An Inside Look at the Taliban’s Bankers


An inside look at the Taliban’s bankers

In Afghanistan, the lines between insurgency and official business are often blurred. Reporter Matthew Green takes us through the clandestine world of the infamous hawala bankers – the men deemed to be secretly funding the Taliban.

Catholic Hitler Praying | Rattles Former Warsaw Ghetto


Praying Hitler Rattles Former Warsaw Ghetto
Statue by Maurizio Cattelan not embraced by all
Posted by Kate Seamons
No chance of this one not being controversial: A statue of Adolf Hitler praying on his knees has been installed in the former Warsaw Ghetto, reports the AP. Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan’s work can only be viewed from afar, by peering through a hole in a wooden gate. What, exactly, Hitler—visible only from the back and appearing as a child—is praying for isn’t made clear, but what is clear is that many aren’t pleased. The Simon Wiesenthal Center this week called displaying the statue in a place where the Nazis forced many Jews to live in cramped, inhuman conditions before being sent to death camps “a senseless provocation. … As far as the Jews were concerned, Hitler’s only ‘prayer’ was that they be wiped off the face of the earth.”

                                                        But the director of the art center behind the installation counters that the intention was not to insult, but to try “to speak about the situation of hidden evil everywhere.” And he has Poland’s head rabbi on his side. Michael Schudrich was consulted about the statue and says he didn’t oppose it because he saw value in the moral questions it raises. Evil can present itself in the guise of a “sweet praying child,” he says, and the statue can “force us to face the evil of the world.”

                Praying Hitler Rattles Former Warsaw Ghetto
A statue by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan of Adolf Hitler praying on his knees in Warsaw, Poland. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski)
Catholic Hitler Praying | Rattles Former Warsaw Ghetto

Atheists Face Death In 7 Countries


Punishment for Atheism in 7 Countries: Death

And atheists don’t enjoy full rights in Arkansas: report
Posted By Kate Seamons

            Choosing not to believe can be a deadly choice in seven of the world’s countries, according to a new report out today. It found that atheists can be executed for their views in Afghanistan, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. Reuters notes that the report didn’t actually catalog any recent executions for atheism; but that’s likely because the charge is typically absorbed by other charges, say the researchers. Denial of “the right to exist” isn’t the only woe suffered by atheists per the report, which outlines other persecution and challenges they face around the world:

  • In countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, and Kuwait, it’s illegal (and dubbed “blasphemous”) to publish atheist views.
  • A number of countries, including Malaysia, force all citizens to register as a member of an officially recognized religion in order to obtain documents necessary for accessing everything from education to medical treatment.
  • The West doesn’t get off scot-free, with the report noting that many secular countries give deferential treatment to Christian churches. It cites the “pride of place” given to the Orthodox Church on state occasions in Greece, and Britain’s automatic bestowal of seats in parliament’s upper house on bishops of the Church of England.
  • Closer to home, atheists are actually barred from holding public office in seven US states; in Arkansas, atheists are prohibited from serving as a witness at a trial.

Christian Horse-Fondling School “Cures” Your Gayness


You Are Not Gay Anymore, Thanks To Horse-Fondling  School

Posted by Evan  Hurst

Mounties

When  you were born, there was always something different about you. When you were  little, you were interested in “girl things” like Barbie Dolls and learning.  When you were in high school and all the other boys were doing splashy-splashy in the pool with the girls, you were staying  in the water getting a boner of anticipation every time one of the guys hopped  out, just praying they’d forget to un-cling their swim trunks from their  glistening wet bodies for just a minute longer, because you were A Budding Gay.  You were upset about this because Religious Indoctrination, but that’s okay  because something came along and changed your life forever!

Yes, one day, after finding evidence of your secret gayness, your mom took  you to the Cowboy Church Of Virginia, where they taught you to relieve  yourself of wretched, wretched homosexuality by just straight up fondling some  horses:

An American church is promising gay men they will be cured of their  homosexuality if they stroke horses.

The Cowboy Church of Virginia, led by chief pastor Raymond Bell, believes  homosexuality and other ‘addictions’ can be cured by Equine Assisted  Psychotherapy.

Horse therapy, in the right hands, can be used to help overcome fears,  develop communication skills, and is generally beneficial to mental health.

But Bell says the horses in his church, a cowboy ranch in the  south,

As opposed to the horses in LIBERAL CHURCHES…

are part of teaching men to stop being gay and encourage them to be more  masculine.

[…]

Bell said he uses EAP to identify how a person got ‘involved’ in  homosexuality to begin with. For example, because of rape, abandonment, lacking  a male role model, abuse, and having low self-esteem.

Show me on the horse where you’d like Jesus to touch you.

Wayne Besen of the good old Truth Wins Out (where your Wonkette used to work  for, like, actual employment!) coined the phrase “pray away the gay” back in the  day, and is now having to add “neigh away the gay” to his toolbox of  phrases, which reminds us of a story we told a few weeks back about a Floridian man and his  love relationship with a mini-donkey named “Doodle.”

Unfortunately, the proper methods for using horse-fondling to relieve  yourself of gayness are not provided, so please don’t try this with your own  personal horse. You can’t just walk out in the pasture and pocket-rocket to  third base with the first whinnying love machine you see. For one thing, you  will get bitten or stomped on. No, this requires the work of licensed  professional heterosexual romance therapy horses, and the men of God who offer  them up for gay men to jerk them off or whatever, I don’t understand how Jesus  therapy works.

But anyway, that is the story of why you are not gay anymore, and also why  you spend so much time in your barn  after midnight, softly moaning to the sounds of pitter-pattering horseshoes and  Isaac Hayes on vinyl sexing your wife, in the vagina. [Gay Star News/Truth Wins Out]

A New Inquisition | The Vatican Targets US Nuns


A New Inquisition: The Vatican targets US nuns
  • Franciscan Sr. Pat Farrell (CNS/Sid Hastings)
  • Sr. Nzenzili Lucie Mboma: “It is painful to see the Vatican carrying on these kinds of things.” (Jason Berry)
  • Pope Benedict XVI greets U.S. Cardinal William Levada during the pontiff’s general audience in Paul VI hall at the Vatican in 2011. (CNS/Paul Haring)
Vatican City    

Editor’s note: This is the first in a series of articles, a joint reporting project by NCR and GlobalPost.com, examining the background and the principal players in the Vatican’s investigations of U.S. women religious.

Franciscan Sr. Pat Farrell and three other sisters crossed St. Peter’s Square through the fabled white columns, paused for a security check and entered the rust-colored Palace of the Holy Office.

It was April 18, 2012, and on entering the palazzo, they were aware of its history, that in this same building nearly 400 years earlier Galileo had been condemned as a heretic by the Roman Inquisition for arguing that the Earth orbits around the sun.

Today, the palazzo houses the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that enforces adherence to church teaching. As president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Farrell and her executive colleagues had an appointment with the prefect, Cardinal William Levada, about the congregation’s investigation of their group.

They were walking into what Fr. Hans Küng, the internationally renowned theologian who has had his own battles in the palazzo, calls “a new Inquisition.” (See related story.)

The sisters were accused of undermining church moral teaching by promoting “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.” To many sisters, the congregation’s action is a turn toward the past, causing a climate of fear and a chill wind reaching into their lives.

The Vatican wants control of LCWR, an association of 1,500 superiors, representing 80 percent of American sisters, most long active in the front lines of social justice.

The main leadership council of American sisters embraced the Second Vatican Council’s social justice Gospel, which has taken sisters to some of the poorest corners of the world to work with politically oppressed people, particularly in Latin America. But a stark drama of attrition has unfolded as the Vatican II generation reaches an eclipse. Since 1965, the number of American sisters has dropped by more than two-thirds, from 181,241 to 54,000 today.

In contrast, the rate of women joining religious orders has surged in Korea, South Vietnam, sub-Saharan Africa and parts of the Caribbean. Nowhere has the increase been more pronounced than in India. Five of the 10 largest religious institutes of women have headquarters in India, where only 1.6 percent of the population is Catholic.

“While India has nearly 50 million fewer Catholics than the United States does, it has over 30,000 more women religious,” wrote Jeff Ziegler in Catholic World Report.

The Vatican crackdown of LCWR has exposed a schizophrenic church. Interviews with missionary sisters in Rome, from India and other countries, register a deep fault line between cardinals immune from punishment, and sisters who work in poor regions with some of the world’s most beleaguered people. Religious sisters from other parts of the world view LCWR’s conflict with foreboding. How far Pope Benedict XVI goes in imposing a disciplinary culture, policing obedience over sisters, is an urgent issue to many of these women — and one sure to color this pope’s place in history.

The doctrinal assessment delivered by Levada was an intervention plan; he appointed Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to approve speakers for LCWR gatherings and overhaul its statutes. “You can impose silence, but that doesn’t change anyone’s thinking,” Farrell reflected several months later at the convent in Dubuque, Iowa, where she lives.

“This is about the Vatican II church, how we have come to live collegially with participatory decision-making,” Farrell said. “When I entered in 1965 we studied and prayed with [the Vatican II] documents, implementing new charters. … We’re in a line of continuity with the early history of our communities, assessing unmet needs, going to the margins to help the homeless, people with AIDS, victims of torture and sexual trafficking.”

“When Vatican II requested nuns to search their history, Rome believed in a mythology of plaster statue women,” said Syracuse University Professor Margaret Susan Thompson, a historian of women religious. “They found instead nuns who took the job literally, and became controversial for doing so.”

The leadership conference endorsed women’s ordination in 1977 — 17 years before Pope John Paul II reinforced the church’s ban on it with the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Farrell says LCWR has not campaigned for women’s ordination. Nor has it endorsed abortion. The doctrinal congregation’s demand that the leaders speak out against abortion and gay rights is a battle over conscience, forcing words into superiors’ mouths.

“These women are really rooted in Christ and committed to the poor,” said Sr. Nzenzili Lucie Mboma, executive director of Service of Documentation and Study on Global Mission in Rome. A Congolese member of the Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, Mboma had two friends murdered in political violence in the 1960s, during her novice years. “It is painful to see the Vatican carrying on these kinds of things,” she said.

“In certain parts of the church we have an us-versus-them mentality,” said Fr. Míceál O’Neill, an Irish Carmelite prior in Rome with background as a missionary in Peru. ” ‘Us’ is religious, and ‘them’ is officers of the Holy See.”

“We have a church that is doctrinally conservative and pastorally liberal,” O’Neill said. “The Vatican is trying to assert control, ‘we are in charge.’ … Many people are saying the two churches are not coming together.”

“There is a fundamental problem of honesty.”

Farrell, 65, came of age in Iowa in the years of Vatican II. She joined the Franciscans at 18, and in her 30s worked with Mexicans in San Antonio. She moved to Chile in 1980 during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Disappearances were common. “It was routine for police to torture people in the first 72 hours,” she said. Demonstrations were banned, yet protests were the only way to put a spotlight on abductions when lives were at stake.

She joined “lightning demonstrations,” unfurling banners of the anti-torture protest movement in congested traffic, spreading leaflets that gave people information on the missing, who were airbrushed out of news reports. At one point she was arrested, with 100 other people, but coverage in a growing clandestine media saw them released the same day.

In 1986, she moved to El Salvador with a handful of sisters to help people reeling from a civil war with U.S. military support of the Salvadoran government. Farrell spent her first weeks sleeping at night in a church sacristy, getting to know people, and eventually moving into a sprawling refugee camp, living with villagers displaced by military bombings. American sisters were a nonviolent presence, giving thin cover to locals.

“We learned never to leave the road because any area off defined footpaths could have land mines,” she explained. “I remember walking down one long hill with trembling knees to meet a group of soldiers who entered the camp. Part of our role as internationals in the camp was to keep the military out and I was on my way down to ask them to leave. That time they did, thank God.”

Religious processions common to Latin America took on heightened meaning. For a newly repopulated community to show up en masse, with banners of saints and the Virgin Mary, conveyed “a political statement,” Farrell said: “We are not afraid. We have a right to be here. Our faith continues to be a source of strength to us.”

In 2005, Farrell returned to her Dubuque convent. Elected to the LCWR board several years later, she was midway through her one-year term as president when LCWR leaders made their annual trip to Rome in 2012 to update church officials on their work. With Farrell were Dominican Sr. Mary Hughes, past president; president-elect Franciscan Sr. Florence Deacon, and Janet Mock, the executive director and a Sister of St. Joseph of Baden, Pa.

Before their appointment in the Palace of the Holy Office, they held an hour of silent prayer in a Carmelite center.

The sisters had met once with the doctrinal congregation’s investigator, Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, but had not seen his report. The sisters were expecting some conclusion to Blair’s inquiry but had no indication about what it would entail. Blair was not in the meeting that day. They were to meet with Levada, who was about to turn 76 and retire to his native California.

After a cordial greeting, Levada read aloud an eight-page, single-spaced assessment that his office was just posting to the Internet. The assessment accused the sisters of “corporate dissent” on homosexuality and failure to speak out on abortion. The assessment also castigated LCWR for ties to NETWORK, a Washington-based Catholic lobbying group that supported the Affordable Care Act, and the Resource Center for Religious Institutes, a group in Silver Spring, Md., that gives religious orders canon law guidance on property issues.

Leaving the Holy Office, Farrell felt numb. “It was in the press before we had time to brief our members,” she recalled.

“The reaction of rank-and-file sisters was anger. Now there is a stage of deep sadness and concern for the climate in the church and the misrepresentation of religious life,” she said.

A darkly ironic twist involves the doctrinal congregation’s handling of the clerical sexual abuse crisis. The congregation has processed 3,000 cases of priests who have been laicized for abusing youngsters. Several hundred are reportedly pending.

Yet those procedures, which Benedict, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, put in place as prefect in 2001, have a large loophole. The office has not judged bishops and cardinals whose negligence in recycling abusers caused the crisis.

The most glaring example is Cardinal Bernard Law, whose soft-glove treatment of pedophiles ignited the Boston scandal. He resigned as archbishop in 2002 and in 2004 he was named pastor of a great Roman basilica, Santa Maria Maggiore, with a $10,000 per month salary and a highly influential role in choosing new American bishops.

Law was a driving force behind a preliminary investigation of all American religious orders of women, according to several sources interviewed here, and a May 15 report by Robert Mickens, the respected Vatican correspondent for the British Catholic weekly, The Tablet. Law, who has not spoken to the media in a decade, refused an interview request. But Cardinal Franc Rodé, 78, retired prefect of the congregation that oversees religious orders, confirmed Law’s role. In a wide-ranging interview at his residence in the Palace of the Holy Office, Rodé said, “It was the American milieu in the Roman Curia that suggested it.”

The “apostolic visitation” of all but the cloistered communities of U.S. women religious was the initial phase. The doctrinal congregation’s aggressive investigation of the main leadership group soon followed.

“Some people say this is an attempt to divert attention from the abuse crisis, like politicians do,” a missionary sister from a developing country with her order in Rome, said of the doctrinal congregation’s investigation. She asked that her name not be used because the order depends on donations from U.S. Catholics channeled through dioceses.

“The Vatican is trying to assert control, to say, ‘We are in charge,’ ” she continued. “This envisions a different church from Vatican II. Many people are saying that the two churches are not coming together.”

LCWR has indeed pushed the envelope by giving forums to theologians who have questioned celibacy and the evolution of religious life. As liberal theologians clamor for change, LCWR has collided with the doctrinal office over freedom of conscience, a core principle of Vatican II.

Rodé, as prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, ordered the 2009 visitation of American sister communities. He told Vatican Radio of his concern for “a certain secular mentality … in these religious families and perhaps also a certain ‘feminist’ spirit.”

Rodé was also prompted by a 2008 conference he attended on religious life at Stonehill College near Boston. Dominican Sr. Elizabeth McDonough, a canon lawyer, accused LCWR of creating “global-feminist-operated business corporations” and “controlling all structures and resources.”

“I’m unaware of any such facts that would back up that claim. It sounds like a sweeping indictment of the direction many orders have taken which the hierarchy found offensive or disloyal, summed up in the ‘radical feminism’ catch phrase,” said Kenneth A. Briggs, author of Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church’s Betrayal of American Nuns.

“Most orders were scrounging to come up with funds to support retired sisters, often selling off property that belonged to them to do so. It seems clear to me that the aim of the Stonehill meeting was to paint a picture of disobedience as a pretext for a crackdown,” Briggs said.

Rodé in an interview brushed off suggestions that the apostolic visitation was unfair.

Rodé had requested $1.3 million from religious communities and bishops to cover travel and other expenses for the visitation, which he appointed Mother Mary Clare Millea, superior general of Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, to carry out.

The funding request raised eyebrows among many missionary orders.

“Why would you want to pay them to investigate you?” asked one of the missionary sisters in Rome.

The study by Millea has not been made public.

“Vatican II was the most important event that changed the Catholic church,” said Sr. Nzenzili Lucie Mboma. “Jesus was a carpenter. He didn’t build cells, but windows to see every culture.”

She paused. “Why is this investigation happening?”

Also in this series: German theologian Hans Küng still resists the ‘Roman Inquisition’

Coming in this series: Next: The bishops and cardinals who are investigating the sisters have poor records on sex abuse cases.

[Jason Berry, author of Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church, writes from New Orleans. Research for this series has been funded by a Knight Grant for Reporting on Religion and American Public Life at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism; the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting; and the Fund for Investigative Journalism

The Unequal State of America – graphic of the day


The Unequal State of America – graphic of the day

In a new three part special report, Reuters is examining the rise of income inequality in America. Today’s graphic shows how the 50 states and Washington DC rank according to three key metrics (median income, poverty rate and inequality). Click here to see the interactive version of the graphic below. To learn more about the methodology behind this new series, click here.

inequality

Via:- Thomson Reuters

Catholic Fascist Robert Spencer and Jewish Harpy Pamela Geller United in Hate With Christian Taliban Hatemonger


Meet Catholic Talibanist Robert Spencer’s Fellow Christian Extremist: “Usama Dakdok”
Posted b Dorado

Pastor Usama Dakdok, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

Pastor Usama Dakdok, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

by Garibaldi

Robert Spencer is in his own right an extremist anti-Muslim who is motivated by a belief that he is in a militant Christian Crusade against Islam.

“We wanted Catholics to become informed about Islam because not only is Islam the church’s chief rival in terms of religion but Islam is a serious threat to the peace and well-being of the Western world in general.”

Spencer’s extremist allies in this cause are many, on the other side of the pond it’s the EDL, Geert Wilders, etc. and here in the USA it’s individuals like Pastor Usama Dakdok, who has said things like, every Muslim is a demon.” Dakdok has gotten high praise from Islamophobic rags such as the David Horowitz funded and operated FrontPageMag which described Dakdok as a “scholar.” Well, he must be, right? Just look at the company he’s in,

“scholars like Dakdok, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat”

Yup…Walid Shoebat. I’m willing to agree with this assessment by FrontPageMag, Spencer certainly is in the field of scholarship and caliber of the likes of Dakdok and Shoebat. I’m just waiting for these two to get blurbs from Spencer for any of their upcoming “scholarly” books.

Dakdok is also a presenter on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN), an anti-Islam extremist Christian proselytizing group that features Spencer very often, usually with him debating the likes of useful idiots Anjem Choudhary and Omer Bakri. Interestingly, Spencer still refuses to debate Danios.

Recently, Dakdok was speaking at a Tea Party conference in Ohio where he stated that we are “at war with Islam,” Barack Obama was the product of Muslim rape, Muslims were infiltrating the government, Muslims will kill children in America for not eating halal through beheading and other really vile nonsense. Of course Spencer will never repudiate these remarks or his association with Pastor Dakdok.

What’s disconcerting is all the applause and cheers Dakdok received at the Tea Party conference. (h/t: JD)

See Video: Tea Party Anti-Muslim Hate Comes to Ohio School

(Vimeo)

(CLEVELAND, OHIO, 12/19/12) – The Cleveland office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Ohio chapter (CAIR-Cleveland) today released a video highlighting anti-Muslim hate preached at a recent Tea Party event at a school in that state, which included claims that American Muslims “will kill your children” and that “we are in war with Islam.”

At the December 10 event, titled “Infiltration of Islam in America?” and sponsored by the Mansfield North Central Ohio Tea Party, at Mansfield High School in Mansfield, Ohio, speaker Usama Dakdok called Islam a “wicked cult” and made hate-filled claims such as: (NOTE: Speaker’s linguistic errors retained.)

“The day will come and Muslim in America will have the upper hand, and they will kill your children for not eating what is liked. For not eating the lawful foods.”

“What happened to the women and the children? They were raped. By who? By Muhammad and his followers. And they got pregnant, and they had babies, and the baby was born by the name Fatima, and Khadija, and Obama, and Hussein, and Barack, and all those wonderful Muslim names.”

“[W]ithout Allah they will die and for sure they would spend eternity in hell with Muhammad and with all previous Muslims, and Baptist, and Presbyterian, and Catholic, and everyone who’s think by going to some church will make it to heaven.”

“Killing you is a small matter [for Muslims].”

“We were not in war with Bin Ladin, we are in war with Islam.”

“[T]hen you have a revival in America among the Muslim, and that’s when they start beheading your children and your grandchildren.”

“So they say this month two and a half percent of the profit [American banks] made will go to Egypt. To help to get rid of illiteracy. What do they mean by illiteracy? They meant Christian. We are gonna kill some Christian. Or this month we are gonna get rid of some AIDS. What is AIDS? That is the Jews.”

CAIR-Cleveland had called on people of conscience to ask the Tea Party group to drop Dakdok from the December 10 program.

“Our nation’s schools should be havens from the kind of hatred spewed by Mr. Dakdok,” said CAIR-Cleveland Executive Director Julia Shearson. “We urge Ohio’s religious and political leaders to repudiate this and all other forms of bigotry being promoted by a vocal minority nationwide – bigotry which can and does lead to violence.”

Shearson noted that another charge was added yesterday to those filed against an armed Indiana man arrested for burning the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo in September.

Also yesterday, New Jersey white supremacists faced hate crime charges for allegedly attacking several men of Egyptian descent in 2011. One of the alleged attackers wrote on a website: “(W)e went to hunt down some sand n**gers, it was me and my other bro on like 6 or eight and we whooped them.”

As an example of recent campaigns to promote anti-Muslim bigotry, CAIR cited efforts of the designated hate group headed by blogger Pamela Geller to place Islamophobic ads in transit systems nationwide.

A scheduled 2011 speech by Dakdok at the same school was cancelled by the Mansfield City School Board after complaints from the NAACP and CAIR, but the decision was challenged by a lawsuit brought on behalf of the Tea Party.

With legal fees mounting, the Mansfield School District recently settled the law suit and granted permission for the hate preacher to speak at the school.

Atheists Are Better for Politics Than Believers. Here’s Why


Atheists are better for politics than believers. Here’s why

As my term as British Humanist Association president comes to an end, a few words of advice to my successor, Jim Al-Khalili

Polly Toynbee

Noma Bar 1412

Illustration by Noma Bar

‘If you’re not religious, for God’s sake say so,” we implored, and many did. Over a quarter of the population registered as non-believers: more might have done were the census question unambiguous about whether it meant cultural background or personal belief. My term as president of the British Humanist Association ends this month, but gladly I hand over to Jim Al-Khalili, the distinguished professor of physics, writer, broadcaster and explainer of science. With atheism as the second largest block, he will be in a stronger position to see that unbelievers get a better hearing.

Rows over gay marriage and women bishops bewilder most people. With overwhelming popular support for both, how can abstruse theology and unpleasant prejudice cause such agitation at Westminster and in the rightwing press? Politics looks even more out of touch when obscure doctrine holds a disproportionate place in national life.

The religions still frighten politicians, because despite small numbers in the pews, synagogues and mosques, they are organised and vocal when most of the rest of society lacks community voice or influence. Labour was craven, endlessly wooing faith groups – David Blunkett wishing he could “bottle the magic” of faith schools.

With a third of state schools religious in this most secular country, Michael Gove not only swells their number but lets them discriminate as they please in admissions. As he is sending a bible to every English school, the BHA is fundraising to send out its own Young Atheist’s Handbook to school libraries. Government departments are outsourcing more services to faith groups in health, hospice, community and social care.

But of all the battles Jim Al-Khalili confronts, the most urgent is the right to die. Powerful religious forces block attempts to let the dying end their lives when they choose. Tony Nicklinson was the most public face of thousands in care homes and hospitals condemned to what he called “a living nightmare” by 26 bishops and other religious lords who say only God can dispose – the Bishop of Oxford decreed: “We are not autonomous beings.” The public supports the right to die, but many more will drag themselves off to a bleak Swiss clinic before the religions let us die in peace.

Sensing the ebbing tide of faith since the last census, the blowback against unbelievers has been remarkably violently expressed. Puzzlingly, we are routinely referred to as “aggressive atheists” as if non-belief itself were an affront. But we are with Voltaire, defending to the death people’s right to believe whatever they choose, but fighting to prevent them imposing their creeds on others.

The Abrahamic faiths, with their disgust for sex and women, still exert deep cultural influence. When David Cameron claimed “we are a Christian country”, there are certainly enough cultural relics in attitudes towards women and gays. Baroness Warsi’s letter expressing alarm that schools might teach gay marriage equality causes tremors of that sexual disgust branded into the souls of all three major monotheistic faiths. Are there many gay couples perverse enough to yearn to be married inside religions that abhor them? Humanists can offer them heartfelt celebrations.

In the Lords this week, by a whisker, section 5 of the Public Order Act was amended to remove the offence of using “insulting words or behaviour within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harm, alarm or distress thereby”.

An extraordinary alliance of extreme religions wanting the right to preach fire and brimstone against gays joined with free thinkers wanting the right to be rude about religions. Liberty and the Christian Institute were on the same side against the government, which was defeated. Now the Commons will have to decide. Some religions argue they have a God-given right not to be caused offence, to give legal weight to fatwas against those who offend their prophets. But in the rough and tumble of free speech, no one can be protected against feeling offended. Jim Al-Khalili can expect all manner of attacks, but no protection for his sensibilities.

For instance, he might take offence at the charge that without God, unbelievers have no moral compass. Hitler and Stalin were atheists, that’s where it leads. We can ripost with religious atrocities, Godly genocides or the Inquisition, but that’s futile. Wise atheists make no moral claims, seeing good and bad randomly spread among humanity regardless of faith. Humans do have a hardwired moral sense, every child born with an instinct for justice that makes us by nature social animals, not needing revelations from ancient texts. The idea that morality can only be frightened into us artificially, by divine edict, is degrading.

The new president will confront another common insult: atheists are desiccated rationalists with nothing spiritual in their lives, poor shrivelled souls lacking transcendental joy and wonder. But in awe of the natural world of physics, he’ll have no trouble with that. Earthbound, there is enough wonder in the magical realms of human imagination, thought, dream, memory and fantasy where most people reside for much of their waking lives. There is no emotional or spiritual deficiency in rejecting creeds that stunt and infantalise the imagination.

Liberated by knowing the here and now is all there is, humanists are optimists, certain that our destiny rests in our own hands. That’s why most humanists are natural social democrats, not conservatives.

Slavoj Zizek And The Role of The Philosopher


Slavoj Zizek and the role of the philosopher
Zizek “disrupts” ideological structures, the underside of acceptable philosophical, religious and political discourses.

Zizek (left) is “what Jacques Derrida was to the 80s” – the thinker of our age [Getty]

There are many important and active philosophers today: Judith Butler in the United States, Simon Critchley in England, Victoria Camps in Spain, Jean-Luc Nancy in France, Chantal Mouffe in Belgium, Gianni Vattimo in Italy, Peter Sloterdijk in Germany and in Slovenia, Slavoj Zizek, not to mention others working in Brazil, Australia and China.

None is better than the others. All are simply different, pursue different philosophical traditions, write in different styles and, most of all, propose different interpretations.

While all these philosophers have become points of references within the philosophical community, few have managed to overcome its boundaries and become public intellectuals intensely engaged in our cultural and political life as did Hannah Arendt (with the Eichmann trial), Jean-Paul Sartre (in the protests of May 1968) and Michel Foucault (with the Iranian revolution).

These philosophers became public intellectuals not simply because of their original philosophical projects or the exceptional political events of their epochs, but rather because their thoughts were drawn by these events. But how can an intellectual respond to the events of his epoch in order to contribute in a productive manner?

In order to respond, as Edward Said once said, the intellectual has to be “an outsider, living in self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society”, that is, free from academic, religious and political establishments; otherwise, he or she will simply submit to the inevitability of events.

He exposes himself to criticism

If Slavoj Zizek perfectly fits Said’s description, it is not because he is unemployed, in exile, and at the margins of society, but rather because he writes as if he were. His theoretical books, political positions and public appearances are a disruption not only of the common academic style, but also of the idea of the philosopher or intellectual as someone to be idealised and deferred to.

A perfect example of this is presented in a scene from a documentary where the Slovenian philosopher brilliantly explains (while half-naked in his bed) that philosophy “is a very modest discipline, it asks different questions from science, for example, how does the philosopher approach the problem of freedom? The problem is not whether we are free or not; it asks simpler questions which we call hermeneutic questions, hence, what it means to be free… philosophy does not ask whether there is truth, no, the question is what do you mean when you say this is true”.

The surprise from seeing a thinker offer such a clear definition of philosophy does not come from the casual setting; rather, we have become too accustomed to elegant intellectuals hiding behind complicated definitions of philosophy in their university offices. Zizek instead prefers to be honest and expose himself to criticism in order to state clearly and dogmatically his philosophical and political positions.

His ability to fuse together Martin Heidegger’s “fundamental ontology”, Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Naomi Klein’s “shock doctrine” in order to undermine our liberal and tolerant democratic structures is a practice few intellectuals are capable of.

While many believe that globalisation made the Slovenian philosopher more popular than John Dewey, Herbert Marcuse, or Jurgen Habermas, it was actually his ability to disrupt our neoliberal democratic surety through the same events that characterise it.

Zizek’s disruptions begin as soon as we watch him deliver a lecture (which always draws large crowds) where he decomposes our sense of reality (using material as diverse as Hegel’s dialectical materialism, Lacan’s psychoanalysis and David Lynch’s films) in order to reactualise the dialectical method in philosophy.

For example, against the realist, who conceives truth as a permanent content that serves as an infallible corrective for all our thoughts and actions, the Slovenian philosopher indicates how this access to reality is only possible through what remains unthought, that is, symbolisation, the parallax gap, or the struggle for truth. The status of reality “is purely parallactic and, as such, non-substantial: It is just a gap between two points of perspective, perceptible only in the shift from the one to the other”.

The aim of Zizek’s philosophy (similar to hermeneutics) is to show that not only our understanding is dialectical but reality is as well: Every “field of ‘reality’ (every ‘world’) is always already enframed, seen through an invisible frame”. This dialectical stance allows the Slovenian thinker to call for changes through ideological reversals; that is, he shows that in order to overcome capitalism it is first necessary to abandon “all forms of resistance which help the system reproduce itself by ensuring our participation in it”.

This is why events like the Arab Spring, the OWS protests and the protests in Greece should not be read as “part of the continuum of past and present” but rather as “fragments of a utopian future that lies dormant in the present as its hidden potential”. This future, according to Zizek, will be communist.

The thinker of our age

Although Zizek has become a distinguished academic professor (in several European and American universities), the author of more than 70 books (such as The Sublime Object of Ideology, The Parallax View, The Year of Dreaming Dangerously), the editor of successful series (Insurrections, Sic, Short Circuits), a sharp cultural critic (in media articles and documentaries such as The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema and The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology) and a courageous political activist (in addition to having run for president in Slovenia’s first democratic election in 1990 and also a supporter of Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks organisation and the Palestinian cause), he is constantly criticised either for “endlessly reiterating an essentially empty vision” or for releasing more books “than he can read“.

“His ability to fuse together Heidegger’s ‘fundamental ontology’… to undermine our liberal and tolerant democratic structures is a practice few intellectuals are capable of.”

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1659202291001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAmtVJIFk~,TVGOQ5ZTwJaOnnPgAFUa3RPnyd849QP8&bctid=1247618890001

Predictably, most of these criticisms are directed not against his theoretical project but his political views, that is, communism. After all, 1989 was not only the year the Soviet Union dissolved, but also when the Slovenian philosopher’s first book in English appeared; in other words, in the year communism ended, Zizek (and many other philosophers) began to endorse it.

He still has not received an international prize, but not because he is not a serious or original philosopher, but rather because such prizes are given to the intellectuals who follow the predominant ideology, not those who disrupt it.

Today, whether we like him or not, Zizek is, as the Observer points out, “what Jacques Derrida was to the 80s”, that is, the thinker of our age. While Derrida’s intellectual operation focused on “deconstructing” our linguistic frames of reference, Zizek instead “disrupts” our ideological structures, the underside of acceptable philosophical, religious and political discourses.

Although it’s impossible to cover all the Slovenian philosophers’ meditations, which span from Schelling’s idealism through Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalysis and John Milbank’s theology, it is worth venturing into the political disruptions he has created (which I will comment upon in a later post) in order to further understand how he has changed the role of the philosopher, a role, as he writes in his two latest books (Less Than Nothing and Mapping Ideology) that must “articulate the space for a revolt” independently because when a revolutionary movement is denounced as ideological, “one can be sure that its inversion is no less ideological”.

Santiago Zabala is ICREA Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of Barcelona. His books include The Hermeneutic Nature of Analytic Philosophy (2008), The Remains of Being (2009), and, most recently, Hermeneutic Communism (2011, co-authored with G Vattimo), all published by Columbia University Press.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeera
Santiago Zabala
Santiago Zabala Santiago Zabala is ICREA Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of Barcelona. His books include The Hermeneutic Nature of Analytic Philosophy (2008), The Remains of Being (2009), and, most recently, Hermeneutic Communism (2011, coauthored with G. Vattimo), all published by Columbia University Press.

Longform’s Best Sex Stories of 2012


Longform’s Best Sex Stories of 2012

Sex on the Web, during the age of Grindr, and in the Olympic Village—the best sex writing of 2012.

Demystifying a ubiquitous Internet presence.

“If you think cam girls—those flirty naked characters that plague porn site pop-up ads—are raking in easy money, you’re right. If you think cam girls are bleakly stripping online out of desperation, you’re also right. Peel away the sex and pixels and money and you’re left with the cloudy truth about the Internet’s relationship status with these on-demand entertainers: it’s complicated.

“You’ve looked at porn online, which means you’ve likely been propositioned by advertisements for cam girl networks. They invade your peripheral vision; they pop up behind your window. The women wait for you to start staring, and, just when you’re interested, they hit you up for money. You’ve seen them sitting at their keyboards, wearing barely anything, winking at you, typing to nobody in particular with thin, lethargic arms: bored and conventionally beautiful. The ads, with flirty video that might be live or recorded years ago, shout at you with promises of ‘Live Sex Chat’ and ‘Sex Shows,’ with both amateurs and ‘pornstars’ alike. It’s a web red light district, and unlike some gaudy Dutch strip or seedy sidewalk, you’re completely anonymous. The sex comes to you.”

Absolute Beginners Bethany Cosentino, Krista Burton, Lena Dunham, Liz Phair, Miranda July, Pamela Des Barres, Sarah Silverman, Shannon Woodward • Rookie

Eight women remember their first time.

Lena Dunham talks sexJason Merritt/Getty Images.

“Lena Dunham: When I was about nine I wrote a vow of celibacy on a piece of paper and ate it. I promised myself, in orange magic marker, that I would remain a virgin until I graduated from high school. This seemed important because I knew my mother had waited until the summer after she graduated and also Angela Chase seemed pretty messed up by her experience at that flophouse where high school kids went to copulate. If my relationship to liver paté was any indication, and I had recently eaten so much that I barfed, then my willpower was very bad, and I needed something stronger than resolve to prevent me from having intercourse too early in life.

“Turns out, this was an unnecessary precaution. The opportunity never arose in high school, nor even during the first year of college, save for a near-miss with a stocky kid I knew who was home visiting New York City from the Air Force Academy—that encounter went far enough that I had to fish a mint-colored, never-used condom out from behind my dormitory bunk bed the next day. I transferred to Oberlin my sophomore year, a small liberal arts school in Ohio that was known for having been the first college to admit both women and men, as well as for its polyamorous, bi-curious student body. I was neither, but it did seem like a good environment in which to finally get the ball rolling. I really felt like the oldest virgin in town, save for a busty riot grrrl from Olympia, Washington, who was equally frustrated; she and I would often meet up in our nightgowns to discuss.

“I was pretty sure I had already broken my hymen in high school, crawling over a fence in Brooklyn in hot pursuit of a cat that clearly didn’t want to be rescued. So the event would only be psychologically painful.”

Please Don’t Infect Me, I’m Sorry Rich Juzwiak • Gawker

Sex and status disclosure in the age of Grindr and undetectable HIV-levels.

“The first guy I ever turned down on Grindr for having HIV, my patient zero if you will, is all kinds of hot: hot in the face, hot in the body and hotheaded. In May, he asked me to come over and make out. We chatted a little bit more, he told me about his status and I slipped out of the conversation, just like that. Randomly in July, I noticed him at a movie theater: On Grindr and online, people lie with pictures all the time, choosing ones that distort their appearance in a captured second, but I was able to pick Miguel right out of a crowd. His picture is a symbol of habitual honesty, maybe, but also because he’s so attractive, he has no reason to lie.

“ ‘This always happens: someone will feel bad and then they’ll see me out and they’ll be like, “Oh my god, you’re so fucking hot,” ‘ Miguel told me while we waited for our table outside of a Chelsea brunch spot one Saturday in early July after I reconnected and asked him to talk to me.

“Miguel told me that being turned down for sex because he’s HIV-positive is something that happens ‘all the time,’ and that ‘almost every time, the minute someone gets to know me, their mind changes.’ Exposure to a gay friend often converts homophobes swiftly; the same can be said of an HIV-positive guy meeting others who are fearful. It’s somewhat reassuring that that’s all it takes in many cases, but it also underlines the exponential burden put upon positive guys. They are either in a constant state of proving themselves socially or they are sitting on a secret.”

 

The Ayatollah Under the Bed(sheets) Karim Sadjadpour • Foreign Policy

 Politics, sex, and political sex in Iran.

“Perhaps it’s not entirely surprising that Iran’s Shiite fundamentalists—not unlike their evangelical Christian, Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, and Sunni Muslim counterparts—spend an inordinate amount of time pondering sexuality. They are human, after all. But the sexual manias of Iran’s religious fundamentalists are worthy of greater scrutiny, all the more so because they control a state with nuclear ambitions, vast oil wealth, and a young, dynamic, stifled population. Yet for a variety of reasons—fear of becoming Salman Rushdie, of being labeled an Orientalist, of upsetting religious sensibilities—the remarkable hypocrisy of the Iranian regime is often studiously avoided.

“That’s a mistake. Because religion is politics in a theocracy like Iran, uninformed or antiquated notions of sexuality aren’t just confined to the bedroom—they pervade the country’s seminaries, military barracks, boardrooms, courtrooms, and classrooms. A common aphorism among Iranians is that before the revolution, people partied outside the home and prayed inside, while today they pray outside and party inside. This reverse dichotomy is true of a lot of social behavior in Iran. For many Iranians, this perverse state of affairs is now so ingrained, such an inherent aspect of daily interactions with Iranian officialdom, that it is no longer noteworthy. For those in the West who seek to better understand what makes Tehran tick, though, the regime’s curious fixation on sex cannot be ignored.”

 

Will You Still Medal in the Morning? Sam Alipour • ESPN the Magazine

 Sex in the Olympic Village.

“Home to more than 10,000 athletes at the Summer Games and 2,700 at the Winter, the Olympic Village is one of the world’s most exclusive clubs. To join, prospective members need only have spectacular talent and —we long assumed—a chaste devotion to the most intense competition of their lives. But the image of a celibate Games began to flicker in ’92 when it was reported that the Games’ organizers had ordered in prophylactics like pizza. Then, at the 2000 Sydney Games, 70,000 condoms wasn’t enough, prompting a second order of 20,000 and a new standing order of 100,000 condoms per Olympics.

“Many Olympians, past and present, abide by what Summer Sanders, a swimmer who won two gold medals, a silver and a bronze in Barcelona, calls the second Olympic motto: ‘What happens in the village stays in the village.’ Yet if you ask enough active and retired athletes often enough to spill their secrets, the village gates will fly open. It quickly becomes clear that, summer or winter, the games go on long after the medal ceremony. ‘There’s a lot of sex going on,’ says women’s soccer goalkeeper Hope Solo, a gold medalist in 2008. How much sex? ‘I’d say it’s 70 percent to 75 percent of Olympians,’ offers world-record-holding swimmer Ryan Lochte, who will be in London for his third Games. ‘Hey, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.’ ”

For more of the year’s best writing, check out Longform’s Best of 2012.

More American Gun Homicides | Firefighters Gunned Down in Western New York


Firefighters Gunned Down in Western New York
Days without gun violence: 0

Another senseless, horrific crime, as someone apparently laid a trap for firefighters in order to gun them down: 2 Firefighters Killed in Western New York.

Four firefighters were shot — two fatally — after apparently being lured to an early morning blaze on Monday in Webster, N.Y., a lakefront town about 12 miles northeast of Rochester, officials said.

The suspected assailant also died at the scene, the town’s police chief, Gerald L. Pickering said, though it was unclear if he was killed by a self-inflicted gunshot or by the authorities.

“It does appear that it was a trap that was set,” Chief Pickering said of the blaze that drew the firefighters. “Causative reasons, we don’t have at this time.”

Right Wingers Worship Violence and Death | Record Sales of Assault Rifles at Gun Shows | Racketeers Hike Prices To Fleece Gullible Gun Nuts


Right Wingers in Gun-Buying Panic: Record Sales of Assault Rifles at Gun Shows

Worshipping violence and death

What sort of person reacts to the horrible mass murder in Newtown by rushing out to a gun show and buying the same assault rifle used by Adam Lanza to slaughter 26 people?

Answer: a whole lot of right wingers: Gun Enthusiasts Pack Shows to Buy Assault Weapons.

Gun enthusiasts thronged to shows around the country on Saturday to buy assault weapons they fear will soon be outlawed after a massacre of school children in Connecticut prompted calls for tighter controls on firearms.

Reuters reporters went to gun shows in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Texas, and found long lines to get in the door, crowds around the dealer booths, a rush to buy assault weapons even at higher prices and some dealers selling out.

The busiest table at the R.K. Gun & Knife show at an exposition center near the Kansas City, Missouri airport was offering assault weapons near the entrance. West Plains, Missouri dealer Keith’s Guns sold out of about 20 AR-15 style assault rifles in a little over an hour, owner Keith Gray said.

An AR-15 type assault weapon was among the guns authorities believe suspect Adam Lanza stole from his mother to use in the massacre of 20 school children and six adults at a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school on December 14.

Warring Wingnut Warriors! | Far Right’s Continued Implosion


Wingnut Wars!
Dana Loesch Sues Breitbart Loons

Thanks to “wrenchwench

How could a love so right go so wrong?
Tonight we have word of big trouble on the far right, as the Breitbrats begin fighting in earnest over the empire that Breitbart built: Talk Radio Host Dana Loesch Files Suit in St. Louis Against Breitbart.com.

I’ve been wondering why Loesch’s wingnut screeds haven’t been appearing there lately — now we know.

Conservative talk radio host and commentator Dana Loesch sued the owner of the conservative website Breitbart.com Friday, claiming that although her relationship with the news and opinion aggregating website had gone “tragically awry,” Breibart.cοm LLC refused to let her work for the company or anyone else, forcing her into “indentured servitude in limbo.”

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court here, seeks at least $75,000 in damages, as well as a judge’s declaration that her contract had expired.

The suit says that difficulties managing the Breitbart “media ‘empire’” or ideological conflicts or both had spiked the working relationship, creating a “increasingly hostile” work environment. When Loesch tried to terminate her work agreement in September, Breitbart refused and extended the agreement by a year, the suit says.

Here’s the legal document filed. Worth a chuckle!

Worldwide Persecution of Atheists and Unbelievers | A Near-Silent Tragedy


6 Outrageous Incidents of Discrimination Against Nonbelievers

Atheists are often seen as crying wolf when they speak about bigotry. But discrimination against atheists around the world is real.

Photo Credit: © BortN66/Shutterstock.com

“Oh, you atheists are always whining about how put-upon you are. You don’t experience real discrimination: not like African Americans, or gays, or women, or immigrants. So knock it off with the pity party.”

You may have heard this refrain. You may have even sung it yourself. So let’s look at this question for a moment: Are atheists subjected to real discrimination?

It’s certainly true that, in the United States, while atheists do experience real discrimination, it’s typically not as severe as, say, racism or misogyny. Or rather, since I don’t think comparing discriminations is usually all that useful: Anti-atheist discrimination takes different forms. It’s not like the systematic economic apartheid African Americans experience, or the systematic enforcement of rigid gender roles women experience. It takesother forms: such as social ostracism; bullying in schools; public schools denying atheist students the right to form clubs; religious proselytizing promoted by the government; widespread perceptions of atheists as untrustworthy; businesses denying equal access to atheists and atheist organizations; government promotion of religion in social service programs; government promotion of religion in the military. And it’s true that atheists have significant legal protection in the United States:people sometimes break those laws, and those laws aren’t always enforced, but we do have these laws, and they do help.

But the United States isn’t the whole world.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a world umbrella group bringing together more than a hundred humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, and freethought organizations from 40 countries, has just produced the first ever report focusing on how countries around the world discriminate against non-religious people. Published on December 10 to mark Human Rights Day, theFreedom of Thought 2012: A Global Report on Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists and the Non-religious:

…covers laws affecting freedom of conscience in 60 countries and lists numerous individual cases where atheists have been prosecuted for their beliefs in 2012. It reports on laws that deny atheists’ right to exist, curtail their freedom of belief and expression, revoke their right to citizenship, restrict their right to marry, obstruct their access to public education, prohibit them from holding public office, prevent them from working for the state, criminalize their criticism of religion, and execute them for leaving the religion of their parents.

There are two big take-home messages from this report. One: This is a world-wide issue. Examples of anti-atheist discrimination have been reported in 60 countries, from Algeria to Zambia; including the Bahamas, Brazil, Bahrain, and Belize; Italy, India, Israel, Iceland; the United Kingdom and the United States. It’s been reported in brutal theocracies notorious for their human rights violations, like Pakistan and Iran — and it’s been reported in supposed secular paradises, like Sweden and France. It’s worse in some countries than others, obviously… but this is a global problem.

Two: In some countries, this anti-atheist discrimination is severe. It doesn’t take the form of government proselytizing or being denied the right to organize clubs. It takes the form of being arrested. It takes the form of being imprisoned, for years. It takes the form of being targeted by a mob screaming for your blood… and when the police who should be there to protect you show up, instead they throw you in jail. Where another mob forms up, screaming for your blood.

Don’t believe me? Here are six outrageous examples of discrimination against non-believers.

1: Alber Saber, Egypt. Alber Saber, the 27-year-old atheist activist, blogger, and reported administrator of the Egyptian Atheists Facebook page, was arrested after a mob swarmed outside his home demanding his arrest for insulting religion. Saber was then attacked in prison, after a guard told the other prisoners what he had been charged with. On December 12 of this year, he was convicted of blasphemy, and sentenced to three years in prison. I would just like to point out: This is 2012. It is not 1633 during Galileo’s conviction for heresy; it is not 1692 during the Salem witch trials. It is 2012. And people in the world today, in 2012, are being arrested, charged, convicted, and imprisoned — for blasphemy. They are being arrested, charged, convicted, and imprisoned — not to mention attacked by mobs and assaulted in prison — for the crime of not believing in God, and for saying so out loud. (Pending appeal, Alber Saber has just been released on bail — a week after the bail money was paid.)

2: Alexander Aan, Indonesia. In January 2012, Indonesian civil servant Alexander Aan was attacked by an entirely different mob, after he criticized Islam on Facebook and said he’d left the religion and become an atheist. Following the attack, Aan was arrested for insulting religion (i.e., blasphemy), electronic transmission of defamatory statements (i.e., blasphemy via the Internet), and false reporting on an official form. That last charge is loaded with horrible irony, by the way: Indonesians are legally required to register as one of six official religions… thus literally forcing people who doesn’t believe in one of those religions, including people like Aan who don’t believe in any of them, to lie.On June 14, Aan was sentenced. He is now serving two and a half years in prison.

3: Phillipos Loizos, Greece. In September 2012, Phillipos Loizos was arrested in Evia, Greece, on charges of posting “malicious blasphemy and religious insult” on Facebook. His crime? Creating a Facebook page making fun of Elder Paisios, the late Greek Orthodox monk revered by many as a prophet — a page referring to Paisios as Pastistios, connecting him with the satirical atheist faux-religion Pastafarianism, and replacing his face with an image of the Greek beef dish pastitsio. Seriously. Aggravated Photoshopping, with intent to mock. Overzealous police officer? Maybe. But then why was Loizos not immediately released, with pleading, tear-stained apologies and a groveling request not to sue? Why, as of the release of theIHEU report on December 10, is he still being charged?

4: Sanal Edamaruku, India. A humanist organizer and a renowned skeptical debunker of supernatural claims — sort of a James Randi of India — Sanal Edamaruku is the president of the Indian Rationalist Association. He’s also the guy who, in March 2012, profoundly embarrassed the Catholic Church on national television, when he debunked a supposed “miracle” believed in by thousands by proving that a weeping Jesus on the cross was actually the result of a leaky drain. The Catholic Church, naturally, was profoundly grateful for this information, as it cares passionately about the truth and wants to be sure that any “miracles” it promotes are truly the hand of God…

…No, wait, That’s not what happened at all. In April 2012, a group called the Association of Concerned Catholics filed a complaint against Edamaruku with the Mumbai police under Section 295 of the country’s penal code… a complaint the Catholic Church didn’t officially support but also didn’t speak out against or try to stop in any way. The police, recognizing this complaint for the blatant absurdity that it was, laughed them out of the room…

…No, wait. That’s not what happened at all. The Mumbai police actually took this seriously. They issued an arrest, charging Edamaruku with “hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community.” The police haven’t dropped it, either: they have since gone to Edamaruku’s home in Delhi to serve the arrest warrant, and to demand information on his whereabouts. What’s more, they are denying him “anticipatory bail,” so if he submitted to the arrest he could do months of jail time before his trial. Edamaruku, unwilling to do months of jail time for first-degree debunking of fraudulent miracles, has fled the country, and is currently in hiding in Finland. (More information at theFriendly Atheist blog.)

Please note here that — as in the Greek case — it is not Islamic theocrats or would-be theocrats trying to get atheists locked up for making them look bad. It is Christian ones. So in case you were going in that whole “this is just a problem of Muslim extremists” direction… yeah, don’t go there.

5: Fazil Say, Turkey. Of course, sometimes it is a problem of Muslim extremists. If you know the world of classical and jazz piano, you might already know of Fazil Say: he is apparently widely renowned in that world. He is also an atheist. On June 1, 2012, he was arrested and charged with insulting Islamic values, via the fearsome and formidable medium of Twitter. The case is pending (it’s scheduled for February 2013): if he’s convicted, he faces up to a year and a half in prison.

He’s not the only one. Say’s arrest is just one of a series of recent legal actions in Turkey, targeting artists, writers and intellectuals for making less than entirely laudatory statements about religion and Turkish national identity. And if you’re thinking, “Oh, dear, another of those terrible Middle Eastern theocracies” — think again. The Turkish Constitution protects freedom of religious belief, guarantees equal protection under the law regardless of religion, and lists secularism as one of the Turkish republic’s fundamental characteristics.

Yeah. I know. My head is spinning, too. I keep thinking of Inigo Montoya: You keep saying “secularism and freedom of religious belief.” I do not think it means what you think it means.

6: Jabeur Mejri and Ghazi Beji, Tunisia. Seven and a half years: that’s the prison sentence given to atheists Jabeur Mejri and Ghazi Beji in Tunisia in March 2012, for posting cartoons of Muhammad on Facebook. Beji got lucky, and got the hell out of the country: he is still being sought as a fugitive by Tunisian authorities. Mejri wasn’t so lucky. He is currently in prison — serving a seven and half year sentence. Think, for a moment, about how long seven and a half years is. In seven and a half years, a kindergarten child would almost be in junior high. In seven and a half years, an elm tree would grow from a sapling to over twice your height. Now, think about spending seven and a half years in prison. For posting cartoons about religion that the government didn’t like.

If you’ve noticed how many of these incidents involve social media — non-believers being arrested and imprisoned for using Facebook, Twitter, and other social media to discuss atheism and criticize religion — you’re not alone. The IHEU noticed that, too. As IHEU pointed out when it announced the report: “The report highlights a sharp increase in arrests for ‘blasphemy’ on social media this year. The previous three years saw just three such cases, but in 2012 more than a dozen people in ten countries have been prosecuted for ‘blasphemy’ on Facebook or Twitter.”

There seems to be something about atheism on the Internet — the possibility of anonymity, the speed at which ideas can spread, the ability to organize at the touch of a finger, the impossibility of keeping a movement invisible — that makes oppressive theocrats piss themselves in panic, and desperately try to shut it down.

Please note, also, that every single one of these incidents happened this year. These incidents are not outdated relics of the Dark Ages, or even of a century ago. They happened in 2012. They are still happening right now: as of this writing, every single one of these people is under arrest, awaiting trial, awaiting sentencing, in prison, or in hiding.

And these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg, a handful of the more egregious examples. They don’t include Mauritania, where leaving Islam means losing citizenship; Pakistan, where the government blocked all access to Twitter because of “blasphemous content”; Italy, where Minister for Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini called on Christians, Muslims and Jews to join together in the fight against the “threat” of atheism; Zambia, where the government requires Christian instruction in public schools; Poland, where pop musician Doda was fined $1,450 for saying that the Bible is full of “unbelievable tales”; Israel, where atheists or anyone else wanting a secular marriage have to leave the country to get married; the United States, where attendance at evangelical Christian events in the military is often mandatory; Sudan, where leaving Islam is punishable by death.

I wish I knew what to do about all this. I usually like to end my “alerts about outrages” pieces with a call to action: here’s who to donate money to, here’s where you can sign a petition, here are the elected officials you can call or email. But this is bigger than just a one-shot call to action.

Who can you give money to? Atheist organizations around the world; international atheist organizations; human rights organizations that recognize human rights violations against atheists as a real thing. Where can you sign a petition? Get on the mailing lists of a couple/few atheist organizations, especially international ones, and they’ll alert you when petitions are happening. (TheInternational Humanist and Ethical Union would probably be a good start.) Who can you call or email? Your elected officials, especially on the national level, to demand that they treat human rights violations against atheists as seriously as they do any other kind. (Not that that’s such a high bar…) What else can you do? Speak out. Spread the word. Like I said, there’s a reason theocrats and would-be theocrats are scared to pieces of Facebook and Twitter…

But the first step, before you can do any of that, is this: Don’t pretend that this isn’t real. This is real. This is happening, around the world, at the hands of every major religion. Don’t dismiss it.

NRA (Nazis Rule America) Gets Excited | Wants More Guns In Schools


NRA (Nazis Rule America) Gets Excited | Wants More Guns In Schools

The U.S.  National Rifle Association (NRA) defends America’s gun  law that allows citizens to bear firearms amid high public anger over increasing  gun violence in the country.

Speaking at a  news conference in Washington on Friday, NRA executive vice president insisted  that guns protect American children at schools.  

Wayne LaPierre  also accused the media of trying to demonize gun owners. The head of the pro-gun  lobby blamed rampant gun violence across America on violent films and video  games.

LaPierre’s  comments come as the U.S. is still struggling with the aftermath of a deadly  shooting that killed 20 children and eight adults at an elementary school in  Newtown, Connecticut.

LaPierre, whose  remarks were interrupted twice by pro-gun control protesters, disdained the  notion that stricter gun laws could have prevented “monsters” like Adam Lanza  from committing mass shootings, and wondered why schools, unlike banks, don’t  have the protection of armed forces.

Alternately  criticizing politicians, the media, and the entertainment industry, LaPierre  argued that “the press and political class here in Washington [are] so consumed  by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners” that they overlook what  he claims is the real solution to the nation’s recent surge in mass shootings —  and what, he said, could have saved lives last week.

“What if, when  Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last  Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?” he asked. “Will  you at least admit it’s possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared?  Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the  alternative?”

LaPierre called  on Congress to put a police officer in every school in America, which according  to a Slate analysis would cost the nation at least $5.4 billion. LaPierre  recognized that local budgets are “strained,” but urged lawmakers “to act  immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers  in every school.”

He offered up  the NRA’s unique “knowledge, dedication, and resources” to assist in efforts to  train those forces, but made no mention of a fiscal contribution. 

FACTS & FIGURES

Efforts to limit  the sale and possession of assault rifles and multi-round ammunition clips, or  to require background checks and waiting periods for the purchase of guns, have  been halted for years by fears that the powerful National Rifle Association  would defeat any politician who proposed such measures. NY Times 

Since 1998, the  National Rifle Association has spent $28.2 million on lobbying in Washington and  employed between 16 and 35 lobbyists in any given year. The group has doled out  more than $3.3 million in campaign contributions and $44 million on independent  efforts to support its favored candidates in the last three federal elections.  The Huffington Post

Unlike in the  cases of previous mass murders, new evidence suggests Americans increasingly  support tougher gun control in the wake of the Newtown massacres.  CBS

According to a  recent CBS News poll, support for stricter gun laws is the highest it’s been in  a decade, surging 18 points since the spring of this year. CBS  News

The U.S.  averages 87 gun deaths each day as a function of gun violence, with an average  of 183 injured, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Centers  for Disease Control. The crime lab’s research estimates the annual cost of gun  violence to society at $100 billion. The Daily Beast

AHT/DT

https://theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/serious-think-piece-on-guns-and-pro-gun-nutjobs/

Fox News Inspires Mosque Arsonist Claims “I Only Know What I Hear on Fox News”


Fox News Inspires Mosque Arsonist Claims “I Only Know What I Hear on Fox News”

 

Fox Hate Speech and Paranoid Memes lead directly to physical hate crimes!
Yesterday in Indiana, 52-year old truck driver Randolph Linn pleaded guilty to all charges in an arson attack against the Islamic Center of Toledo.

Linn testified that he got “riled up” by Fox News and right wing talk radio, drank 45 beers, and set fire to the mosque’s prayer room because he learned from Fox that Muslims are terrorists who don’t believe in Jesus Christ: Mosque Arsonist Tells Court: ‘I Only Know What I Hear on Fox News’.

Linn explained to the court that he had gotten “riled up” after watching Fox News.

“And I was more sad when Judge [Jack] Zouhary asked him that, ‘Do you know any Muslims or do you know what Islam is?’” one mosque member who attended the hearing recalled to WNWO. “And he said, ‘No, I only know what I hear on Fox News and what I hear on radio.’”

“Muslims are killing Americans and trying to blow stuff up,” Linn also reportedly told the judge. “Most Muslims are terrorists and don’t believe in Jesus Christ.”

Linn claimed that he had consumed 45 beers in the 6 hours before leaving his Indiana home to set fire to the mosque, which he had discovered while working as a truck driver.

After his arrest on Oct. 2, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ava Dusten said that Linn had told officers, “Fuck those Muslims… They would kill us if they got the chance.”

Serious Think Piece On Guns and Pro-Gun Nutjobs


Serious Think Piece On Guns and Pro-Gun Nutjobs

Posted by Rich  Abdill

A casual hobby.

We’re  going to talk about it.

We’re going to talk about it because our thoughts and prayers are not enough.  They were not enough after Columbine (15 dead), or the Amish schoolhouse (6  dead), or Virginia Tech (33 dead), or Tucson (6 dead), or Aurora (12 dead), or  the Wisconsin Sikh temple (6 dead), and they are not enough now that another 28  once living, breathing people have been added to the tally. To offer only  thoughts and prayers is to say “Well, that’s a damn shame. Sure hope it doesn’t  happen again.” We have done this every time. And every time, it’s happened  again. So we’re going to talk about it.

We’re going to talk about guns.

There shouldn’t be a requirement to wait a certain amount of time before we  can talk about guns. The time to talk about food safety is after an e. coli  outbreak; the time to talk about preparedness and global warming is after a  hurricane socks New York, which is usually not socked by such things. Those are  appropriate problems to talk about because they are problems right freaking  then, and if the time to talk about guns isn’t after some guy uses one to  kill 20 little kids, when is the time?

It isn’t disrespectful to try to learn from the deaths of those 27 innocent  people, or from the 28th guilty one, who is only one of thousands of people who  used a gun to kill himself this year. It would be far more insulting to look at  their deaths and shrug, and hope maybe people get less unbalanced.

If Adam Lanza’s mom hadn’t owned those guns legally, Lanza would not have  been able to take them into that school and massacre those children — after he  killed her. The same goes for so many crimes of passion that could have been  avoided if an angry person hadn’t had easy access to a killing machine. Maybe  they’d find a gun anyway. But so far, they haven’t had to.

Anyway, we’ve been saying this stuff for a long time, so let’s try to figure  out how anyone could possibly justify America’s gun problem. Let’s just go  through one by one, starting with what’s probably the most common justification:

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Sure, and Apache helicopters don’t kill people, but we cannot have those  either.

It’s a true thing, sure, that “people kill people.” It is not a coincidence,  however, that when people kill people, they kill them with guns. Guns  are so, so good at killing people. Pretty much the only thing they’re good at,  really, other than being mafia paperweights. People are always going to kill  people, sure. But the system we have now is set up to let them, in the name of  Freedom. We can seriously justify what happened in Newtown by saying it just  comes with the territory of having a well-regulated militia?

Defenders use this line to explain that America does not have a gun problem,  it has a murder problem, and they quickly break out the old canard  about how guns kill people like spoons make people fat. Many of the people who  say this are not, as they say, “murderers,” but just regular folks who own guns  and do not use them to kill kindergartners. But these people are wrong.

Spoons are not the only way people get fat. In fact, some of the best ways to  get fat (cheeseburgers and never standing up) have nothing to do with spoons.

Guns, however, are startlingly unlike spoons. Guns are not just one of many  tools in a killers arsenal. Guns are more than just coincidentally AROUND when  buildings full of people are killed — they are the single most determining  factor in how efficiently they are killed.  How many people were merely wounded  in Newtown yesterday?

If you want to kill people really quickly, and with the least amount of  effort, you buy a gun. Yes, you could buy a knife, or a heavy rock, but the most  effective method of mass murder is available in many places from the same stores  where you go for soccer balls and sweatsocks.

If someone goes on some kind of spree with a knife, like they keep doing in China, that is still bad. But when  a Chinese guy uses a knife on 22 people, they all live.

Mass-shootings happen because it is easy for mentally unstable people to get  guns. Shouldn’t we at least pretend to stop them? The biggest move in  federal gun legislation since Columbine was that we let an assault weapons ban  expire. Though Obama promised better gun laws, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence  says he’s been worse than Bush. Sure, they’ve got an agenda, but the  point remains: We need gun control. Lots of it. It stinks that the crazies have  ruined guns for the rest of us, but they definitely have.

Yes, making it harder for the crazy folk will also make it harder for the  sane folk to kill them, but that argument is wearing very, very thin, since the  sane folk are not really doing a very good job at protecting people. That  argument also leads nicely into the next defense of guns:

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

“What will we DO?” say the gun-folk. “Good people with guns defend society  from bad people with guns!”

It sounds like a great argument, until you realize that the good people with  guns are awful at defending society from bad people with guns.  Mother Jones put together a big, terrible list of all the mass-murders of the last 30 years, and not a  single one ends with, “And then a person with a concealed weapon killed the  shooter before the shooter could inflict any more damage.” None. Zero. One  “witness” in Miami killed a shooter back in 1982, but only as the shooter was  running away.

This, of course, is not viewed by gun enthusiasts as an argument for gun control, but against it. Like this statement from Larry Pratt, executive director of the  Gun Owners of America:

Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands.  Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no  adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This  tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The  only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can  slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a  gun.

The best way to prevent gun violence in Newtown would have been to give  teachers guns. This is not a fringe idea — the GOA boasts 300,000 members. And it might not necessarily be an  incorrect idea, either: It isn’t hard to imagine a teacher stepping into the  hallway during the massacre and planting a bullet between Lanza’s eyes. It feels  good and just to think about. We’re conditioned to feel good thinking about it —  it’s how all the good action movies end.

So yeah, maybe gun control stopped teachers from shooting Lanza. But is that  really the system we want to have? An arms race with criminals and the insane on  one side, and the innocent on the other? Those with a vision of guns in schools  have a vision of America as a never-ending Mexican standoff. It’s a barbaric  proposal unmatched anywhere else in the civilized world.

Plus, again, if guns are supposed to be protecting people, they’re doing a  lousy job. Not doing any job, really. It might feel good to have a Glock on your  hip and imagine all the wham-bang good stuff you could do, being a hero and  whatnot if a lunatic shows up on the bus or in the deli, but the reality is that  you would be the first person to do that since they replaced hitching posts with  parking lots. It just doesn’t happen. The good guns aren’t doing us any good.

This, though, refers mostly to mass shootings, where the perpetrator in the  vast majority of cases obtained the weapon(s) used legally, likely at least  partially due to mass-shootings being a person’s first and last crime.

What about people who have guns to protect their homes, or to defend  themselves from other kinds of crime? This leads us to yet another defense:

Guns prevent crime.

Maybe it’s not fair to say guns are bad because they don’t prevent all mass  shootings. Maybe they’re bad at that, but really good at preventing other  crimes, like robbery. If this is the case, that means more guns would mean more  safety, no? The United States has 310 million guns. How many  more guns do we need before all the robberies stop?

Handgun production has more than doubled since 2005 and there have been 16 mass shootings this year. This is the  cost of gun freedom. How many mall shootings, and hospital shootings, and school shootings, are there going  to have to be, before we decide that maybe we aren’t safer with more  guns?

Speaking of crime, research from Harvard suggests the “good guys” are  sometimes guilty of it too:

Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported  self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the  respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had  described the event honestly from his own perspective…

We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate  than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as  well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially  undesirable.

“Socially undesirable,” in case it wasn’t clear, means a gun use that isn’t  defending yourself from a criminal. And the rest of the words there mean people  who actually use guns, by and large, use them to act like dangerous, militant  bullies.

It’s a good thing that many gun owners don’t have to use their guns. But if  the ones that do are using them to menace neighbors and settle disputes (lookin’  at you, Jovan Belcher, you dead bastard), who is that helping?

The Belcher case, in which the Kansas City Chiefs linebacker escalated  routine American domestic abuse into routine American gun violence and killed  his girlfriend with his pile of guns, is another example of the dangerous  situation we’ve put society in: Maybe something terrible happened to Belcher’s  brain. Maybe all the football damaged the part of his head that told him not to  kill people. Maybe it wasn’t all his fault. But it doesn’t matter, because he  had a bunch of guns anyway. The guy could have bought any gun he wanted, and  when he got mad, he used one. Just like anybody else with a few hundred bucks  could.

But no matter how many horrifying scenes we’re forced to confront, and no  matter how many parents are splashed on front pages crying in parking lots for  their dead children, there will be another defense that absolves gun-rights  advocates of guilt:

It’s my constitutional right.

“There’s nothing we can do! It’s in the Constitution.” It’s a shrewd  move, because it places blame for the American gun problem on the founders,  instead of on the people furthering the problem now. But that’s a broken  argument too.

That something is (possibly) enshrined in the Constitution does not mean it  is invincible to change. Let’s not forget that abortion is a constitutionally  protected right, eh? We’re still allowed to argue about that.

The Constitution is good at stuff like this. We’ve amended the thing 27  times, to fix the issues our founding fathers, in all their 18th-century wisdom,  fucked up beyond comprehension. Women couldn’t vote, black people were 3/5ths of  a person (and couldn’t vote), presidents could be reelected in perpetuity. Hell,  the path of presidential succession wasn’t codified until 1965, after we needed  it a bunch of times. (Mostly after angry people killed our presidents… with  guns.)

And when an amendment like the 18th comes along and takes away our beer, we  have the power to bring along an amendment like the 21st, which gives it back.  Because one thing the Constitution does get right is the opening line: “We, the  People.” Like Charles Pierce wrote Friday, our commitment to each other is the driving  force behind our self-government, and when self-government stands by and watches  Americans shoot each other in the face, we have failed each other.

So no, the constitutional argument against gun control is not good enough. We  have a commitment to society that is above blind faith in 220-year-old dogma. We  took away slavery. We can regulate guns. Providing for the common  defense doesn’t only apply to drone-striking terrorists, and if we can repeal  the 18th Amendment, we, the people, can certainly temper the bloody effects of  the Second.

Some people will die, if their guns are taken away and they can’t defend  themselves. But how many people would be saved? If taking away guns from the  public makes gun deaths go down overall — and it would — how would someone argue  against it? That it violates an American ideal, a notion that people should have  that line of personal defense? It’s not good enough, if people are dying,  senselessly, every day, to preserve that right. If “making sure less people die”  is not preserving the general welfare, that section of the Preamble means  nothing.

We have been trying it this way — the gun way — for a long, long time. We  have armed everyone equally, in the hopes that the good deeds will outweigh the  evil. On days when everyone with guns behaves themselves relatively well — and  there are a woefully small number of them — it’s a position that can slide. But  on days when New York City has to send a portable morgue to an elementary school, why, why,  why can’t we try it the other way?

Viral Video Recap Features Google’s Year In Review


Viral Video Recap Features Google’s Year In Review
Google compiled a Year In Review video posted on December 12. The nearly three-minute clip starts with Baumgartner’s jump from 24 miles above the earth and progresses into clips of other history-making moments this year: Oscar Pistorius’ competing in the Olympics as the first athlete to have carbon-fiber artificial legs; clips from this year’s presidential debates; images from the Arab Spring and the protests in Greece, plus some adorable animal videos that kept us entertained.

God Psychotics: “God Sent The Shooter”


According to the Ultra-conservative, Right Wing Christians from the Westboro Church Group, god ordered the slaughter of innocent children in Connecticut!

A disturbingly poisonous example of how religion destroys the human intellect and natural human sense of empathy.

As we reported recently, the superstitious belief in a god that is easily offended and the slaughter of little children is a frequent theme in the bible.

From the Westboro site:-

“God sent the shooter to Newtown, CT. “Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” Amos 3:6. He is punishing you for your sins against Him (e.g., fag marriage).”

 

Westboro

Christ-Psychosis


Christ-Psychosis
There is a point where a committed believer becomes so caught up in their religious narrative that they seem to be under a spell and incapable of functioning in the “reality-based community.” The great majority of believers thrive in the real world, where religious belief is encouraged, and it often helps in every facet of life. But beyond that point where the young zealot and older convert often tread lies madness, albeit a (hopefully) temporary state.
I crossed into that abyss a few times as a believer, but luckily I got back out each time. That place does play a sweet siren’s call to a doctrinaire’s ears, promising a full surrender to one’s fantasies of belief.
But it is a dreadful hallucination, inviting the organically healthy into the schizoid’s dream. Isolated, it can be a refuge for the believer, but once foisted on another, the believer either is revealed his folly, or not, and for the latter case, it presents just as psychosis.
Beware not to take your faith too seriously.

America: Land Of The (Working For) Free


America: Land Of The (Working For) Free

Posted by Kris E. Benson

are there no workhouses?

Yesterday we brought you the depressing story of a man who had worked for McDonald’s for twenty years and was still getting paid minimum wage. Now, of course, there is an argument to be made that it was kind of his fault that he was still getting paid minimum wage after all those years. Instead of continuing to work for McDonald’s, he should have gone to that one place where they just GIVE OUT JOBS to black men who don’t have college degrees — jobs that pay a living wage and have benefits and opportunities for upward mobility. Ha ha, just kidding, there is no Job Handing Out Place, not for black men or for anyone else, but there are places where you can BEG to work for FREE, and get a job where you work for FREE, but only if you are INCREDIBLY LUCKY and have NO LIFE and demonstrate COMPLETE FEALTY to your “employer,” only then will you get to work for free. See, doesn’t the guy working for McDonald’s for 20 years look like a genius now? This really puts things into perspective. Anyway, more about a fantastic opportunity to work for free:

Dalkey Archive is a prestigious small press that publishes poetry, as well as works of contemporary and classic works of fiction. And if you’re very, very lucky, and have no life, and don’t talk back, and are practically perfect in EVERY WAY, they will give you a job working for free. And if you REALLY REALLY deserve it, after an unspecified probationary period they might — MIGHT — just promote you to paid work. No guarantees though, OK?

Any of the following will be grounds for immediate dismissal during the probationary period: coming in late or leaving early without prior permission; being unavailable at night or on the weekends; failing to meet any goals; giving unsolicited advice about how to run things; taking personal phone calls during work hours; gossiping; misusing company property, including surfing the internet while at work; submission of poorly written materials; creating an atmosphere of complaint or argument; failing to respond to emails in a timely way; not showing an interest in other aspects of publishing beyond editorial; making repeated mistakes; violating company policies. DO NOT APPLY if you have a work history containing any of the above.

Working for free is the new normal, didn’t you know? No really, it’s the new normal. From an article in Fortune magazine, wayyy back in 2011:

With nearly 14 million unemployed workers in America, many have gotten so desperate that they’re willing to work for free. While some businesses are wary of the legal risks and supervision such an arrangement might require, companies that have used free workers say it can pay off when done right. “People who work for free are far hungrier than anybody who has a salary, so they’re going to outperform, they’re going to try to please,  they’re going to be creative,” says Kelly Fallis, chief executive of  Remote Stylist, a Toronto and New York-based startup….”Ten years from now, this is going to be the norm,” she says.

Maybe it IS the new norm ALREADY.  There are roughly 20 paid Reddit employees running a company that may be worth as much as $100 million or more . Wikipedia has 35 paid employees and the rest work for free as “moderators.” HuffPo has a small core staff of paid workers and the rest write for free. Pinterest has 19 paid employees and the rest of its content is generated for free by users. Tumblr has 18 paid employees, like Pinterest and Reddit, its content is generated for free by users.

So if you’re REALLY REALLY lucky, you can aspire to one day work for free, or if you’re EVEN LUCKIER, maybe you are doing it ALREADY!

[Salon]

America’s God Psychosis | A God That Kills Naughty “Little Children”


America’s God Psychosis | A God That Kills Naughty “Little Children”

          23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

          24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.— 2 kings 2:23-24

 

What Mike Huckabee and the American Religious Right will never tell you!

How a prophet pleads with god, who subsequently sends in lions to rip apart and slaughter a bunch of little children, because they made a bit of naughty speak (like no kids ever do that!)

Remember that crazy bible tale about how god killed a bunch of little kids for making fun of prophet Elisha’s baldness?

They don’t exactly teach this gem during Sunday school, that’s for damn sure.

Well, seems like someone made a pretty awesome video exposing this story for the twisted shit it really is, so enjoy!

Sandy Hook Shootings: Who Are We Supposed to Be Mad At?


Sandy Hook Shootings: Who Are We Supposed to Be Mad At?
Sandy Hook Shootings: Who Are We Supposed to Be Mad At?
Posted by Tracy Moore
Reading the responses across the Internet to the horrific Connecticut elementary school massacre, which as of this writing, has led to the deaths of 27 people, 18 of whom are children, and it’s clear that we, as a nation, are not exactly sure who we should be mad at. Hollywood? Washington? Fox News? The NRA? The schools? Angry white men? The lack of mental healthcare access? All of the above? Because just being mad at the disturbed man who did it doesn’t feel like enough. That leaves us as powerless bystanders in an increasingly familiar nightmare.

As the details pour out, it feels like déjà vu: The young, angry white man, the innocent children, the terror, the powerlessness and frenzy the parents feel, the mental block and deep, deep sadness of all the rest of us trying to process unimaginable horror. And then, the desperate pleas from average citizens to stop making this such a terribly easy crime to commit.

A few randomly plucked comments from this New York Times initial report on the massacre give you an idea of the general feeling:

Suspend the constitution, conduct door-to-door searches of EVERY private residence in the United States and confiscate ALL guns – YES, rifles too!

And then melt them ALL down.

We need to restrict movies, TV, and video games that glorify violence.

Do any of you honestly believe that there could have been anything done by this sleepy, little Connecticut town to prevent something like this from ever happening? 

Connecticut is already among the top five states with the most strict gun control laws, among the lowest for gun crime, and yet something like this still happened. The fact is that the man was a killer and if someone ever crosses a threshold to kill on a scale as this man had, then they would find a way to do it.

First the horror, then the compassion for the victims, the families.
Then the rage against a people for whom having and using guns is a national pastime.
How many senseless killings will it takes for the nation to awaken and revolt against the barbaric NRA type neanderthals running amok in the streets of America.

Every incidence of a shooting in a public place makes me more and more frustrated that we can’t have a serious political discussion about guns.

I feel such sadness for the children and their families, yet this is overridden by my anger at the NRA.

It’s really sad that it’s easier for a crazy person to buy a gun than it is to get proper mental healthcare.

What is the tipping point? When will Americans love their children more than they love their guns? How much more? How many more?

Everyone is right to one degree or another. But the answers to those questions, are, of course by now, 31 school shootings later, quite familiar: We are not supposed to talk about policies, but people, pundits and politicians remind us. We are not supposed to blame access to guns, but rather, the unstable individuals who purchase them for harm. We are not supposed to be mad at Hollywood, but rather, the people who cannot tell the difference between real life and the glamorized fantasy portrayed on screen. And we are not supposed to blame those angry, unstable young men, but rather, a mental healthcare system that failed them.

The problem is, none of that gets us any closer to an action to take, a plan to implement. Doing nothing is no longer an option, a frustration now part and parcel of the coverage of these events.

If we simply accept this kind of violence as the new normal, then what? Schools are more than just a vulnerable population of innocents — they are, for some people, symbols of their earliest exposure to the cruelty of fellow humans, badges for their failures, some of their first experiences with alienation, marginalization and the judgment of others.

For the mentally unstable, that symbol has proven to be a particularly irresistible outlet for revenge fantasies. Isn’t it time we regarded schools as the same vulnerable target as airplanes? Why are they not among our nation’s top-guarded entities? Because we simply cannot accept that they are no longer innocent places?

If we will not implement gun control, and will not make mental health a universal, destigmatized resource, then the least we can do is protect the most obvious targets of the mentally unstable people who commit these crimes. Because otherwise, our only choice is to become as jaded to this terrorism as we have to every other “unsolvable” issue in this country, i.e., issue at which we have reached another political, partisan impasse: homelessness, poverty, immigration, sexism, racism. Remember? There was a time all those things floored us too, when all those things seemed like unspeakable horrors. And their continued presence in our every day lives is the price we pay for our complacency.

Strict Gun Laws Have Saved Thousands Of Australian Lives!


Our Strict Gun Laws Have Saved Thousands Of Australian Lives

[By correlation, how many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of lives, could be saved in America?!] 

    The two graphs below show how the rates of firearm homicide and firearm suicide have varied in Australia over the period 1915 to 2006. More recent figures (up to 2009) suggest that the rates remain near 0.1 per 100,000 of population for firearm homicide and 0.8 per 100,000 of population for firearm suicide. It is clear that the declines in death rates are associated with the list of stricter gun laws introduced, as shown on the right hand side of each graph.

Several Australian gun clubs are deceiving the public by claiming that the National Firearms Agreement of 1996 has not been successful. The Sporting Shooters Association (SSAA) and the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting are two examples. We believe that soon our politicians will realise that it is often unwise to trust gun club leaders on gun law matters.

The two graphs shown below use Australian Bureau of Statistics data, they show how the number of deaths by firearm homicide and firearm suicide have been greatly reduced since stricter gun laws were introduced after 32 people were murdered in six massacres by legal gun owners in 1987, and 41 people were murdered by non-criminal gun owners in two massacres in 1996.

The improved gun laws after 1996 are usually called the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) or sometimes referred to as the Howard gun laws.

From the graphs it can be seen that the reduction in yearly rates of firearm homicide and firearm suicide are approximately two thirds of what they used to be in the days before improvements were made to the laws (The long period of approx 30 years between 1956 and 1986). Thousands of lives have been saved: why do the gun clubs deny this? Are they ashamed of their stance that more Australians would die?

It took over a decade for the full worth of the post-1987 and post-1996 gun laws to be revealed, but the facts are known now and have been known for several years.

In our opinion, over a decade’s examination of gun incidents has also revealed that there were two weaknesses in the NFA, the superficiality of shooter training and insufficient rigour in several of the regulations relating to gun storage. These could be addressed now, and should be, without any major changes to the successful structure of the NFA.

Rate of Firearm Homicide (click for fullsize)

Rate Of Firearm Suicide (click for fullsize)

 

Right Wing Conspiracy Thinking and Mind Control | Gunman’s Aunt: Nancy Lanza Talked About Survivalism


Gunman’s Aunt: Nancy Lanza Talked About Survivalism
“Prepping” for the collapse of civilization
According to the aunt of Adam Lanza, Adam’s mother Nancy was a “survivalist.”

“Last time we visited with her in person we talked about prepping and you know, are you ready for what can happen down the line when the economy collapses,” said the gunman’s aunt, Marsha Lanza.

The reporter asked, “Survivalist kind of thing?”

“Yeah,” said Marsha Lanza.

Gun Control: Don’t Fall for the ‘Mental Health’ Diversion


Gun Control: Don’t Fall for the ‘Mental Health’ Diversion
Mental illness is not a significant factor in gun crime
Posted by Charles Johnson

Take a look around the right wing blogs and news sites, and watch Fox News, and you may notice that there are suddenly a lot of conservatives arguing that the real problem that leads to gun violence is mental illness — and that the solution is “better mental health care.”

While it’s true that the US does need better mental health care, your first clue that this is a dishonest diversionary tactic instead of a real argument is that the right wingers parroting it are the very same people normally vehemently opposed to any and all government involvement in health care.

There’s a reason why so many right wingers are using the “mental health” excuse – to distract attention away from the real problem: there are more than 290 MILLION guns in America, almost one for every single man, woman, and child. The right is so in love with gun culture that they’ll even make dishonest arguments that contradict their own values, to pull attention away from this issue.

There is no real evidence that mentally ill people are more likely to commit gun crimes. Columbia University psychiatrist Paul Appelbaum has found that less than 3-5% of American crimes are perpetrated by mentally ill people, and for crimes involving guns the percentages are even lower.

In fact, the mentally ill are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators: Focus on Mental Illness in Gun Debate Is Misleading.

Research by John Brekke and Cathy Prindle at the University of Southern California shows that individuals with schizophrenia are more likely to be assaulted by others than to commit violent crimes themselves, Metzl said.

By blaming people who have mental disorders for violent crime, the threats posed to society by a much larger population – the sane – are overlooked.”The focus on so-called mentally ill crime obfuscates awareness of a far more important set of risk predictors of gun violence: substance abuse and past history of violence,” said Metzl, a professor of psychiatry and sociology. “By blaming people who have mental disorders for violent crime, the threats posed to society by a much larger population – the sane – are overlooked.”

One possible explanation for the tendency to blame mental illness for violent crimes is the fact that the debate around gun control has become so politicized that bringing up mental illness is one of the few ways to even talk about the issue, Metzl said.

For the right, this has become a way to confuse and obfuscate the issue, in order to hang on to their precious, precious guns.

Strange Gods: The Religious Right’s Offensive Response To The Tragedy In Connecticut


Strange Gods: The Religious Right’s Offensive Response To The Tragedy In Connecticut

by Rob Boston in Wall of Separation

As soon as we start talking about official prayer in public schools, we also start talking about which religion, what prayer and whose God. The God that gets talked about or promoted in your school could easily be the God that is worshipped by people like Mike Huckabee and Bryan Fischer.

As soon as I heard about Friday’s horrific school shootings in Newtown, Conn., I knew it would only be a matter of time before some Religious Right extremist blamed it on the lack of mandatory prayer in public schools.

It didn’t take long. First out of the crazy box was former Arkansas governor and erstwhile presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

“We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools,” Huckabee said during an appearance on the Fox News Channel. “Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?”

He added, “We’ve made it a place where we don’t want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability — that we’re not just going to have be accountable to the police if they catch us, but one day we stand before, you know, a holy God in judgment. If we don’t believe that, then we don’t fear that.”

Not to be left out of the Nitwit Sweepstakes, the always-offensive Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association quickly chimed in with this gem: “You know the question’s gonna come up, where was God? I thought God cared about the little children, God protected the little children. Where was God when all this went down? And here’s the bottom line: God is not gonna go where he’s not wanted.”

Fischer continued, “Now we have spent, since 1962 – this, we’re 50 years into this now – we  have spent 50 years telling God to get lost, telling God, we do not want you in our schools, we don’t want to pray to you in our schools, we don’t want to pray to you before football games, we don’t want to pray to you at graduation, we don’t want anyone talking about you in a graduation speech. We’ve kicked God out of our public school system. And I think God would say to us, ‘Hey I’ll be glad to protect your children, but you’ve gotta invite me back into your world first. I’m not gonna go where I’m not wanted. I am a gentleman.’”

People sometimes ask me why Americans United is so adamant about keeping organized, school-sponsored forms of prayer and religious worship out of public education. On occasion I encounter those who assert, “What’s the harm in a little prayer or talk about God? Isn’t it good for kids?”

Huckabee and Fischer are walking examples of the harm. Remember, as soon as we start talking about official prayer in public schools, we also start talking about which religion, what prayer and whose God. The God that gets talked about or promoted in your school could easily be the God that is worshipped by people like Huckabee and Fischer.

Personally, I have no use for the God of the Religious Right – and I don’t think I’m alone there. The God of the Religious Right allows 20 children and eight adults to die in a school because he’s in a snit over his alleged expulsion from public education.

The God of the Religious Right is mean, petty, vindictive and not very ethical. The God of the Religious Right is all hate and retribution, with no love and acceptance. The God of the Religious Right, in my opinion, is not worthy of our worship.

This is America, and supporters of the Religious Right are free to worship that God. Members of that movement are free to approach that God in fear – never joy – as is their wont. But let’s be clear: They want to use our public schools, a taxpayer-supported institution that serves children of many faiths and philosophies, to push that God on your children, mine and everyone else’s. They have no right to do that.

The good news is that millions of Americans reject the God of the Religious Right.  They reject a God based on fear, division, violence and retribution. The God that many Americans worship is so far removed from the God of the Religious Right that we can’t paper over the difference by pretending it’s a minor theological tiff and that, at the end of the day, most Americans worship the same deity.

No. The entity Huckabee, Fischer and their allies tremble before and beseech is so alien to most of the devoutly religious people I know that they would not even recognize it as God.

(Millions of Americans also know that in the wake of a tragedy like this, the proper response is  words that offer comfort, not divisive displays of ignorance.)

So let us make no mistake: When Huckabee, Fischer and their allies speak of bringing church and state closer together or removing a few bricks from the church-state wall to allow “a little religion” into our schools, this is the God they would set loose. This is the God they would preference by law. This is the God they would force you to support. This is the God they would foist onto your children.

If this isn’t your God, or if you’re one of the many Americans who recognize no God, you must speak out against offensive Religious Right foghorns like Huckabee and Fischer. You must challenge those who exploit sorrow for political gain.

And you need to stand up for the one thing that keeps the God of the Religious Right from becoming the government’s favorite: the wall of separation between church and state.

President Obama’s Heartfelt, Emotional Statement on the Connecticut School Massacre


Video: Obama’s Emotional Statement on the Connecticut School Massacre
“As a country we have been through this too many times”
 

Hate-oozing, Creepy Religious Reich Kook Brian Fischer Likens God to a Vampire


God Doesn’t Go Where He’s Not Wanted
Reminds one of the series “Trueblood” where vampires are forbidden entry into peoples homes without permission!
Brian Fischer wants us to know that God won’t go anywhere that he’s not invited.  His god is like a vampire that way, I guess!

I just don’t know anymore.  You’d think that someone from the Christian mainstream would step up and explain “omnipresence” to Fischer.  You’d think someone would explain that a God who will go to Nineveh won’t stop at a school room door.  You’d think that some influential Christian would explain that Christians don’t worship a God that petty.  But there’s never any pushback.

That leaves idiots like Fischer to us; atheists, liberal Christians and religious minorities calling them out. Is there any point? We can chronicle all the horrible things that people like him say, but they just keep on saying them. You can’t embarrass them. You can’t shame them. They live to be offended, and every attack against them just fuels their persecution complex.