The letter: Re: Scripture should not be taught in Government schools.

To Whom it may concern,
As it has been a concern of mine for a long time now: I’d like to ask is there any reason why we are still allowing religious people into public schools for the purposes of promoting their religion? I would have thought this would have ceased a long time ago.

It must NOT be opt-out requiring permission from parents, it must be a special opt in with strict syllabus if it is allowed at all. Having it opt out (with no material/alternative instruction) makes it seem like the parent is skipping an important aspect of their education to let their kid run around doing nothing.

The Education Act

From the Education Act, Section 30 – “Secular instruction”
“In government schools, the education is to consist of strictly non-sectarian and secular instruction. The words secular instruction are to be taken to include general religious education as distinct from dogmatic or polemical theology.”

I’m not sure at what point this got missed when Christian scripture in public schools was deemed to be the default choice and a secular education required parents to object in writing. I would think parents can assume that there will be no default religious element whatsoever (or else they would have sent them to a religious school surely?). In the several schools I’ve got knowledge of it is expected that parents either fill in a form and in some cases provide written and/or face to face justification for their reasons for not wanting religious indoctrination.

Referring to Section 32 of the act:
“Children attending a religious education class are to be separated from other children at the school while the class is held.”
The language of this implies that they will be a minority, not the default choice with the “non scripture” group left to fend for themselves as it is currently. Currently the process is that those “opting out” are separated grudgingly from the religious class.

Content of Religious instruction

Assuming nothing substantial has changed in the religious types since I was growing up: it was nothing more than Christian indoctrination. A bit of investigation (discussion a teacher friend and several parents of infants/primary school age children) and the recent media attention reveals it has not changed. In particular parents are regularly upset at some of the messages (e.g. “You’ll go to hell for not believing in Jesus” or “I’m not baptised and I’m worried I’m going to hell”) they come home with. It appears that these concerns are not raised to the department level and are referred to the church bodies (sounds just like how allegations of child abuse are handled in the Catholic church), thus hiding the many instances of inappropriate messages delivered by (unqualified to teach) religious people.

There is also a school where Jewish religious people are demanding “donations” from children or else the kids are not allowed to return (several parents expressed concern over this.. with little action to immediately terminate any arrangement with those religious groups). This effectively turns our secular schools into a fund raising activity as well as an indoctrination opportunity.

Anti-discrimination policies violated by religious teachings

It appears to me to be a violation of the department’s policies to be allowing some of the teachings of religions which contain anti-gay, anti-other religions, anti-non believer content with a clear message that they will be tortured for eternity just for being themselves or thinking differently from a 1500, 2000 or 3000 year old set of stories.

One can find ample evidence that the reason we have to have a policy on homophobia is thanks to religious prejudices. Imagine the position of a child who is gay (or who has gay parents) sitting in on a lesson on what biblical sin is, or a child who does not believe in God and told that (contrary to our justice system) their punishment will be torture and hell fire. Or just any child presented with the Orwellian notion that they are under constant surveillance and constant evaluation of thoughts for “thought crime”.
That’s to say nothing of the incest, mass murder, slavery, genocide and other barbaric concepts contained within the bible making it unsuitable study material to be presented to young impressionable children as if it were fact or a source of good morals.

Church is the appropriate venue

It’s fairly obvious that if parents wish their children to be indoctrinated as Christians then they have an obvious avenue: Church. As Muslims: the Mosque. As Jews: the Synagogue. That scripture is opt-out (an option which only became available part way through my experiences) rather than opt-in (with no teaching time filling the gap) is particularly worrying. Parents are faced with having their children sitting idle or else in the company of people filling their heads with Christian mythology presented as facts. I can’t imagine other religions getting as easy a ride either (the recent outrage over Scientology in schools and certainly I haven’t heard of Islamic/Hindi content in scripture provided alongside Christianity in every school). I certainly haven’t heard of any attempts to introduce a humanist or ancient Greek philosophical moral lessons.

Of little educational value

When I was a child and subjected to the local “Churchies” attempting to convert us, there was no attempt whatsoever to take an impartial stand, consider other religions or provide reasonable answers to childishly simple questions. It was also never varied: always a Christian viewpoint presented as fact. It was merely an opportunity to force the kids to go through the motions of Christianity (making kids say prayers, recite verses etc).

Given the completely unsubstantiated claims made (that even I as a young child could see) it seems somewhat at odds with our secular, rational, fact based based curriculum.

The classes presented absurdities (“If only you had enough faith you could walk on water” which as a child I actually took as something plausible for a while) through to the most abhorrent immoral lessons imaginable (“A father prepared to slaughter his son for god was a noble thing”). They were there to make stone age arguments from authority and to instil a guilt at the “thought crime” of doubting the patently unbelievable stories presented as fact in a government school.

The strong message was that God absolutely exists, doubting that is a sin, accepting Jesus is the only way to heaven and that eternal torture awaits those who have heard of Christianity and rejected it. This is a very damaging concept to be polluting the minds of children with and unlike other material in the syllabus: absolutely no evidence to back it up. Might as well teach alchemy rather than chemistry, astrology rather than astronomy.

Qualifications of religious people to teach children

From the reports of the real teachers the educational abilities of the scripture “teachers” are often rather poor. Classroom behaviour is not maintained at any sort of acceptable level with the teachers having to step in to keep the peace (perhaps because the students realise the ridiculousness of the material presented).

There’s also absolutely no reason for religion to be taught by unqualified religious types (who as recent news stories have shown have a rather bad track record with respect to child molestation) rather than as a general topic on religion (not taught from the viewpoint of one within the religion). If a broad topic on religion is to be taught in school it MUST be from outside the religion and by those qualified to teach children. To allow anything else is pure religious indoctrination, not education. That teachers are currently unable to voice any opinion on religion even to console distressed students (“no, actually you aren’t evil because you don’t believe in Jesus”, “you shouldn’t worry about being constantly watched 24/7″ or perhaps later on “the pope is wrong on condoms and that position has increased the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa”) and the scripture “teachers” can say whatever they like.

Replace scripture with real education

I would urge you to immediately discontinue the teaching of scripture in all schools, to be replaced with a subject with a broad curriculum and taught by real teachers. A secular based course in philosophy and moral discussion would be far more beneficial to developing an awareness of right and wrong. This could be a part of the civics and citizenship subject to be introduced in coming years.

regards,
Nathan Lee

High priest of the Atheists? More like word warrior..

The picture at top starts with a dig at Richard Dawkins:

Richard Dawkins – High Priest of the Atheists, and one of only two people to ever appear on the ABC’s “Q & A” who were more smug than host Tony Jones

I actually felt embarrassed that Richard was plonked amongst the group he was. Some slippery worms of politicians who had the most childish elusive answers and comebacks.
Sounds like Anthony’s just pissed that on his side of the religious the Jewish representative on the show that night was pretty vague and the Christian representative(s) downright embarrassing. Fielding certainly couldn’t give a straight answer as to whether he thought the world was less than 10,000 years old.

Family Guy on Creationists vs retarded intelligence.

But back to Anthony’s rant (I appreciate a good rant, especially when it’s in disagreement):

When people point out Nazis, Soviets, etc, then people like Richard Dawkins say that those atheists didn’t commit their atrocities in the name of atheism.

Dawkins is right in that atheism  “an absence of belief” does not provide any justification for atrocities. It’s like saying not believing in the Easter bunny would give me the arguments to justify me killing those that do believe in Easter Bunnies or justification for jumping off a building. Any justification for that has to come from somewhere else (either self made reasons or in the teachings of a political/religious viewpoint). I would also argue that without a belief in an afterlife: atheism provides a disincentive to lay down your life or jump into violence lest someone snuff out the one and only provable life we have.

God might tell you though
Not believing in a god doesn’t imply you have to kill those that do. Nor does it demand you force others to not believe (or kill if they refuse).
Let me think whether I could find justification for that sort of thing somewhere? Hmm…

Another swing and a miss for Biblical morality

Belief in another god might however provide reasons/justification if that god has supposedly told you in some book (or via some prophet) that non-believers need to die. There’s no book, list of sins, directives, moral suggestions or any such thing involved in simply “not believing in the fairy tales”.

Combining Atheism with Ideology to justify

There could be an atheistic viewpoint that the damage to society caused by religion was worth killing believers, but that would be justification found in utilitarian (greater good) philosophy, not atheism/not believing in itself.

The magic card from magic skygod religious book. Justify anything you want!

History lesson for Anthony
Anthony is also quite ignorant (or glossing over the realities) of history by the sounds of it (like most religious types who spend far too long reading bibles/torahs/qur’ans rather than anything useful).

Put it down, pick up another book, any book will do!

Atheism most definitely wasn’t the driving theology/philosophy of the Nazis, it was very much a Christian inspired thing if we want to get down to it.

Hitler the Christian

Hitler thought he was the chosen leader and was not an Atheist. The ever wise Vatican didn’t think he was an atheist either when it gave support back in the 1930s (oh, don’t worry, they realised that god’s first contact on earth wasn’t so faultless later.. but hey, it helped get rid of a bunch of their long despised Jewish followers).

From http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm we get an idea of Hitler’s religious views:

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.”
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Yep, ever the rampant Atheist there in old Adolf.. That’s how I identify myself as an atheist: by spouting on like a bible thumper about how much of a Christian I am. Although I guess maybe he was Atheist in private and a huge hypocrite like Mother Theresa (who did not buy the theology she was peddling to the poor and desperate).

The “Hitler was an atheist” and “nazis were atheists” is a Christian cop out because he was not only a very publicly declared Christian, but he used Christian theology to strengthen his own ideology (nothing adds that bit of marketing “wow!” like throwing God’s name around a bit). He also got approval from the church while he was doing his evil romp around the world. I’d go further and point out that god bears a lot of similarities with Hitler (authoritarian, genocidal dictator) except that Hitler only got to torture people up to the point when they die; God gets to extend that to “all eternity” if you fall on his wrong side.

Stalin and Mao the Atheist-ideologist butchers
Stalin/Mao however were more what you’d call atheists. But the justification for doing what they did was most definitely from something else (the old “Stalin had a moustache too (and Hitler too!!), was that to blame for killing people?” argument).

Socialism/communism which in effect created a living deity out of its heads of state (ask Chinese about the miracles and reverence toward Mao.. or go see their tombs) or an unquestioning belief in some prime directives a la “commandments of the party” type stuff.
Stalin and Mao viewed religion as weakening the authority of their regime and by the self serving rules of their regimes: it was just another threat. Just like higher education and the middle classes were a threat. Religions that have a head of the religion (e.g. exiled Tibetan leader, Catholic pope) are banned in their original form in China to this day. You can keep the religion if you ditch the leader nonsense is the Chinese view.

Killing off the “elite” under Mao had absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs or not, it was just eliminating a threat to the communist movement. Just like clamping down on democracy protests and political activists is regarded as necessary under China’s current system: because it is a threat.

Piles of atoms
Anthony then strays into the topic of whether or not human beings are worthless if we don’t have a god watching over us at all times:

A genuine atheist ought to agree that there is neither anything sacred about a human being, nor any other living thing.  Thus, a living thing is simply a complex arrangement of a bunch of atoms or chemicals, as is a tennis ball, a tin of paint, or a laptop computer.

and:

“what is their justification for having a morality and a purpose?”  Why does a bunch of atoms (regardless of complexity) require a code of ethics and morality?

Define “sacred” as it is a bit of a bullshit word when used like this. If sacred means “belongs to god” then it’s meaningless, if sacred just means important: lots of things are important to lots of creatures without any idea of what god is. Food is important to everything from single celled organisms up to elephants. Is food sacred? Or are only things that can pick up a bible and switch off their proof centre of their brains?

I am not the centre of the universe

You are not a unique snowflake.

An atheist tends not to believe that the world was created specifically around the needs of themselves. They don’t believe that our sole purpose to hang around praising god until that god decides at some point to wipe out all life (again supposedly!) based on some rather poorly thought out morals that bear striking unenlightened resemblance to the rules men lived by in the barbaric time in which they were written.

Yes, we are just a complex arrangement of a bunch of atoms (but driven by some absolutely amazing biological processes). The insides of us are common amongst other animals (there’s no magic fairydust/god wound clock mechanism/soul keeping us going compared to them). Perhaps the author hasn’t poked their nose out of the bible long enough to hear an old saying “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.
Anthony: I’ll by your car for the sum of the raw components if you truly believe that anything is only worth what the smallest individual bits and the concept of value adding escapes you.

You might as well ask: why does a bunch of copper atoms need electricity passed through it? The answer is: it doesn’t, but if the bunch of atoms happens to be part of a light-bulb: then it can produce light/heat if it has it. Humans don’t need morals/laws so long as they’re happy with complete anarchy. Fortunately we’ve realised over time that we can achieve more if we have some laws (and collective agreement to stick to those laws) that stop people murdering you for food/sex/shelter. So the collective realisation of humanity is that with a bit of structure and some broad agreement to get along – the sum total of humanity can burn so much brighter than an anarchistic mess of individuals clawing over each other for basic needs.

So of course we’re more complicated than our atoms! Of course with a highly sophisticated brain we’ve developed the ability to reason (well, sometimes), so it’s part and parcel of being able to discuss, debate etc. that we would have communication and discussion of behaviour (aka “morals”). Or simply the lessons might be learned that if you often fight, steal, kill, rape etc: then your chances of survival are reduced simply through the process of “common sense karma” (e.g. piss enough people off: one will put you down permanently).

I really don’t know where to begin with how wrong the idea that conscious animals like humans would not use their brains to think without some belief in a god.

People have a brain, occasionally they use it.

One might ask the author as a believer, why, if your fate is so decided and you’re living at the whim of a universal dictator: you worry about doing anything at all if your life is so heavily influenced by a god.

Flip the switch you fool!

“Finally, I suspect that so-called atheists deep down aren’t really atheists at all.  Like most of us, I suspect they are agnostics.  They just lie at the atheistic end of the agnostic spectrum.  Likewise, deep down most God believers lie at the theistic end of that same spectrum.”

Atheist just means some variety of “without belief” not absolute denial (as religious people are used to). So it isn’t “in denial of god when faced with evidence”.
You can generally assume that Atheists = agnostic as the vast majority would be most welcome for evidence of a god. The religious have been dodging giving any proof for so many thousand years. Agnostic is a subset of Atheist. Difference with believers is that all that’s probably needed is some sort of evidence to sway an atheist/agnostic to accept that new piece of information; for the religious no amount of proof is required for any of their beliefs, they simply point at a cloud and say “see! God exists!”.

Can we vote God out?

I’d describe myself as Anti-theist. That is, I’m more than willing to accept some definitive proof (not walls leaking oil or cancer patients getting better after chemotherapy), but upon that realisation: I’m as opposed to supernatural authoritarian dictatorships as I am to Earthly authoritarian unquestionable dictatorships. It amazes me how people can want to fight for the right to vote, but accept that in the big picture (and with the notion of eternal torture if you disagree) they’re more than happy to have god in the picture. If we are to believe the religious texts: a consistently evil genocidal (more than genocidal, as all life was supposedly snuffed out by a global flood), murdering, eternal torturing (if we buy that there’s a Hell) sadistic being.

God's slaughterfest far outstrips the Devil. So who is the bad guy again?

If being god is put to a vote every few years and everyone has an opportunity: I might come around from my anti-theist position. But as there’s no even half way plausible proof as yet: I don’t have to worry really. I guess given the schizophrenic nature of the biblical god (old god = wrathful, new god: divided amongst father/son/holy spirit = schizophrenic) perhaps there already IS a voting, because without complete change of personality there’s no way to consolidate the stories of god.

So my dislike of the idea of a universal dictator doesn’t give me any justification for any earthly action, it’s just a particular position of thought. My experiences/views on speaking my mind or participating in debate might motivate me to talk about it (but not my being an atheist). My inability to just let illogical/irrational statements go unchecked might result in me speaking up (just like my view of fairness and views against violence might prompt me to break up a fight, as I did a few weeks back).

Fairness as a secular source for morality

As I am (I hope!) a decent human being and adhere to principles of fairness: I lack any drive to enforce my view on others via the sword or suicide vest (nor will I be likely to find any without the word of god and promises of supernatural rewards). So without need for reading the bible: we inherently know what is horrible/distasteful because it violates the concept of fairness.

Golden Rule in religion. Pity it generally conflicts with what the religion says.

If we wouldn’t want to put ourself in the other person’s shoes then we’ve got an answer as to how we judge morals.

Golden rule for Atheists.

We certainly don’t get them from biblical times (thankfully!), although the golden rule pops up in lots of religious texts in amongst the fluff and silly stuff.

Where is the real miracle here? How about showing us one amputee who has been healed? Surely not too big an ask for any god worth his/her salt? Prayer is a placebo, nothing more. Mary MacKillop herself was proof of the idea that two working hands achieve more than a million hands praying. So let’s not belittle the good she did by ridiculous superstition and the Catholic Church trying to boost falling numbers. If prayer worked there would be no need for people like MacKillop to try to fix things.

Nathan Lee Coogee

Prayer has been shown to be beneficial to the individual praying in the same sense that any other placebo can be useful: positive thinking. That’s not the same as a miracle. You can (and many people do) get the same result without the need for supernatural appeals.

How to think you're helping at the expense of actually helping!

The point I made was that Mary Mackillop (for all her sky god beliefs) did good by going out there and doing stuff. She didn’t sit around and pray to try and fix the world. I’ve absolutely no beef with anyone who is out there trying to help people. Whether wasting time trying to convert them or push an irrational belief system on vulnerable people is morally “good” is another matter (or indeed you’re pushing that ideology and don’t buy it yourself e.g. like that fraud Mother Teresa..).

Our bodies have a remarkable capacity for repair and capacity to function: that’s not a miracle either. It’s amazing biology and shows how fantastically sophisticated our bodies have become after millions of years of evolutionary fine tuning in a harsh environment.

Mary wrote on occasion too, only fair I should write about her.

Here’s how the miracle of Mary Mackillop “cured” cancer:

Kathleen Evans, 66, whose anonymity has been zealously guarded until now, spoke at the Mary MacKillop chapel in North Sydney this afternoon about her incredible survival.

Surrounded by her husband Barry, family members and sisters from the Josephite Order, the mother of five, grandmother of 20 and great-grandmother of two, told how she had smoked since the age of 16 but had given up in 1990, three years before she got the devastating news that at 49 she had cancer.

The tumour, in her right lung, was particularly aggressive and quickly spread to her glands. Within a few months a secondary cancer was found on her brain.

She was told it was inoperable and that chemotherapy and X-ray treatment were considered pointless.

“Besides,” she said, “the odds were just not worth it.

“‘I was only given a couple of months at the most to live so I said thanks but no thanks.

“All I had left was prayer.”

A friend in the Hunter Valley gave her a picture of Mary MacKillop and a piece of her clothing, so Ms Evans, her family and her parish all began praying.

Yep, that’s the “miracle” there. This half baked explanation of how worshipping a piece of cloth (that Mary Mackillop may or may not have wiped her nose with or worn at some stage which she is so attached to that she pays attention) cures cancer.

Just how many other people at some stage have been told their situation was dire and they had better get their affairs in order? How many have subsequently recovered? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

The data so far..

The world is full of people who were told they would die by a certain age and found a way to beat the odds to keep alive and kicking.

What’s the real story?

What we have here is a lady who smoked from the age of 16, gave it up, they found (a gift from God?) cancer and her body was (fortunately) able to clear it up once it recovered from the years of smoking abuse.

Just like someone who’s diagnosed with heart problems or high blood pressure who gives up the burgers, starts going for regular walks/swims and eats healthily has a pretty good chance their body will get back to a good state.

Had we had two identical twins who had identical smoking habits, who were diagnosed with the identical cancers in the same spots in the body at the same stage and one prayed to the grubby bit of Mackillop cloth and the other didn’t THEN maybe we’d start to have something interesting to investigate. Even then though, all it would really be testing would be the power of positive thinking/placebo affect. That’s why I asked for an amputee cure as proof of a miracle (it won’t be long and science/medicine will fix that too.. and then I’ll bet praise goes skyward for that too).

If doctors were surprised, it was because based on probability she had a good chance of being dead in a matter of months (and who could blame them looking at her medical history). That’s assuming of course we can believe that her description of the medical opinion is correct and that she wasn’t receiving any other treatment (the old chemotherapy/intensive care/skilled doctors/multiple operations and therapies that God gets the credit for and doctors get screwed).

Time for some investigative journalism!

Now to tell the Sydney Morning Herald what I they need to do next time to fix their fluff religious “miracle” piece wrapped up as “news”:

• find the doctors involved and talk to them
• find out if there are many similar recoveries recorded
• perhaps include some more grounded, less superstitious reasons for the recovery or talk to someone with a medical/science background about how the body repairs itself

Anyhow, rant over.. Til next time dear readers..

This weekend we had sky-writing (more on that another time), showing that the church funds scammeddonated for this purpose are certainly not helping anyone in need.* Wonder how many people could have been fed, watered, clothed or vaccinated? The dollars involved in sky-writing make my contributions to (genuine and secular) charities e.g. Oxfam, Fred Hollows foundation etc (By all means go donate too!) look trivial. I wonder if instead of spending money fixing people’s eyes Fred Hollows would prefer the dollars collected to go to writing up “Fred Hollows = vision” in sky writing.

I’d wonder why God can’t just settle this once and for all without the need for hiring planes to do what an almighty all powerful being could do with the snap of the fingers. Pull that burning bush out of storage and wave it around the sky if nothing else.

Jesus couldn't just do this himself? Or at least turn the wind down a bit, because it was gone in a matter of minutes.

*Unless your need was to have the sky drawn on for the briefest of moments before the wind blew it away.

The goal of the campaign was to encourage discussion on a mythical figure that has most certainly been discussed ad nauseam for, oh, about two thousand years or so with no conclusive results and no evidence forthcoming to back up the wild supernatural claims. Certainly no need for millions of dollars to be spent on the hope of converting some “cynical Sydney-siders”.

Jesus isn’t about life

I’d have to question whether the campaign knows anything about Jesus. Saying Jesus was all about life is kinda silly when the whole Jesus concept is “God creates son to be sacrificed so that said god will be able to forgive mankind for various accumulated sins”.

The Jesus mythology is pretty clear that the whole point is blood sacrifice (e.g. DEATH): without the end of crucifixion there is no life-death-rebirth type mythology. Sure you can gloss over this and claim that he died for humanity to live, but it’s some pretty spectacular doublespeak to get to “all about life” from “all about death”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the symbol of Christianity a tortured guy nailed to a cross?

Jesus: all about death. Nailed it!

Doesn’t look like much of a life eh?

Childish (and child targetting) posters making ridiculous claims

Check out some of the posters here (warning 3.2 meg PDF): here.

Let’s look at the claimed creation of a giant chair.

Chairs made by Jesus?

The poster thanks Jesus for it. Hmm.. Funny, because I found this little picture that shows a bunch of PEOPLE making this.

The real creators of the giant chairs

Funny, I don’t see Jesus in there or maybe he’s running the crane.

The real creator is Giancarlo Neri and the piece is called “The Writer”. Of the things claimed as inspiration I didn’t read anything about Jesus either (see here for a PDF archive of a tonne of articles on the work). There’s no mention of the word Jesus and one reference to “my god it’s vast”.
From an article on it:

Neri calls the design a “monument to the loneliness of writing” but says he hopes people in London will make of it what they will.

No dedication to Jesus there. But I guess the Bible Society made an ad of it to promote their religion without any basis. *shrug*

Another “bizarre” one mentioned in a newspaper article thanks jesus for hot chips: have these people never been into the local fish and chips shop? It sure as shit isn’t Jesus accumulating oil burns over the deep fry vats.

Then there’s one claiming Jesus created parrots (I’m a little fuzzy, but I don’t remember any mention of Jesus being around until long after genesis).

Poor evolution gets screwed again. This time outside the USA for a change.

So can just anyone claim natural processes as their own without a shred of scientific basis? I’d like to claim rights to the natural process of cow digestion so that I can claim royalties every time the churches put out future religious bullshit. Since my taxes are subsidising this sort of rubbish, it’s only fair I get my cut.

Then there’s the one I really think crosses (boom-tish) a line  (or two) that shouldn’t be in a public place directed at children. The R.I.P. cartoon one. Here it is:

Some disclaimers missing from this. Oh, and evidence.

Clearly aimed at children (or those of a childish mind I guess) and I think a pretty clear violation of the relevant advertising/marketing code for Children.

Firstly: there’s absolutely zero proof that there’s an afterlife. None. Zip. Zero. If this was a medical product making claims about care it’d need disclaimers and hard evidence.

Secondly: Substitute anyone’s name in there and it would have equal proof. If Christianity can claim it with no proof, why not (other) corporations?

Ronald McDonald looking after the dead. Just as much proof and just as misleading.

Muslims could run an identical ad thanking Allah or Mohammed for looking after their dead mother. Scientology could thank Xenu or thetan alien spirits whatever it is they believe in.

But perhaps more accurate would be the following (which falls within the findings of effectiveness of prayer studies e.g. like this one showing prayer not only doesn’t aid recovery, actually made recovery statistics worse):

Proof that praying really doesn't work that well.

Or perhaps if they’re going to claim parrots and other man made or biological things as the realm of things to thank Jesus for:

Also fair to say huh? Thanks Jesus for cancer, AIDS, pig flu, poor eyesight, birth defects etc.

Of course I’m forgetting the golden rules of this “God” concept which is:

• responsible for all good, even if you did it yourself
• testing your faith or a deserved punishment if bad stuff happens

Anyhow, I lodged a complaint with the advertising standards bureau because I think these ads breach a number of the standards on advertising for children. We’ll see how that goes. If making any and all unfounded claims to promote the Jesus corporation is fine with them then what’s to stop other businesses from doing so (assuming Religion doesn’t magically deserve an exemption to the rules about deceptive advertising and misleading children targeted information).

If you’re going to productise Jesus then just like other product advertisement you can’t make unfounded claims. Keep it nicely contained in that little book of fairy-tales and it isn’t as much of an issue.

Other links:

• Jesus about life (parody site as the idiots forgot to register the .com)
• The official site is here

Before I talk about the contents, which are in part to do with the need for ethics in global financial terms, let’s just look at some pictures of the pope. First up signing this papal sheet:

The pope demonstrating modest attire

Let’s count the less than humble items:

• gold pen
• gold ring
• gold glasses
• gold crucifix (two if you count his minder there)

I mean if I had a higher resolution pic of the ring I’d bet it’s this one:

Close up of the ring? Would not surprise me!

Maybe the previous pope was less gold obsessed:

Previous Pope's example: a throne of gold

Nope.. Thar be a lot o’ gold on a chair for someone humbled in the presence of God.

Now tell me, for a man talking about charity and social ethics and preaching about the charitable nature of Jesus: why all the bling? Even if (and I highly doubt it given the vast vast amounts of cash the Catholic church has) the gold is fake or just painted on – does it really set a good example to surround yourself by gold when preaching against greed?

Is it ethical for a religious leader, living off the charity of followers, preaching about social responsibility to be signing a call to arms for charity with a mont blanc pen (let’s say it is an entry level one that only costs 3-400 bucks eh?) that if sold could immunise a whole villiage and provide education for little kiddies.

How much is that gold cross worth?

I mean come on pope: practice at least a little of what you preach eh?

As for the content of his little essay: all I can say is an awful lot of talk about truth and charity for an organisation based completely around lies and wasting people’s charitable donations on gold ornaments, red carpets and palaces.

Neumann’s daughter Madeline died from untreated diabetes on March 23, 2008, surrounded by people praying for her. When she stopped breathing, her parents’ business and Bible study partners finally called 911.

Prosecutors contend a reasonable parent would have known something was gravely wrong with Madeline and that her mother recklessly killed her by ignoring obvious symptoms, such as her inability to walk or talk.

Praying simply does not work and it’s particularly stupid to pray for things which you yourself can fix. In this case prayer was not necessary because no miracle was required just standard treatment of a diabetic child. Modern medicine shits all over this particular problem thanks to insulin. Prayer and wishful religious inspired thinking however do nothing.

Praying for a cure list of steps. Just jump to the last one right away

It’s such a shame that a child ended up dead because of their parents’ superstitious belief that appeals to made up beings could work better than a trip to a doctor. The only trouble is that tolerance of this archaic practice of prayer is pretty widespread.

During closing arguments, Falstad described Neumann as a religious zealot who let her daughter, called Kara by her parents, die as a test of faith.

I wonder though if the witnesses in the trial were ordered to place their hand on a bible before giving testimony?

So is it really any wonder that a Christian might be prepared to sacrifice their child as a test of faith? Isn’t the whole idea of Christianity about a father sacrificing a son. One of the appalling parts of the bible I remember vividly from my (albeit limited) exposure to the bible thumpers for some reason let into school was the story of Abraham and Isaac:

“Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)

A decent, moral parent would tell God where he could stick his idea and ask what kind of fucked up thing that is to be saying. Up there with “love thine enemy” and “turn the other cheek” type lessons in stupidity.

This woman probably blames herself not because she didn’t go to the hospital with its evil science and real medicine. No, she probably blames herself because she didn’t have enough faith. With more faith her prayers would surely have been answered. Or maybe she just thinks this is God’s will and she should be thankful for the chance to go to jail for 20-25 years to learn some divine lesson or fulfil some punishment.

I mean I really hope she has come to her senses and blames herself for believing that prayer was going to work. But sadly blaming lack of faith is how the logic of these religions work to strengthen their stranglehold. Hell, even the two faced Mother Theresa knew praying was bullshit and didn’t really believe it all.

It seems like never occurs that God must have been responsible for the bad thing the first place, or perhaps (if you have to have god in the picture) blessing you with close proximity to a fully stocked, clean, modern hospital.

Let’s hope this is the trigger for the people involved to realise that they need to stop just accepting “god speaks to me”, “I believe in the power of prayer”, “God will answer our prayers” and maybe religion will die out a bit quicker.

The Attorney said this in her closing statement:

“Basic medical care would have saved Kara’s life — fluids and insulin,” Falstad said. “There was plenty of time to save Kara’s life.”

It was an arrogant exercise in self delusion that meant that the real help (which they all knew was just a 911 emergency call away) was requested. It was the adults involved gambling a child’s life on the unlikely event that she might recover by herself (from a state of not being able to walk or talk) so that they could happy-clap each other and praise the lord. So for that reason alone they all need to go to jail.

I love how it appears that people involved still think the parent is praiseworthy.

He said Neumann was a devout Christian and took good care of her four children.

Aah, what part of killing a child makes her a good parent? I’m no parent, but I’m pretty sure that’s a “you have failed parenting” situation. My parents never killed me as a child and I turned out ok.

From an Earthly and morally good (e.g. not Isaac’s old man) standpoint – parents should look after their kids by taking them to a doctor when they’re sick or injured. If this was “mother high on crack lets baby die of neglect” these religious types would be treating this entirely differently. Both are a tragedy for the poor kid, both are situations where someone’s mind is not working quite right. One gets special government subsidies (tax free status) to promote and pollute people’s minds with rubbish, the other is illegal under anti-drug laws.

I’d suggest that the prayer group who sat by with the parents should also be charged for contributing and not calling a doctor when it was pretty obvious that the kid wasn’t getting better. But maybe they thought an exorcism could fix it right at the end.

By the way, if you’re reading this in Ireland: it may be illegal to do so thanks to rediculous “blasphemous libel” laws proposed by the Irish PM.

After all, my saying prayer is stupid, useless and dangerous is insulting to a whole bunch of religions.. *shrug*

Anyhow, let’s hope we see less prayer and more action and maybe people won’t end up unecessarily dying while good people stand by looking skyward when they should just get in and do something.

Creationist swine flu

See the original one here.

A quick update as I’ve been a bit waylaid with getting back to the working world and haven’t even found much time for the new toy. But life’s going fine (and it’s nice to be earning an income after the bumming around on the bike touring in Europe). Heading into “winter” in Sydney I’m pretty relaxed about the temperature as I won’t be getting stuck in snow here.

Nath

Check out this disturbing post at a site called “rapture ready”.

I’ll quote..

..actually, you know what, I’m looking for something to quote that doesn’t make me feel like taking an ice pick to my head when I read of these nitwits who want to act like spoilt children in the hope that their sun god father will wipe out the world. I suppose it’s a natural progression given that prayer achieves absolutely nothing, their religions are fast losing followers and having an all powerful god who appears completely non-existant must sting a bit. I can only hope they work on keeping their virginity forever and thus take themselves out of the gene pool.

Ok, here’s one:

I don’t want the Rapture to happen now. I want it to have happened YESTERDAY!!! I wanna go home daddddddyyyyyyyy!

and another from “WaitingForJesus”:

I very badly want to go home, too. I feel alienated from this world with its ungodly ways. I know it’s selfish of me (because I guess we SHOULD want to stay a bit longer so we can evangelize some more…), but I wanna go RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!

and still more:

The rapture is the blessed hope which is a desire that the Lord puts in our hearts. I suppose its a lot like looking forward to Christmas as a child, the more you look forward to it and anticipate it, the more you enjoy it when it finally comes.

There’s at least hope for one on the forum:

I always thought that the cough syrup in California was a lot more potent than here in Iowa…you have confirmed my thoughts

I mean it’s a pretty sick kind of mindset I think that goes to bed each night and wakes up each morning hoping that the wrath of god will descend upon anyone who hasn’t accepted a bunch of unfounded stories about some guy called Jesus (that just happen to mirror a bunch of astrology based stories the Egyptian religions had long before). If this was anything other than religion these people would be on suicide watch.

To give you further examples of the insanity of this notion that the world will end thanks to rapture: there are a bunch of twits who think that Obama is the anti-christ.

I mean is it any wonder we had 8 years of George W Bush?

They really should put a child proof lid on the ballot box to stop these dickheads getting to vote.

First up the denouncements and excuses:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Islamic leaders have condemned a Melbourne Muslim cleric who told followers it was permissible to hit their wives and force them to have sex.

But Coburg mosque cleric Samir Abu Hamza has told a confidant his message has been taken out of context and that he was referring to hitting wives in a metaphorical sense.

So let’s tick off the standard excuses, as per numerous earlier times. Like former top clerichead of Australia Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali comparing women to uncovered meat.

I’m starting to see a consistent pattern here, how about I save the newspapers some time:

Prime minister [Insert current PM here] and Islamic leaders have [condemned/strongly condemned] [remarks/footage/comments made by] [insert offending Muslim cleric name here] who told followers it was [insert misogynistic “right” or absolution of guilt of men here].

Cleric [insert Muslim cleric name here] claims his comments were taken out of context and [were not meant to refer to all women/were a metaphor].

[… body of article here ..]

[Insert other Muslim person name here] said [insert offending Muslim cleric name here] remarks were [inaccurate/not representative of Muslims/not representative of Islam] and upsetting to the Muslim community.

That should just about cover all the stories to do with idiots given mosque audience to spout their primitive philosophy on life. We can also re-use this template for other religious fools like Fred Nile etc.

The latest divinely inspired dickhead cleric clerichead was evidently too busy with his nose in the Qur’an to notice the government campaigns in the past and present in Australia (see my old blog post) meant to educate anyone with screwed up enough morals to not inherently know that women are not punching bags, that violence or forcing a wife to have sex is unacceptable. That’s regardless what the Qur’an says or you think it says. The law does not respect religious beliefs when they contradict the real laws of the country.

He says:

“In this country if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to and she hasn’t got a sickness or whatever, there is nothing wrong with her she just does not feel like it, and he ends up sleeping with her by force … it is known to be as rape.

“Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?”

What really amazes me is that the crowd doesn’t say something. If ever this was an opportunity for the great Aussie heckler or piss-take put down to be inserted it’s when some twit is vomiting up this garbage.

By the way, this guy was giving a lecture titled “The Keys to a Successful Marriage”. A spokesperson for the latest round:

“In regards to hitting your wife, his position is that it has always been metaphorical – it’s not a whack, it’s not a slap, it’s a wake-up call.”

Yes, the millions of battered wives worldwide can take comfort in knowing that their latest black eye, broken jaw or murder by spouse is all just a metaphor for a “wake-up call”.

“First of all advise them [then] you beat them … but this is the last resort,” he says.

“After you have advised them for a long, long time then you smack them, you beat them and, please, brothers, calm down — the beating the Mohammed showed is like the toothbrush that you use to brush your teeth.

“You are not allowed to bruise them, you are not allowed to make them bleed.”

So, the question has to be asked: is the brave Samir Abu Hamza happy if a bunch of previous domestic violence victims inflict a bit of smacking, beating that doesn’t leave bruises for educational purposes. You know: perhaps some blows to the back of the head, or chin (since he’s got a big ol’ cleric beard that will hide any bruises, just like virtuous women should have a big old veil to cover theirs). There’s someone in need of a wakeup call and it isn’t the pesky independent minded woman folk.

A nameless source chimes in with a denial:

“We do not hit our women, you can ask any Muslim woman and she will tell you that, it’s not part of Islam,” the male staff member, who did not want to be named, said.

and if she says they do, just give her a metaphorical punch in the face until she says it right eh? I mean what fucking planet are these guys on: by that reckoning we should find that there’s no domestic violence at all in Muslim communities? Well that’s just bullshit, it’s an across the board issue that Islam has to acknowledge a part in and no one is saying ALL Muslim men beat their wives (although if they regard the Qur’an as the only law: then they’re well within their rights.. As would they be able to have slaves too). I’d hope that a large majority (large large!) choose (as most sane people do) to just ignore the Qur’an and people like Hamza and obey the law and good morals.

Source in the Qur’an

So where do all these cericheads get their inspiration from? It’s always been a passage in the Qur’an that I go back to time and time again to show just how incorrect, irrelevant, backward and ignorant Islamic teaching is. Succinctly and elegantly destroys the notion that the Qur’an is a perfect book. I speak of the Qur’an 4:34 and it reads like so (in PowerPoint bullets for brevity):

• Men are superior to and in charge of women because god made them that way and they’re the breadwinners in the family
• Good women should know their place and don’t sleep around or flash their girl bits around when the man is out of town
• For disobedient women (or ones you fear are disobedient) you can “admonish” them, kick them out of the bed and then beat (or scourge) them

One translator tried to act as editor for the obviously insane Mohammed and put in “(lightly)” in front of “beat”. The clerichead in this latest fit of stupidity claims insanity via metaphor. But it seems the message hasn’t really been very clear for a perfect book if we’re supposed to not do what it says:

I really feel sorry for the host of this TV program having to let this twit spout his nonsense. As she says “What do you mean by light beatings? I’d really like to know”:

An improvement to the perfect word of god

The web is full of people trying to make sense of this nonsense passage in the Qur’an or exposing similar types of ignorant Islamic speakers. Ultimately the conclusion is that the Qur’an isn’t anything divine, or perfect or useful in today’s world. I, a mere mortal, could improve the “perfect” word of god in a very easy fashion: throw away 4:34 and read it thus:

Men and women are created equal and should have equal opportunities and responsibilities. Neither has the right to force the other to do something against their will. Neither should ever be violent towards the other.

Seems like my version would be a lot less open to interpretation. But who am I to question the perfect word of god eh?

Just like Qur’anic justification of slavery this line and others expose the source for the Qur’an as purely of men on this Earth and typical of a time when the minds of those writing it couldn’t comprehend a future where things were different. Sure: at the time perhaps having a multistep process to disciplining your wife was a step better than just taking her out and killing her, but we’ve moved on quite a bit since those days (at least in the developed world). The problems of domestic violence and rape are by no means restricted to religious reasons, but it sure doesn’t help when people take up these teachings as divine justification for barbaric actions.

This view of the night sky is not the sky I grew up under back in Australia, it’s missing a few familiar constellations and has a few bright stars in unfamiliar places. But with my (albeit quite limited) knowledge of astronomy and physics I have a rough but reasonable  idea of what each of those points of light in the sky can represent (as much as anyone can comprehend the dimensions and physics of stars and galaxies). But it strikes me just how different a set of eyes I look out on the night sky with compared to those who born in a time or place where science hadn’t had a chance to open their eyes from the clenched shut state we’re born with. To some eyes the night sky was a universal illusion: a curtain hung just beyond the clouds to prevent anyone from seeing beyond.

The difference in view is understandable but it’s quite a sad view of the world to so convince yourself that the almighty power of the universe is nothing more than a stage magician (or magicians). Under cover of night they dart around behind the scenes holding up a diamond encrusted cloak at night so we have something pretty to look at. Hidden behind the curtain the powers that be play cosmic scale games of chance with the lives of people below.

A world run by a stage manager deity who maintains things via smoke and mirrors in between tugs on the puppet strings of divine determined fate. The sad implication though that is that we’re nothing more than wooden puppets or unpaid extras on stage as eye candy. There to be tossed, prodded and pushed at will; little hope for anything good except to keep our heads down to avoid an early demise or eternal damnation for some indiscretion or stray thought.

Trouble is that this notion still exists, albeit moved on from stars in the sky and onto some other aspect of scientifically explainable but often supernaturally associated area. Now the gaps in knowledge to argue along are incredibly niche in comparison. No longer able to point at the sun and say “what makes that shine” and yell “ah-ha! See, god must be doing it”, the things to try this silly game with are ever so minute in scale or far distant in the past.

Science generally has some very good ideas on anything and everything or is in the process of confirming or discarding ideas (as it has always been doing). The real problem is that the information doesn’t seem to get through sometimes. Instead nonsensical cosmic witchcraft is the pre-chosen and preferred option of the literalist, orthodox, fundamentalist, creationist or “true unwavering believer”.

All I can hope is that education finds a way to open the eyes of everyone. Every single human being on the planet because solid education undermines the efforts of the current and future people who blunder through science seeking new niche areas of the universe to belittle into smoke and mirrors so that their magician god has a place in it all. Along the way it sweeps aside irrational prejudices and superstition.  The view of the world is so much clearer without such a pointless distraction from the amazing nature of the universe the more we understand it.

So banish the irrelevant magician out the back door: we’ve a much better show on stage now and better with each night’s new additions to the vast body of science. There’s room out back in the reject bin with the other fairytale creatures if he really needs a place.