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Pakistani lawmakers have withdrawn a proposal to impose harsher penalties on those who arrange child marriages after it was scuttled by a religious body who branded it "blasphemous" and against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...

More On The Madness Of Muslims: The Evil Of Honor

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

I have said this many times here, and on the old blog: the litmus test of any civilization (or an ideology, let’s add that too) that determines its worthiness, is the treatment of women and children. And it’s not enough these mad dogs take children as sex slaves, but that they slaughter other adults to enforce their barbarism.

Case in point;

Her Father Shot Her in the Head, as an ‘Honor Killing’

WHETHER it wins or not, the Oscar nominee with the greatest impact — saving lives of perhaps thousands of girls — may be one you’ve never heard of.

It stars not Leonardo DiCaprio but a real-life 19-year-old Pakistani woman named Saba Qaiser. Her odyssey began when she fell in love against her family’s wishes and ran off to marry her boyfriend. Hours after the marriage, her father and uncle sweet-talked her into their car and took her to a spot along a riverbank to murder her for her defiance — an “honor killing.”

First they beat Saba, then her uncle held her as her own father pointed a pistol at her head and pulled the trigger. Blood spewed, Saba collapsed and her father and uncle packed her body into a large sack and threw it into the river to sink. They then drove away, thinking they had restored the family’s good name.

Incredibly, Saba was unconscious but alive. She had jerked her head as the gun went off, and the bullet tore through the left side of her face but didn’t kill her. The river water revived her, and she clawed her way out of the sack and crawled onto land. She staggered toward a gasoline station, and someone called for help.

About every 90 minutes, an honor killing unfolds somewhere in the world, usually in a Muslim country. Pakistan alone has more than 1,000 a year, and the killers often go unpunished.

Watching the documentary about Saba, “A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness,” I kept thinking that just as in the 19th century the central moral challenge for the world was slavery, and in the 20th century it was totalitarianism, in this century the foremost moral issue is the abuse and oppression that is the lot of so many women and girls around the world.

I don’t know whether “A Girl in the River” will win an Oscar in its category, short subject documentary, but it is already making a difference. Citing the film, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan has promised to change the country’s laws so as to crack down on honor killings.

Saba’s story underscores how the existing law lets people literally get away with murder when honor is the excuse. After doctors saved Saba’s life — as police officers guarded the door so her father didn’t return to finish the job — she was determined to prosecute her father and uncle.

“They should be shot in public in an open market,” she told the filmmaker, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, “so that such a thing never happens again.”

The police arrested Saba’s father, Maqsood, and the uncle, Muhammad, and their defense was that they did the right thing.

“She took away our honor,” Maqsood said from his jail cell. “If you put one drop of piss in a gallon of milk, the whole thing gets destroyed. That’s what she has done. … So I said, ‘No, I will kill you myself.’”

Maqsood said that after shooting Saba he went home and told his wife, “I have gone and killed your daughter.” He added: “My wife cried. What else could she do? I am her husband. She is just my wife.”

Perpetrators of honor killings often are not prosecuted because Pakistani law allows families of victims to forgive a killing. So a man kills his daughter, the rest of the family forgives him, and he’s off the hook.

Tremendous pressure was applied to Saba by community elders to pardon her father and uncle. In the end, her husband’s older brother — the head of her new family — told her to forgive and move on. “There is no other way,” he said. “We have to live in the same neighborhood.”

Saba complied, and her father and uncle were released from prison. “After this incident, everyone says I am more respected,” her father boasted. “I can proudly say that for generations to come none of my descendants will ever think of doing what Saba did.” The families still live near each other, although the father insists he will not try again to kill Saba.

The way to reduce honor killings is to end the impunity. Saba tried to do her part, and let’s hope Prime Minister Sharif does indeed end the legal system of forgiveness.

“I wanted to start a national discourse about the issue,” says Obaid-Chinoy, the film’s director. “Until we send people to jail and make examples of them, honor killings will continue.”

Since 9/11, the United States has spent billions of dollars reshaping Afghanistan and Pakistan with the military toolbox; I suspect we would have achieved more if we had relied to a greater extent on the education and women’s empowerment toolboxes.

A starting point would be to encourage governments to protect teenage girls from fathers who want to murder them. Chipping away at this broad pattern of gender injustice is in the interest of all of us. It is our century’s great unfinished business.

Yep, keep adding to the list of mad dogs who should be taken out back and shot in the head. That’s all these two psychotics deserve.

The foremost item is the hypocrisy: both Christianity (free will? HA!) and Islam (not supposed to compel religion, bone up on the fucking thing sometime) is that regardless of their words and teachings, imans and priests (ministers too, if you’re being pedantic) regularly force others in one way or another, to conform to the ‘norm’ or face harsh penalties. And the people in charge of these things tend to be hairy-eyed squalid lunatics, eyes full of an imaginary glory and afterlife.

Butchering and raping women and children is NOT the heroic act of some ‘divine vessel’ – it is the act of a disconnected mentally unhinged individual (or more). If these buttplugs had been doing this in the name of the Almighty Bob, they’d have been castigated and imprisoned. But because they hide under the umbrella of religion, there are no consequences.

If you kill women and rape children, I could care LESS why. You did it. And everyone should get equal treatment. So this makes you a savage, regardless of the WHY of it. A voice told you to? Get help, or get out. A book told you? What, are you a gullible child, to blindly follow it, and cause mayhem and slaughter to those around you?

No more free passes for these psychos, boys and girls. Different culture? Don’t care. Different country? Don’t care. There is no afterlife, so we have to correct this. Here. Now.

And don’t give me that ‘violence doesn’t solve anything’ crap. Yeah, and Hitler was soooo amenable to reason and rationality that Chamberlain managed to avoid World War II.

Till the next post.

Read More...

Summary only...