You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Religion’ category.
We believe in spending your money on departments whose focus is the encouragement of illusion over reality. That is all.
Where to begin with such a malodorous concept? Starting with irony is always good, so… for instance how about the blinding irony of the Conservatives dedication to ‘austerity and smaller government’? How this equates with creating nebulous departments with equally nebulous goals defies rational comprehension.
“It was a Conservative campaign promise meant to promote religious freedom worldwide.
The promise, the Tories said, was to give a Canadian foreign policy focus to oppressed religious minorities in places such as Egypt, Pakistan, China and Iran.”
Well, it sorta sounds good, but how does this mission statement jive with the rest of Canada’s foreign policy?
“Last month, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird called freedom of religion a linchpin of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedom and Bill of Rights. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also touted the new office, hoping Canada would step forward as a major champion of international religious rights.
At an hour-long interfaith meeting in Toronto on Wednesday, participants Abdul Hai Patel, of the Canadian Council of Imams, and Rev. Bhante Saranpala, of the West-End Buddhist Cultural Centre, said Baird noted the “office doesn’t have any teeth.”
But Baird spokesperson Joseph Lavoie said the minister was referring to the office’s legislative influence around the world.
“At the end of the day, we can’t force another government to do anything,” Baird said in a later interview.”
Oh, so we are going to set up a government bureaucracy to send guilt-inducing notes to other countries tell them about how to run their countries, fantastic. Of course, the amazing rate of failure will be promptly ignored by the Conservative powers that be because as always, ideological concerns always trump science and empirical evidence.
“the new entity — which will cost $5 million, employ five and, Lavoie said, launch in early 2012 — has rankled a number of Canadian religious organizations, human rights groups and academics, who remain unsure of what it hopes to achieve and whose interests it will serve”
Well, with no tangible goals, its impossible to get a bad evaluation. Win!!
““It could be argued that a secular government is well-positioned to (promote religious freedom abroad) because it doesn’t have a vested interested in any particular community,” said Tamas, who attended the October consultation. Baha’is face persecution in a number of Muslim countries, including Iran.”
Just out of the goodness of our hearts. Wowzers! It certainly couldn’t be a sweetheart nod to the deluded Conservative base here in Canada, nope nope nope no irrelevant agency adding mindless persiflage to our foreign policy. The ORF will make a difference.
“MacDonald points to Harper’s trip to China next month. While Harper has criticized China’s commitment to human rights in the past, the country remains one of Canada’s largest trading partners, with $13.2 billion in exports and $44.5 billion in imports in 2010.
MacDonald said it is “absolutely inconceivable” that the Tories will speak out against China’s well-documented persecution of Christians and the Falun Gong. In October, Baird voiced support for China’s Christians and Falun Gong, as well as its oppressed Tibetans and Uyghurs”.
Err…
Why do atheists hate so much? Is it some sort of unnatural compulsion to blasphemy and make the religious feel uncomfortable? Well, not really. The message from this part of the atheist community is clear: believing in the supernatural is not rational and basing decisions that affect people and institutions on mythology is credulous behaviour at best. This cartoon has been making the rounds in various atheist hotspots( I found it on Good Reason) on the net, and I reproduce it here for you today for the Sunday Disservice. The cartoon is a concise summary of why many atheists sound and act the way they do.
Yes, we do mock religion here. Necessarily so.
Today on the Disservice we look at the burning question (heh) of knowing if your magical sky fairy is indeed the correct sky fairy to be spending your time worshipping. I can think of a few possible responses from the deluded that always crop up when asked this question.
1. The magic book says so.
2. I know in my heart it true.
3. How dare you even ask such a thing, did you want to burn forever for such blasphemy?
Argument 1 – “My magic book says so” is fairly easy to dismantle because the reasoning involved is circular.
Believer – The bible is infallible.
Skeptic – Errr..okay why?
Believer – Oh easy, because it says so in the bible.
Skeptic – *brain lights on fire….melts*
Arguing circularly does not advance your case on iota. The idea we can trust the ramblings of mostly semi-literate shepherds from some 2000 years ago *should* raise some very pointed, very large, very red, red, red flags. Red flags aside, every other religion can make similar claims about their magic book, so why is yours the one true special snowflake of the pack? There are zillions of other reasons, but I’m just mentioning a few for now as we trundle on to the next point.
Argument #2 – “x” is true because I know it in my heart.”
*kerchuk* That was the sound of your rational mind being shat out the airlock. Claims of veracity and truth require a corresponding amount of evidence to balance the nature of the claim. The more grandiose the claim, the more evidence that is required to back it up. You can claim in your heart all day your goldfish gives you hot tips for the stockmarket; but until you can get little Bucky to talk to someone else, your claim to the truth is worthless. The same reasoning applies to religion – Jebus talks to you at night? Okay prove it. He died and was resurrected? – Okay, prove it. Buring bushes give advice and condemnation…errr… Okay pro.. You get the idea. There is little to religious claims that are not open to skeptical inquiry.
Argument #3 – “How dare you offend me and my religion?”
This is a verbal dodge rather than any any sort of reasonable argument. The religious hope to cash in on some of the social taboos about religion, the notion that we cannot criticize and mock religion is still strong in many parts of the world. Bad news for people who don’t believe in magic. Fortunately, the internet provides a forum where many people have the freedom to voice their thoughts without religious censorship. It is through free marketplaces of ideas such as the internet that the folly of religious belief can be brought to light and properly mocked.
Mocking and deriding religion is a purposeful and necessary job of free thinkers everywhere. Of course we can argue with the believers, but the dyed in the wool faithful have long ago given up their access to their critical faculties, so arguing only works to point. Humour, comedic criticism, satire are all fronts that need to be pushed because religion is so strongly ingrained in our consciousness. Religion belief needs to be mocked to the point where indeed it can be a “personal choice” and not talked about, as opposed to the social dynamo that it currently is today.
I have no problem with religion, but it seems like religion will always have a problem with me as true believers attempt to frame and remake the society around me into their nightmare reality based on the ‘teachings fom the Good Book’. When religion starts poking its purulent head into matters of state and secular democracy and demanding people respect its bronze age wisdom, it is then I have a problem.
I know where I would lay in the above graph. Yet I continue, and hope others find the courage and conviction to follow in my footsteps.
Being intimidated by the religious thugs threatening violence seems to be a growing fad. This needs to stop. I mirror this video that was taken down by youtube for a terms of use violation – (being offensive to the deluded). Here it is again on the blog.
You and your dogma can go away, the sooner, the better.
You would think that for one week, just one week, I could skip the DWR Sunday Disservice. I’d be happy to say, “Oh hey, the religious have not done anything horribly immoral or unethical,this is a good week.”
Not gonna frakin’ happen.
This amazingly batshite nutbuttery slice of insipid religion retardation hails from the not so great state of Tennessee. The dubiously named Family Action Council is pushing for legislation that would allow students to criticize (read bully) homosexuals in school without sanction. The story is dated, but first time I’ve seen it and of course, it pisses me off that christians try and pull stupid shite like this.
The bill has not yet passed, and hopefully someone who is sane will stop this ugly freight train of hate before it gathers any more momentum.
Sean makes some great points, let me reiterate them. Why are parents allowed to watch their child die because they believe in magic? Christian Science and faith healing are utter bullshite and yet they continue to torture children, often to death, because of their mysticism. The Christian Right then gets a seismic stiffy over universal healthcare and the fatuous notion of death panels, while they say NOTHING about those who choose to let their children die from treatable ailments. Where is the outcry from the religious pro-lifers? Oh well it doesn’t involve stripping away female bodily autonomy and it is murder in a religiously approved away so it must not count.
Frak Off.
The hypocrisy of the religious right is appalling. They should never be regarded as a source of moral guidance on any issue, ever.
Even Jebus thinks you are bug-frak crazy.
Christianity is the religion that keeps on giving. By “giving” I mean keeps on festering. Christianity exudes an oozing rancid pus that encrapulates and taints those exposed to its toxic effects. Dogmatic religious beliefs, like those espoused by Christian Patriarchy, are the putrefying ichor that rots modern secular society.
Pleasantries aside, this is probably one of the worst things you will read all day. I’m going to re-post a article from No Longer Quivering about Matt, a young patriarch in training, and his thoughts on the role of women in a traditional christian family. Trigger warnings for domestic violence, misogyny and homophobia are mandated for such piece.
The Red Pen O’ Snarky-Justice is raising an uproar that cannot be quelled, and thus, my commentary shall appear in red italics lightly treading on the wide trail of fail Matt leaves behind him.
“It’s possible that Matt is a troll and his comments should be ignored or deleted – but his arguments are not at all unlike the “biblical” beliefs which I heard taught/preached regularly during my Quiverfull days. I am assuming Matt is a young man based on his immaturity and know-it-all attitude – of course, given that patriarchs rarely grow up, it’s possible that he is an old man – maybe he’s the pastor of an IFB church.
So, without further ado – here’s Matt:
“I take it from your post that you are dead set on fornicating, although the Bible tells you not to do that.
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [and the bible, like all religious delusional nonsense, is full of shite]”
“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.[Ownership of one human being by another is a fracking aberration. Claiming that it is endorsed in holy scripture doubles down on the bullshite and vile misogyny omnipresent in the bible.]”
“This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.[translation: Smile while you take your abuse as the bible says its okay, hell, you should be thanking me for letting you fully enjoy your noble roles as incubator, house slave and fuck-toilet]”
You are mistaking voluntary submission with involuntary servitude. As a Christian lady you are commanded to be subject to your husband, it is asked of you to submit. It doesn’t say “men, oppress your woman to all costs!”[I command you to voluntarily submit – this like most christian apologia has a sickening circularity along with a dash of guilt – witness the next sentence]. As a Christian woman who claims to believe in the Word of God, which is inspired/breathed by God, your Creator, is it alright for you to dismiss what that Word says? [Because god is such a fair (ordering genocide) and noble (endorsing slavery) creature, we should trust this derranged lunatics words to the letter – you want to be a properly deluded christian right?]
Matt, if if smells like BS...
A woman surrenders to a man so easily when he takes charge [Being afraid of being beaten to death will do that]. That is the danger of having a matriarch with a man in subjection. The woman indeed is the weaker vessel, tossed to and fro, giving in to whims, and judges things according to her motherly instinct [**swoosh!!** Wow, did you hear that it was sound of women being dismissed as fully autonomous human beings possessing all the rights and freedoms men have, embrace being a second class ‘semi-person’ ; it can be fun because possessing as lady brain automatically makes you retarded] For instance, she would say sodomite couplings are lovely, because love is blind [Funny how woman = love = stupid]. A man who is not of God would say “I don’t care, to each their own”, but not mention love in the equation.
A man of God would not even let a sodomite in under his roof or in the vincinity of his children!![Except in church, because being buggered as an alter boy is a holy experience, praise the lard for that!] Let me tell you something, love is not blind![Wait, didn’t you just say it was like a sentence ago?] Even infatuation is not blind. But infatuation and love are two different things. Love is a choice. Hate is a choice [Word Salad is a Choice!]. I will hate the wicked and their deeds [some dude was saying something about turning the other cheek – ya know tolerance and stuff, but I digress, religious are fundamentally intolerant and Matt is doing just a spiffy-awesome job at being a douche-nozzle for jebus at the moment] Yes, hate.
Furthermore, sodomites hate God, and infiltrate churches to spit in God’s face [projection much?]. You might say, “sodomites love each other, so what’s wrong with that”? I love my siblings, does that mean I have sexual relations with them?![ah, the gentle conflation of incest with same sex relations *sigh*] I love men, as brothers. I love women, as sisters. But by God, there is only one person I take sexual pleasure in[mentioning the palm sisters in a godly rant, Matt really is all over the place on this one…]! Love is not sex. Learn it, woman.
So, if you’re a Christian woman, your God that you supposedly love, tells you to submit and be in subject to your husband in every thing[huh, god was a 
misogynist asshat too, colour me shocked]. Am I a jealous man? Every man of God should be jealous! Just as God is jealous, and wants us only to worship him[my goodness you are a special snowflake aren’t you cupcake, you get to be a jealous abuser because god says so, convenient].
And why am I jealous? Because the woman is the weaker vessel[citation needed, and ‘god says so’ is his magic book does not count], and evil men who have acknowledged this takes advantage, to defile you [because explicitly calling women inferior and infantilizing them isn’t defiling them at all].
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.[whoa shields up! Unfounded pontificating incoming!] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth [I’m going to assume that Douche-twaddle is referring to men that are not patriarchal misogynists who don’t actually want to enslave women].”
I’m telling you, there’s a lot of weak vessels, silly women, out there, who ungodly men lie in wait for. Am I controlling for keeping my woman away from these evil men? Then so be it. Yes, I am in control, but I love my woman enough to grant her freedom of thought and expression[as long as it completely agrees with my frakked up shite filled point of view; there fixed for ya]. She is as intelligent as I am, but still the weaker vessel, due to her willingness to surrender and submit to a man who takes charge [so she’s evil if she does not submit and then she is also evil because she does submit, this like the rest of your circular bullcookery is half-baked, nutty-rotten religious hatred of women].
Matt says pretty fracked-up-shite here and needs a photo to break the wall of text and add luminosity to Matt's solemn pronouncements.
Ask yourself, how many men adopt the interests and beliefs of their wives [just the ones that care about their partners thoughts and feelings and want to share as opposed to dominate their lives]? None. How many women adopts the interests and beliefs of their husbands? They are in abundance[because you beat the ones that don’t submit, you dastardly fuck]. It is clear that a woman submits to a man who rules her, even to the point of abuse, I’m sad to say[the christian Dark Ages are calling, they miss you]. Therefore a Christian man is told to love his woman as himself. What man would abuse himself[most patriarchs don’t; they save the beatings and abuse for their wife and children, duh?]? He may abuse drugs or alcohol but not himself.”
Wow. Deep-breath….*whew*. You’ll need a shower after immersing yourself in the rectum-orious musings of ass-spittle like Matt. Religion is an ugly piece of work and of course as mentioned around here from time to time, rotten to the core. The sheer amount of hate for women turns ones guts sour.
Christian patriarchy, like all fundamentalist wack-a-loon religious fappery, is fundamentally anti-woman, anti-child and anti-modern (anti-civilization, while we are at it) paternalistic bullshite. This branch of the christian death-cult ranks up there with the crazy Muslim sects that demand the burka and female genital mutilation from their woman-folk (cultural artifacts/religiously backed…your choice, it is still patently wrong).
How we let the religiously sponsored abuse of Women continue to exist in the so called civilized West is beyond me.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…