You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘How Religion Poisons Everything’ tag.
The vast amount of shit the forced brith advocates spew into the interwebs lends new meaning to the word grotesque. Our anti-choice friends have been faffing on long and hard about Dr. Kermit Gosnell conveniently forgetting about Savita Halappanavar’s terminal experience with their fetid dogma .
Let me spell it out, you antediluvian, dim-witted, anti-choice bastion of fuckwitttery.
Cases like Dr.Gosnell’s are exactly what happens when you limit women’s access to abortion. His practice was under-regulated and in clear violation of any sort of reasonable set of medical expectations. We need less of what Dr.Gosnell did, not more. Yet, you cro-magnon bible thumping gits harass and scare away ethical doctors and practices – you know places where women can get safe medical care – and leave them with the back ally option offered by Dr.Gosnell. This case is squarely on your heads my forced-birth friends, now and forever as your insipid campaign against women and their autonomy creaks along.
We now get a closer look at the hollow arguments you put forth in your crusade against women with a helpful deconstruction to show exactly how wrong you are.
If a choice of any kind supersedes a right to life, then the choice is not only wrong but unthinkable. (Oh completely, because being forced to give birth is fucking freedom loving fun.) In 1973, a handful of people dressed in black robes (A.K.A The Supreme Court – You know, one of the bastions of a free secular society that is holding the religious theocracy your are pining for at bay.) told the United States that life will not impede law.
(ed. Adding paragraph break to mitigate the crazy.)
While it is broadly known that abortion has been happening since ancient times, it was not blatantly lauded as a personal right to save your own life from the burden of being a mother or father (Yes, because you know what is best for each and every woman in the world, the view must be positively rosy from your religious high-horse.). Abortion was not an assumed option for married couples, but it was and continues to be for adulterers and those who are sexual active before marriage (Your constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion – follow your founding documents Theocrat and stop forcing your dogmatic shite down peoples throats). If you are prepared to have sex either before or outside of marriage, then be prepared for parenthood. (Yes, because all sex should be only for procreation…*facepalm forever*.) Sacrificing a child’s life for your own is the highest form of narcissism (Oh completely,because women need to be forced to give birth, mandatory pregnancy will only make family life and child-rearing easier. Why? Because god said so…)
But I love these idiot articles (I do as well, it makes showing how full of fecal matter Forced Birth Advocates are) ; it makes me thankful that I know THE God (Embracing mythology and fairy-tales to prove how right you are is prima-facie example of intellectual-assholery.) that knows the right answers (*ring-ring* It’s unsupported claims office, they want their statement back), that gives LIFE and loves us spite of us.
I’m smart enough(?) to know I don’t speak for God – He speaks for Himself while the prochoice rhetoric tries to speak for everyone despite our right to say no, which we have. (So, the god that happens to share your exact opinions is the only one allowed to speak, convenient that.) The only person that speaks for me is God (If you are hearing voices, you should consult a psychiatrist.) not some flippy idiot dressed in a ‘lady parts’ costume or a death-defying God hater (Kinda sounds like a superhero persona – The Masked Death Defying God Hater; it may have some mileage to it :).)
“He said MYTH, 1: Laws against abortion have always been based on concern about unborn life.”
The unborn have always been forefront in every illustration, every example and every instance of the Prolife Movement. The statement that abortion was not about the unborn is just plain ASININE: If it weren’t for the unborn victims and dead or injured women, there would not be an argument: MYTH EXPOSED.
The utter lack of reading comprehension on display is amazing. This is what the article said: (editorial note: I quote here from the original article being thoughtlessly dissected by the idjit of the day)
“Abortion was generally legal in the United States until the mid-19th century. At that time, physicians eager to professionalize obstetrics pressed state legislatures to outlaw midwifery and abortion while granting doctors sole authority over pregnancy and childbearing. State anti-abortion statutes were primarily justified on the grounds that women needed to be saved from uneducated folk practitioners, infections, future infertility and other physical risks.
In the courtroom, prosecutors rarely discussed the unborn, instead accusing abortion providers of preventing women from fulfilling their destiny: motherhood. When early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion, they argued that the disconnect between sexual intercourse and maternity endangered women’s chastity — at the time considered their main basis for moral standing and personal dignity.”
So arguing against the veracity of the provided historical context is one thing, but coming up with a statement like this is nothing more than mere confabulating: “The statement that abortion was not about the unborn is just plain ASININE”. I hate to break it to you, but there is only one asinine person in the room cupcake, and it happens to be you.
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.
You would think that god would have a fairly good grasp of equality, being final arbitrator and high mucky-muck an all that bally-ho. Apparently not, as it would seem that none of the major religious texts seem to think that men and women are (or should be) equal, and in fact, most advocate for women being in a subordinate position relative to men.
So the real question is that, if you happen to be female, why do you subscribe to a mindset that explicitly marks you as inferior class of people. People spend a lot of time trying to mask the fact that religion is a stinky shit sandwich. Certainly apologists can bleat about *interpretations* and what the words *actually* mean…
But really, no matter how much mayo you add, you’re still left with the steamy religious-turd-surprise of a shit sandwich that is undeniably, corrosively, wholeheartedly misogynistic to its very core.
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. :)
How can you be moral with god? The real question should be, how can you be moral with god.
It is funny how often this claim comes up when engaging with the godbaggy crowd. You would think, seeing the historical record of authoritarian rule, that blindly following the dictates would not be a celebrated accomplishment. Potholer54 takes a hard look at this claim and provides a solid factual argument against the idea that because atheists have no ooga-booga to prostrate ourselves to, we are immoral.
In this space we often decry religion for what it is: toxically delusional buffoonery that still has the gall to raise its putrid head in the light of the 21st century. Here at DWR we regularly delve into the myriad of topics relating to how religion poisons everything it touches and the shite secular rational people have to clean up once the clown-cars rev up and zoom away.
Religion supports patriarchy and thus by definition is anti-woman, the religious right does not want women to have bodily autonomy – the sooner they own that and hopefully reject that retrograde dark-middle-aged bullshite the more relevant to people that think they will become. Religion promotes hatred, sectarian and otherwise with magical beliefs that just happen to support bigotry and racism.
Racism, bigotry, misogyny and, oh hey, lets not forget anti-science and anti-intellectualism because using your faculties to explore the world around you is a sin of the highest order. If you’ve been following the Sunday Disservice, you know that all of the above and more is what we rally against in our fight for a society that uses a evidence based decision making model, not one based on unreliable, crusty mythological scriptures written for a different time and a different people.
We now get a snap shot of what the people in power could be like if religion would just sit the frak down and let rational progressive society do the work necessary to carry us to the next century. I realize this is a repost, but damn if I couldn’t watch this 20 more times and hope for time when it could actually happen.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…