Tag Archive for 'fanaticism'

I don’t like Microsoft…

… so when do I take their side? Why, when they’re attacked by homophobic fundamentalist Christians, of course! :)

You can’t make stuff like this up (any emphasis is mine):

A black conservative Christian pastor of an evangelical megachurch has vowed to take over Microsoft by packing it with new shareholders who will vote against the company’s policy of championing gay rights.

He told Microsoft executives at a shareholders’ meeting last week that he would be their “worst nightmare” if they continued to defy him.

Antioch Bible Church attracts around 3,500 worshippers for its services and Mr Hutcherson is a powerful figure in the Christian conservative movement.

And…

An advocate of a “biblical stance” against divorce and homosexuality, Mr Hutcherson, 55, is asking millions of evangelical activists, as well as Orthodox Jewish and other allies, to buy up Microsoft shares and demand a return to traditional values.

Microsoft, he declares, will be just the first company targeted in an escalation of the culture wars between evangelicals and corporate America.

“There are 256 Fortune 500 companies alone pouring millions upon millions of dollars into pushing the homosexual agenda,” he told The Daily Telegraph.

“I consider myself a warrior for Christ. Microsoft don’t scare me. I got God with me.

Not to mention, of course…

“I told them that you need to work with me or we will put a firestorm on you like you have never seen in you life because I am your worst nightmare. I am a black man with a righteous cause with a whole host of powerful white people behind me.”

Mr Hutcherson’s office is decorated with the heads of deer, elk and a buffalo – “when I run into animals, I kill them and bring them home and eat them” – as well as invitations to the White House and signed pictures of himself with President George W. Bush.

It boggles the mind. Any sane mind, that is. I’m sure there are those out there to whom this is perfectly normal…

Moderates and Extremists

While this post hasn’t got any replies so far (mainly, I believe, because the image has already been posted by other members of Planet Atheism, so it’s probably not new to readers of this blog), its equivalent on my technology blog did draw a few ones, which inspired me to write this (right here, because it’s really not appropriate for the other blog).

Consider the three Abrahamic religions. What do they have in common?

First, they tell you how the universe / world began, using a story that was clearly the best thing that some primitive desert nomads or shepherds could come up with. Most “sophisticated” believers, these days, don’t take those stories literally, and accept evolution, an old earth, heliocentrism, a huge universe, a round earth, and so on. Only American fundies and Muslims seem to take those stories literally, no matter the opposing evidence; they probably believe their god put that evidence there as “a test of their faith”.

Then, the religions give believers some rules:

1- the first kind are rules that, while not terribly original, are, in general, a good idea. Don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill someone just because you feel like it, and so on.

2- then come the laws that can be annoying to follow, but it’s not the end of the world. Don’t eat that type of food, don’t wear this, wear that, do this on that day of the year, and so on. As I said, these can be annoying (for instance, what if you’re forbidden to eat your favorite food?), but most believers can live with them and obey them.

3- finally, there are the “harder” rules. Kill people who do this. Kill people who do that. Stone to death those who don’t do this. Or those who do that on a particular day of the week. Fight tooth and nail against the “enemies of God / the faith”. In fact, giving your life for that is the greatest thing you can do, and with the greatest reward.

Now, it should be obvious that a “moderate”, as usually described, is someone who follows just 1 and 2, while an “extremist” follows 3 as well.

But… how can the latter be called an “extremist”? Doesn’t the term imply that he is distorting his religion, or using it as an excuse for something unrelated, or adding something to it? To me, it does. But that’s not the case at all…

… it’s the moderates who are distorting religion, by removing things from it! Either because they don’t want to end up in prison or dead, or because their morality has evolved beyond those of the holy books’ writers, and so they recognize the immorality of those parts of their religion, but are nonetheless incapable of applying that judgment to the rest.

Are Bin Laden, or the 9/11 hijackers, or American abortion clinic bombers, “extremists”? Not at all, in my opinion — unless you call call a man who pays his taxes in full “an extremist taxpayer”. They’re simply not ignoring the unpleasant parts of their faith. They’re the only devout believers out there.

Which really paints a nice picture of their religions…

9/11 again

This year, I’ll be brief:

Imagine No Religion

(With thanks to Non Credo Deus)

"If you honor Rushdie, we’ll honor Osama!"

From this news article:

Meanwhile a group of hardline Pakistani Muslim clerics bestowed a religious title on Osama bin Laden as a tit-for-tat revenge for the slight. The Pakistan Ulema Council has given bin Laden the title “Saifullah”, or sword of Allah.

“If a blasphemer can be given the title ‘Sir’ by the West despite the fact he’s hurt the feelings of Muslims, then a mujahid who has been fighting for Islam against the Russians, Americans and British must be given the lofty title of Islam, Saifullah,” Tahir Ashrafi, the council’s chairman, was quoted by a foreign news agency, as saying.

Riiight. Comparing a writer and the “crime” of “blasphemy” (or “hurt feelings”) to a terrorist mass murderer responsible for the deaths of thousands1. Great going, guys. Very mature of you. Wonderful sense of perspective.

  1. not to mention Bush’s re-election, itself responsible for thousands more, both in Iraq and as a result of the lack of stem cell research []

If you offend the kind, sensitive suicide bombers, YOU’RE the monster!

Isn’t this absolutely disgusting?

From the article:

‘If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet, then it is justified,’ Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq told the national assembly.

and:

‘If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?’ he said.

and, of course:

Dozens of students from hardline Islamic schools in the central Pakistani city of Multan chanted ‘Death to Rushdie, death to Britain’ and set a British flag on fire, witnesses said.

EDIT: PZ Myers comments on this as well.

Kent Hovind: Muy Loco en la Cabeza

Kent Hovind’s “email exchange” with God. You’ve got to see it to believe it.

Excerpt:

KH: Do you have time for a few questions, today, Lord?

GOD: Son, time has no effect on me. I created it. I am always here to help you and guide you in any area of your life. Go ahead with your questions, son.

KH: These last seven months in prison have been rather difficult for me, Lord. In fact, in the last month, I’ve been in five different facilities.

GOD: I know, son. I’ve been with you the entire time (Hebrews 13:5).

KH: Thanks, Lord. I felt your presence many times. But there were other times that I was very sad and lonely.

GOD: I know, son. I saw your tears. I was there, but you were too busy acting like Jonah. You were more concerned about your own problems than the future of those men around you. You need to work on that.

KH: I’m sorry, Lord. You are right.

GOD: I am always right. Go ahead with your questions.

KH: Well God, yesterday was especially hard. I couldn’t sleep the night before because I expected them to call me at 3:30 a.m. to pack up for the bus ride up here to South Carolina.

GOD: I know, son. I was right there with you. I heard your prayers throughout that long night. We had sweet fellowship, didn’t we? Thank you for loving me and talking with me.

KH: Thanks for being there and for listening, Lord.

GOD: I’m always there and always listening, son.

KH: Lord, I asked you to let me sleep, because I knew the next day would be hard and I would need my strength. Why didn’t you let me sleep, Lord?

GOD: I did, son. You slept great from 3:00 - 4:45 a.m. Who do you think it was that made the guard forget to call you at 3:30? Didn’t you wake up refreshed at 4:45 and even comment on how hard you slept and how good you felt?

KH: Yes, Lord, now that you remind me, I did sleep real hard and woke up feeling great.

Seen on Pharyngula.

Falwell’s death, and "respect for the dead"

(Warning: this post is a little more emotional than the norm here.)

Most atheist blogs, plus Christopher Hitchens on TV, have, naturally, denounced Falwell as the hateful bigot he was, instead of “a great man”, like most religious right conservatives keep parroting. The backlash from the latter has been seen, too: whether on TV against Hitchens (again), or in comments on atheist blogs, many people keep saying things like: “you might have disagreed with the man, but he’s just DIED, dammit. How can you be happy about it, you heartless monster? No matter what he did, his family and friends surely miss him. You atheists are really unfeeling, cruel monsters, speaking ill of a decent man, simply because you disagreed with him.”

It’s the old “dying turns people into saints” thing.

Let me see if I can make you at least begin to understand.

Now, I’m not saying Falwell was a child molester, but imagine — just pretend — that it was actually a well-known child molester1 who’d just died.

Would you, perchance, be saying things like:

- “yes, he did some bad things, but his death is still a loss to the world.”

- “you’ve got to consider the feelings of his family and friends first.”

- “he might have been wrong about a couple of things, but the main thing is that he was always true to his convictions, to the end.”

- “if you speak ill of him — even if you were one of his victims — you are still a heartless, hateful monster. The man’s died, dammit!”

Now… would you say such a thing about a child molester? Just because he died? Would he turn into a good, decent man, just because he is no more, he’s ceased to be, he’s expired and gone to meet his maker, he is a late child molester2, and all that?

The answer is probably no.

Now, what if, in addition to being a child molester, he had also been a reverend? Would you think differently of him?

If so, sorry to say, you’re both naïve, and a hypocrite, because you let anyone fool you, no matter his actions, just because he says “God” and “Jesus” often. Which, actually, is what many Americans do, sadly.

Now, as I said, Falwell wasn’t a child molester. But he did what he could, he did everything in his power — and succeeded, in many ways — to make life a living hell for many, many more innocent people than any child molester could ever victimize in his entire natural life. Falwell was a bigot. An agent of hate, of intolerance, of sexism, racism3, homophobia and fundamentalism. He spent his more than 70 years trying to make the world a worse place, trying to make life worse for a great number of people. It was not enough for him to hate them because of his bigotry; no, he had to convince half of America that the imaginary God they believe in also hated those people.

Is that forgivable? Or forgettable? Just because he died? Does death really turn a hateful monster into a saint, or at least a “harmless”, “worthy of respect” human being?

I don’t think so. People shouldn’t forget or forgive what this disgusting little man did, because there are others waiting in line to take his place this very moment. The battle against fundamentalism and intolerance is far from over… and far from won.

  1. avoided Godwin’s Law! Yes! :) []
  2. couldn’t resist a Monty Python reference here. Sorry. :) []
  3. yes, that too. He opposed the civil rights movement at the time, though he tried to hide that fact much later. []

Why does this remind me of Jerry Falwell?

You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

– Anne Lamott

Heliocentrism = Atheism / Anti-American? Gee…

Like several other bloggers, I wonder if this post on Blogs 4 Brownback, Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine, is a joke. On one hand, it is quite well written in terms of language, and of course the premise is ridiculous, which suggests that this is a new Shelley the Republican. It can also serve as a exaggerated parody of anti-evolution propaganda: a total disregard for facts and reality, because the Bible says differently.

On the other hand, the fact that it’s on a quasi-official blog for a presidential candidate makes it appear serious. Frighteningly so.

If you think about it, however, then you’ll realize one thing: if that is for real, then the author is not doing anything other than being coherent with his own beliefs… because, according to the Bible, the earth really does not move. Why accept biblical infallibility for some things and nor for others? Why use the Bible as an argument against evolution (because many people don’t understand how it works, and don’t know that “theory”, in scientific terms, means something quite different than some wild fancy), but not heliocentrism or a round earth, which are accepted by virtually everyone these days? Where do you draw the line? And why draw one at all?

Either the Bible can be trusted, or not. I obviously think it can’t, but, to most Christians — especially fundamentalist ones –, it can. So why be selective? Would God ever lie? If it says that the earth is flat, then it must be… and, taken to the extreme, if a Christian was taken on a rocket ship and made to look at the earth from space, he’d deny the truth of what he was seeing as “an illusion from Satan”. Or “an illusion from God, to test our faith” (they actually say this one about fossils). Because, to quote Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Fundies. Who else can make us laugh and frighten us at the same time?

Jerry Falwell dies

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.




Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal