You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Religion’ category.
Misogyny, Bigotry and Priest Child-Rape Apologia – all in together in one package of Pope Awesome!
It would be a disservice to the Disservice if we did not comment on the high octane jack-assery that is going on in Catholic-land at the moment as they feverishly scrabble about looking for the best candidate to be their earthly link to the Almighty-Holy-Gibberish in the sky. I’m thinking they would have better luck with Alectryomancy.
Sadly, Canada has a candidate in the running for the title of His Pope-ness, by the name of Marc Ouellet. His grip on reality, like that of many of the religious, is tenuous at best (wanting to be the chosen emissary of the Sky-Daddy here on earth an all that. I secretly think that there is a holy (holey?) sock-puppet that has “god” embroidered on it that only the pope gets to wear and converse with.) Parenthetical ruminations aside, Mr.Ouellet when not fapping for jebus, has some quaintly retrograde points of view when it comes to social issues.
Shocking.
“Once touted as a possible candidate to become pope, Ouellet apparently had no intention of wading into a public policy debate when [he] called abortion a “moral crime” as serious as murder and said it is never justified — even in cases of rape.”
Ah, rapetastic pope gives those bitches what they deserve! No rights, no autonomy and incubator status straight-fucking-up. I am curious as to the calibre of mental gymnastics it takes to be female and to identify as Catholic when the head of your church makes raging misogyny plank #1 on his papal platform. It gets better, Ouellet digs deeper:
“Ouellet said he understands that a sexually assaulted woman has been traumatized and must be helped and that her attacker must be held accountable.
“But there is already a victim,” he said. “Must there be another one?”
Will someone PLEASE think of the children!!!! (While we insidiously erase women’s autonomy, tough darts for you bitchez!!)
Ouellet is also on the progressive cutting edge of other societal issues; same sex marriage and homosexuality come to mind:
“His Eminence raised concern over the positive presentation of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” in schools. With such questionable education, the Cardinal said, “You are deforming conscience. You are warping the processes of psycho-sexual and psycho-social identification processes of youth.”
Fags and dykes! Back into the closet for you! We’ll see you burning in the lake of fire soon enough, but for now, be away with your sinful practices your presence cannot be tolerated within a properly religious society (and by “properly religious society” I actually mean, fucked-up dystopian hell.)! It is sad to see this sort of bigotry paraded out in the open. The following quote is not what Ouellet has said, but I’m pretty sure he supports it:
“Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, said that, “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development.” (No. 7).Homosexual indoctrination is just another form of child abuse.”
To see a nasty slice of the Dark Ages apparently one just needs to dial Ouellet’s Papal Way-Back-Machine, for a heady whiff of the good ‘ole days when the church was leading society straight into the muck. With such progressive views, how can this dude NOT be pope?
Oh and of course, no Catholic article would be complete without commentary on the officially denied by tacitly condoned child-rape-cabal a.k.a the catholic priesthood. Severely enlightened Ouellet in dulcet tones denotes:
“He also said child abuse is not specifically a Roman Catholic issue but that the church has garnered more attention.
“It is not a Catholic problem; it is a human problem. Most of the abuse occurred in families in very general in society, and my hope is what was done by the Catholic Church, which is not yet perfect, but could be also of example for others in society,” he said.
Last month, SNAP, (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) singled out three papal candidates who, either by their comments or their deeds, had tried to brush off allegations of abuse by members of the clergy.”
Oh, it is just a human problem! Okay then. Carry on! (*headesk forever*)
Canada still has a freely flowing super-abundance of toxic religious stupidity; enough (shamefully) that we can *share* with rest of the world. And thus to the world, my heartfelt apologies.
Today’s disservice is a little rough on the language side, so consider yourself warned, as DarkMatter2525 explores the lovely RAA of who created god.
Stop behaving as if you have feelings, because religion!
Considering the amount of revenue generated on Valentine’s Day (I’m looking at you 9.99 roses that mysteriously appreciate to 29.99) it can be safely said that Valentine’s Day will never be banned in North America. However, in societies that still give the religious the time of day, Valentine’s Day is in trouble. That little bastard Cupid promotes lustful, shameful, immodest-ful behaviour and represents the totality of all the six hundred and sixty six layers of hell.
“LONDON — While much of the world celebrates Valentine’s Day on Thursday, Pakistan’s religious political parties are exhorting the country’s youth to celebrate a “day of modesty” instead.”
You can always count on the religious parties to hoist themselves up by their own flaming petards of assholery. What is next? Banning cinnamon hearts for being tools of the devil (who knew?)? Expressing love and affection is obviously evil evil evil and must be stopped at all costs.
“On Tuesday, the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, a major religious party, condemned Valentine’s Day in Peshawar for encouraging “immodesty” and threatened to shut down any celebrations if law enforcement agencies failed to take action first.”
Tell me again about how we need to have more respect for religious freedom and ideas.
“The growing outrage against Valentine’s Day, which has been observed in recent years by young couples in Pakistan’s major cities, is the latest sign of the culture clash underway in Pakistan. Condemnation of the day has not been restricted to Peshawar, a conservative city in the northwest. A group of female students at the University of Karachi, Pakistan’s largest public university, called on their peers to mark the day by wearing the hijab. Anti-Valentine’s Day billboards also sprang up this week in the city’s affluent, Westernized neighborhoods.”
Woo! Let’s embrace dehumanizing garments to show how awesomely modest and “god approved” we are. See also how god thinks our testimony is worth about half of a man’s. I’m pretty sure that by embracing the hijab and other allah-approved rituals is the same as pressing the “I win” button for women because further investing in the system of your oppression is totally-awesomely-effective!
“On Wednesday, the government joined the call: Media companies across the country received notices from the media regulatory authority warning them not to broadcast programs promoting Valentine’s Day — which, according to the letter, is “not in conformity to our religious and cultural ethos” and is “perceived as a source of depraving, corrupting and injuring morality of Pakistani youth.” The last-minute timing of the notice, and its claim that it was responding to the complaints of a “large segment of society,” reeked of an official attempt to play it safe ahead the general election, which is expected to take place in May.”
Because traditional practices like oh say, honour killings, acid attacks and gang-rape are in conformity with religious and cultural ethos. Your noble treatment of people in accordance with cultural and religious “ethos” is nothing to proud of and ejecting these cancerous notions should be fracking priority Number One.
“In November, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority ordered mobile phone service providers to discontinue cheap, late-night calling rates, arguing that these special packages promoted “vulgarity” and went against “social norms” by enabling teenagers to spend hours on the phone with their boyfriends and girlfriends.”
People talking? To Each Other? Outrageous! Dear North American Religious Nutters: this is what your family values/religious society looks like in action (the only sane reaction to people wanting to be more religiously orientated looks something like this). You are worried about a loss of rights and religious freedom now? Let’s elect more idjit theocrats and see how much of our freedom we can sacrifice to make your imaginary friends happy.
“But in trying to clamp down on young love, Pakistan’s conservatives are fighting a losing battle. Having earned the legal right in 2003 to marry without their guardians’ consent, Pakistani women are increasingly risking everything — even their lives — to marry men of their choosing, not their family’s. The ability to mingle via Facebook or in online chat rooms is also leading to soaring numbers of “Internet marriages” between Pakistani youths.”
At least in this Disservice there is a happy ending. :)
NonStampCollector enlightens us with the special case of slavery in the bible. Feel the moral goodness flow.
A great place to start if you need encouragement to stop drinking the religious Kool-aid. From the video description –
Whether you’re a believer or non-believer, when confronting bible slavery, don’t let anyone throw up this ridiculous smokescreen that says that the slavery instituted in the old testament was so completely different to, say, pre-civil war US slavery. The usual tactic is to throw facts and rules about Israelite indentured servitude around, to throw you off the scent of a Yahweh-mandated form of slavery EVERY BIT as bad as anything we’ve seen in recent centuries. This line of argument is so prevalent that I’m confused as to whether its proponents actually believe it or not; but either way, this video is my attempt to inject a bit of reality into this very important area of discussion.
The god of the bible mandated oppressive life-long slavery of foreigners – pretty much a concise description of one of the worst forms of human rights abuses the world has ever had to grapple with. It’s as simple as that.
No, I don’t hate God for mandating slavery, and no I don’t believe that God is evil for mandating slavery. I don’t believe that THIS god, the absurd god of the bible, is even extant, let alone worthy of any adjectives beyond that! This god’s inhumane and ridiculously cruel commands say nothing about the god that they are ascribed to, simply because they are so obviously ascribed to a god by the men in whose image this god was made.
Deal with it folks; your god is the brainchild of some particularly awful humans. The bible simply and clearly gets this very easy human rights question utterly wrong.
Abandon it, and keep looking for answers. You’ll be ever so glad you did.
I’d like to make the Disservice your point of contact for identifying and mercilessly mocking all of the whigged-out religious tom-foolery that exists out there. The idea that a cloth has the power to cure cancer is ludicrous on its own. Worse, mated with crass commercialism that some churches have instituted, make the whole church based prayer – cloth industry morally repugnant on just about every level.
Profiting by selling false hope to dying people is just wrong. Just another shining example of what jebus can do for you…for a price. Yet another fine example of unethical behaviour on the part of some christian churches.
Well. I’m glad to see the Catlicks coming around on such an important issue to women and their rights. This is an object lesson for the deluded pro-life movement. Your fetus worshipping is useful for whipping up the frenzy and getting people all frothy, but when serious issues come, its time for you to sit the frack down and shut the frack up on cue while the adults talk about the serious issues.
From the Alter.net article –
[…]
And all of this—all of it—goes back to the Church’s insistence that life begins with your very first hell-worthy dirty thought and must be protected at all costs, despite all consequences, including, of course, the consequence of dead women, whose lives are not nearly as valuable as the “life” of an unborn fetus. In just the past year, the Church has called upon its faithful followers to march, to starve themselves, to go to jail, to even take up arms—all to protect those fetuses. No exceptions. None. Not if the fetus is already dead inside the womb. Not if the fetus is going to kill the actual living woman carrying it. No goddamned exceptions EVER.
Well, except for one: when it’s going to cost the Church money.
Turns out, when a man sues a Catholic hospital for malpractice because his wife and the twins she was carrying inside her died when she turned up in the emergency room and her doctor never bothered to answer a page—well, things get a little tricky. Yes, the Catholic hospital adheres to the strict Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church, as set forth by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. And yes, those directives include the claim that “[t]he Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn” and a mandate to uphold “the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death.'” But come on. That obviously does not apply when Catholic Health Initiatives, the Church-affiliated organization that runs the Church-affiliated St. Thomas More Hospital where a young woman and her two unborn fetuses died, is the lead defendant in a lawsuit:
Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.
As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”
Thank you, counselor, for totally undermining everything the Catholic Church has ever said about women and health care and fetuses and the “sanctity of life,” just to save a buck, thereby confirming how very empty and meaningless all that rhetoric really is. Praise the Lord.
Enjoy this by the numbers take down of religious tomfoolery. The Thinking Atheist’s video is a wonderful reference for everyone who has to deal whatever happens to be the religious lie of the day. Failing that, one could just dig the groovy ’70’s vibe going on throughout the video.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…