They haven’t changed much. After all, before health care, they were protesting about taxes (the reason for the name “Tea Party”, in fact)… after the Obama administration lowered taxes for 95% of Americans — and, since there are probably no billionaire teabaggers, for 100% of protesters.
If they were honest, they’d admit that what they’re really protesting is “the President is black, and black people scare me”. What else explains that they protested about taxes after they were lowered?
Source: Times Online
A lot of Catholics have been complaining about Benedict 16’s utterly immoral statement, and, on one hand, one can’t fault them for it: it just shows that they still have some sense of morality, that they’re not mindless robots obeying “Dear Leader”.
On the other hand… do those Catholics (and Christians in general) know their own religion at all? Why are they surprised? Why aren’t them just nodding because, well, the Pope is Catholic and he’s just stated a Catholic / Christian position?
People, the basis of your religion is that this life is just a test! That one shouldn’t “love this world”. Earthly suffering is immaterial; the only thing that matters is whether you’re “saved” or not. If unspeakable suffering leads one to God / Jesus and therefore that person is saved, to a Christian that’s perfectly OK; in fact, one couldn’t ask for more.
If God exists as they think, and is absolutely against all forms of contraceptives / sex not for reproduction as they think, then better for someone to suffer horribly and die of Aids, with a chance of going to heaven, than to live a long, healthy, happy life and end up in hell with certainty. This is only logical, if one accepts their premises. Which, of course, I don’t, what with being an atheist and everything.
Christianity is a life-hating death cult.
“As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth’s final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
– Commissioner Pravin Lal, Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri, video game from 1999
“This administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but with those who seek it to be known. The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”
– President Barack Obama, January 21, 2009, as he overturned Bush’s order restricting access to White House records
Yes! Yes! YES!! 
Following the discussions about the FFRF’s atheist sign (see here, for instance), I just want to ask any readers of this blog the following: which of these two fictional signs (imagine them being shown to thousands, in a public place) is more “offensive”?
Sign A:
There is a God.
Sign B:
There is no God.
I’ll expand on this in the next post, naturally, but, first, I’d just like to have your answers, and, if possible, your reasoning for that answer – whether you’re an atheist or not.
As I’ve just read in A Load of Bright, the man who once said:
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”
about 9/11, and:
AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.
is dead.
My feelings about this? The world is better off without him. I’m sorry if this offends anyone; apparently, someone recently dead is always to be “revered”. But I’ll save my compassion for those who deserve it, for those who actually try to make the world a better place, instead of a worse one.
Still, while I believe that Falwell was (much like Robertson, Dobson, Jack Thompson, and others) a disgusting human being, and a source of fundamentalism, intolerance and bigotry, I won’t actually cheer his death. Unlike what his followers believe, I’m convinced that this life is “it”, and, far from making our lives pointless, it makes them precious.
Besides, there are surely many waiting to take his place, and they will always have power, as long as there are people who want to be free from the responsability of thinking and deciding for themselves, who can’t deal with their lives and so need to believe that “hey, this is not the real thing, this is just a test,” and who want to be told that their own prejudices and bigotry are actually “moral” and “holy”, because, hey, the big guy in the sky hates all of ‘em too.
What will make the world a better place is not the death of the Jerry Falwells of the world, but, instead, the loss of their power and influence, because people begin to actually think for themselves. People shouldn’t be “good” simply because there is no charismatic bigot currently inciting them, but because they see those bigots for what they really are, and want nothing to do with them.
News here. Of course, he’s talking about Catholic politicians (which may not actually be Catholic themselves, but who live in heavily Catholic countries — which handily coincides with his visit to South America).
While to any non-theist (or even simply non-Catholic) the threat of excommunication is as frightening as the idea of Santa Claus not liking you, if most of the populace is Catholic, the fact that a candidate (possibly attempting a re-election) has been excommunicated (“and by His Holiness the Pope himself!”) may influence polls and election results enough that anyone who’s been considering lifting some ancient and draconian abortion ban may end up not doing it.
What, you thought the Vatican only pulled the strings of kings and kingdoms during the Middle Ages? Think again…
Yup, Bush is really doing it.
Is it just me, or does this remind you as well of “pointy-haired bosses” putting more and more money into a project that everyone already knows is doomed to failure, and will bring no profit at all, just because “well, if we pull back now, it will mean that whatever was already spent is lost”? Which is, if you think about it for 5 seconds, a fallacy – what was spent is already lost, the choice is between losing even more, or not.
If it wasn’t for the fact that the main goal of the war — and, in that, it’s been an absolute success — was always to make it so that criticizing the president in any way is “unpatriotic”, I’d think that the only reason that the U.S. is still there is due to the above – better to bury more money (and, in this case, human lives) than to admit a mistake.
Peter David has some nice comments on Bush’s speech as well, plus a newer post, where he writes:
The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
We’ve been sending troops into Iraq. The result? Civil War, fighting, and young people dying.
Bush’s solution? Send troops into Iraq.
Different result?
No reason to believe so.
Someone should do a dictionary entry for “Insanity” with Bush’s picture next to it.
Here in Portugal it’s 2 PM right now, and in a couple of hours I’ll go and spend Christmas with my family. Before I do that, however, I want to wish you all a merry whatever-holiday-if-any-you-celebrate.
It may appear strange that an atheist like yours truly celebrates Christmas. However, not only is Christmas an originally pagan holiday (and much older than the supposed birth of Jesus), but, around here, it’s not really a religious holiday. We celebrate Christmas because of tradition, and as an excuse for the family to get together, possibly exchange gifts (though the increasing consumerism is certainly annoying), have a good time, and enjoy each other’s company… which, for some odd reason, is never done during the rest of the year. 
So, whatever you readers celebrate, enjoy yourselves. If you don’t celebrate anything… do you really need an excuse to enjoy yourselves anyway?
Portugal, due to its heavy Catholic tradition, is one of the few “modern” / Western countries where abortion, except in cases of rape, danger to the mother, or heavy deformation, is forbidden by law. Early next year, there will be a referendum about changing that law, which, hopefully, will mean that we will finally leave the Middle Ages around here.
To me, forbidding abortion reminds me of this Robert A. Heinlein quote:
Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
In other words, some people just want to be left alone and decide for themselves, while others feel the “need” to control others, to decide what others can and cannot do. Much like the sodomy-as-a-crime laws that still exist in some states of the U.S..
To put it simply: “You’re against abortion? Fine, then don’t have one.”
However, some people have argued that, in Objectivist / Libertarian terms, abortion is an “initiation of force”, a violation of the fetus’ rights.
The common answer is that a fetus doesn’t have rights, because it’s not a human being; it’s a potential human being. In other words, to say a fetus has rights, then we should say that every sperm has rights, much like in the Monty Python sketch.
What do you think?
In the state of Michigan, U.S.A, apparently a law forbidding the sale of “mature” (you know, what in a movie means PG, but in a game means M or even AO) games to minors passed. Even though it’s unconstitutional.
But, surprisingly, the video games industry is fighting back. For a change. About time, IMO.
Pat Robertson now: “Wait a minute, I didn’t say ‘assassination’. I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things, including kidnapping.”
Riiiight…
Pat Robertson a couple of days ago: “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”
Tough luck, Pat. Video recording is a wonderful thing.
Maybe you have heard about it.
Pat Robertson, an American ultra-conservative “Christian” televangelist, has just said, in a broadcast, that the U.S. should assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.”, the idiot said. Why? Well, according to him, Chávez is “going to make (Venezuela) a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.”.
Now, I’m not a Christian, but what confuses me is how anyone can believe that such a monster is one. I mean, this is not the age of the Inquisition, Crusades and so on, right? Christians today are supposed to have remembered the Thou shalt not kill Commandment, apparently forgotten in the Middle Ages. How can any Christian not instantly condemn that imbecile when he says “oh, let’s go kill that guy – he annoys us, and it’s cheaper than going to war again”? How can he still have listeners?
Remember that he’s the same guy who said feminism is a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
He’s also the same guy who agreed with another nutcase televangelist that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of “pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and the People for the American Way.”
And yet I’m sure that little, if anything, will happen to him, or to his very successful (!) TV program.
Technorati tags: Pat Robertson
Subscribe to this blog
