Warren Jeffs the batsh*t crazy leader of Fundamentalist Mormons, who advocates "marriage" to women as young as NINE, has apparently been fasting the last three days, while in prison and has become so weak that doctors put him into a medically induced coma. I know some of you all might have been hoping that the coma was due to Warren being bludgeoned by his 400-pound cellmate Bubba, after Jeffs turned down his request for "marriage". However, it's really just that Jeffs is such a bogus holy man that he can't go a few days without food. It's like when Jerry Falwell used to talk about "praying and fasting", which often lead one to wonder, what *five minute period of time* did Jerry Falwell ever fast, given his enormous girth? See, apparently Jeffs doesn't understand that religious fasting is all about style over substance. You don't really refuse all food and certainly not all water. Most religious fasts only go from sun up to sun down, and do allow for water and even vitamins or medications these days.
However, apparently Jeffs thinks that the angel Moroni is going to fly down and serve him some food, perhaps on a Golden Tablet, or that he can command stones to become bread. OK, granted, it is not necessary for God to exist in an absolute sense for justice to be served here if Jeffs manages to kill himself due to his own stupidity and craven superstition. It could just be one of those lucky cosmic accidents.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Ricky Gervais To Believers: "No one has the right to never be offended".
On the cover the September _New Humanist_ magazine, Ricky Gervais, the comedian behind the religion-mocking movie _The Invention of Lying_ is pressing on with his skeptical message, and perhaps showing off some weight loss as well. This time his focus, as the graphic illustrates, is the persecution of atheists and the curious notion, common in believers, that they are somehow entitled to never be offended, particularly on matters of religion. As usual, many religious people labor under a curious double standard, where they feel entirely entitled to criticize the religions of others who think differently than they do, but feel that a special exemption is in order to protect themselves from the same treatment by others.
Most people had probably never heard of Gervais before the Golden Globes where his satire was apparently a little to close for comfort for some celebrities. For those who followed Gervais's career for longer this should have been so surprise. One only needs to look at some of his bits _Talking about the Book of Genesis_, available on youtube, to see that Gervais has never shied away from controversy.
Unfortunately, it is unlike that Gervais will have much of an impact with his recent effort. _New Humanist_ is not a particularly well read magazine, and even his movie _The Invention of Lying_ only attracted moderate viewership. I think Gervais is certainly onto the right approach using humor and satire to mock the sacred cows of religion. However, I think he under-estimates the capacity of the ignorant to ignore him entirely. That is the time-honored strategy employed by much of organized religion, especially when they are unequipped with sufficient wit to answer him barb for barb.
Thank you Ricky, for all your (Sisyphean?) efforts, though one fears that you're still carrying the water of atheists with a very leaky bucket.
Most people had probably never heard of Gervais before the Golden Globes where his satire was apparently a little to close for comfort for some celebrities. For those who followed Gervais's career for longer this should have been so surprise. One only needs to look at some of his bits _Talking about the Book of Genesis_, available on youtube, to see that Gervais has never shied away from controversy.
Unfortunately, it is unlike that Gervais will have much of an impact with his recent effort. _New Humanist_ is not a particularly well read magazine, and even his movie _The Invention of Lying_ only attracted moderate viewership. I think Gervais is certainly onto the right approach using humor and satire to mock the sacred cows of religion. However, I think he under-estimates the capacity of the ignorant to ignore him entirely. That is the time-honored strategy employed by much of organized religion, especially when they are unequipped with sufficient wit to answer him barb for barb.
Thank you Ricky, for all your (Sisyphean?) efforts, though one fears that you're still carrying the water of atheists with a very leaky bucket.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Submit This, Bachmann
Fanatic religious lunatic Michele Bachmann was legitimately challenged in a recent GOP debate for her public advocacy of wives being "submissive" to their husbands, which amounts to doing whatever their husbands order them to do. After all, if she does whatever her husband commands then he would effectively be the President, not her, in the extremely improbable event that she were successfully elected.
Bachmann attempted to Bach-pedal yet again, and spin this "submissiveness" stuff as "interpretation". However, the whole notion of Bible literalism is that you can't take things the Bible says "figuratively". You can't say, when Paul orders wives to be "submissive", that what he really meant was that wives can ignore their husbands and do whatever they want. Of course a spouse will always have influence, but, so far, no president has labored under the handicap of feeling compelled to follow the exact instructions of one's spouse on matters of what's for dinner all the way up to launching nuclear missiles.
BTW, Christian teaching doesn't just say that wives have to be submissive. It says they need to keep silent (aka shut the eff up) especially in church (1 Cor 14:33) and that they should not have authority over menfolk ( 1 Tim 2:12) .
Those who want to disavow the patriarchial misogyny of the Jewish and Greek cultures from which Christianity sprang will have a tough chore. These are people who insist that men are innately better than women because "God made Adam first".
Granted, Bachmann is just a bad joke when it comes to presidential candidates. She was substituted as a less shrill version of Palin. However, her religious views are even more extreme, as we have documented with respect to her endorsement of "de-gay-ification" therapy at her "clinic" and her general antipathy toward gay people in general.
She and her doltish husband boast of their "education", but it all comes from "Bible Colleges" where they are earnestly studying how to replace the US Constitution with Old Testament Torah, complete with the stoning of blasphemers and people who work on the Sabbath.
Bachmann may "submit" to her husband, but none of the rest of us should be delusional enough to do so.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Convicted Mormon Child Molester, Warren Jeffs, Heads to Prison 4 Life
Convicted child molester Warren Jeffs decided to defend himself and then told the court that god would punish them all if they continued to prosecute him. He even defended his sexual liasons with girls as young as 12, claiming that it was "holy" and based upon long-standing "tradition" in his Fundamentalist Mormon church. Now we see how badly that strategy played out for him as he heads to jail as a convicted sexual predator to serve a life sentence. Somehow, god did not strike down any of the people who prosecuted him or testified against him, though I am sure that, if someone among them gets cancer ten years later that Jeffs and his followers will say, "see I predicted that".
If this doesn't show how unhinged these people are, I don't know what will. Of course they cry that they are being persecuted for their "religious beliefs", but as the saying goes your "rights" never extend to "someone else's nose", or more intimate orifices. You can *believe* any crazy thing you want, and the Constitution protects that form of insanity. However, it does not protect acting upon an insane belief in a way that harms other people.
In any event, I'm sure he will appeal, and he has lucked out before on technicalities. However, luck, and god, and legal scholarship do not appear to be on his side. He should perhaps be more worried his cellmate bubba doing to him what he likes to do to 12-year-old girls.
If this doesn't show how unhinged these people are, I don't know what will. Of course they cry that they are being persecuted for their "religious beliefs", but as the saying goes your "rights" never extend to "someone else's nose", or more intimate orifices. You can *believe* any crazy thing you want, and the Constitution protects that form of insanity. However, it does not protect acting upon an insane belief in a way that harms other people.
In any event, I'm sure he will appeal, and he has lucked out before on technicalities. However, luck, and god, and legal scholarship do not appear to be on his side. He should perhaps be more worried his cellmate bubba doing to him what he likes to do to 12-year-old girls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)