I do still drink copious amounts of coffee and swear a lot, but hey, nobody’s perfect.

I’ve met christians who have said they would kill, rape, steal and basically go on a rampage without god watching their every move. I’m very glad those amoral people are afraid of burning in hell because they have no moral compass like most of us do. Those few people who think they need god to be good need to stay religious. They have a screw loose.

Apparently research is finding that being moral is part of our evolution. Recently I’ve been hearing of studies that show morality in other animals. And awhile ago I read about E. Coli and how it sometimes sacrifices itself for the good of the colony. Basically, working within the framework of your given society is beneficial in fundamental ways, and that’s been with us and many other creatures for eons.

Still, religions think they have some kind of monopoly on morality. But if you actually read their “holy” books, you’ll find rampant murder, religious wars, rape, killing of women and children, wholesale slaughter of people who believed differently, and on and on. Recently I read the first part of God Hates You, Hate Him Back by CJ Werleman which goes through every book of the bible. I was reminded how much god hates everyone, even his chosen people, and how much he kills people and has his people kill people, children and animals. It’s heart-warming mind-numbing. That’s the main gist of the old testament. (the other main theme is how the chosen people aren’t worshiping god correctly, how they are worshiping other gods – wait, isn’t there just one? even god admits there are others! – and generally being bad followers and need to be punished. It’s very loving crazy-making to read it.)

The bible and other religious texts also say that morals are fixed and unchanging, but the easiest way to refute that is simply to look at slavery. The old and the new testament both promote slavery and tell people to be good slaves if that is their lot. Yet we learned some time ago that slavery is morally wrong and in all civilized places in the world it is rejected as unethical.

Also, look at how women are treated in the bible and the quran while in our modern, civilized society women are becoming fully equal in stature. We still need to keep working on it, but it would be so much easier if people would stop turning to a dusty old book from the Iron Age. In some parts of the world women are subjugated to status lower than dogs, but in every culture I can think of, religion plays a huge part of why that is still the case.

Another point to make is that people from all walks of life, with different religions or no religions at all, have the same basic set of morals. Of course there are differences for each culture, especially over time, but in most societies murder and stealing are wrong. If only one religion had the corner on morals, everyone else would be barbarians, would they not?

Of course, look at islam which condones rape, killing your own children even today, and many other reprehensible ethics. This is where religion is most definitely not on the high ground. As an atheist no prophet or god tells me I have to kill my daughter or son if they convert to another religion. No god or “holy” book tells me I have to hate my parents and my children if they don’t follow jesus either. Face it, religions are barbaric and amoral.

If you read the 10 commandments, the only really good ones are “don’t murder” and “don’t steal”. Most of the rest of them are self serving to the jewish/christian god. And those two moral concepts have been around since long before we were even human, and certainly in every culture.

I was listening to some old Point of Inquiry episodes and found a short three part series called Can You Be Good Without God? where Paul Kurtz explores:

• POI Jan 6, 2006: the  real origin of morality. (go to 30:06 in the podcast which you can get on iTunes through the link)
• POI Jan 13, 2006: defending godless morality. (starts at 37:05 in the podcast)
• POI Jan 20, 2006: the specific ethical ideals secular humanists cherish.(starts at 42:09)

Some studies that might interest you:

• Morality Research Sheds Light on the Origins of Religion: (Feb. 9, 2010) — The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion have not been clearly established and remain a source of much debate among scholars. Now, an article published by Cell Press in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences on February 8 brings a new understanding to this long-standing discussion by exploring the fascinating link between morality and religion.
  …Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments.
• Why Powerful People – Many of Whom Take a Moral High Ground – Don’t Practice What They Preach: (Dec. 30, 2009) — 2009 may well be remembered for its scandal-ridden headlines, from admissions of extramarital affairs by governors and senators, to corporate executives flying private jets while cutting employee benefits, and most recently, to a mysterious early morning car crash in Florida. The past year has been marked by a series of moral transgressions by powerful figures in political, business and celebrity circles. New research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University explores why powerful people – many of whom take a moral high ground – don’t practice what they preach.
• Why Saints Sin And Sinners Get Saintly: (June 28, 2009) — To many, New York Gov. Eliott Spitzer’s fall from grace seemed to make no sense at all. But a new Northwestern University study offers provocative insights that possibly could relate to why the storm trooper of reform — formerly known as the Sheriff of Wall Street — seemingly went from saint to sinner overnight.

So while a lot of us were raised on the 10 commandments, we are faced with many grey area issues in our daily lives that we need to decide, what is right or wrong here? What are your 5 top morals and where do you feel you got them from? If not from religion, then from society or perhaps from your own innate sense of right and wrong? Have they changed as you’ve matured? I’d love to hear what you have to say about it all.

Related posts

• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)
• Why Do Atheists Have To Rock The Boat? (22)
• Homosexuality is a SIN, The Bible Says So! (11)
• 10 Reasons To Believe In god? (24)
• The Science of Persuasion (2)

Here’s the experiment as explained in the book:

You have a serious conversation with a deeply christian friend. Your friend is intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable. You agree to record the session. The topic is islam. During the session, you discuss that mohammed was a self-appointed prophet and that he claimed he talked to allah and the angels. He wrote a book that he claimed was infallible, and he flew from Jerusalem to heaven on a horse.

During the conversation, you agree that mohammed was probably delusional to think he could talk to god. You agree that the koran was clearly written by mohammed and not allah. It is ludicrous for him to claim that he is the last prophet and that all others are false. Neither you nor your friend can believe that he flew to heaven, let alone on a horse. It all sounds too crazy, and you both agree it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you say that muslims did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that christianity is the true religion.

Over the next few days, you transcribe the recording onto paper. Then you change all references to mohammed and make them jesus. Now the document reads something like this:

During the conversation, you both agree that jesus was probably delusional to think he could talk to jehovah. The bible was clearly written by men and not jehovah. You both agree it is ludicrous for jesus to claim that he is the last prophet and that all later ones are false. Neither of you can believe that he rose from the dead, nor flew to heaven. It all sounds too crazy, and it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you both agree that christians did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that islam is the true religion.

Now, tell your friend, “I made a transcript of our conversation about islam and would like to go over it with you.” As you read it, watch her reaction. How does she respond to each statement? How soon does she get defensive? How quickly does she start making elaborate arguments that have no more factual basis than the first conversation? If you persist in this line of parallel reasoning, how long before she gets angry or breaks off the conversation? Could this conversation damage your friendship?

You can do this experiment with other prophetic religions. For example, substitute Joseph Smith for mormonism or moses for judaism.

Have you ever tried an experiment like this? Have you ever questioned your friend’s religion? Did it damage your friendship? Or a family member? Does that person still talk to you? How far did your religious friend go to make excuses and explain away his religion in the face of reality?

Related posts

• Conversations With Ash: 1 – Answering Questions (9)
• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• Unexpected Friendship With A Palin Lover (14)
• Getting Sick of Militant christians In My Family (15)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)

Question: Are pigs native to the Middle East, then? If no decent jew or muslim could eat them, why were they raised and by whom?

God seems quite fickle about what were were to eat:

• Adam and Eve are supposed to eat a vegan diet: Genesis 1:29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
• Noah and his sons can eat any living thing, but they have to drain the blood first: Genesis 9:2-4: And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

That didn’t last long because in Deuteronomy and Leviticus he gets into all the things that are forbidden. Here I’ll highlight the references to swine.

• Leviticus 11:7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
• Deuteronomy 14:8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

In Proverbs, we see more insults to the pig and loose women:

• Proverbs 11:22: As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

In Isaiah, eating swineflesh or mice means god will have to kill you:

• Isaiah 66:16-17: For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. God will “plead with all flesh” with fire and sword, “and the slain of the Lord shall be many.” They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

What does the new testament say about the pig?

Jesus obviously hated pigs. He killed a whole herd of them in the gospels:

• Matthew 8:32: And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. (Same story Mark 5:7-17, Luke 8:26-37)

In all three accounts Jesus and his posse are asked to leave. Maybe because they were valuable pigs.

Why drive demons into a herd of swine? Isn’t that wasteful? Who’s herd was it? Why would anyone be raising pigs if Jews couldn’t eat them? Why not just zap the demons with laser eyes or something? Jesus was so unimaginative, if you ask me. (Don’t even get me started about his hatred of a fig tree)

Jesus also insults pigs (as well as dogs):

• Matthew 7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

But then, to confuse matters (we know how consistent and On Message the bible is), Some heavenly voice talks to Peter. It’s apparently the lord.

• Acts 10:10-16: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

So if god cleans it, then it’s not common and OK to eat? Oh, these weird visions. Even Peter didn’t know what the hell it meant.

Now in Romans, we have more conflicting messages:

• Romans 14:2: For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

So if you are a believer you can eat anything, but you’re weak if you’re a vegetarian? But wait! There’s more!

• Romans 14:14-15: I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Ok, now nothing is unclean (yay, bacon!) of itself, but if you think it’s icky, then it’s icky. Is that like The Secret or something? Your thoughts make things dirty? What is the second verse? Christ died for bacon? No? Well it doesn’t make much sense to me. (Then again I’m a lowly woman and I can’t teach or ask questions about the bible, so this is all circumspect anyway.)

One more:

• Romans 14:21: It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Srsly, WTF? That’s the same chapter! Am I the only one who finds it confusing?

Speaking of Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:1-4: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

So some will leave the faith and become vegetarians. I guess that’s bad? But it clarifies the issue, that now every creature of god is good and not to be refused. Just be thankful about it. I guess they got tired of not eating pork and rabbits and other creatures. Probably because they were low on goats, having sacrificed so many to their god (who loves the smell of burning flesh.. NOM!)

Now, just to be fair, allah in the quran also hates pigs but only has to mention it twice:

• The Cow 2:173: He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

So, as a side note, islam talks of other gods, then too. But like christianity and judaism, you have to only worship the one hateful god of your people, I guess.

• The Table Spread 5:3: Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swineflesh, and that which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which hath been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which ye make lawful (by the death-stroke), and that which hath been immolated unto idols. And (forbidden is it) that ye swear by the divining arrows. This is an abomination. This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Oh, and saying allah is merciful and forgiving in between mentioning all the doom he’s going to heap on you for any little thing doesn’t lessen the cognitive dissonance (aka, the CRAZY).

Related posts

• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Hate Darwin? Then Give Up Your Luxuries (36)
• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)
• Conversations With christians – Beth 4a – With A Little Help From My Friends (6)

• It is now legal for shia men to deny food and sustenance to their wives if they refuse to obey their husband’s sexual demands.
• Fathers and grandfathers have full guardianship over the children
• Women must ask permission from their husbands to work.
• A rapist can avoid prosecution by paying ‘blood money’ to a girl who was injured when he raped her.
• “Tamkeen is the readiness of the wife to submit to her husband’s reasonable sexual enjoyment, and her prohibition from going out of the house, except in extreme circumstances, without her husband’s permission. If any of the above provisions are not followed by the wife she is considered disobedient.”

Apparently in a bid for votes in the upcoming election, Hamid Karzai has basically sold the rights of women to gain power. The election is Thursday, August 20. But from what I can see, women will lose as long as the country is islamic.

Related posts

• Honor Killings are Illegal? Turkey Resorts To Honor Suicides For Women (12)
• Voting Ambivalence Gets Shaken Up (6)
• Separation of church and State Benefits Everyone (26)
• Religion and Sexual Predators (6)
• Coming Out of the Religious Closet and a Great Survey For Atheists (3)

For those who wear the burqa “freely” the argument amounts to it being religious tradition.  They’re not oppressed, it’s their religious tradition and heritage and they’re proud of it.  For those not wearing the burqa, the defense is the Qur’an doesn’t actually enforce the burqa (they’re not being forced to wear it, and if they are being forced to wear it—it is the culture).

These arguments aren’t compatible—they’re contradictory.  The fact that they are contradictory is a sign of oppression itself.  Why do these women think that burqas are a part of their religion if they are not?  The banning of the burqa proposal is constantly referred to as an attack on the Islam religion, and yet, at the same time the same people are arguing that the burqa has nothing to do with the Islam religion itself but with oppressive cultures…  The argument contradicts itself even.

Perhaps we should inspect why people think the burqa is commanded by their religion.  I’m sure everybody is aware of commands to lower gazes, cover private parts and so forth.  The main aspect is covering the beauty, and that the traditional khimar would be extended to cover the bosom.  The Qur’an directly calls for a hijab, as Muhammad clarified on these parts and stated their meaning as covering all but the face and hands (although hey, I for one think the face is an incredibly beautiful part of the body).

But hold on now, do not take this into thinking that the Qur’an doesn’t say that women should cover their faces.  The niqab, or burqa, has the impression of being required in a later passage.  It’s a matter of interpretation, which one is it?  Typically the one that comes later as a general rule of all religions is the one that actually matters (which brings up the question why give it in the first place if it was just going to be labeled obsolete).  Even though the niqab rule comes later sequentially in the book (Surah al-Ahzab 59 for the niqab vs Surah an-Nur  31 for the hijab), chronologically it’s argued to be actually before…  There is a bunch more evidence for that as well though.

The issue here is that the Qur’an does indeed have the burqa as a requirement, even though it is supposedly rendered obsolete.  This rendering obsolete, however, is a matter of interpretation.  Along this, there are interpretations that the clothing is not required at all but rather more suggested by the prophet Muhammad…  This is contradictory, as Muhammad’s words are law under Islam religion, especially considering Muhammad clarified the rule as opposed to creating it anyways—overall it is simply trying to explain away oppressive doctrines by applying what they think is morally right to a book that is supposed to define what morals are.

But just a second here, most conclude that the burqa is not required but the hijab is.  What is the difference?  Is the hijab so much better?  I don’t think it is at all!  Under the common interpretation, the only parts of the body left uncovered are the face and the hands…  I’m sorry if you don’t find that nearly as oppressive as I do.  For that matter, from a book ordering nearly 96% of the body to be covered, is it not safe to assume that the rest should be as well?

Let’s get back to the debate that is occurring.  It is claimed that the anti-burqa movement is simply anti-Islamic (yet again, at the same time they conclude that the Qur’an doesn’t enforce the burqa…).  Is it really so hard to see why women and people in general associate the burqa with this oppressive structure that subjugates and confines women under the name of Islam?

All I see is that they are obscuring the fact that there are indeed pervasive and sexist propaganda in the Muslim communities for favor of these burqas.  Women are murdered for it even in the Western world, and giving a blind eye to that fact is—in my opinion—a completely uncaring and wrong action to do.  Let me ask you, why it is a “choice” to choose whether or not to get murdered and not a guaranteed right.

Do you know the real problem about the burqa is?  Why do so many women hate the burqa?  Can you differentiate between two burqa wearing women, even if you knew them personally?  When women wear the burqa, in a sense, it the most perverse kind of sexual objectification… that woman, is identified by absolutely nothing other than her gender: a shapeless, faceless, nameless woman and nothing more than that at all.

Perhaps a ban is needed, maybe just a temporary one though—one that enables women to escape if they need to from their oppression.  To allow them to get their voices and give them back their right to be human.  Have no mistake, many need help, and to ignore those pleas is perhaps the worst action to do by those who are free.

Related posts

• Why Does God Hate Pigs? (13)
• islam: Religion of Misogynists, Pedophiles and Barbarians (76)
• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)
• 10 Reasons To Believe In god? (24)
• Your god is Not Omnipotent (109)

Excerpt from article by Sabina Amidi, special to the Jerusalem Post:

In a shocking and unprecedented interview, directly exposing the inhumanity of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s religious regime in Iran, a serving member of the paramilitary Basiji militia has told this reporter of his role in suppressing opposition street protests in recent weeks.

He has also detailed aspects of his earlier service in the force, including his enforced participation in the rape of young Iranian girls prior to their execution.

The interview took place by telephone, and on condition of anonymity. It was arranged by a reliable source whose identity can also not be revealed.

Founded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 as a “people’s militia,” the volunteer Basiji force is subordinate to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and intensely loyal to Khomeini’s successor, Khamenei.

Explaining how he had come to join the volunteer Basiji forces, he said his mother had taken him to them.

When he was 16, “my mother took me to a Basiji station and begged them to take me under their wing because I had no one and nothing foreseeable in my future. My father was martyred during the war in Iraq and she did not want me to get hooked on drugs and become a street thug. I had no choice,” he said.

He said he had been a highly regarded member of the force, and had so “impressed my superiors” that, at 18, “I was given the ‘honor’ to temporarily marry young girls before they were sentenced to death.”

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a “wedding” ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard – essentially raped by her “husband.”

“I regret that, even though the marriages were legal,” he said.

Why the regret, if the marriages were “legal?”

“Because,” he went on, “I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their ‘wedding’ night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.

“I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over,” he said. “I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her.”

————————————–
Words cannot express the horror, anger and sadness I felt as I read these words. I cried as I felt for all those wasted lives, the Iranian girls, sentenced to death, but forcibly “married” to make sure they are not virgins before they are executed, in order to make sure they go to Hell according to the Muslim mythology. If a female dies a virgin, according to the Koran, she goes straight to Paradise, no matter the circumstances of her death. But this way, having lain with a man and now being divorced, she is soiled…and will go to Hell for her crime.

I cried for that young man at age 16, being forced into a brutal military regime to be a child-soldier. I cried for his widowed mother, because of her belief-system, doing what she thought was right for her son. All those wasted lives…

In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful…

Related posts

• Religion and Sexual Predators (6)
• Palin Divorce! The Hypocrisy of the Religious Right Strikes Again! (18)
• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)
• islam: Religion of Misogynists, Pedophiles and Barbarians (76)
• Being Good Without God Is Natural (4)

First, let’s talk a little about Turkey.

Turkey is a secular democracy with no state religion. It’s a developed country and a regional power with close relationships to many other countries. The people are educated with a good life expectancy of 73 years. The men are better educated than the women but school is free and compulsory from ages 6-15. The reason there is a discrepancy for women is because in the southeastern provinces, Kurds and Arabs hold their traditional customs.

There is no state religion in Turkey and their constitution provides the freedom of religion and conscience but does not promote a religion. But here’s where things go downhill. 99% of the country is muslim. There are a few minority religious there too, and about 3.2% are irreligious or atheists. A poll in 2002 reported that 65% of the people believe “religion is very important.” Another poll in 2005 found that 95% of the citizens believe “there is a god.”

Here’s where it gets sickening. Honor killings in Turkey have been getting more common. The government estimated them at about 200 a year, half of all the murders committed in the country. So in 2005 Turkey changed the law so that honor killers would receive a life sentence instead of being able to get a reduced sentence, claiming provocation. Still, there is now about one honor killing a week in Istanbul, so it’s spreading into the modern cities as well.

Now a new phenomenon is brewing – honor suicides. Women are told to kill themselves so that no one has to go to prison for life for murdering them.

Honor is very important to these barbarians in the southeast (Kurdish region) of Turkey. Any kind of dishonor is seen as a stain that can only be cleansed by death. A woman can be sentenced to death by her family for slights as minor as wearing tight clothes or talking to a man who is not a relative. She is either murdered by the youngest member of the family (in the belief that they’ll be treated more leniently if caught), or she is locked in a room until she kills herself. She is usually given the option of shooting herself with a gun, hanging herself, or rat poison.

In prison, honor killers are treated with respect, even by the guards. Most honor killings aren’t properly investigated because a lot of police and prosecutors feel the same way as the killers.

This is the barbaric effect of patriarchal religion holding back society to the bronze or iron age mindset. Imagine what it’s like in even less developed countries that we hear little about, not influenced as much by modern society and culture. This is why I rail against religion so vehemently. Learning of such ridiculous inhumanity in the name of  “honor” is just another reason to counteract such savagery with education, science, reason and logic.

It seems like this happens in another world, doesn’t it? Removed from our “cultured” societies where our biggest concern in a day is which fast food place to get our dinner from, or what to wear when we go out to the local bar on a Friday night. (Not that I do either of those things, but hey, at least I can if I want to, all by myself, and talk to men that are not my relatives without being forced to kill myself with rat poison later).

It would do well to pay attention to the world though. In European countries islamic law is being forcedly incorporated into European and UK law. In the UN, recently I remember reading that they’ve proposed a resolution that would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. Hopefully sense will make the resolution fail, but really, when such things are being proposed, collectively we all need to be watchdogs.

In America the threat of islamic incursion seems so remote, but Europe is struggling with such human rights issues all the time, from what I have followed.

We can’t be any more complacent though, here in the land of the religious right, where science is the handiwork of the devil himself and people honestly believe that jesus was born of a virgin in a manger, and rose from the dead to save us from our sins because a talking snake tempted Eve in the garden of eden. I won’t even go into how silly that is. What’s important is that even though the political regime has changed here, we’re certainly not off the hook.

While our new president seems to embrace science and technology in a way that should make us all happy, and while he also threw us a bone in the inauguration, acknowledging that atheists exist, he is still quite willing to blur the line of the separation of church and state even further in many issues. Our apathy and complacency could very well cause us untold continued loss of freedoms. We just don’t know, but let’s not find out the hard way. (For example, keep an eye on Joshua DuBois, the pentecostal minister who is head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in Obama’s administration.)

I know, I’m all doom and gloom today. But sometimes we have to look behind the veil and take off the rose colored glasses. We can’t all fight every battle. But please, at least be educated and informed about what’s going on in the world, right under your nose as well as on the other side of the planet. Ignorance and apathy are very deadly sins.

The REAL 7 Deadly Sins

Related posts

• Separation of church and State Benefits Everyone (26)
• 10 Reasons To Believe In god? (24)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Thanksgiving and Family Fundie Nonsense (6)
• Sunday Looms Menacingly (10)