More On The Madness Of Muslims– Pakistan, Land Of The Pedophiles

Because there are fewer crimes more disgusting than this:

Pakistani clerics block ‘un-Islamic’ child marriage bill

Pakistani lawmakers have withdrawn a proposal to impose harsher penalties on those who arrange child marriages after it was scuttled by a religious body who branded it "blasphemous" and against Islam, sources told AFP Friday.
The proposal, which would also have raised the legal age of marriages for females from 16 to 18, called for "rigorous" punishment up to two years in prison for those who organize child marriages, still common in some parts of Pakistan.
Marvi Memon, a member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), had moved to amend existing child marriage legislation in the lower house but was forced to withdraw her bid after it was rejected by a parliamentary committee on religious affairs, a source familiar with the development told AFP.
A representative from the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) had dubbed the amendment to the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 as "anti-Islamic" and "blasphemous" during the committee meeting, the source said.
The CII was formed in 1962 to advise parliament on the compatibility of laws with Sharia.
Its recommendations are non-binding, and it has drawn widespread criticism in the past for other rulings -- including in 2013, when it suggested making DNA inadmissible evidence in rape cases, instead calling for the revival of an Islamic law that makes it mandatory for a survivor to provide four witnesses to back their claims.
"Marvi wanted deletion of the word 'simple' punishment for those involved in arranging child marriages to 'rigorous' or 'two-year' punishment in the actual legislation," the parliamentary source, who did not want to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter, told AFP.
"Marvi also wanted the age for girls' marriage to be raised from 16 years to 18 years, which does not in any way violate the teachings of Islam," the source said.
The original law stipulates the age of marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men but Pakistani religious scholars believe it is not in accordance with Islamic teachings.
They say there is no specific age limit for marriage in Sharia as an individual can marry when he or she reaches puberty and puberty cannot be defined by age.
Rights activists strongly criticized the rejection of bill.
"It is a pity that the committee came under the pressure of the council's unjust ruling," leading rights activist I.A. Rehman told AFP.
Branding the decision "absurd", he warned the council was paving the way for its own disbandment and calling its stance a setback to efforts to safeguard human rights in Pakistan.

As if there’s not enough sick old perverts getting their hands on children, they also get religious sanction? Seriously, this is one fucked up religion. Not bad enough that women get treated like shit over there, now the children are subjected to the sick desires of some ancient  pedophile who is incapable of courting a full grown woman – oh wait, they all get married off at puberty. Can any of these deviants get off on another adult? Probably not. And the real reason behind this horrific nonsense is that some mullah or sheik or whatever gets tired of their current ‘squeeze’, so they go out and marry another child.
And don’t give me any of that moral relativist bullshit – don’t care that it’s part of their religion or culture or whatnot. Messing with kids is the act of a coward – a psychosexual crippled braindead set of nerve endings that has to rationalize the ugliness with religion.
Short eyed shitbags. Sickening.
Till the next post then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ding Dong The Dipshit’s Dead– Scaly Scalia Has Left The Building.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - JFK

Yeah, it’s bad form to piss on somebody’s grave after their demise. Some people claim that this guy had a ‘fine legal mind’. He was a fucking homophobe and Young Earth Creationist – two qualities that shouldn’t be allowed near ANY political office.

Understand this: I could give a fuck what someone believes. You want to live a life of delusion? Who am I to tell you not to? I can’t tell you what to think say or do – and that works both ways, even if you think you have to force your shit down my throat because you believe some Iron Age campfire stories told by lost shepherds in the desert are real. It gets you through the night? Fine.

Despite the fact that I despise Catholicism, I rather liked JFK (as per the quote above). Because he got it. Regardless of his ideology, he understood this.

Scalia didn’t get a lot of things – it’s not the religious conviction that bugs me the most, it’s the intellectual lobotomy that occurs. The special pleading. All the facile and specious ‘arguments’. And of course, the false moral superiority exhibited by these clowns.

Whenever I have voiced this particular opinion, I always get some fucknut claiming that I only want to elect people who agree with me. Actually, it grates on my nerves it does – what a stupid accusation it is.

If your faith is going to come first, then you can’t be trusted to make an objective opinion on decisions that affect millions of lives. Same thing in medicine: if your ‘faith’ or ‘conscience’ forbids you to administer effective care, you’re forcing your beliefs on others. THAT is the ethical dilemma, not how you feel about it, but it how it impacts others. Some poor woman being denied contraceptives because she’s had a dozen children already and everyone in the family is broke and starving – fuck your god’s will. Free will? Whadda laugh. Can’t use birth control because somehow your absentee deity might object? Gay people can’t get married? Fuck these people. This isn’t YOUR country, it’s OUR country, learn to share and leave people alone, or get the fuck out and found a theocracy somewhere else.

And I don’t care if Carson IS a neuroscientist, I don’t care if everyone is applauding Scalia’s so-called ‘brilliance’ – denying evolution is just denying reality. It consists of denying not oodles, not a hillock, but entire MOUNTAINS of forensic evidence. It’s the pathetic equivalent of clamping hands to ears and shouting “NO! I WON’T LISTEN!” Only the feeble-minded see this sort of stubbornness as a virtue, rather than the willful ignorance it truly is.

As ugly as this sounds, I’m glad this assclown passed. We can only hope someone who is more progressive and objective will replace the stupid anachronisms that Scalia and his cronies perpetuate and propound.

Till the next post then.

Read More...

Summary only...

One Year Closer To A Better World

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

It’s another year past, the inevitability of entropy that nibbles away at the fringes of our existence.


The world has improved in many ways. The stigma of being an atheist is fading, as more flock to our worldview. Religion is diminishing slowly, rationalism chipping away at the fairy-tale façade. The wholly bibble is taken
a lot less seriously these days, as its obnoxious a-historicity, constant and egregious contradictions, and otherwise obsolete nonsenses are continuously called out.


The sexual shackles of the slave-master relationship that is religion are now loosening as well. Gay marriage in America has changed the landscape of loving for years to come.


Perhaps before I die, I will get to see:


1. Creationists being treated like the nutters they are,


2. The Catholic Church becomes a distant, unpleasant memory,


3. All 3 of the Big 3 (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are reduced to the sad little jokes they really are, and


4. All peoples are treated equally.


All of them are nice dreams – well worth striving for. Keep fighting the good fight, folks: there is a light at the end of the tunnel.


Happy New Year, and here’s to another year closer to closing down religion.


Till the next post then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Homophobia Gone Mental: Choppity Chop Go The Naughty Bits…

Cross-posted @ the Atheist Oasis

One day when Alfred Hitchcock was still a churchgoing Catholic, he was driving through a Swiss city when he suddenly pointed out of the car window and said, "That is the most frightening sight I have ever seen."

His companion was surprised to see nothing more alarming than a priest in conversation with a little boy, his hand on the child's shoulder.

"Run, little boy," cried Hitchcock, leaning out of the car. "Run for your life!" – Anecdotes

When it comes to truly bizarre horror, few things hold a candle to the religious obsession with genitalia:

Dutch Roman Catholic church 'castrated' boys in 1950s

Up to 11 boys were castrated while in the care of the Dutch Roman Catholic church in the 1950s to rid them of homosexuality, a newspaper investigation has said.

A young man was castrated in 1956 after telling police he was being abused by priests, the newspaper reported.

The justice minister is investigating the role of the government at the time.

Last year, an inquiry found thousands of children had been sexually abused in Dutch Catholic institutions since 1945.

Dutch MPs called for an inquiry after the report was published in the NRC Handelsblad newspaper at the weekend.

'Serious and shocking'

Henk Hethuis, a pupil at a Catholic boarding school, was 18 when he told police in 1956 he was being abused by a Dutch monk. He was castrated on the instructions of Catholic priests, NRC Handelsblad said, and told this would "cure" him of his homosexuality.

The same happened to at least 10 of his schoolmates, the newspaper said.

Hethuis died in a car crash in 1958.

Dutch Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten called the allegations "very serious and shocking" and said he would investigate the role of the Dutch government at the time.

The Dutch Catholic church has said it is willing to co-operate with an investigation to find out whether the media reports are true, Reuters reports.

A commission of inquiry last year said Catholic officials had failed to tackle the widespread abuse at schools, seminaries and orphanages.

The commission - headed by former cabinet minister Wim Deetman - found tens of thousands of children had suffered abuse ranging from inappropriate touching to rape.

It condemned what it called the church's cover-up and culture of silence.

NRC Handelsblad said the commission received a complaint about the alleged castration cases in 2010.

Dutch MPs are to ask formally for a parliamentary hearing with the head of the commission, former cabinet minister Wim Deetman, to ask him why he did not include the information in his report.

The mind boggles. The stomach clenches. The knuckles whiten. There is perhaps no greater violation than that of an innocent child – there are few things more horrific. The mad obsession with purity and virginity combined with the idiocy of celibacy creates monsters.

Till the next post then. 

Read More...

Summary only...

More Homophobia Gone Mental: The Pope Is A Twittering Idiot

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

Why do we not bomb Rome? Why do we allow these open and declared antagonists of democratic freedom to entertain their Shinto allies and organise a pseudo-Catholic destruction of democratic freedom? Why do we—after all the surprises and treacheries of this war—allow this open preparation of an internal attack upon the rehabilitation of Europe? The answer lies in the deliberate blindness of our Foreign Office and opens up a very serious indictment of the mischievous social disintegration inherent in contemporary Roman Catholic activities. – H. G Wells, Crux Ansata

It seems that one can’t turn around these days without elbowing yet another religious stupidity. And here we have the Papal disgrace carrying on about his homophobia, and even trying to digitize it:

The disgrace of Church backing for Ugandan homophobia

Earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI joined Twitter in an effort to galvanize the faithful and modernize the Catholic Church for a younger, increasingly secular generation, making him the last person after your grandpa to join the social networking site. The Vatican also hired a former Fox News correspondent to bring their communications strategy into the 21st century, since that network did such an impressive job during the 2012 US presidential election.

The Catholic Church is foundering, and it'll take a lot more than 140 characters and a rightwing "news" hack to put it on a modern track.

The pope is a social issues guy, more interested in themes like "traditional" family values, gay marriage and abortion than, say, helping the poor. And the Vatican is quick to slap down anyone – but especially any women, and particularly women who have the nerve to think of themselves as equal to men – who focuses on helping the most in need, instead of crusading against abortion and gay people. As far as the Church is concerned, advocating for the equal participation of women is "radical feminism" worthy of condemnation; pushing for legislation that kills gay people is worthy of a meeting with a proponent.

Yes, that's correct: just around the same time the pope was drafting his first tweet, he met with Ugandan parliamentary speaker Rebecca Kadaga, who had earlier promised to level the death penalty for gays as a "Christmas present" to the Ugandan people (minus, one assumes, the Ugandans who will be murdered because of their sexual orientation). She was part of a delegation from Uganda which greeted the Pope during a public audience. Ugandan media sources reported that Kadaga had received the pope's "blessing", but this was denied by a Vatican spokesman who insisted the meeting was not a "sign of approval of the actions or proposals of Ms Kadaga".

Uganda has been a target for western evangelicals who see that they're losing the gay marriage battle in their own countries. Religious leaders and rightwing groups, including Rick Warren and the National Organization for Marriage, have gone to Uganda for years to spread anti-gay propaganda and bolster homophobia. These religious leaders position themselves as experts, telling Ugandans that gay people sodomize children, spread Aids, destroy marriage, break up families and pose an imminent threat to society – and then they feign shock when Ugandan leaders decide that the legal punishment most befitting these child-raping, society-crushing individuals is death.

In the meantime, gay, lesbian and transgender Ugandans face vigilante attacks daily, and are routinely raped, beaten, ostracized, tortured and murdered.

The pope – whose own track record on men who sodomize children isn't exactly stellar – meets one of the people whose hateful policies not only provide social cover and justification for that violence but, if enacted, would put state power behind the imprisonment and execution of gay people.

The Church's obsession with policing sexuality is nothing new: in fact, it's a centuries-old Catholic tradition for the Vatican to poke its nose in your bedroom when it feels its power is threatened. The early anti-sex crusades were focused on women – and haven't let up. Women were ordered to serve their husbands and were barred from the priesthood. Abortion was debated in Thomas Aquinas's day – he thought the act was a sin against the marriage, and that, of course, male fetuses were ensouled earlier than female ones – and for a long while, the Church distinguished between early and late-term abortions in terms of punishment.

But as the papal states lost territory to Italy in the late 19th century, the pope came down hard on women, declaring all abortion to be murder. The Church, it seems, is a bit like a schoolyard bully, needing to pick a scapegoat to demonstrate its ultimate authority. Women have spent the past several centuries serving as that target.

The Church extended its reach into the sex lives of its followers (and of women, in particular) again in the 1930s, when it issued its ruling on contraception for the first time ever and deemed birth control incompatible with Catholic teachings on life. Right around that same time, the Church was dealing with what it called the "terrible triangle" of anti-religious and anti-Catholic actions in the Soviet Union, Mexico and Spain. Desperate for a way to show its power and control followers, the Vatican decided that it was wrong to use anything other than crossed fingers to control the number and spacing of your children.

Here's how successful they were: 99% of American women use birth control at some point in their lives, and Catholic women use birth control at the same rates as non-Catholics. In nations where Catholicism is deeply entrenched and abortion is illegal and birth control difficult to access, abortion rates are some of the highest in the world. The only difference is that far more of the procedures are unsafe, and tens of thousands of women die. The lowest abortion rates in the world can be found in the increasingly secular west European countries where the procedure is legal and often covered by state funds, and where birth control is widely accessible.

Realizing it was losing followers and that most women weren't going to comply with the birth control mandate, and recognizing the social upheavals taking place through the 1960s, the Church re-evaluated its position – and doubled down. Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae restated the Church's anti-contraception position, extended it to sterilization and threw in some claims about the natural roles of women and men. (The natural role of celibate men who spend very little time with women is, apparently, to tell all women what to do.)

The Church also took a stand against abortion again, and declared that abortion couldn't even be had in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where the fertilized egg will never develop into a fetus. In the late 1980s, under pressure from the many nuns who have kept the Church functioning for centuries and were pushing for equal rights and recognition, Pope John Paul II asserted that women simply served a "different" role in the Church than men, but one that was equally as important. It was a nice little head-pat to Catholic women, but ultimately a condescending one: does anyone actually believe that there's power in subservience, and that being blocked from all positions of real authority represents equal importance?

In 1995, again facing declining congregations, Pope John Paul II re-upped the Church's hostility toward contraception, and further asserted that condoms were verboten – at the very moment HIV and Aids were ravaging nations around the world. The Church, ironically, categorizes contraception and condoms as part of the "culture of death".

By the Vatican's standards, taking a birth control pill or using a condom is far more deadly than contracting HIV, or executing an actual person for being gay.

As society has progressed, the Church has responded by digging its heels in to maintain outdated, misogynist social norms. And it has long used women's bodies as a tool through which to exercise control in the face of waning influence. Now, gay people are being subjected to the same treatment. As the Church continues to recover from the international pedophilia scandal that its priests perpetrated and the entire institution covered up, and as the world's population increasingly flees from formal religion, the pope is saying that two men or two women falling in love threatens world peace.

A Twitter feed can't modernize an institution so out of touch with reality, with progress and with widely-accepted human rights norms.

If the Church really wants to modernize, it could take a stand for the rights of half the world's population, and give women equal say in the Catholic hierarchy and over basic rights to their own bodies. It could promote condom use to save lives. It could take a good hard look at how its hunger for power and its authoritarianism enabled and covered for sex criminals who targeted vulnerable children.

It could back up out of our bedrooms and quit meddling in national politics, leaving its believers the right to practice as they wish, without imposing its strictures on the rest of us. It could put its enormous resources behind tried-and-true Jesus stuff like helping the sick and indigent, rather than waging battles against nuns who don't hate gays enough.

Better yet, the Catholic Church could do us all a HUGE favor: the Vatican should become fully isolationist, that way all those preening papal pedophiles would be shut off and out of the world. (Sure, I know that ain’t gonna happen, but why not ask for the moon?)

The Holy Cee, in all its anachronistic, primitive glory, is a shame upon our species. It is a blight upon our civilization. It is an institution of little to no worth, a dead albatross weighted around the neck of humanity. Its foundations are laid in blood and bone: it protects the pedophile yet censors the homosexual; for centuries the ill that it has vested human beings outweighs what few good deeds the institution has done. It has repressed women, scarred the psyches of children, dispatched entire armies to take lands and seated men in power based on divine fiat. It has supported any and all things that were ethically wrong yet culturally correct.

The Catholic Church – one of the last bastions of the sewage that is the delusional mind.

It’s gotta go.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Homophobia Gone Mental: And The Gays DON’T Have It.

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
More depressing news for the end of the year – it’s more pointy-hatted nonsense:

Pope Benedict signals inter-faith alliance against legalizing gay marriage

The pope’s latest denunciation of gay marriage came in a Christmas address to Vatican officials in which he blended religion, philosophy, anthropology and sociology to illustrate the position of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vatican has gone on the offensive in response to gains for gay marriage in the United States and Europe, using every possible opportunity to denounce it through papal speeches or editorials in its newspaper or on its radio station.

Throwing the full weight of his office behind a study by France’s chief rabbi on the effects the legalization of gay marriage would have on children and society, he said:

“There is no denying the crisis that threatens it (the family) to its foundations – especially in the Western world.”

The family had to be protected because it was “the authentic setting in which to hand on the blueprint of human existence”, he added.

This is typical Catholic absurdity at its stupidest – note that it was ‘a’ study, not extensive studies, one single study. And boom! It’s a rush off to judgment.

And this is exactly why we need to point and laugh and denounce and shout this nonsense down: there’s no reasoning with the irrational. Courtesy only leads these idiots to think they have a valid point, even when the preponderance of evidence proves otherwise.

Denying a specific subset of the population the right that everyone else has is discrimination: as such, that is distinctly un-American. Marriage is a civil right – saying that two adults can’t do it because somebody’s imaginary friend prohibits it is forcing religious belief on others – a clear violation of SOCAS.

It’s too bad that gay couples in America can’t file a class-action suit against that pointy-hatted assclown in the Vatican. Or any of the other flatline idiots who try to foist their madness onto the rest of us.

Ex cathedra my homesick ass.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

More On The Misogyny Of Muslim–It’s 2 PM, Do You Know Where Your Chattel Is?

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
It seems that these days, all one has to do is turn around, to find some disgusting fact about this alleged ‘religion of peace’. In this case, it’s Muslim equivalent of Wild Kingdom. Only in this case, we’re not talking about wild animals, but people

Saudi Arabia implements electronic tracking system to monitor women’s movements

In a country where women are denied the right to vote, are not allowed to drive, and are basically treated like children, Saudi Arabia has taken its next giant leap backwards by rolling out an SMS electronic tracking system that alerts male "guardians" by text message whenever women under their protection leave the country. The development has been met with outrage by reformers, who have turned to Twitter to voice their concern.

Saudi Arabia is a complete mess as far as women's rights is concerned. It ranks 130th out of 134 countries for gender equality — a nation where only 16.5% of women make up the workforce. As devout followers of Sharia Law, all women, regardless of age, require a male guardian and cannot leave the country without written consent.

And now, judging by a flurry of incoming accounts, it's clear that the country has covertly implemented a new system that will further serve to strengthen its control over women.

It all started last week when a Saudi man travelling with his wife began to get text messages on his phone from the immigration authorities alerting him to the fact that his wife had left the international airport in Riyadh (she was listed as a dependent on his national identity card). Concerned, he contacted Manal al-Sherif, a women's rights campaigner in Saudi Arabia, who then broadcast the news over Twitter.

For insanity and double-standards, all you need to do is look at religion. Especially Islam, where women are considered little more than chattel – because of course, no one would ever consider doing this sort of thing to a man.

And of course, the rationalizations come pouring in:

And as it turned out, the text messages weren't an isolated case. Similar accounts started to pour in, strongly suggesting that a new system had been rolled-out without so much as a peep from the Saudi authorities. It now appears that every guardian whose dependent has a passport is receiving a text after cross border crossings.

In response, the Ministry of the Interior has denied the allegations, saying it's not intended to connect women with their guardians. And according to the Riyadh Bureau, the system has been in place since 2010, but now the service works without having to register with the ministry. It claims that the system is part of a larger e-Government plan to use technology in order to facilitate access to its services — such as electronic travel permits (thus replacing the need for "yellow slips").

Pathetic. Women being treated as second-class citizens in any 21st century nation is an outrage, and should be criticized and denounced regardless of culture or heritage. Gender rights are one of those bridges we need to build, even at the cost of destroying anachronistic traditions.

Whenever any ideology proposes that some people should be discriminated against simply because they were born differently, that ideology needs to go. And if necessary, the hard way.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Without Consent: Islam’s Rape Culture In Action

It’s a far more common story, no matter how repellant it is:

Pakistan supreme court to decide fate of Hindu woman in Muslim marriage row

The fate of a Pakistani Hindu woman who claims she was kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam and married against her will is to be decided this week, after weeks of campaigning by the country's Hindu minority.

The case of 19-year-old Rinkle Kumari has outraged Hindus from her small town in the south of the country, where community leaders accuse Muslims of preying on Hindu girls of marriageable age.

Some claim similar cases are helping to fuel a steady outflow of Pakistan's tiny Hindu community as families choose to move to Hindu-majority India instead.

In a hearing beginning on Monday, the supreme court in Islamabad will try to get to the bottom of the hotly contested versions of events.

The town's Muslims, backed by a powerful local politician, say Kumari freely converted to Islam to marry her neighbour, Naveed Shah, on 24 February. But her father, a primary school teacher, is adamant she was abducted in the middle of the night from her house in Mirpur Marthelo, in Sindh province.

"These people see beautiful young Hindu girls and chase them," said her uncle Raj Kumar. "For 15 days Naveed Shah had been shouting at Rinkle, threatening to kill her only brother."

Her case has won support from members of parliament and attracted widespread attention in the Pakistani media. According to the Frontier Post newspaper, Rinkle was seized "for reasons based in sheer lust and debauchery".

Throughout the whole saga Rinkle's voice has barely been heard, although both sides say she has made clear statements supporting their contradictory claims.

Her family says that when she first appeared at a magistrates court late last month the tearful woman made clear she had been forcibly converted and wanted to return to her parents. But the court failed to record her statement and put her in police custody after hundreds of Muslim protesters surrounded the court.

In a subsequent hearing – from which the family say they were banned – Kumari said she had freely converted.

In a sign of the enormous tensions created by the case, the Hindu minority only succeeded in forcing the authorities to open a case on the issue by staging protests, with shopkeepers striking and demonstrators blocking a highway. The intervention of the Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, forced the police to act, say protesters.

Mian Mitto, the local member of parliament whom Kumari's family has accused of being intimately involved in the abduction and conversion, dismissed her initial court statement. "She may have been emotional, it is only natural to be upset after seeing her parents in court," he said.

Mitto's family control a nearby Sufi shrine which has a long history as a place where people come to convert to Islam.

In his version of events Kumari had long been in love with Shah. Speaking at his house in Islamabad, he produced telephone and SMS logs that apparently showed the pair were in regular communication, although Raj Kumar insisted the family was too poor for Rinkle to have a phone.

Whether she was abducted or went on her own volition, she arrived at the shrine late at night. Within hours she had converted to Islam and married Shah, Mitto said.

Amarnath Motumal, from the Sindh chapter of Pakistan's human rights commission, said many cases of forced conversion were covered up, but he believed there were at least 20 such incidents each month. He said: "They take them into these extremist madrassas and don't let the parents meet their families, claiming the girl does not want to meet kaffirs [unbelievers] – her own parents."

Another recent case involves a female medical student who was allegedly kidnapped on the streets of Karachi. "These people want to stoke a war between the Hindus and Muslims so that we leave the country," said Amarlal, chairman of the Progressive Minorities Commission, who uses only one name. "Local mullahs and fundamentalist people think that if they leave they can take their properties."

Only a tiny minority of Hindus live in the country after massive migration of Sikhs and Hindus out of Pakistan when the state was formed in 1947 to create a homeland for South Asia's Muslims. About 3% of the population are Hindus. Some Hindu community organisations claim that about 10 families leave Pakistan each month.

I’ve said it in the past, but it bears repeating: the barometer of a culture’s civilization can be measured by the treatment of women and children. In this aspect, the large majority of the Middle East fails horrendously. This sort of behavior (which is consistently dismissed by the accomodationists as “cultural”, or as an isolated example, which is the former but not the latter) is inexcusable. Unforgivable. And the imposition on one’s will upon another against or without consent, is a violation of basic human rights.

And it is these sort of events that we will continue to experience as long as we keep pandering to these people. Someone has a set of religious rules? Fine. But by no means are they anywhere near a proper jurisprudence, nor should they be equal or supersede the laws of the country that religious folk dwell in.

But this Pakistan – probably one of the top 10 worst violators of human, civil, and gender rights – it is the armpit of the world, a great ugly wart on the face of civilization.

And they make Western civilization look good by comparison.

But then the chains of anachronism and faith are hardest to break.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Misogyny Gone Mental: Rape As A Divine Plan

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
It fairly boggles the mind, but when it comes to the Republicans, it has sadly become duckspeak:

GOP Sen. Mourdock: 'God Intended' Pregnancies From Rape

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said pregnancies resulting from rape are part of God's plan, tearfully explaining that he only supports abortions when a mother's life is in danger.

"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said during Tuesday's Senate debate, choking up. Mourdock's opponent, Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly, opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest.

And of course, this idiot went on to explain how he said no such thing (regardless of the fact that he did):

After the debate, Mourdock further explained his comment.

"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," said Mourdock, according to The Associated Press. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."

Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Democrats wasted no time linking GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to Mourdock. Earlier this week, Romney personally appeared in a TV ad for the Indiana state treasurer, offering his endorsement.

That suggests a link, does it not?

"Richard Mourdock's rape comments are outrageous and demeaning to women. Unfortunately, they've become part and parcel of the modern Republican Party's platform toward women's health, as Congressional Republicans like Paul Ryan have worked to outlaw all abortions and even narrow the definition of rape," Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement released to press.

It’s a common sign of cognitive dissonance: re-explain reality in a way that you can rationalize your ridiculousness.

Par for the course, Romney deserted the guy he made a commercial for:

"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said.

Abortion has become a more prominent issue in the presidential campaign in recent weeks, as Mitt Romney told the Des Moines Register that he would not pursue any specific abortion legislation as president and began airing a new TV ad in which a woman touts Romney's support for abortions in cases of rape and incest-a difference of opinion between Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan.

As they’re both morons, this ‘difference of opinion’ matters not at all.

The Obama campaign hit Romney on abortion soon after, releasing a TV ad of its own that features footage from a 2007 GOP presidential primary debate in which Romney said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill banning all abortions in the U.S.

What do rethuglickans call that, when Dems do it? Oh yeah – flip-flopping.

Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said during an interview in August that women's bodies have ways of preventing pregnancy in cases of what he called "legitimate rape." Akin apologized for the comment, but refused to leave the race despite pressure from his own party.

Mistaken Akin – one more fool for the GOP.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has issued a statement defending Mourdock and pointing out that his Democratic opponent, Joe Donnelly, is also firmly pro-life:

"Richard and I, along with millions of Americans - including even Joe Donnelly - believe that life is a gift from God. To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous. In fact, rather than condemning him for his position, as some in his party have when it's come to Republicans, I commend Congressman Donnelly for his support of life."But this election is about big ideas and the reality that our country is going in the wrong direction. If you support Obamacare, government bailouts, reckless spending and higher taxes than you should vote for Joe Donnelly. But if you believe, as I do, that our government is too big, our taxes are too high, and we are passing an irresponsible debt onto future generations, than Richard Mourdock is your candidate to help get our country back on track."

I really don’t know where to begin with this fairy tale. There is no god – regardless of how many people believe there is. We are stripping this planet of resources because people think that there’s some ‘divine plan’, meanwhile ignoring all the evidence that there is no such thing. This election is just another bunch of crazies trying to legislate their own private madnesses. As to irresponsible debt? That accusation coming from the GOP is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. There is ample proof that all the GOP has ever done is wreck this country. It’s a historical fact: we do better under a Democratic president than under a Republican.

Of course I expect too much: it’s always been a failing of mine. I would expect people to vote in their own best interests, but no; the gobshites are too damn lazy to simply take the time out of their TV-infested lives to actually do some homework, check the facts, and weigh the alternatives. They would rather take their cues from some dipshit like Glenn Beck or Limbaugh or some other talking-fuckhead who’s too stupid to breathe, than to actually act in their own best interests.

Or, as Voltaire once put it so well: “I do not know why they call it common sense, as it is not very common.”

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

‘Heterophobia’–Can Anyone Please Get A Little Stupider?

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
The raging ignorance of the fellow members of my species exhibit, gives me a splitting headache:

Nick Griffin's ridiculous cry of 'heterophobia'

Just when you hoped you'd seen the last of him, up he pops again. Users of Twitter can hardly have failed to notice that yesterday, Nick Griffin took to the social networking site to express his anger over a judge's decision to award damages to a gay couple denied a room at a bed and breakfast.

In a series of increasingly irate tweets, the leader of the BNP called on his supporters to take action against "the 2 bullying 'gay' activists who won the case v Christian B&B owners." He demanded to know why leftwing and gay activists didn't "confront Muslims instead of picking on meek and forgiving Christians", claiming that "bullies are always cowards". He also publicly shared the home address of the gay couple in question and encouraged people to demonstrate outside their house – what he called a "bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple's home is their castle". He ended with the battle cry, "Say No to heterophobia!".

[I think the biggest reason for not confronting Muslims, is that they tend towards hyperactive violence when even slightly criticized.]

And no – bullies are not always cowards. Sometimes they’re just bored sociopaths. Either way we look at it, this sort of discrimination is disgraceful. But if the B&B owners refused to rent to the couple because they thought gay sex was icky-oogy, well, their asses would be on a plate. But as Hitchens so aptly puts it: ‘a man who proves every day that you can get away with anything in this country if you can shove the word "Reverend" in front of your name.’ The main point being, that hide under the umbrella of religion, and it (used to) provide a shield for both ignorance and discrimination.

And  what does the ‘upright’ Mrs. Wilkinson say?

Speaking after the ruling, Susanne Wilkinson said, "Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home." But a bed and breakfast is not a family home. It's a family business – and like any business, it falls under the provisions of the Equality Act. Wilkinson also added, "People's beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack and I am concerned about people's freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs."

Oh boo-fucking hoo. I get tired of all these plodders whining about their ‘beliefs’ being held to account – as if the mere act of ‘believing’ has any impact on reality itself.

And then we get idiotic gaffs like the following:

Whenever "beliefs about marriage" are mentioned, some people have a peculiar habit of confusing genuine discrimination with the right to discriminate against others. The former archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, demonstrated this last week when he compared opponents of equal marriage in Britain to Jews living in Nazi Germany. Clearly the Archbishop has a selective sense of history, or he'd remember that gay people were also rounded up and murdered by the Nazis. And Nick Griffin adopts a similar tactic now when he talks about people being the victims of "heterophobia". What we're seeing is the oppressor claiming the language and status of the oppressed.

And in my personal experience, in both real-time and blogging, is that the hugest portion of humanity that leans towards raging stupidity, is when they’re religious. It’s like they think they’d been absolved of all responsibility for having an informed opinion.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

When Tea Is The Wrong Kind Of Party: Mistaken Akin Claims Of Legitimate Rape

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

Is it me, or when election time rolls around, do the Republican crazies seem to surge during an election year?

Witness if you will: Congressscum Akin has come out with the…most witless, stupidest, misogynistic crap yet:

In an August 19, 2012 interview aired on St. Louis television station KTVI-TV, Akin was asked his views on whether women who became pregnant due to rape should have the option of abortion. He replied:

“Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

The comment was widely criticized as false. Medical experts say there is no evidence to support the assertion that women are less likely to get pregnant from rape compared with consensual sex. A three-year study of 4008 adult American women from 1996 that found rape-related pregnancy occurred with "significant frequency" was cited as evidence against Akin's claim.

I’m positive crack heads could make more cogent commentary. Who would even defend such idiocy?

Sadly, all the usual suspects:

Akin has been defended by some social conservative organizations and notable Republicans, including the Family Research Council and Mike Huckabee.^[59] A spokesman for the Council said that "We feel this is a case of gotcha politics... We know who Todd Akin is. We've worked with him up on the hill. He's a defender of life." Akin's remarks were also defended by the evangelical Christian activist Kirk Cameron.^[61] A representative of the American Family Association cited a 1999 article by Doctor John C. Willke to argue Akin "was exactly right". Pro-life theologian Pia de Solenni called Akin's remarks "idiotic", but also claimed that there is "no solid data" on the question of whether rape inhibits pregnancy, and opined that it was not a "far stretch [from effects of long-term stress on fertility] to wonder if women who are raped might have a lesser rate of pregnancy resulting from the rape". Robert Fleischmann, director of pro-life group Christian Life Resources, similarly argued that Akin's point was plausible but lacked data ("I have yet to see a study that demonstrates some sort of contraceptive effect from a rape. I do believe, however, it is not an unwarranted conclusion." and "Statistically speaking, it appears something happens in a rape, either with the victim or with the perpetrator, that reduces the incidence of pregnancy."). In response to Republican demands that he resigns, Personhood USA spokeswoman Jennifer Mason said that Akin's position "is an integral part of the Republican Party platform, the same position that was held by President Ronald Reagan" and that "[we] are left with Reagan Republicans, who agree with the Republican Party platform on abortion, and Romney Republicans, a fringe group of liberals who compromise on human life. Mike Huckabee supported Akin by soliciting donations for his Senate campaign, in which he accused the "Republican establishment" of a "carefully orchestrated and systematic attack."

That anyone in their right minds could even side with a breath-takingly ignorant statement is officially mind-boggling.

The great divide here is not about anything else but the delusion that there is some sort of ‘soul’ involved, that much talked-about, much glorified, but incredibly unprovable ethereal mythological will-o-the wisp that human beings are mysterious imbued with at birth (or as the more deluded claim, at conception).

We should then work from the assumption that there is no such critter, and deal with the harsh realities of the real world.

But then, when the surreal nonsense of religion invades the domicile of reason, it makes me lose some hope for our species.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Homophobia Gone Wild: The Two Faces Of Jonathan Merrit

Cross-posted @ the Atheist Oasis

Recall the Chick-fil-A nonsense? Of course you do – it wasn’t all that long ago.

Cathy told a North Carolina religious publication in July that he supports the biblical definition of marriage. Cathy also said during "The Ken Coleman Show" that "... we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about."

Eating all that chicken must’ve clogged the arteries to that idiot’s brain, is what I say. It’s another addition to the list of stores I’ll never patronize (though I’d not heard of Chick-fil-A till the controversy). Not surprisingly, some religious clown named Jonathan Merrit actually defended eating at Chick’s with this rather milquetoast ‘hey, let’s just all get along’ article.

And then we all find out that he had a homosexual encounter.

Merritt, a culture writer for major newspapers and magazines and author of two books, told Ed Stetzer of LifeWay Research that for a “couple of weeks” in 2009 he corresponded with a gay blogger by e-mail and text messages, some of them “inappropriate.” After meeting for dinner near a city where Merritt was traveling and while saying goodbye, he said, “we had physical contact that went beyond the bounds of friendship.”

Merritt said he planned to publicly discuss his “brokenness” at some point, but an unexpected turn of events forced him to do it now. On July 20, Merritt wrote an article for the Atlantic arguing against a boycott of Chick-fil-A over the company’s support of conservative groups that oppose gay marriage. Gay blogger Azariah Southworth, who was host of a show on Christian television before coming out of the closet in 2008, then alleged in a July 23 blog that Merritt is gay.

And hey, maybe he just kissed a guy once in 2009 – but if you watch the video, let me know if my ‘gaydar’ is off, because he sure seems that way to me.

And let me tell you something else for free: if you’re imposing YOUR religious beliefs on me via legislation, if you’re DEMANDING that I adhere to YOUR sense of esthetics, if you’re forcing YOUR ideologies down my throat, that’s just plain un-American. Pure and simple.

Because freedom OF religion is completely contingent on freedom FROM religion. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is blowing wind out their ass.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

And What Is The Catholic Cee Whinging On About This Time? Only The Usual Suspects…

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
This is a constant complaint of the religious: WE’RE BEING PERSECUTED! WE HAVE RIGHTS! etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. And what is it really all about? Why, the ass-clown  Catholics are up in arms about…contraceptive services?!?!? It’s like these nitwits are still living in the 50’s.

Fortnight for Freedom sees religious freedom in peril

Church bells will ring across Rapid City at noon on the Fourth of July, tolling a threat to religious freedom that Bishop Robert Gruss and others see in the 2010 Affordable Care Act and elsewhere.

Churches of all denominations are asked to ring their bells for five minutes that day in support of the Fortnight for Freedom campaign being waged through Wednesday, July 4, by U.S. Catholic bishops. The campaign is designed to promote religious liberty by enlisting opposition to the contraceptive services mandate that's part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

So…just what are these contraceptive services, exactly?

With the exception of churches and houses of worship, the Act's contraceptive coverage mandate applies to all employers and educational institutions. The mandate applies to all new health insurance plans effective August 2012. It controversially includes Christian hospitals, Christian charities, Catholic universities, and other enterprises owned or controlled by religious organizations that oppose contraception on doctrinal grounds. Regulations made under the act rely on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, which concluded that birth control is medically necessary "to ensure women's health and well-being."

Current Department of Health and Human Services regulations that govern ACA require employers — even Catholic hospitals, charities and universities —  to offer contraceptive services at no cost in their employee health care plans. It has generated outrage by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who say it violates Catholic religious teaching against artificial contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

Which is horse dung, because these things didn’t exist over 100 years ago.

Gruss, head of the Catholic Diocese of Rapid City, has promoted the two-week national campaign against the HHS mandates as an issue of religious freedom that goes far beyond the contraception question, affecting all Americans, not just Catholic Americans.

"This is not just a Catholic issue. It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's not a contraceptive issue. It's an American issue. It's a religious freedom issue," Gruss said June 19 during a panel discussion on how the mandate would affect Catholic schools and charities in Rapid City.

It is an American issue – but if this so-called ‘religious freedom’ is going to have a massive impact on women’s reproductive health, then I say, screw the religious. I’ll take the real over the surreal any day.

Gruss said religious freedom is more than "the right to go to Mass on Sunday or to pray the rosary at home."

I’d say that as the religious are posturing themselves as the arbiters of all they survey, it’s getting to the point that maybe that’s the limit we should impose on them.

"The current climate is reducing religion in the public domain to a private matter ... but it is also the right to engage in the broader society," he said. The HHS mandate on contraception coverage, with its narrow exemption for certain religious groups, would force Catholics institutions to either violate the teachings of the church or to stop engaging in the Gospel's call to serve others — through its hospitals, schools and charitable organizations, he said.

  Then they can abstain. Isn’t that what Catholics are famous for, after all?

To be exempt from the contraception mandate, a religious employer would have to meet four narrowly defined criteria, including that it employ and provide services "primarily to persons who share its religious tenets."

That actually sounds…reasonable. But of course, Sour Gruss won’t have that:

Gruss called the current religious exemption "far too narrow" and repeated the frequent observation that "not even Jesus would be included in it," since Christ ministered to both Christians and non-Christians while on earth.

Uh-huh – then again, the mythical man-child didn’t really provide anything resembling reproductive services, did he?

In Rapid City, Catholic Social Services would be forced to comply with the mandate or risk steep fines of $100 per day, per employee, for not providing health insurance to its employees. Neither is an acceptable option, since the costs would cripple the small social services agency, director Jim Kinyon said. "But our mandate comes from some place a little more important than Washington," he said.

Which translates to forcing it onto the rest of us.

CSS's mission is to serve people of all faiths, and Catholics are a minority on its staff. "There's no doubt Catholic Social Services would not meet the exemption. This is not about CSS, it's about the 23,000 people we serve each year," Kinyon said. 

Which means, when you are in Rapid City and in dire need of this sort of help, give these control freaks a wide berth.

Kinyon criticized contraceptive pills as a "failed experiment" in sexual morality and said that forcing employers with a moral objection to abortion to provide insurance benefits that cover abortifacients is akin to "participating in the shedding of the blood of innocents."

As one of the tags for this post states, ‘Boo-fucking-hoo’.

Gruss also complained that the HHS mandate doesn't protect private employers who object to providing contraceptive coverage. Numerous Catholic dioceses and institutions, as well as non-Catholic organizations, have filed 23 lawsuits against federal officials, including HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, challenging the contraceptive mandate. The Rapid City diocese is not among those plaintiffs, but Gruss said the lawsuits are an "opportunity to direct the conversation on freedom of religion" in America today.

Well then, it looks like the criterion for employees is going to be stricter – such as 40 year old virgins who live with their mom, Jehovah’s Witless…oh wait, that’s discriminatory, so they can’t do it.

"We didn't pick this fight; we've been forced into it," Gruss said. 

Another litigant challenging the HHS mandate, the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, said Thursday those lawsuits will continue in light of the June 28 Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA's individual mandate. That decision left untouched the HHS mandates.

The BFRL is one of those institutions who go to bat for ridiculous religious stubbornness, AKA ‘we wanna say the Pledge with the words “Under God” in it!’

“The court’s opinion today did not decide the issues in our cases,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel.

Of course it didn’t.

Some non-Catholic churches will add their bells to the noon ring on July 4, but at First Congregational United Church of Christ, the Rev. Susan Huffman said she declined the invitation as "too specific an issue for us."

"Although we believe in the concept of religious freedom ... we feel like this is not our issue," Huffman said. 

The reasonable among them are few and far between.

The Fortnight for Freedom campaign closes on July 4 with a special Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. Archbishop Charles Chaput, formerly bishop of Rapid City, will give the homily focusing on religious liberty in America. In Rapid City, the Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Help will hold an 8 a.m. Mass.

This still not an attack on religious liberties in the slightest: the medicinal facts say otherwise. Of course, these idiots believe in an ‘immaculate conception’, which means they have little real clue how biology actually works.

Catholic churches in Rapid City have sponsored a variety of gatherings and religious services from June 21 to July 4 to pray that religious liberty be protected and fostered in America. Those events included a showing of the movie, "A Man for All Seasons," which tells the story of St. Thomas More's martyrdom at the hands of King Henry VIII. Several "patriotic rosaries" at local Catholic churches offering special prayers for the presidency, the Supreme Court and Congress have been held. 

Thomas More was a fuckhead. He went around actually persecuting the Protestants, so he wasn’t quite the martyr he was made out to be. And prayer doing anything at all? Don’t make me laugh. 

"The Patriotic Rosary is different in that with each decade there is a reading from a Founding Father or historical document, singing of a patriotic song, and each Hail Mary is said for a state and all the people in that state," said Marcia Williamson, an organizer of the Fortnight For Freedom. "It really is very inspiring."

I’d bet the rent they won’t be reading from Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason any time soon. Or at all.

People wonder why atheists detest religion – this is a perfect example of why. They claim exemption from common sense based on superstition. They want to supersede human health issues by blathering on about ‘moral imperatives’ that they say come from on high. And they claim they answer to a ‘higher power’ or bear witness in a ‘higher court’. Which means the rest of us will be screwed. 

As religion takes more and more of a back seat in our lives, their whiny little voices will metaphorically be advising humanity on how to drive. Better then, to turn the music up to drown them out.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Homophobia Gone Wild: The Worthless Words Of Worden

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

Oh, we won't give in,
We'll keep living in the past. – Jethro Tull, Living in the Past

Recently, I’ve been visiting blog of someone named the ‘Warrioress’ – a misled single mother who deems us ‘militants’ because atheists are not polite, friendly, or willing to respect ridiculous superstitions. She came by a few times to lecture us on our tone and attitude. While seemingly pleasant enough, she is wildly misinformed on a number of topics.

One of her current followers is someone who is one of those ‘gawd is great!’ survivalist/militia types (yes, I can hear the collective groans and face-palms from here). She quoted some fellow I’d never heard before, here, which led me to perhaps one of the stupidest ‘editorials’ on homosexuality I’ve ever had the misfortune to read. It’s nicely written, in a kindly-statesman-giving-good-advice kind of way, but utterly epically fails with the simple application of sense of any sort.

And this clown has the audacity to entitle this, of all things, The Truth About Homosexuality. Bear with me while I fisk this bad boy to the ground:

I am going to address the issue of homosexuality and it's effects because I worked very closely with over 300 homosexual men in the late 60s and early 70s, which was just before gay rights groups began to organize into the political power base they represent today.

Doing what exactly? He doesn’t say. And do the observations of some 40-odd years still apply? I’m old enough to know better: he should be as well.

I considered most of these "gay" men to be at least close business associates, and a number of them would definitely fall into the category of being close personal friends, so any attempt to categorize my comments here as "homophobic" would be in vain.

We’ll address that a little bit later.

I'm going to write the truth here, and because of the nature of the subject, that truth will be graphic and make some of you very uncomfortable reading it. However, all but perhaps one of those healthy young men I knew 25 years ago is dead, and nearly all of them died from an AIDS-related illness, so this is not the time to sugar-coat the reality of what the homosexual lifestyle is, and what it does to it's willing participants.

No name dropping, no real ‘AIDS-related’ illness is mentioned. Is he aware things have changed?

Articles written with a critical eye toward homosexuality are all too often based upon emotion, and include biblical references which condemn the practice. I wrote the original version of this article back in 1999 with a reference to the religious view, and a reader asked me to modify it to exclude any mention of God or religion. I gave it some thought, and the reader had a good point: Christians don't have to be reminded of the biblical view toward homosexuality, but one mention of it to non-believers and you can hear their minds slam shut. So this is my very dispassionate, non-religious tale of a terrible tragedy I personally witnessed.

Trust me, he’s doing no favors to us non-believers.

Now, I warned you I'd have to get graphic here, and it is time to bluntly remind everyone just what this horrendous, perverted, septic and medically dangerous practice really is. To refer to this physically revolting act as something flowery, like "Gay Love" is like referring to an execution by disembowelment as mere "euthanasia".

Really, talk about talking out both sides of your mouth here. Does that sound dispassionate to you?

We all need to go back to square one, before the desensitization of the media lulled us away from the reality of what a homosexual act is.

Oh, because this guy knows, and we don’t?

We need to go back to that time when the initial thought, that impression we envisioned when we first heard about this act filled us with revulsion. That revulsion and nausea you felt wasn't borne of ignorance, but of a spontaneous and instinctive rejection of what you immediately recognized as an abhorrent, disgusting and wholly unnatural thing to do. There's nothing whatsoever to be ashamed for admitting this, because it just happens to be the natural response.

Firstly, that’s the naturalistic fallacy, AKA the ‘appeal to nature’. Secondly, it can be successfully argued that those ‘impressions’ are hammered into us at an early age. Thirdly, human beings can be revolted by some of the most frankly silly things around, say like, envisioning your parents having sex, etc. So the ‘EEWWWW!’ argument isn’t even an argument, unless you’re in middle school.

As I mentioned earlier, gay rights groups didn't really exist until around 1975, and even then, they were very disorganized at best. That was before they got together and agreed on the fat lie that they were somehow born into homosexuality.

And again, we find the simpler folk more willing to buy the easier lie. The wiki on the topic states:

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated. Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment, or no genetic influence. Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

I'll never buy that nonsense, and I'll tell you why: Not one of my friends ever told me they thought they were born into homosexuality. Not one of them. They would tell me why, and their stories were often similar, but not one of them ever told me they believed they were born that way. In every case of the men I knew, they had made homosexuality a choice, and many of those men had been married prior to adopting that lifestyle.

I like how he doesn’t name drop, cite scientific studies of any sort, or even relate a single ‘story’.

Let's clear something up right now: Homosexuality, including Lesbianism, are fetishes.

Which explains why so many teenage homosexuals are bullied into suicide.

They are not biological conditions people are born with.

Mr. Ph.D says so!

Anne Heche is a celebrity lesbian one minute, and goes heterosexual the next. Go figure.

Obviously this guy thinks that the exception makes the rule.

In many cases, today's homosexuals were molested at a very young age by another man, and experienced their very first orgasm that way. That experience can and does warp a young man's sexual orientation, no doubt about it, and helps explain why we hear young homosexuals relate the same story that they just felt different sexually than their friends. Of course they do, and understandably so, when we remember their very first imprinted sexual climactic experience came from the hands, mouth (or worse) of another man.

Does that include the ‘family men’ who ‘adopted’ the lifestyle?

In recent years there has been a rather predictable development that has been very carefully hidden from the public:
Organizations of "recovering homosexuals" have sprung up all over this nation, made up of both men and women who have escaped the homosexual lifestyle and have taken up successful heterosexual relationships. In some cases, former lesbians have met and married former gay men and are now raising families. You will find it interesting to note that Anna Freud, Sigmund's daughter, reported the "recovery" of three homosexuals in her writings in the 1940's. If homosexuality is so natural and people are born into it, how can this be? Answer: It can't be.

Aye caramba? Does this idiot know that these organizations fail regularly – that these are religious organizations that are laughed outta town by actual psychologists and psychiatrists? Nothing fails like prayer.

There are those who keep telling the persistent lie that homosexuality occurs naturally in animals, so therefore it occurs naturally in man. So where are the photos? Have you ever seen a photograph of two male animals completing an act of anal intercourse?

No, the actuality is that homosexual acts are persistent in nature.

Think about it: We've all seen photographs of Big Foot and flying saucers, right?

Bad choice, bringing up known hoaxes.

And I know you've seen male dogs mounting one another as well and other animals like elk and deer doing it too, but you have never seen photographic proof of a completed act of penetrating anal intercourse in animals, because it simply does not exist in nature, and if it did, we'd damn-sure have photographs of it.

This guy obviously doesn’t cruise the Internet very much – but most smug nimbulbs are like that.

Does that little revelation trouble you? It should. It should make you question all the other "truths" you've accepted over the years, like "Prohibition was a mistake, but the War On Drugs isn't", but that's another subject altogether.

Oh great – another conspiracy wacko.

Now let me tell you about my very dead friends.

You mean the friends that filled you with revulsion at their ‘unnatural acts’?

This saga took place in the San Francisco Bay Area, before HIV infections caused the San Francisco Health Department to shut down the public "bath houses" where these men would go to "meet" each other. Okay, so I'm getting all flowery. The men would go there to engage other men in anal intercourse.

Sometimes these men would have 4, 5, 6 or more sexual liaisons with complete strangers in one night. Some of these acts would take place through plywood walls with penis-sized holes cut in them to secure the anonymity between the participants, and sometimes they would take place through holes cut in cloth sheets.

This sort of thing is not exclusive to the gay lifestyle: and in the case of a lifestyle that has been oppressed by ignorant Christians since Theodosius the II, small wonder anyone would revel in it once the barriers are bridged. Also, there was the Sexual Revolution, where taking a pill would cure the STD’s that have plagued humanity since the dawn of time – STD’s like syphilis, gonorrhea, you know, all those HETEROSEXUAL diseases.

If you thought the "gay lifestyle" was just about two guys playing house, you've bought into just another of the many lies they want you to believe.

Four decades later, it does play out that way.

Brutal acts of sado-masochism between homosexuals are often played out, sometimes resulting in injury and even death, and the physical beatings between homosexual and lesbian "lovers" are legend within the law enforcement community as well as with emergency health care professionals -- which is another fact you won't see reported in the mainstream media. If there ever was a misnomer, it is the term "gay" when referring to these pitiful creatures.

This again, isn’t exclusive to the gay lifestyle. There are plenty of heteros who abuse spouses, engage in sado-masochism. I’d be willing to bet the rent that they actually outnumber the gay community in this regard.

My friends would get totally wasted on alcohol and drugs, often coming in on Monday morning looking like they were at death's door after a typical weekend orgy, and it came as no surprise to learn recently that both male homosexuals as well as lesbians have a life span roughly 40% shorter than heterosexuals.

People can be stupid, regardless of sexuality. I’ve had plenty of hetero friends do this very same thing.

Dr. Paul Cameron holds a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado, and his work has been published in the medical journal Omega. This is what he reported: For heterosexuals, the average man lives to be 73; women 77.

Oh don’t even get me STARTED on this asshole.

For homosexuals, the average AIDS caused death is 39 and non-AIDS caused death is a remarkable age 42! For lesbians the average age of death is 44 because the rate of AIDS among lesbians is not a significant factor.

First off, these aren’t official – he whipped up those figures from cutting out obituaries in the paper. His own Wiki entry states:

For the most part, official scientific organisations have paid very little attention to Cameron's studies, and thus extensive scientific analysis of his claims have not been widely available. However Cameron's research, public statements and legal testimony have received criticism from researchers and organizations over methodologies they view as academically dishonest and misleading.

Dr. William Bennet, who authored the book "The Death of Outrage", commented that the Clinton administration has made such a big deal about tobacco use shaving 6-7 years off one's life, while openly supporting the gay death style that is known to shave off over 30 years from the average life span.

If the author is referring to this asshole, Bennet is NOT A DOCTOR.

David Foster, a former homosexual and author, found that the rate of injury and death from domestic violence among homosexuals is at least five times that of heterosexuals, and when it comes to lesbian relationships, the rate goes right off the scale. Apparently, lesbians beat the hell out of each other, and often. He also points to a very high incidence of drug and alcohol abuse as another strong factor in reducing the life spans of homosexuals and lesbians so drastically.

Wait – which David Foster? This guy? Or this guy?

Nothing I personally witnessed falls in dispute with the above published findings, and I have over 300 dead bodies as evidence to back them.

From what he’s demonstrated thus far – he has diddly squat. Anecdotal evidence? Doesn’t count. Cameron’s a kook, Bennet’s a conservative talking-head, and who knows who Foster is?

Now that you are aware of these facts -- and they are facts indeed -- how could any parent of one of these hapless, errant children join a support group like Parents And Friends of Gays And Lesbians which openly defends the gay lifestyle -- and even promotes it? How could any parent encourage their child to continue a lifestyle known to lead to an early death? Why would any parent tolerate a public school that teaches their children that homosexuality and lesbianism are naturally occurring sexual orientations? They are those who refuse to learn the truth, or worse; those who refuse to accept the truth.

All of this crap is based on anecdotal hearsay four decades old, and extremely poorly studies by some nincompoops. Hardly the sweeping condemnation when one addresses these seriously in less than an hour.

When I tell an openly gay person to seek help in order to save them from an early death, is that an act of hate? They will tell you it is. Not only are we to accept the gay lifestyle, but these individuals and groups also insist we embrace their lifestyle in our schools where it can be painted as "normal". Normal?

It actually WAS normal, until the Christians decided to be the final arbiters of who can do what with their naughty bits.

Let me ask you something: What is normal about a young man with a herniated sphincter who must wear diapers due to fecal incontinence from having submitted to so many acts of anal intercourse? I knew several young men who had that disgusting problem. What's natural and normal about that? What's so natural and normal about your child dying before you? What's so natural and normal about having to get an AIDS test every three months? I don't have to, and I'll bet the average reader doesn't have to either.

I actually looked up fecal incontinence – and guess what? A lot assholes claiming this happens, zero studies proving this happens regularly. As for getting an AIDS test every three months: anyone who’s the least bit sexually active should be tested regularly. For all the possible STD’s. And AIDS isn’t exclusively a gay disease anymore.

Perhaps I am more sensitive to this issue than most, but whenever I hear someone describe themselves as openly gay, I automatically visualize them engaged with another man in a revolting act of anal intercourse, ruining my appetite.

Mr. ‘Dispassionate’ my homesick ass.

Yet few people understand that nothing turns gay men on more than the idea you'd be both shocked and disgusted by their behavior.

Wait – ALL gay men? Are you smoking crack, or what?

You see, all the homosexual men I knew were psychological exhibitionists as well, and they were absolutely thrilled to see "straight" people recoil at the sight of them prancing around, lisping almost every word.

It’s called ‘rebellion’ – but then again, I doubt that an isolated militianist (correct term?) is conversant with anything resembling a knowledge of human behavior.

As bizarre as it sounds, the homosexual community wants what it knows will rob the savor from their salt. The more we "accept" openly homosexual behavior, the more repugnant and bizarre their behavior becomes in order to garner the same level of shock and disgust. So when a gay rights supporter asks that frequently heard question, "Would a person deliberately place themselves in a position to be hated and reviled?", the answer is an unequivocal "Yes, they would!". And in fact, they do.

Obviously not, yet of course pretentious pundits offer up their pseudo-intellectual analyses.

The fact is, the homosexual lifestyle contributes nothing of a positive nature to society. If anything, the homosexual lifestyle has proven to be destructive to it's participants, and because of the septic nature of anal intercourse, the homosexual lifestyle has proven to quickly spread HIV as well as that most recent and perhaps even deadlier threat, Hepatitis C.

Talk about speaking out one’s ass:

Whether hepatitis C can be transmitted through sexual activity is controversial. While there is an association between high-risk sexual activity and hepatitis C, it is not known whether transmission of the disease is due to drug use that has not been admitted to or sex as a risk factor.

The public health costs imposed by the gay community on the rest of society have been costly indeed -- and no one can dispute that.

Mostly due to lack of sexual education, ignorance, and the overbearing religious objections of the past 1600 years, yeah.

And also consider this: Can you recall any invention, any life-saving vaccine or any improvement to society by any individual because he was gay? Did his "gay-ness" contribute anything at all, or did he achieve his accomplishments in spite of it? We all know the answer.

What an utter ass. Alan Turing revolutionized the technological advances of the Twentieth century, not to mention helping to win WORLD WAR II by cracking the Nazi codes. And yes, he was gay. And treated horribly because of it.

So should we be more compassionate for these people, or should we adopt a tough love kind of response? Should we allow our young children to be taught something is normal, when we know that not even the animals will engage in it?

Backwards idiots often repeat themselves.

What about when those children might be tempted to experiment with it and thus become its' unwitting victims as well? Would any parent want their children to experience the degradation and early death I've described here? I hope not.

Dude, your descriptions here lack any kind of authority, intelligence, or study citations whatsoever.

However tempted I am to end on that note, let us all refocus on the problems of society in general, and not those imposed only by the homosexual community. I'm addressing those of the "straight" community now; those who are actively engaged in unmarried sexual relationships and adultery.

‘Imposed’? Dude, get a clue.

It was just reported that over 50% of all children are now born to unwed mothers. Divorce and good old fornication are proving to be the most long-term, destructive elements of behavior existent in our society today, and it is costing the taxpayers dearly for looking the other way for so long. When it gets right down to it, you have no right to take the chance of bringing an unwanted baby into this world in exchange for the fleeting pleasure of an orgasm. Fornication is just about the most selfish and self-serving act you can possibly commit, yet you'd think we were back in the early stages of the sexual revolution by the way people are conducting themselves. When you engage in a sexual liaison with someone you are not married to, and probably have no intention of marrying, you are rolling the dice on the life of any child born as a result, and you all know that, short of sterilization, no form of birth control is 100% effective.

And he rolls out the old party line again: never mind that hetero marriages are 50% likely to end, mostly ignominiously or acrimoniously. I keep hearing Jethro Tull’s ‘Living in the Past’ in my head. It’s the 21st century – try to join us in it. You want to strip sexual freedom of choice from adults because it doesn’t mirror the ‘good old daze’ of your sheltered Ozzie and Harriet youth? Too fucking bad. And…wait, ‘no form of birth control is 100% effective’? Are you kidding me? There’s absolutely NOTHING in this life that is 100%, except death and taxes.

The act of fornication is shamefully selfish and self-centered, and without any regard whatsoever to how it may effect the entire life of another innocent human being whose mother might just decide to kill it while it's still "legal" to do so.

Dude, the 14th amendment specifically states that only persons BORN (or naturalized) in the US are entitled to rights. Ergo a fetus (yes, not a BABY, a FETUS) has no rights.

So, while it is important to tell the truth about homosexuality, the fact is that today's "straight" fornicators and adulterers are responsible for far more of society's ills, in terms of both fiscal impact and moral decline, than the homosexual community could ever hope to achieve.

‘Moral decline’. Oh joy – if I had a nickel for every one of these yobbos spouted off about ‘moral decline’, I’d have a whole lotta nickels. What moral decline? Just about every nation on this earth (including the USA) has been guilty of moral crimes, from inception to end. The world is filled to the brim with people that want to guard our loins and gird their own.

And thus far, I’ve not encountered one that was not a prattling idiot. Including this one.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...