. But then again, I may find I don't have the stomach for watching more of this rubbish.
Addendum (2008-09-30):
As some are apparently offended by my mentioning Scientology, here is something to make it up:
Being Tom Cruise : How Scientology is in No Way Mental
Tomkat protests (CNN, September 22, 2008)
Brooke Whatever:
Anti-Scientology protesters chanted "Scientology kills" [...]
April Somethingorother:
I mean, considering that these people are protesting with masks and their name is Anonymous, Tom and Katie are probably thinking: "Come up with a real name!"
Brooke Whatever:
HA-HA-HA-GIGGLE-GIGGLE!
The protesters want to remain anonymous and wear masks because Scientology pursues its critics, short of employing polonium-210. Try explaining to cunts from CNN Showbiz that some people go out of their way to make the world a better place, and that this does not include reporting on which celebrity accidentally exposed how many nipples during which award ceremony.
In a next post, I may write about Larry King, also known as the King of Paranormal, giving free publicity to 'psychics' and other scum. But then again, I may find I don't have the stomach for watching more of this rubbish.
Addendum (2008-09-30):
As some are apparently offended by my mentioning Scientology, here is something to make it up:
Being Tom Cruise : How Scientology is in No Way Mental
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Sarah Palin
Pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that the Yanks will make the right choice in November, or we might soon have another nut in the White House.
If you haven't seen it yet, watch the video and shudder:
Palin: average isn't good enough (at RichardDawkins.net)
Addendum (2008-09-22):
When Atheists Attack (by Sam Harris, at RichardDawkins.net)
If you haven't seen it yet, watch the video and shudder:
Palin: average isn't good enough (at RichardDawkins.net)
Addendum (2008-09-22):
When Atheists Attack (by Sam Harris, at RichardDawkins.net)
Saturday, 6 September 2008
aren't we brave
Muhammad novel set for UK release (BBC News, Thursday, 4 September 2008)
American publishers were too chicken to release this novel, and also a Serbian publisher was forced to pull the title (US Book Stirs Debate in Europe on Self-Censorship and Islam, Deutsche Welle, 19-08-2008). The British were called in to restore freedom of expression. Hurrah!
Well, not so fast. It seems the only thing that scared Random House into scrapping the novel was a review from an 'expert' on Islam who had never even been to the Middle East. Recall:
Prophet Muhammad novel scrapped (BBC News, Saturday, 9 August 2008)
It takes an American reviewer to assume that what is offensive to the Western mind (a 52 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl) must be offensive to the entire Muslim world. Statements by the author herself (e.g. "Anyone who reads the book will see that it honours the prophet and his favourite wife") do not exclude the possibility the book is meant as glorification of part of the history of Islam. Until the novel is released, we can only guess.
See also the column:
The Wages of Fear kill The Jewel of Medina (New Europe, 1 September 2008)
The Danish (three cheers for them!) are perhaps the only people in the world at the moment who wouldn't let their freedom of expression be compromised by Islamophobia:
Danish publisher hopes to publish 'inflammatory' Islam novel (Guardian, Tuesday August 26 2008)
Now from pulp literature to something that actually matters: our health. If it weren't for Quackometer, the UK-skeptics, and several other blogs, we would never have known about the latest assault by charlatans on the freedom of speech, in this case chiroquacks, who try to silence author Dr. Simon Singh by suing him for libel over his article 'Beware the spinal trap' in The Guardian on April 19th 2008, in which he exposes chiropractic for the laughable sham it is. Moreover, The Guardian has pulled the article. (But thanks to Svetlana Pertsovich, there is an internet-cached copy.)
That chirofascists go after anyone who dares criticise their fraudulent practices is nothing new. By their own admission (pp. 6-7 of News from General Chiropractic Council, issue 23, March 08), they have in the past bullied several newspapers (The Guardian, The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph) into either watering down their critical comments to insignificance or into removing a critical article altogether, replacing it by chiropractic propaganda. They have resorted to similar legal intimidation in Canada and New Zealand.
But what is truly shocking is that news about this censorship is in turn being (self-)censored. That a newspaper is forced to pull an article because of a legal threat should be headline news, but somehow it isn't, not in Britain. It is perhaps not surprising that the Guardian itself hasn't provided any justification for removing the article, as their legal department may have advised against making any further comments. But how many other newspapers have reported this story? The Times? No! The Independent? Nope! BBC News? Only in your dreams would these weasels stick their necks out over a controversial issue! Daily Mail, Daily Express, Mirror, Sun? You must be kidding! I've found only one mention in the 'old media', and that reads as a pro-chiropractic piece, devoid of any critical thinking:
Doctors take Simon Singh to court (Telegraph, 16 Aug 2008)
The British press sucks.
American publishers were too chicken to release this novel, and also a Serbian publisher was forced to pull the title (US Book Stirs Debate in Europe on Self-Censorship and Islam, Deutsche Welle, 19-08-2008). The British were called in to restore freedom of expression. Hurrah!
Well, not so fast. It seems the only thing that scared Random House into scrapping the novel was a review from an 'expert' on Islam who had never even been to the Middle East. Recall:
Prophet Muhammad novel scrapped (BBC News, Saturday, 9 August 2008)
It takes an American reviewer to assume that what is offensive to the Western mind (a 52 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl) must be offensive to the entire Muslim world. Statements by the author herself (e.g. "Anyone who reads the book will see that it honours the prophet and his favourite wife") do not exclude the possibility the book is meant as glorification of part of the history of Islam. Until the novel is released, we can only guess.
See also the column:
The Wages of Fear kill The Jewel of Medina (New Europe, 1 September 2008)
The Danish (three cheers for them!) are perhaps the only people in the world at the moment who wouldn't let their freedom of expression be compromised by Islamophobia:
Danish publisher hopes to publish 'inflammatory' Islam novel (Guardian, Tuesday August 26 2008)
Now from pulp literature to something that actually matters: our health. If it weren't for Quackometer, the UK-skeptics, and several other blogs, we would never have known about the latest assault by charlatans on the freedom of speech, in this case chiroquacks, who try to silence author Dr. Simon Singh by suing him for libel over his article 'Beware the spinal trap' in The Guardian on April 19th 2008, in which he exposes chiropractic for the laughable sham it is. Moreover, The Guardian has pulled the article. (But thanks to Svetlana Pertsovich, there is an internet-cached copy.)
That chirofascists go after anyone who dares criticise their fraudulent practices is nothing new. By their own admission (pp. 6-7 of News from General Chiropractic Council, issue 23, March 08), they have in the past bullied several newspapers (The Guardian, The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph) into either watering down their critical comments to insignificance or into removing a critical article altogether, replacing it by chiropractic propaganda. They have resorted to similar legal intimidation in Canada and New Zealand.
But what is truly shocking is that news about this censorship is in turn being (self-)censored. That a newspaper is forced to pull an article because of a legal threat should be headline news, but somehow it isn't, not in Britain. It is perhaps not surprising that the Guardian itself hasn't provided any justification for removing the article, as their legal department may have advised against making any further comments. But how many other newspapers have reported this story? The Times? No! The Independent? Nope! BBC News? Only in your dreams would these weasels stick their necks out over a controversial issue! Daily Mail, Daily Express, Mirror, Sun? You must be kidding! I've found only one mention in the 'old media', and that reads as a pro-chiropractic piece, devoid of any critical thinking:
Doctors take Simon Singh to court (Telegraph, 16 Aug 2008)
The British press sucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
