Religious Persecution Just Ain't What It Used To Be!

But Don't Worry, Torture of Gays May Yet Become Legal

Hypatia of Alexandria (pronounced /haɪˈpeɪʃə/) (Greek: Ὑπατία; born between AD 350 and 370 – 415) was a Greek scholar from Alexandria in Egypt, considered the first notable woman in mathematics, who also taught philosophy and astronomy. She lived in Roman Egypt, and was killed by a Coptic Christian mob who blamed her for religious turmoil. She has been hailed as a "valiant defender of science against religion."

And according to Gibbon:

She was stripped naked and dragged through the streets to the newly christianised Caesareum church and killed. Some reports suggest she was flayed with ostrakois (literally, "oyster shells", though also used to refer to roof tiles or broken pottery) and set ablaze while still alive, though other accounts suggest those actions happened after her death:

A new angle by one reader:

This Prop. 8 is nothing less than religious persecution against those who have different beliefs. And if straight unmarried people think they are safe from these "conservatives"- think again. In Arkansas, there is a push by these religious groups to ban unmarried people from fostering children.

Once gays and lesbians have been persecuted with a change to the state Constitution, there is no telling who these people will set their sights on next. Vote No on Prop. 8 - it is religious persecution, pure and simple.

I agree, but making the Elmer Gantrys and Elmer Fudds of the world see that point of view is totally frustrating. They, like their religious ancestors, need to hate people. To them, life isn't worth living unless you have "heathens" "pagans" "Jews" "outcasts" "lepers" "sodomites" to go up against. They are, after all, devils in disguise.

There's a Christian Crimeline somewhere in my research. From ca. 200 CE (yes, even before the New Testament was solidified/sanctioned, there were Christians killing other Christians as "heretics") through events like the concentration camp for pagans (a Catholic Auschwitz) at Skythopolis (in Syria) and through the Crusades (great excuse for killing Jews as well as Muslims!) and through the "civilization" of the Americas and the "heathen" Native Americans, up till the present day, over 140 MILLION people have been killed "In the Name of God!"


In Europe, most of the 782 wars in the last 800 years have been sanctioned (on both sides) by Christianity. To this day, Christianity has not been able to come up with satisfactory apologies for anti-Semitism, slavery and just about every kind of bigotry known to man. Hitler was not original: even popes thought about the possibility of eugenics (Pacelli - Pius XII - would have experimented with anything to destroy Communist Russia).


Crazy, nitpicking "doctrines" have given rise to about 30,000 denominations, while the "non-denominational" churches still have "statements of belief" which are scary in the extreme. Televangelists and megachurch preachers don't even bother to hide their hatred for others. And while some proselytizing churchgoers preach "love the sinner, hate the sin," they more than not get their slogan backwards when "at war" in the sinful secular world handling subjects like homosexuality.

Do I actually think that gas ovens are in our future if they succeed in legislating hate and bans like Proposition 8?

Let's put it this way: once they feel any sort of power, they know that such power is not an end.

It's a beginning.

Just a thought.

jesus-loves-you

jesus-loves-you
Originally uploaded by DiscoWeasel

The one that gets me is "Capable of logical reason" because most Christofasicst sheeple are told not to reason because it is sinful to question the Word of God. They can use reasoning in any other endeavor but not when it comes to their religion, not on your life! (or soul). They actually have signs that read; "Don't think...believe" (Creation Museum, of course). And when a good, thinking Christian asks questions his/her minister can't answer, the reply is "take it as a matter of faith." That may be the coward's way out of a situation, but to the clergy, it works every time.

Try this little conundrum in your Bible Study class: The Bible says that the Ark was made out of "gopher wood." Fine. So what does gopher wood look like? Where is it indigenous? Is it soft, hard, porous, what? Answer: gopher wood has never been identified. If the Ark was so large, then there must have been plenty of gopher wood around. Mesopotamia? No. Lebanon? No. Syria? Jordan? Sudan? Ethiopia? Egypt? No. No. No. No. And...no. No gopher wood. Period.

Well, we just have to take its existence on faith. Right?

Right.

Mormons Send Money Across State Lines for Immoral Purposes

It's Not Proposition 8
It's Proposition Hate!

Mormons really do want to be accepted by the rest of the "Christian" Community. In fact, they're willing to shell out money for that acceptance.

Lots of money.

Actually, it's "hate money." That's where the questionable morality of donating to California's Proposition 8 comes in. It's not a "protect the children" Proposition. It's not a "government legislating morals" Proposition. It's not even a "it will cost the taxpayers money" Proposition. No, though all of these things have been cited in the "we're not hatemongers" ads, it's still a Proposition of Hate.

Several segments of "Letters to the Editor" of the San Francisco Chronicle have well-founded reasons to say "No" to Proposition 8:

Since Mormons have donated in excess of $9 million, accounting for at least 40 percent of Prop. 8's donors, we Californians need to scrupulously guard against a secretive religious sect from Utah controlling and subverting civil rights law in our state.

And this one raises the rather unique angle of religious persecution:

This Prop. 8 is nothing less than religious persecution against those who have different beliefs. And if straight unmarried people think they are safe from these "conservatives"- think again. In Arkansas, there is a push by these religious groups to ban unmarried people from fostering children.

Once gays and lesbians have been persecuted with a change to the state Constitution, there is no telling who these people will set their sights on next. Vote No on Prop. 8 - it is religious persecution, pure and simple.

Mormons have given money and MANPOWER for Proposition 8, according to CBS News:

Mormons have been active participants in the campaign both as volunteers and financial contributors, giving an estimated 43 percent—some $8.4 million—to the Proposition 8 campaign, according to the Web site mormonsfor8.com. There are about 770,000 Mormon church members in California, but Mormons from outside the state have been encouraged to give money and time to help pass the measure.

We could also look at the infusion of Mormon money into California as Big Business: while getting in good with Christians who think that Mormonism is a cult, they can promote the temples already in California.

Gotta protect the franchises.

Just a thought.

The Stupidity of Banning People From Doing What They Enjoy

Or...Ban, Baby, Ban!

Freedom was written into the Constitution. There were only a few instances (in its Amendments) where the Constitution actually banned certain procedures, social institutions or substances:

Abolition (Prohibition) of Slavery
Prohibition of the Poll Tax
Prohibition of Alcohol
Prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment

So, in a way, the Constitution - through some of its prohibitions - legislated morality. When it banned personal freedoms, such as drinking alcohol, it met with some very disastrous results: (From Wikipedia):

The effects of Prohibition were largely unanticipated. Production, importation and distribution of alcoholic beverages—once the province of legitimate business—were taken over by criminal gangs, which fought each other for market control in violent confrontations, including mass murder. Top gangsters became rich and were admired locally, such as Omaha's Tom Dennison, and nationally, such as Chicago's Al Capone. This effectively made murderers into national celebrities. Enforcement was difficult because the gangs became so rich that they were often able to bribe underpaid and understaffed law-enforcement personnel and hire top lawyers.

Evangelists have tried - and failed - to ban things people truly enjoy: Carry Nation and Billy Sunday both crusaded for the prohibition of alcohol. Southern Baptist churches have had a ban on dancing. But dancing (like sex) is hard to ban since it is an enjoyable pastime.

Now people are trying to ban love and commitment.

At least, that's what marriage is supposed to be. However, love and commitment are rather popular these days, and when people want to ban them or even restrict them in any way, the public will still do what it wants in secret (like back-alley abortions, illegal commitments will still happen). The funny thing about banning same-sex marriages is that they still have to be proven harmful to the public at large. People who espouse the "protection" of marriage have put forth lame "theories" about what legalization of gay marriage would do to families, but no concrete facts. So, the same argument that they (erroneously) use on evolution could be used here: "Same-sex marriage as a social detriment is ONLY A THEORY."

Of course, the mentality of Christofascists does not accept rationality. They're still working to repeal the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."

Just a thought.

Today Is The Day Disagree With Andrew Sullivan About Gay Marriage

Andrew Sullivan on marriage:

No other institution has an equivalent power to include people in their own familial narrative or civic history as deeply or as powerfully as civil marriage does. And the next generation see themselves as people first and gay second.

I read Andrew Sullivan every day. His POV is essential reading for anyone who wants to engage in a rational, but impassioned (and sometimes conservative) discussion on the people and events of the day. No matter how frustrating the news feed headlines are, I feel I can always turn to Sullivan to bring me back to a very human earth. So it is with sadness that I must qualify his views on same-sex marriage.

I say "qualify" because I agree with him in his article "My Big Fat Straight Wedding" - to a point.

It's wonderful to read:

Ours was not, we realized, a different institution, after all, and we were not different kinds of people. In the doing of it, it was the same as my sister’s wedding and we were the same as my sister and brother-in-law. The strange, bewildering emotions of the moment, the cake and reception, the distracted children and weeping mothers, the morning’s butterflies and the night’s drunkenness: this was not a gay marriage; it was a marriage.

I had that kind of feeling 33 years ago. I wasn't formally "married" to David, but his family treated me as a welcome addition to the family. Aunts, uncles, grandparents - all accepted me (one time David got visibly jealous that I received more Christmas presents than he did!). It was so wonderful that, when we parted I wanted "custody" of his family. Our loving friendship (his family's and mine) lasted past his death from AIDS in 1986. Yes, I know what a difference joyful acceptance can make.

But it's not an acceptance everyone is lucky enough to savor.

At the time, both David and I - the rest of our gay community - were absolutely certain that once a significant number of people were out of the closet, people everywhere would accept us as equals.

That was not to be. Still isn't.

We didn't count on the ferocity of anti-gay sentiments and the "Christian Right", at first led by Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, then by various others all over the country. We didn't count on "religious" people demonizing us when AIDS came along. We didn't know then that there were people who needed to hate someone, something... anything.

Andrew: I'm overjoyed at the experiences you have with your family. They make me feel lucky that I ever had them. But please try to understand the sheer volume of people who repudiate you for being gay. And repudiate your family for accepting you.

Gay marriage will be a rallying point for bigotry and homophobia for as long as the two exist. And for as long as CINOs (Christians In Name Only), Fundamentalists and Christofascists continue to work against equality. Even winning in cases like No on Proposition 8 won't make things any better. Yes, "it's a start," but I have a very uneasy feeling that with the defeat of Prop 8, we will inadvertently corner a very dangerous wild animal. I'm for that defeat, but I fear it at the same time.

We're already seeing how angry people are when they attend McCain-Palin rallies. We've known for the whole time that Palin was just a bone tossed to Franklin Graham and the rest. But feeding on the wild (read: ungrammatical) rhetoric of Palin has made them rabid. They're the "sheeple" of the leaders like Robertson (old school), Rod Parsley (new and unschooled) and Rick Warren (new and very very shrewd). They are today's Elmer Gantrys and their followers are Elmer Fudds.

But always remember, Andrew: Fudd is the one with the gun.

Just a thought.

The B**h Doctrine: Waterboarding PBS

PBS Cracked Under Torture!

READERS PLEASE NOTE: Because it is impolite to spell out four-letter expletives, I have decided to err on the side of propriety and not to shock you with the full speeling of our President's last name. It has been used as a curse word for so long that it really should be termed a "vulgarism" (like "damn") but it is still on the list of words deemed mortal sins by the Legion of Utterly Boring Decency. Republicans haven't said it in quite some time! Sorry. I rather enjoyed using it sometimes. You know, like "get B**hed!" and "go B**h yourself!" But some people (I don't really know who) might be offended. So, if you like writers with Touretts Syndrome, you'll just have to read Ann Coulter(geist's) column.

B**h and "The Muzzle":

The muzzle was on for a long time and it was used to hold PBS tight to the board. But instead of flowing water, it was the possibility of no federal funds that PBS was tortured with. After all, the B**h administration threatened to cut off funding after PBS aired B**h's War on Frontline.

On Thursday evening WNET in New York will air an important new documentary by Emmy and Dupont Award winning producer Sherry Jones entitled “Torturing Democracy.” It appears on WNET and several other affiliates independently because PBS would not run the show. […]

According to producer Sherry Jones, PBS told her that “no time slot could be found for the documentary before January 21, 2009″ — the day after George W. B**h and Dick Cheney leave office.

How coincidental! No kidding. It makes you wonder what else we're going to find out after January 21 (note to self, must prepare for Armeggedon). Today, October 15, Bill Moyers' JOURNAL will end with these statements:

BILL MOYERS:The second film — "Torturing Democracy" — recounts how the B**h White House and the Pentagon decided to make coercive detention and abusive interrogation the official U.S. policy on the war on terror.

MALCOLM NANCE: We have re-created our enemy's methodologies in Guantanamo. It will hurt us for decades to come. Decades. Our people will all be subjected to these tactics, because we have authorized them for the world now. How it got to Guantanamo is a crime and somebody needs to figure out who did it, how they did it, who authorized them to do it, and shut it down. Because our servicemen will suffer for years.

BILL MOYERS:You'll see and hear some things hard to bear but you'll also meet some government insiders who refused to go along, who stood up and said "this is wrong." Check your local listings to see when "Torturing Democracy" and "P.O.V.'s Soldiers of Conscience" will be broadcast where you live.

Please watch these documentaries, unless you worry about being labeled a "traitor" or, worse yet, "someone who pals around with terrorists."

The preview below doesn't even begin to describe the theme of "Torturing Democracy." Of course, because it was made for a "leftist" show like Frontline, - no self-respecting "Joe Sixpack" will watch it anyway!

Losing Your Rights In This Election? So Who Cares?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are ...

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It's been a long time since I looked at those words and took them to heart, especially the pursuit-of-happiness thing.

Pursuit of happiness. Doesn't sound difficult. But when people hate you, it's VERY difficult. Because no matter how far you try to distance yourself from hate, it's always seems to surround you, even in the subtlest of texts. For instance: do you want to fall in love? Do you want to marry the person you love? Once married, do you want to adopt children? Can you worship God without some form of formal doctrine? Can you choose NOT to worship any god? Can you have the "freedom of religion" while still having "freedom FROM religion?"

The answers to these questions are most aptly expressed in two words: "That Depends."

Actually, the closer answer is: "That depends on the kind of religion predominant in your country." The aggressive, Right-Wing Christofascists of this country want to see you fall in love with the "right" people. They want you to marry in the tradition of their beliefs (at least in the traditions their leaders tell them are acceptable). You can adopt as long as it fits their guidelines for a "traditional" family structure. They want you to worship their (singular) god in a variety of ways, but those methods of worship must be witnessed by other worshipers and in a proper manner. "Freedom of religion" only takes place within their sphere of acceptance.

In America, there is no such thing as freedom FROM religion.

Groups like the Family Research Council want to take away your liberties because your liberties offend their liberties.

FRC's Tony Perkins:

Dear Friends,

Unless you act immediately by contacting CBS's Bob Schieffer, the moderator in Wednesday's final presidential debate, it's likely that the final meeting of the candidates will not contain any questions on marriage or abortion.

Last Friday, Connecticut's Supreme Court overturned that State's marriage law and mandated that every citizen recognize homosexual "marriage." Voters have the right to hear the candidates answer these timely questions:

• Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution contains a right for homosexuals to marry?
• Would you change the traditional definition of marriage contained in the federal Defense of Marriage Act?
• Do you support the Defense of Marriage Act's provision allowing states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states?
• Have you ever opposed any ballot initiative seeking to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?

I don't know about Bob Schiefer, but I would resent anyone trying to put words in my mouth as if I were so stupid as to not know the most important questions to ask. Schiefer is a PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST and broadcaster. Of course, Perkins loathes the media, whether professional or not.

And the subject has been covered before in the vice presidential debates. Perkins, give your elephantiasis of the ego and your self-righteousness a rest!

To get back to rights and issues, ask yourself this question in the ballot box: will this person or law protect my rights (and even expand them) or will he/it take away my rights?

Just a thought.