Dienstag, 30. November 2010

Arrest gays, Kenyan PM orders

Uganda ... now Kenya ....
Mr Odinga on Sunday said that police should arrest anyone found engaging in such behaviours and take appropriate legal action against them.

Now this PM has really one of the most interesting "theories" on why there shouldn't be any homosexuals... there simply is no need because there are enough women for the men.

Speaking at a public rally at the Kamukunji grounds in his Nairobi’s Kibera constituency on Sunday afternoon, the Prime Minister cited the recent population census results which put the ratio of men to women equal and wondered why people should engage in homosexuality
That makes sense doesn't it? I mean from a male dominated classical view it does!
There are enough women, no need to have sex with males. And of course women shouldn't turn to other women while there are so many nice guys around. And don't forget that the ultimate goal for women should be kids.
He termed it "madness" for a man to fall in love with another man while there were "plenty of women" and added that there was no need for women to engage in lesbianism "yet they can bear children".
When you look at the background of that man you find out one thing pretty soon. He is a born again Christian. If that might have anything to do with his views?

Freitag, 26. November 2010

Girl arrested for allegedly burning Qur'an

As you might recall my post here i am forced again to repeat:

Blasphemy laws?
Well for each case where someone is sentenced to anything else but exposure to criticism you will get a "fuck Allah" from me.
Not because i believe it (how could i anyway)  but because i won't let such idiotic laws stand there and cause such harm.
This time we have a 15 year old girl in the UK arrested. Not even in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. No, it's god old Britain. Of course there the law is not to arrest someone for insulting the holy prophet or the divine. Clever as the British are they use a better formulation inciting religious hatred 
I wonder why they didn't arrest the Pope when he linked atheism and secular world views to the Nazis.

Catherine Heseltine, chief executive officer of the Muslim public affairs committee, said burning the Qur'an was one of the most offensive acts to Muslims she could imagine.
"The Qur'an is the most sacred thing to over a billion Muslims worldwide. You can see that in the way Muslims treat the Qur'an, washing before touching it, and in many Muslim homes you will find it on the top shelf above all other books, and we will never destroy the Qur'anic texts."

Lady Heseltine doesn't get it and she has obviously no imagination. Whether the Quran is the most sacred text to Muslims or not is of no relevance for the owner of a copy of it. No matter how stupid or ludicrous a burning of a book might be, if you paid for that book it's yours and you do with it what you want to.
And don't you think that this girl did something special. You know how many books get destroyed each and every day because of negligence, boredom or disinterest. But of course the deliberate burning of one copy of the Quran in a small school by a 15 year old kid is totally different.
Here we have Muslims feeling terribly offended by a childish act that wouldn't be worth a second in the news for any other book. Is that religion so vulnerable? Are the people so vulnerable?
And why would the authority in Britain actually care for this nonsense? Is the British government so afraid that they enforce an anticipatory obedience?

But it get's even more ludicrous. If burning a book of which millions or perhaps even billions of copies exist is one of the most offensive act to Muslims that is imaginable by that Lady, then she is already living in Wonderland in the first place. Tell that to the thousands of women raped each day, tell it to the people suffering from warfare or hunger. You might be lucky and survive a few minutes before they rip you apart for that idiotic remark.

When You die

Donnerstag, 25. November 2010

Popes stance on homosexuality is a contradiction in itself

As the world news reports the Pope (in a new book summarizing a 6 hour interview with him) "affirms church stand on homosexuality".

Sometimes I wonder if people don't actually reflect what they say...

Pope Benedict XVI affirms in a newly released book homosexuality is something that can never be "morally just."
In "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times," the pontiff tells German writer Peter Seewald homosexuality is a great trial with which a person may be faced, the Italian news agency ANSA reported.
However, the pope said being gay "remains something that is against the nature that God originally willed."
In the 18-chapter book released Tuesday, Seewald asked the pope 90 questions, a number dealing with homosexuality.
Benedict stressed priests cannot be gay, adding that great care must be taken to ensure priestly celibacy "is not identified with a tendency towards homosexuality.
I always roll my eyes when heterosexuals (homosexuals normally are not that stupid) speak about the great trials of homosexuality. Should not all Christians be jealous of those special gay people that have been granted Gods special attention? He has chosen them over all others to be part of a great test of faith. WOW.
And what a nice sacrifice that test entails. Never to have bodily contact with another person you love, never to have your sexual desires fulfilled, never to be in a happy relationship with a loved person. Being stigmatized as someone who can never be "morally just" because of his natural, born sexual orientation.
Oh really ... i almost can sense how the Pope breaks into tears because he never knows the true promise of Gods attention being just a normal (but morally superior) heterosexual or asexual old man.

What always strikes me though is how at the same time those bigots claim at one and the same time that

  • homosexuality is a test and trial by God and
  • that God had not originally willed people to be gay
Remind me next time someone brings up the design argument. What a flawed God is that? Oh he tests people after he found out that he couldn't design people to be solely heterosexual. So after a while, when he found out that his creation was badly designed and that homosexuality happens all over the place he said: "well, well.... if i start to correct that, i might mess all up even more. So i rather let you keep your homosexuality but forbid it and tell you what an immoral pervert you are."

What does it tell you about the sanity of this 80-something year old man to actually believe in such a nonsense? Forget him. What does it tell you about all those other theists that believe in such a nonsense?

But as if that were not enough he adds on top of it.
You still know the "hate the sin, love the sinner" statement?
Forget it.
No priest can be gay. Not even if he is celibate. 
Thats a sad thing to hear for all those chosen people. Not only are they cut of from love and companionship, no they even have to ignore any "call" the bearded man might have sent them.


UN ideal versus reality and interpretations in the blogosphere

PZ Myers posts about a recent resolution of the UN and (i think) doesn't ponder the important question.
The UN was about to decide on a resolution (full text here) dealing with Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution. Now such resolutions have been passed for years and since 1999 they contained a passage specifically for sexual orientation. Something similar to
....To ensure the effective protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including those targeted at specific groups of persons, such as racially motivated violence leading to the death of the victim, killings of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, killings of persons affected by terrorism or hostage-taking or living under foreign occupation, killings of refugees, internally displaced persons, migrants, street children or members of indigenous communities, killings of persons for reasons related to their activities as human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists or demonstrators, killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour, all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation, as well as all other cases where a person’s right to life has been violated, and to bring those responsible to justice before a competent, independent and impartial judiciary at the national or, where appropriate, international level, and to ensure that such killings, including those committed by security forces, police and law enforcement agents, paramilitary groups or private forces, are neither condoned nor sanctioned by State officials or personnel.....
And for quite a while some countries have been eager to eliminate the underlined part. this year they succeeded by a vote of 79 in favour to 70 against with 17 abstentions. The whole story of how it happened and who said what can be read online of course.

PZ,  and others are keen to stress how easily gays now can be killed:
But do you know who the UN thinks are fair game? Non-heterosexual people. (PZ)
UN General Assembly Votes To Allow Gays To Be Executed Without Cause (new civil rights movement) 

I note a more factual and neutral entry here.
Of interest is also the press release of the IGLHRC. They note:
“This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development,” said Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of IGLHRC. “It essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people - a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalize homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalizing homosexuality.”

We need not argue about the question if homosexual people face problems in certain parts of the world. Of course they do. So do others.(see below)
We also need not argue if this is a "particular vulnerability". Of course it is. So are others.

I have different problems with the whole situation. I think that the UN charta of human rights is absolutely clear and needs no reinterpretation for specific groups no matter what group. And every member state of the UN supposedly has signed and agreed to uphold and enforce these universal human rights.
Factually they don't. And it doesn't matter what text you write down, they won't.
Since 1999 the statement about sexual orientation was included in that paper. And it didn't help. Sexual orientation still is a justification for killing people in several countries. Do you really think that including or excluding that 3 word statement from above makes any difference? Do you really think it makes a difference?
Countries like Uganda wanted to impose the death penalty despite the statement. Other countries defacto have it. You think the butchers there READ a UN resolution no matter what it says? So much for the worth of that sentence or factually for the whole text.
Do me a favor and read that resolution. Do you find anything in it that makes sense apart of perhaps statements to reevaluate the situation next year? I mean what exactly does this resolution contain that you wouldn't expect from human rights abiding countries in the first place? Is there anything in that text that is not already contained as a rule in the human rights charta? What's the value of this papers existence?

There are aver 160 countries involved in shaping a text telling themselves and others that they are "urged" or "encouraged" or whatever other "soapy" word you could come up with to do what they supposedly have to do since signing that damn membership application form for the UN. We have a 6 page long text dealing with arbitrary executions? Something that no member state of the UN should be allowed to tolerate in the first place? And we have states debating such a paper that commit crimes against humanity all the time without any sanctions, without any consequences?

And the only thing people debate is how it can be that three words are taken out of that paper?

This is simply ridiculous.

Oh by the way ... i have something for you about Benin. If you think killing because of sexual orientation is a problem there watch this:

Mittwoch, 24. November 2010

Dienstag, 23. November 2010

Saudi curriculum taught in UK schools (part 2 with videos linked)

It seems that the story about UK free schools teaching part of the Saudi curriculum finally made it into some media across the pond. The new york times has an article about it.

And for those that want to see the original BBC report, i suggest taking a look at Jerry Coynes blog post.

Montag, 22. November 2010

Atheism: In Your words. (An idea for a book?)

Reading the guardian online i found an article about an initiative by The Thinking Atheist.
He gathered short video clips from his (atheist) subscribers where they talk about the experiences they had.
Afterwards he made a nice video that is worthy to watch.

The video is really good. It made me think if a book presenting the personal stories of atheists would perhaps be worth reading and if such a book might actually be helpful for others.
I would be interested in the personal stories of every day people, not the glamorous ones, not the stars of atheism, just the normal plumber around the corner. A book filled with short essays (5-10 pages) about personal experiences with the family, work, priests etc.
Something that allows theists to actually realize that atheists are not different.
Something that allows atheists that haven't yet come out to see that they are not alone.

Such a book could be easily assembled and after validation through a good editor we might simply publish it as ebook or as a print on demand book.

Your ideas?

official Saudi national curriculum taught in the UK causes concern

As the BBC  reports (watch todays show if you can) about the official Saudi national curriculum for school kids up to an age of 18.
Obviously in the free schools that can be visited in the afternoons and on weekends, Muslim kids are subjected  to religious indoctrination.

Antisemitic teachings can be found in many Arab school books in the middle east. It is not really new.
Neither are the lessons about Islamic punishment new (like when, why and how to chop off someones hand).
As despicable as it is already, none of the things mentioned in the report are really new to me.

What i find so remarkable is that it took them to 2010 to find out that schools exist that teach antisemitism and bigotry and that obviously the UK is not able to defend the kids from such indoctrinations. For it is one thing to see that children in Arab countries are taught nonsense, hatred and values that contradict humanism and liberal ideas. It is however a totally different thing to have such things taught in your own country.

For the past decade, especially under T(Lo)ony Blair the UK has in my view been faced a steady decline in secularity and liberalism giving religious wing nuts more and more power.

I can only hope that sometime soon people over there will come to their senses and stop this nonsense before it reaches proportions beyond control.

Sonntag, 21. November 2010

Pope finally allows for condoms (sometimes)

I think it is a worthy question to ask what is wrong with the world if it takes the allowance of an 83 year old celibate man wearing a costume to finally be able to have protected sex.
Alas i think this discussion brings us nowhere near anything rationally acceptable.

So let's try and formulate a positive message okay ?
"Finally Pope Ratzinger has come to his senses and declared in his new book that the use of condoms may sometimes be justified."
Thats the most positive formulation i could come up with after reading this.
Let's have a closer look.

The pope's words in the book to be published on Tuesday -- while limited in scope and which do not change the Catholic ban on contraception -- were nonetheless greeted as a breakthrough by dissident Catholics, AIDS workers and commentators.
Ah ok ... you may not use condoms as a contraception, as usual sex is for reproduction. No reproduction no sex. No wonder "real" catholics are weird. Who would want to live married to a wife that you have sex with two times in your life. Anyway...
"It is a marvelous victory for common sense and reason, a major step forward toward recognizing that condom use can play a vital role in reducing the future impact of the HIV pandemic, said Jon O'Brien, head of the U.S. group Catholics for Choice.
 Indeed a marvelous victory for common sense and reason. Quite an astonishing confirmation of what nonbelievers have known for quite a while.... concerning this issue catholics have always been nuts.

But it is the section on condoms in the book -- a long interview with German Catholic journalist Peter Seewald -- that marked a crack in the once tightly shut door of Church policy. He cites the example of the use of condoms by prostitutes as "a first step toward moralization," even though condoms are "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection."
Listen all you catholic prostitutes. Finally you can relax as the pope has declared that as a first step towards moralization you can use condoms. Ain't that the thing we all have been waiting for? And all those south african males, are you not happy that now you can use condoms too .. provided you accept an analogy between you and prostitutes.

Act Up Paris, an AIDS support group, said: "After having said that condoms make the AIDS epidemic worse, after getting involved in questions he has no expertise on, the pope seems to finally be taking account of the principle of reality."

I would have loved to able to say that. Unfortunately i have a different view similar perhaps to this one:
Gerard Guerin, secretary general of Christians and AIDS group in France, said the pope had not gone far enough. "The pope's statements are convoluted. It's limited to cite only the case of male prostitutes. What are couples with one infected partner supposed to do?" he told Le Parisien newspaper. 

Why do I get the impression that for the pope the people are mules and the condom topic is the carrot that is intended to make them walk a bit longer along the path with you?

Samstag, 20. November 2010

Extraordinary Claims site has opened

Yesterday Extraordinary Claims opened.

I let them speak for themselves:

The Centre for Inquiry Canada‘s Extraordinary Claims Campaign will featurebus ads, educational events and online discussions to challenge well-known and widely believed claims by demanding evidence as extraordinary as the claims themselves.
Why is belief in Bigfoot dismissed as delusional while belief inAllah and Christ is respected and revered? All these claims are equally outlandish and demand critical examination.
At CFI Canada we challenge ideas and ask tough questions to promote reason, science, secularism and freedom of inquiry.

Faith healing? Here is how it is done while it doesn't work.

If believers don't believe skeptics when they try to show them how easy it is to trick them, perhaps they are more inclined to believe one of their own.
(Former) faith healer Mark Haville tells us how it is done.

Freitag, 19. November 2010

The religious excuse for barbarity

I am not a vegetarian so I would not play the innocent guy who doesn't have any blood on his hands. But not being perfect shouldn't mean that you can't criticize those even farther away from the ideal.

In an article over at the independent Johann Hari speaks out against animal slaughter conducted according to the strange if not even bizarre rituals of desert gods and their kind followers.

Of course, they claim that this practice isn't cruel at all. Henry Grunwald, chairman of the main body overseeing the certification of kosher meat, Shechita UK, says that when you slash an animal's throat "there is an instant drop in blood pressure in the brain. The animal is dead." Similarly, Raghib Ali, of the Oxford Islam and Muslim Awareness Project, says: "It's not cruel, it is better for the animal."
This has been proven by science to be false. The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) is the Government's senior panel of independent scientific experts on this area, and their investigation found that "the prevailing scientific consensus that slaughter without pre-stunning causes very significant pain and distress". The FAWC chairwoman, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, explains: "To say [the animal] doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous."
To give just one example: after you cut a calf's throat, in 62 per cent of cases, large clots form at the back of its carotid arteries, which means blood pressure to the brain massively slows and the animal doesn't black out at all. It stays conscious as it bleeds to death from its throat in agony.

Imagine those 750.000 animals killed in 4 days alone to satisfy a loving  and caring god.

But the only consistent position is to oppose viciousness against these minorities[e.g. Muslims etc.], and to oppose viciousness by these minorities. The proponents of halal and kosher meat are choosing to inflict terrible and unnecessary pain on living creatures every day. It would be condescending to treat them as victim-children who are exempt from moral debate – and it would be a betrayal of the real victims here: the sentient creatures having their throats cut.
We need to be much more self-confident in criticising religious claims. Your ideas do not deserve any special status because you say they came from an invisible, supernatural being.
No, we don't respect your desire to needlessly torment animals because some hallucinating desert nomads did it centuries ago. We don't respect it at all. You can cry that we are "persecuting" you if we stop you committing acts of cruelty if you want.
It's what the religious – Christian, Jew and Muslim alike – did when we stopped you tormenting women and gays and anybody else you could get your hands on. One of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is that the howls you will hear are from the Men of God.

Of course he is right. There is no need for such slaughter, not with the technical abilities we have in our times. We do not need to see the blood flow in order to be sure the animals are healthy (or lets say were before we kill them). And a God who asks people to kill animals in a specific and cruel fashion with no regard to modern "humane methods of killing" (now that is a disgusting term!) is hardly worship-able.
But who cares for that? You can pray to the devil if you like. Your freedom must end where mankind has set the moral standards of our time. If that standard is what some call "humane" death to animals, then so be it.
Your excuse that some invisible old fellow that nobody ever saw and which the different cults don't even agree on told you to do it differently is unacceptable.

Pakistani blasphemy trial: stupidity knows no limits

I already mentioned the case of the Pakistani woman which has been sentenced to death for her insulting a dead man which some people take to be a prophet of theirs.

Via atheist media i got that nice interview of the attorney involved in the case and i must say again that the amount of stupidity knows now boundaries.
Just look at: 0:57
There he sits and tells you that this law of Pakistan is unrelated to Islam.
Now forgive my utter lack of intelligence but i simply fail to understand why a law that punishes people for speaking out against the Islamic prophet Mohammad, while sparing all those that speak out against any other religion is unrelated to Islam.
How could such a law exist at all if not for the existence of Islam?
Note that I am not making any claims about the law being Islamic or unislamic. I only say that a law that is unrelated to Islam can't selectively pass judgment because someone insulted an Islamic figure.
In order to be unrelated to Islam  it would have to punish ANY insult against ANY religion.
Instead it says: "Whoever defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad" .... sure sounds non related to Islam doesn't it?

One wonders what will happen with the kids and the husband that are left alone because of such laws.
Well, the world is already bad enough, why not create a bit more misery in the name of "peace" and "truth", Mr. Prosecutor ?

Donnerstag, 18. November 2010

Fox News: 'Heaven Is For Real'

Now ain't that cute?

Looking up the book at amazon i found the review that made most sense to me.

This was fun to read. I like how God gave the kid appendicitis and science had to bail him out. That was pretty cool (and ironic). The part about Jesus having "sea-blue eyes" was also awesome, because we all know that 4 year olds talk like that. The part about souls having wings was fairly interesting, since we all know that it makes sense for souls to need wings in a spiritual realm where time, space and an oxygen based atmosphere would not exist. The part about the human fetus and zygotes (his sisters) hanging out there was fantastic as well. 
I would highly recommend this book to all religious followers. This would also be a perfect book for people who suffer from delusional thoughts, imaginary friends, non-critical reasoning skills, mental handicaps, neurotic disorders, phobic avoidance of reasoning, cognitive problems, habitual fantasizing and self loathing. 

Recent experiments have demonstrated the possibility that stimulation of the angular gyrus is the cause of out-of-body experiences. Stimulation of the angular gyrus in one experiment caused a woman to perceive a phantom existence behind her. Another such experiment gave the test subject the sensation of being on the ceiling. This is attributed to a discrepancy in the actual position of the body, and the mind's perceived location of the body. 

Good thing that the authors remain somewhat credible by not making bucket loads of money. I would have a hard time believing this story if money were involved...oh, they're selling a book?

Arabic antisemitism - forget Muhammad cartoons

Whenever "insults" against Islam come up i hear complaints by Muslims that people don't respect their prophet, don't respect Allah and don't respect the Arabic culture (being the main classical home location of that religion).

Someone wants to burn a Quran ... people die. It actually doesn't even matter if he really burns it or not.
Someone publishes cartoons, death threats follow.
Someone makes a critical film, death follows.
People make critical remarks in the west they are threatened; if they make them in Islamic countries they are thrown in prison or punished by death.

And basically we get two main reactions:

  1. Islam is peaceful and so are all Muslims except a few
  2. Kill those that insult Islam.

Attitude 1 tells us that supposedly only few are fundamentalist or bad and that the vast majority of people is not and that they harbor no hatred against anybody. Actually they supposedly are the victims of a campaign against Islam.

Attitude 2 tells us that Islam is a hate mongering religion or at least its followers are.

Which one is right is not always visible.
But something is clear.
The Muslim world has not objected against hatred spit forth from people of their own. Not even, when it was plainly visible on TV like in the video below. Of course it is selective and of course MEMRI is not the most neutral organization. But anyone who watches Arab TV as i do knows that these are not faked videos. If Muslims claim that the world has targeted them because of their religion, should they not rethink if this statement is more a representation of what they do with "Jews"? Look at the last few minutes of the video.
And it is obvious what the reactions to such shows, clerics, people and statements are:

  1. support or
  2. silence
Where is a protest even slightly of the scope of the one that we see when some man draws a cartoon with a pen?

New Trends in Arabic Anti-semitism from Henrik Clausen on Vimeo.

Whatever the truth about Islam or Muslims is ... something actually is a fact:
Muslims are not the foremost to take care of their idiotic brothers. Actually they even protect them and their hatred through their silence.

Child abuse is legal as long as it is "real life" tv?

Luckily I don't receive A&E, an american tv station which starts with a new show called "Psychic kids - Paranormal Children".
Whats the show about?

PSYCHIC KIDS: CHILDREN OF THE PARANORMAL™, profiles children who live with an incredible secret: they have psychic abilities. Feeling scared and isolated, these kids have nowhere to turn...until now. Help is on the way in the form of psychic/mediums Chip Coffey, Chris Fleming and Kim Russo, who themselves grew up with these senses, and licensed psychotherapist Edy Nathan, who has more than 20 years experience.

In this intense journey, the experts draw on their own personal experiences, training and unique outlook on life to bring troubled kids together to show them how to harness their abilities and, ultimately, show them that they're not alone in this world.

I don't know about you, but this actually gives me the creeps.
Let's sum this up. Those experts go to kids that have real problems in their lives and mess them up even more by strengthening their ideas about some powers that they supposedly have.
And those experts are?
  • a psychic, medium, spiritual counselor and paranormal investigator. 
  • a Sensitive and a Researcher, who has devoted his life to exploring, documenting and helping others understand paranormal activity. Growing up as a psychic kid in Chicago, he began having extraordinary encounters with ghosts and unexplained phenomena at the age of 4. aranormal investigator. 
  • another practicing psychic/medium
  • and a "licensed therapist" who has been introduced to many ideas about the afterlife.
Suppose someone came along and wanted to film kids that have social problems in your neighborhood. Kids that you knew. And he wanted to "help" them fulfill their destiny as super-duper psychic superhumans.

In most parts of the civilized world i would say that the only insane person around is the "medium" that supposedly wants to help. And i would even try to sue him for endangering children.
Not so of course if it is a tv show.

And the most striking thing is that obviously reality is filled with such nut brains, not only in the form of "mediums" but also in the form of deluded and sick parents.
These are the times when i wonder if a "license for parenthood" should be put on the discussion table.

Another one to bite the dust because of peoples love of Allah

As CNN and others reported already a few days ago, in Pakistan a young lady faces death after doing the unspeakable, the unthinkable ... saying something "blasphemous" against Islam, Allah, Mohamed and the Quran.
What did she actually say ?
She said that "the Quran is fake and your prophet remained in bed for one  month before his death because he had worms in his ears and mouth. He married  Khadija just for money and after looting her kicked her out of the house," local police official Muhammad Ilyas told CNN.

Now really that must be something that is worth a death penalty. And mighty God surely even would like to do it herself if she could. Sadly she doesn't exist so all the deluded followers of a cult have to do it because it's the only thing that seems to keep people from speaking out loud, what everybody with a brain might actually realize quite easily: there is no personal, caring God that interferes with (your) life and takes interest in your actions while naked at home or the hand with which you eat.

And then there is something that really makes all this even more surreal than it already is:
How on earth can someone be so vile as to punish someone with the death penalty AND additionally impose a $ 1.100 fine?

Blasphemy laws?
Well for each case where someone is sentenced to anything else but exposure to criticism you will get a "fuck Allah" from me.
Not because i believe it (how could i anyway)  but because i won't let such idiotic laws stand there and cause such harm.

Mittwoch, 17. November 2010

Hajj Streamlines Ritual Slaughter

I mistakenly thought the term "streamline" would be related to "streaming" the slaughter to people in an audience.
Me poor fool should have known better. I guess my english starts to perish after years of nonuse.
Anyway .... as disgusting as streaming would have been ... streamlining doesn't seem to be so much better.

via (AtheistMedia)

hundrets of thousands of animals....about three quartes of a million animals will be killed in less than four days.

And what do we do in order to avoid the bottleneck that is caused by so many animals slaughtered in such a short time? I mean it seems to be merely a "logistical" problem doesn't it?
Well of course we take advantage of modernization and go into the internet.
I wonder what that "service" will be called: iSlaughterOnline.com?

“Allah” Could Get Life In Prison For Facebook Account

A mysterious blogger who set off an uproar in the Arab world by claiming he was God and hurling insults at the Prophet Muhammad is now behind bars - caught in a sting that used Facebook to track him down.

The case of the unlikely apostate, a shy barber from this backwater West Bank town, is highlighting the limits of tolerance in the Western-backed Palestinian Authority - and illustrating a new trend by authorities in the Arab world to mine social media for evidence.(Read on)

And all that for what? For this page? 

As usual the best way to measure the tolerance of a people is to see it in action. So why don't we sit back and "enjoy" the demonstration of peace demanded by some?

Now, he faces a potential life prison sentence on heresy charges for "insulting the divine essence." Many in this conservative Muslim town say he should be killed for renouncing Islam, and even family members say he should remain behind bars for life.
"He should be burned to death," said Abdul-Latif Dahoud, a 35-year-old Qalqiliya resident. The execution should take place in public "to be an example to others," he added.

I have always wondered how people judge and rule on others that "insult the divine essence".
Even more is the interesting question how a divine essence could be insulted at all by a mere mortal assistant to a barber in some underdeveloped region of a tiny planet in a small solar system that is but one of thousands or millions in a galaxy which we have "i can't even count them" in this universe.
As if an ant could insult a tree by pissing on it.