What I hate about [CENSORED]

You've all heard about [CENSORED] before, and most of you have probably thought the same thing. A lot of people have tried to call out the followers of [CENSORED], only to be met with death threats (and occasionally, those threats have been acted upon.) People have been censored for even trying to talk about [CENSORED] without actually talking about it. Don't even think about talking about [CENSORED]'s prophet, The Prophet [CENSORED], may [CENSORED] be upon [CENSORED]. To quote an extremist [CENSORED] website on the subject; "You could end up dead."

This post isn't going to be about the specific things within the religion that I hate. I'm not going to talk about how the Prophet [CENSORED] was a child molester and a violent psychopath without a single redeeming quality. I'm not going to talk about how [CENSORED]'s followers belong to an incredibly violent, backwards civilization which has slowly but surely stripped themseves of all respect in the eyes of the global community through their own actions. I'm not going to write more than a few words about how any faith that supports violence against anybody has no place in the world today. I've read through the the [CENSORED], their holy book.

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them."

It should be noted that quotes like this are plentiful within the [CENSORED], but most of them mention [CENSORED] or the Prophet [CENSORED], and I didn't want to take the value of the quote away by pasting my little "[CENSORED]" in there. Any time I've seen quotes like these brought up in discussion, there are two replies. One type of reply brings up other quotes from the [CENSORED] that call against violence, saying things like "[CENSORED] is with those who restrain themselves." The second type of reply is basically "Take this down now!" or "You deserve to die!" [CENSORED], right? Yeah, fuck [CENSORED].

To the former group, while I applaud you on arguing on a level fitting the 21st century, I don't need to point out that your holy [CENSORED] calls for violence against non believers, and for restraint against fellow [CENSORED]s. I'm a non believer, an infidel, and your [CENSORED] says to kill me. I take issue with that. To the latter group, you are the face and the voice of your religion. As the loudest, the angriest, and the craziest fucking [CENSORED]s out there, you are what non-[CENSORED]s see, hear, and think about whenever [CENSORED] or the Prophet [CENSORED] is brought up. Congratulations, you're destroying your own religion.


Wait, didn't I say I wasn't going to talk about the [CENSORED] religion itself... right. Oops! I'm not going to mention any of those things beyond this point because I think that anybody reading this already knows it. Fuck [CENSORED].

What I want to talk about is how [CENSORED] has been treated by the media. How buckling to the demands of a small radical bunch of [CENSORED] morons not only destroys what we believe in as far as free speech, but it also promotes the kind of hateful filth that [CENSORED] militants scream about. Every time we censor the word [CENSORED], or refuse to mention the Prophet [CENSORED], we slowly but surely give them ground. These violent [CENSORED]s see it happen, and they see themselves winning a battle that shouldn't exist in the first place. The western world, with all of it's freedoms and all of it's strength, bullied into submission by a group of idiotic blind [CENSORED] followers.

People are following suit, though. It seems that this type of censorship is making headlines more and more often. The [CENSORED]s are learning that with a few threats, they can get whatever they want. The more we cave into these rediculous threats, the greater the rift between our two cultures becomes. We say something about [CENSORED], [CENSORED]s demand that it be removed, we remove it. Their children see us apologize and believe that we're afraid. Our children see them threaten us and believe that they're dangerous. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I certainly missed the part of the Charter (Or the Constitution) under Freedom of Speech that said (Except for [CENSORED]).

Once we've agreed that [CENSORED] is not available for discussion, that the Prophet [CENSORED] should never be mentioned, where do we stop? Will [CENSORED]s and [CENSORED]s demand the same treatment? Will [CENSORED]s threaten violence if we mention the crucifiction of [CENSORED]? What about [CENSORED]? I'll bet [CENSORED] will be unavailable for comment while his lawyers sue [CENSORED] into [CENSORED] for mentioning [CENSORED]. People with [CENSORED]s will start asking for [CENSORED] too, because something offended [CENSORED] and they [CENSORED] want to look different. [CENSORED], what's happening to [CENSORED], are we really doing [CENSORED]? Is it so [CENSORED] to give in on [CENSORED] one small issue, so that we don't sacrifice [CENSORED] [CENSORED] [CENSORED]. Or am I just [CENSORED]?

Man, fuck Islam.

Arrest the Pope!

Most people, with regards to the Pope, probably believe he's a pretty good guy. After all, he's the Pope, right? Such a position within the church surely demands a benevolent person with a high personal moral standard! No Pope in history could ever have done anything wrong, many of them are now Saints themselves! I mean, it's not as though we have records of political murders, church funded wars, the spanish inquistion, the genocide of non-conformist christian sects, deals with and support for the Nazis, complete denial of the holocaust, or the excommunication of "sexual deviants," including pregnant teens, homosexuals, and even rape victims seeking an abortion.... right? That's all just silly-talk.

Oh, wait. Oops.

Thomas Ratzinger, the man we call Pope Benedict XVI has left a new stain on the record of the catholic church to be added to that list. I've brought this up with a few friends from time to time, and the reaction is always the same - "I don't know if I believe that." This is always what they say. So, in an attempt to quell any doubts that may be floating around out there that this actually happened, I've provided links! Beautiful, glorious links! Included are a documentary produced by BBC, several news articles, and even the actual document written by Ratzinger himself.

A BBC documentary on the subject:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Here are a few articles further describing the Pope's involvement:
The London Standard
Guardian.co.uk
BSAlert.com
BBC.com
ABC News
Dialog International

This is a link to the document itself, provided by The Guardian.
The Vatican Document written by Ratzinger

And finally, a move to have the Pope arrested and charged: CNSNews.com

Now, while I personally support the move to have Ratzinger arrested and tried for his crimes, I don't think it's going to work out. I think that his diplomatic immunity as the head of a sovereign nation will get him off the hook. I don't think he'll spend a single day in prison, and I don't think he'll ever be forced to pay for what he's done.

I do, however, think that all of the disgusting skeletons in this man's closet will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the light. I think that this will, at the very least, bring this pile of inhuman filth and his crimes to the eyes and ears of all of his followers, supporters, and faithful subjects all over the world. I think that at least some of the people who hear about it will have the common sense to think, "I will never support a system like that ever again." And I think that the fewer supporters a corrupt, immoral system like this has, the better.

Baby steps.

Religiots!

It's been a couple months since I've posted anything, and it feels like forever. I intend to start adding stuff to the blog regularily again, lately I've been unable to do so due to medical issues.

I've been fighting cancer, actually. Testicular cancer. It's not the kind of thing that you want to start making funeral arrangements over - 99% of the time it's treatable - but it was still a stressful time.

Throughout the entire ordeal, I've had numerous people say things like
"Thank God it wasn't worse!"
or...
"Someone's looking out for you!"
I've always just laughed and nodded, said something like
"Yeah, I guess so."
These people are trying to offer sympathy or condolences, you can't go on telling them
"Actually, you can't evaluate the existence of God on a case-by-case basis, what about the thousands of people who die from cancer every year?"
No, you can't tell them that. That would be rude.

That's it for now, but I'll be posting on a weekly basis again from here on out.
(For real this time.)

On the Subject of Hate Crimes...

After reading this article, I've been pretty angry. The story talks about the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, an act working to include violent crimes committed based on someone's sexual orientation to be added to the list of hate-crimes in the states. Matthew Shepard was a man in Wyoming who was tied to a fencepost and beaten to death because he was gay - the bill is named after him. Good idea, right? I think we can all agree that tying anyone to a post and beating them to death is generally a dick move, and doing so because of their nationality, gender, race, or sexual orientation is most definitely a hate crime, right? Can we all agree on that?

No, we can't, apparently.

A christian group in the states is claiming that new hate crime legislation is "an effort to eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda from the marketplace of ideas by demonizing, vilifying, and criminalizing such beliefs as a matter of federal law and policy."

Agenda? What? Did I miss something? Is there a greater plan involved here, is the gay community meeting in secret - planning something? Does it involve short-shorts or assless chaps? Saying something like "the homosexual agenda," in my opinion, is tantamount to saying "I'm a big moron, and nobody should ever listen to me." It's an absolutely rediculous statement, and there aren't enough words in the english language to describe the baffling ignorance behind it.

The group believes that because their religion says that it's A-O-K to hate homosexuality, that any bill opposing that belief is an attack on the religion itself.

They're idiots. There's really no other way I can put it, they're idiots. Most people who read about them will probably come to the same conclusion; theists and atheists, hetero and homosexual alike.

What really gets to me in situations like this, however, are the "moderates," the people who say things like "That's not how Christianity is." The fact is, this is exactly how your religion is. These people are in the spotlight, talking about all the dirty little secrets involved in your religion, preaching it to the masses.

You can try to sugar-coat it, and say that it's not part of what you believe, but it's there. It's part of the faith, part of the religion that you endorse - that you hold up. The radicals and the crazies are screaming hate and vitriol at the top of their lungs, and they're doing so while riding on your backs. By supporting their religion, you are inadvertently supporting them.

Aaaaaaand /end rant.

I Heart Matt Dillahunty

I've been busy with a few things lately, and haven't had time to write anything. I would like to share this with you, though. It's a response given by Matt Dillahunty to an email he received. The email basically said "I have a friend who's a Christian who claims that his religion lives up to a standard of evidence sufficient to be considered historically accurate, both through the bible and through extra-biblical references. Is this true?" This was Dillahunty's reply.

The short answer to your question is no. The long answer is that he's like millions of other christians who are completely ignorant about what their bible says, about the history of the biblical canon, about the history of their religion, about what evidence actually exists, about what historians have to say, about what sort of evidence historians consider sufficient to justify claims of existance, and about what sort of evidence one would need to have in order to rationally justifiably believe that a miracle has occurred.
The facts are these; there are no contemporary extrabiblical accounts of any events specific to the life of Jesus. that means no independant sources from any eye witnesses with regards to his birth, life, miracles, ministry, death, or proposed resurrection.
The gospels are anonymous, we have no original manuscripts, they do not agree on details, they do not agree with recorded history, and the consensus of new testament scholarship is that none of them were written by eye witnesses. The bible has stories about eye witnesses but we don't have a single comment from anyone claiming to be an eye witness.
The process of canonization included books that doctrinally agreed with those in power, and eliminated and attempted to destroy books that were considered heretical by those in power... Yet those same books were considered [divinely] inspired by other sects. Books like Revelation barely made it into the bible, as many considered them to be uninspired, books like the Shephard of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter which had traditionally been considered divinely inspired were excluded. Paul's epistles, some of which are of questionable authorship were the first books of the new testament to be written, and that was decades after the purported life of Jesus. The gospels were written many years later, perhaps many decades later, by unknown authors. Historians from the late first and second century do mention christians, and some refer to Jesus, but none of these were eye witnesses, and most of them couldn't even have spoken to someone who could have claimed to be an eye witness.
So, we have the bible. a collection of stories by largely unknown authors who are unlikely to be eyewitnesses and we don't have originals of their work. We have copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of copies. Anonymous books recording an oral tradition passed down decades or centuries after the purported events in a time when myths, superstitions, and god-men claims were plentiful. During a time when fact-checking and literacy were rare, and when doctrinal wars prompted forged documents (paul even mentions this in the bible,) in order to prop up competing theoligies as unorthodox or heretical.
For my money, that means none of it is believable. Contrast this, for example, with claims of alien abductions. You can, if you like, actually speak to people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. If you look around, you'll find groups of people who tell consistant stories and might even claim to have been abducted together. There are countless reports of UFO sightings, often by groups of people or in rare cases by dozens or hundreds in a particular town or area. These reports have been ongoing for decades, reported by countless new sources, in addition to specialized periodicals. Many of these people sincerely believe their story. Do you? Does your friend?
I don't, because there isn't sufficient evidence, yet the quantity and quality of evidence for these claims is vastly superior to any miracle claims reported in the bible. We have more evidence and we're not 2000 years removed from the events, and we still don't believe, and we find the most fervent believers to be a little crazy. Yet somehow, millions of largely ignorant, well meaning, nice people sincerely believe third-hand reports of miracles from thousands of years ago, and they don't just believe - they strongly believe. They consider it not only absurd for others to disbelieve, but also their sacred duty to convince others at a minimum, and legislate their beliefs on others - or worse. and yet we somehow don't consider these people to be a little crazy. Instead, we give them special treatment, and their majority status shifts the public perception about those of us who actually embrace reality, to the point where we are the ones denegrated. Your friend's probably read Josh Mcdowell and Lee Strobel, and has never actually studied what real historians, scholars, philosophers, scientists, or any other critical examiner has to say about their religion. That's... the longer answer.

Jerks!

Now, I realise I used more profanity than usual in my last post. After reading it over, I probably could have used other words to describe how I felt - but I didn't. The stuff got me a little mad while I was writing it out, and I swear when I'm mad. If profanity offends you, navigate away from the page now, please, because I'm really, really pissed off.

Now I've received a couple fucked up emails at religiotsblog@live.ca from random people who stumble upon this blog like a drunk tripping over a fire hydrant, but none of them have actually gotten to me. When I say "couple," I literally mean two. Two emails from religiots telling me I'm going to hell, blah blah blah, all that kind of predictable bullshit. Do I give a fuck about those two? No! Why? Because they're fucking stupid!

WEHN YUO TYPE LEIK YOU HAEV PARKINSNONS DISAESE I DNONT GIEV A FUCK WHAT YUORE SAYING

THIS one, though... The third installment of doucheisms, actually annoyed me. For the most part, it was intelligently written, with a couple glaring exceptions. First of all, this man, we'll call him.... Darwin, for hilarity, assumed I was American. They only have the internet in the USA, after all.

I'm not going to post the email itself, nor will I post the address it was sent from. I'm assuming that it's a shit eating troll, and that the addy was made up for the sole purpose of trolling, or eating shit. (Yeah, I know that doesn't make sense. I don't care.)

Douchey Darwin did, however, bring up a valid point. So, until I've finished checking up on what I can and can't post, I've removed all the pictures and a couple of the links from my previous posts.

Oh, but I'm putting this picture in. I have permission from the artist, the artist is me.




Click the pic to enlarge.

Earthquake! Quick! Grab the SuperBible!

Unless you've been in a coma for the past couple weeks, you've heard about the devastation in Haiti. The haitians are dying, starving, living outdoors, struggling from day to day. Oh, and there was an earthquake that made all of that shit even worse. Over a hundred thousand people have died, people are missing, the country is in ruins. Haiti was already the poorest country in the western hemisphere, so seeing them hit with a natural disaster of this magnitude is frustratingly heartbreaking.

The aid they're receiving, however, is incredible. Money and manpower are flowing in from quite literally all over the globe, it's looking like people have really come together in the wake of this disaster to lend a helping hand. Through something as simple as a text message it's possible to donate money to the cause, and the reaction to this system from the public is phenomenal.

There are, of course, these types of people.

Oh, so... the earthquake... was punishment? Did I understand him correctly? I mean, he's saying that the Haitian people "made a deal with the devil," so they've been cursed.

I don't think I need to explain why Robertson is a douche.

The moronic radical rants of a senile psychopath aside, (say that ten times, fast) I also read about this, and it had my teeth grinding. A group of Religiots in Albuquerque have decided that it'd be a good idea to send Solar-powered Super-bibles to the Haitians. They're saying that these Holy Gadgets will bring "hope and comfort that comes from knowing God has not forgotten them through this tragedy." I know I'm not the only one thinking it, but I'll write it out anyway.

So, if there's a god, and he's watching out for us because he loves us, cares for us, and wants us to be happy - why did he decide to grab haiti and shake the shit out of it, murdering 100,000 people?

Now, as for this religious group "Faith Comes by Hearing," if you want to help Haiti out, that's cool. I've got an idea - I just thought of it right now, actually, it's kinda neat. You can take my idea if you want. It's alright, I don't mind. I mean, it might not even be my idea, someone else may have had it before me.

SEND THEM SOME FUCKING MONEY!

Solar powered bibles aren't going to pull their families out from underneath the rubble. Prayer isn't going to feed them. Faith isn't going to bring them clean water, and hope doesn't build new homes. Take the money you spent on those Brain-Wash-O-Matics and give that to them instead.

Thanks for your time.







Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
-Epicurus

A lawyer, a Priest, and an Irishman go into a bar...

If you haven't read about it yet, It's now illegal to speak in Ireland. There really isn't anything, anything, that it's legal to say - without facing a £25,000 fine. January 1st, 2010 brought more than the clinking of glasses and cries of "Happy New Year!" to the people of Ireland - it also brought the inception of a new law; The Blasphemy Law. The law defines blasphemy as saying or publishing anything that is abusive, or insulting to any religion.

Saying anything contradictory to any religion? Well, shit. I guess aside from the basic "Hello, how are you?" they just won't be able to speak in Ireland. There really isn't much you could say that wouldn't be contradictory to at least one religion. If I lived in Ireland, and people actually read this shit, then I could be fined. I don't live in Ireland, however, and barely anybody reads this; so here we go - a short tribute to the Irish Blashphemy Law.

There is no God, and in my opinion belief in such an idea is both dangerous and childish; clinging on to the idea of "life after death" in order to make the notion of death more tolerable. An excuse and a shield for extremists and violent psychopaths to use while they cause terror and distress. An easy way out in the attempt to understand the philosophical questions that have been present for millennia. A way for manipulative cunning con-artists to take money from those who would believe their lies and false promises. An oil slick on the road to both scientific and social progression.
The law put in place by the Irish government is a massive step in the wrong direction. Medieval ideals such as this have no place in the 21st century, and I am personally scared to death for any people in Ireland who will face punishment under it. It's an affront to the very idea of freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, and an open condemnation of free thinking people all over their country. It opens the door, or at the very least a metaphorical window, for like-minded people in other countries to think that such a law could be possible where they live, too.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, now that the holiday season is over I should be posting again regularily. I'm sure all six people who read this are thrilled.

Altruism vs The Ten Suggestions

I'd been planning on writing about this for a while, as it's a pretty common argument for God's existance. My friend Quinn is not the only one to have posed the question "how does an atheist perceive right and wrong," or "without God, what reason would we have to be good?"

The first thing I usually point out when asked this question is that in the US and Canada, atheists average about 13.75% of the population (11% in the US, 16.5% in Canada) In our prisons, however, the atheist population is less than one percent. (.25% in the US, .4% in Canada.) While this doesn't nessecarily prove that atheists are "more morally concious," it definately sheds a little light on just how morally concious our religious counterparts are. These statistics are occasionally met with another suggestion, "those people committed crimes, and then 'found God' once they were in prison to repent." When you consider that in Canada alone, over 50% of released prisoners will become repeat offenders, it would appear that "finding God" did little to help their morals.

Biblical morality indisputably stems from The Ten Commandments, a collection of suggestions handed down by Zeus to Minos of Crete to... wait, no, I've already done that one. Handed down by God to Moses as the ten most important rules for how to live our lives. These, in my opinion, can be summed up in 4 commandments.

1: God Angry
2: Don't kill
3: Don't steal
4: Sex Bad

These Ten Commandments, these rules from god, are these really the ten most important rules to live our lives by today? They don't include things like rape, discrimination, animal cruelty - "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal," and "thou shalt not bear false witness" are pretty vague when compared to all of the subjects that could be tied into those, like genocide, fraud, embezzlement, the list goes on.

Not only that, but the bible actually encourages some of those things. In the story of Job, when he was met by angels, in order to prevent a mob from raping them, he offered them his own daughters to rape. What a stand-up guy. Everything from discrimination against non-believers (If a man doesn't abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers, and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned) to animal sacrifice, to "holy wars" is contained in the bible, often ordered by God, or at the very least by his favourite prophets. (And I'm not even going to get into genocide.)

So how are we "good," anyway? If we don't get our sense of morality from God, where do we get it? First off, we aren't the only creatures on the planet with a built in desire to help those we perceive to be in distress. Nature is abundant with examples of animals willing to put themselves at risk, not only to help members of their own species, but even other animals. This can't be attributed to God or the Bible, because after all - according to God, none of these animals have souls. There's no heaven for them, no risk of hell if they turn a blind eye. There was no Doggy Moses that came down with the Ten More Commandments for all of the animal kingdom. They just do it, not all the time, not every time, but it happens. I'm not a biologist, and I won't claim to have a higher understanding of genetics than I do, but I will say that there is something within these animals that has given them the drive to lend a helping hand, or... paw, I guess.

The same could be said for human beings. We don't always strive to do what we perceive as the right thing to do, but we do it anyway. It happens all around the world; in places where nobody's ever even heard of the bible - yet they've survived anyway, and it's safe to assume that they're probably pretty nice people.

I'd like to conclude this little rant with, ironically, a bible quote. A bible quote with an atheist spin on it.

Romans 6:14
For Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye lie not under law, but under Grace.

In religious terms this means, with a finger pointed in your direction, "GOD IS WATCHING, DON'T FUCK UP." I however, prefer to interpret it a different way;

You're going to do the right thing, not because you're afraid of punishment, but because you know it's the right thing to do.

All of the statistics and links provided in this short article were found with relative ease; and I encourage anyone who reads this to check up on them. Educate yourselves on the subject, read about altruism in nature, or even biblical morality (for all of it's faults :P )

Thanks for your time.

Child Abuse

Today I'd like to touch on a story I read out of New Jersey. It's a strong belief of mine that teaching children religious values is borderline child abuse, however this story steps beyond that line. Stories like this are emerging with ever increasing regularity, and it seems that each time the parents in question are almost striving to set the proverbial bar on "crazy" even higher. This woman, however, is apparently not crazy. After psychiatric testing, she was deemed competent to stand trial. Devout, yes - psychotic, no. I wonder parents in other cases like this would test.

For a brief recap of the story itself, a New Jersey woman named Estelle Walker moved into a church retreat cabin with her five children. Her reason for doing so at the time was to escape her estranged husband's alleged alcoholism. She was broke, and unemployed. They stayed there for about one year, and for the last three months that they were in the cabin she apparently made no attempt to feed the kids. They would go days at a time without eating - the longest streak being eleven straight days. Walker said that "God would provide" them with food. By the time the police were called in the kids "were so malnourished they had difficulty talking." This was three years ago, and Walker's trial is set to resume on Tuesday.

Most people who read this article will see it at face value; one crazy lady neglecting her kids because of her blind, irrational faith. The religious people I know would never do this, they're intelligent, (sometimes even rational :D ) human beings. In my opinion, however, this article cannot be taken at face value. This is one of many radical fundamentalists, people who take the idea of faith or religion entirely too far, and they do so while riding on the backs of the moderates. She'll use her faith as a shield, and "God as her defense," and I can guarantee you right now - there will be other fundamentalists who will stand up for her, other religious people who see her plight as admirable.

In my opinion, she should be locked away. Throw away the key and never look back. After all, God will provide her with all the food and company she needs, right?

Hypocrisy

I just wanted to share this news story with you. I've always found hypocrisy among religious people particularily amusing, and setting the serious tone of the article aside, this story is quite hilarious.

Granted, it's not quite as funny as Ted Haggard's scandal - a leading Evangelical preacher found having sex with homosexual prostitutes while using methamphetamines - but it's still a good story to take a look at.

Chriscientudaislamormofarianism...

After talking with some friends, I received quite a bit of criticism regarding my last entry, apparently it was regarded as a cheap, comedic shot - not having to do with religion or atheism. Scientology, in most people's minds, does not qualify as a "religion." It's perceived as nothing more than a common joke, and treated without the respect that most faiths are given.

Why?

Scientology may be new, but to be completely honest - it's no more "crazy" than any of the more common religions practiced today. When broken down, all religions have crazy bits - bits that even followers of these faiths will admit is nuts. People who hold onto a moderate amount of their faith for comfort will say, for example, "Yes, I believe most of what the Bible has to say, but I'm not a creationist."

Why make the distinction? Why separate that which some people consider believable from that which they know not to be true? How can people who openly admit that they don't even buy into half the stuff their religion purports claim that the words of another religion can be outright false, even insane?

What I'm trying to say is that Scientology, whether you follow it or not, is just another religion. It's no more, and no less crazy than any of the major monotheistic faiths - nor any more or less crazy than ancient polytheistic religions.

"Scientology? Yeah, that's some crazy shit... Jesus, the ark and the dove, the snake who talked in the garden - that's cool." - Bill Maher

Red Rover, Red Rover, we call Lord Xenu over!

Now we've all heard about Scientology, about all the crazy mumbo-jumbo, about Mr. Tom Cruise. I'd like to set the record straight - there is nothing crazy about Scientology. I'll put a few facts out there, and let you see for yourself. After joining the Church of Scientology, one is encouraged to take several very expensive "upgrade" courses. Each upgrade comes with a new title, or rank, within the church. After many of these expensive courses, the rank "Clear" is given. A Clear is, as defined by the Church of Scientology;

"A Clear is a being who no longer has his own reactive mind, and therefore suffers none of the ill effects the reactive mind can cause. The Clear has no engrams which, when restimulated, throw out the correctness of his computations by entering hidden and false data."

Higher ranks come with access to more information about the church. After becoming a Clear, the story of Lord Xenu is revealed.

Approximately 75 million years ago, Earth was part of a large group of planets - 76 planets and 26 stars to be precise. At that time, Earth wasn't even called Earth. The planet we live on today was called Teegeeack. The planets were overpopulated, with an average population of 178 billion (that's Billion with a B). This was the Galactic Confederacy, and their civilization was (aside from space travel and communication) very similar to our own, circa 1950-1960. The citizens of the Confederacy used planes, trains, and automobiles to get around just like we do - and wore clothing similar to the clothing of that decade.

Xenu was about to be removed from power, so he enlisted the help of psychiatrists and summoned billions of his citizens together under the pretense of income tax inspections. The people were then paralyzed using a mixture of alcohol and glycol, this would freeze their bodies and capture their souls. Xenu loaded the frozen people onto several Space Planes, and took them to the extermination site - the planet of Teegeeack. The Space Planes looked exactly like today's DC-8 aircrafts, with the exception that the DC-8 has jet engines, whereas the transports used by the Confederacy did not.

When they arrived on Teegeeack, the paralyzed citizens were then placed around volcanoes - specifically Loa, Vesuvius, Shasta, Washington, Fujiyama, and Etna, although "many many other" volcanoes were used. Xenu would then drop Hydrogen bombs into the craters of the volcanoes, causing them to erupt - killing billions of frozen citizens. Lord Xenu wasn't finished there, however. Using an "electronic ribbon" suspended over the planet in space, Xenu captured the disembodied souls (called "Thetans") of the dead. This space ribbon would "suck" all of the souls into various "vacuum zones" around the world.

These thetans were then... taken to the movies. Yes, Lord Xenu killed billions and then forced them into a giant cinema, where they watched a 36 day (864 hour) movie. This movie would contain all of the myths which Xenu wanted Teegeeacks future society to be built on. It had to do with God, the Devil, and specifically crucifixion. This 864 hour presentation was designed by Xenu to deprive the thetans of their personal identities - to leave them lost, forever wandering the planet. Attracted to living things, the thetans would surround people, slowly leeching their spiritual energy and personal identity - causing depression and unhappiness.

Xenu would later be captured by a Galactic Confederacy government agency called the Loyal Officers, and locked into "an electric mountain trap" from which he has yet to escape. This prison is said to be located within the Pyrenees mountain range in western France. Teegeeack was then abandoned by the Galactic Federation, and kept only as a pariah "prison planet."

To rid yourself of the thetans which are undoubtedly cluttering your mind, contact the Church of Scientology immediately. Records show that to reach the rank of "Clear" it should only cost approximately US$106,500.

See? Nothing crazy about it.

Mr Moses

Among the most ubiquitous figures in Islamic, Jewish, and Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions is Moses. His role in all of the afforementioned faiths is that of the lawgiver - a medium between god and mankind. In Judaism, he is considered the greatest of all prophets, the true servant of god and the father of all prophets to come. He is also credited with writing the Torah. In Christianity, he is among the most important figures in the bible, referenced more in the New Testament than any other Old Testament figure - and his "Ten Commandments" (while not exclusively Christian subject matter) are of undeniable importance. In the Qu'ran, Moses is mentioned more than any other person, (yes, including Muhammad) he is a lawgiver and a leader of his people. He is also an important prophet in several "new religions," including the Bahá'í faith, and Rastafari.

Purportedly born around 1391 BCE, Moses' birth came at a time in which the Hebrew people were slaves in Egypt, and increasing in number. The Pharao at the time was concerned that if their numbers increased any further, they may help Egypt's enemies - or become one themselves. He ordered all newborn Hebrew boys to be killed, Moses' mother hid him inside a reed basket when the soldiers came, and sent him downstream. He was later found by a royal midwife and adopted into the Egyptian royal family.

Wait, what? Stop.

In 2300 BC, a High Priestess in Azupiranu on the Euphrates river gave birth, secretly, to a child. The child's name would be Sargon. In order to avoid infanticide (High Priestess + Baby = Shit + Fan) she put the boy into a reed basket and sent him downstream. He was later found by a royal midwife and adopted into her family. Sargon would later become a gardener, a royal cupbearer, and then leader of his people, and a great king - Sargon of Akkad.

Ok, let's continue.

Moses would have to flee his life in the royal family after killing an Egyptian slave master. He would later return and unleash ten plagues onto the Egyptian people in order to convince them to "Let his people go." First, the Nile river would flow with blood, the fish would die, and the Egyptians would not be able to drink from it. Second, "the Nile will teem with frogs," cursing Egypt to an invasion by amphibians. The third and fourth plagues involve lice and biting insects (Yeah, gross.) The fifth and sixth plagues involve boils, sores, and disease - first upon the livestock, and then on the people themselves. The seventh plague is a storm, in which hot ash and fire rained down on the egyptians. The eighth plague had locusts come and swarm all of the egyptian crops. The ninth plague had the sky darkened for three days, and the tenth and final plague had the firstborn of every egyptian family killed.

While efforts continue to this day to discover what happened during these ten plagues (as there are loose references to them in Egyptian history as well, though these references lack any mention to Hebrew people or Moses) theories differ. It has been postulated that the Egyptian account of the plagues is in fact a reference to the Midean eruption of the volcano Santorini. This volcano was recorded to have erupted in approximately 1623 BCE, and ash from said eruption can still be found in the banks of the Nile. The red ash would have made the water blood red, unsafe for drinking or fish, and this would have acted as a catalyst for the plagues which followed. (Frogs leave water and die, bugs go without predators and increase in numbers, disease is spread by all of the insects, ash from the volcanic eruption falls down on the people, locusts fly from areas destroyed by the volcanic eruption and feed on the crops, the sky would be darkened by clouds of volcanic ash... kids... die?) This theory, while interesting, is largely based on scepulation and has been heavily criticized by both the scientific and the religious community. (The theory was put forward in a 2006 documentary by Simcha Jacobovici called The Exodus Decoded, as well as a book by geologist Barbara J. Sivertsen called The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Exodus Story.)

Following these plagues, Moses led his people out of Egypt. After a dramatic chase scene involving Charlton Heston parting the Red Sea so that the Israelites could escape, they made a home at the base of Mount Sinai. Moses climbed the mountain to speak to god, and returned to his people with god's words - laws for them to follow. (An interesting parallel to this part of the story is Minos, King of Crete, son of Zeus. He would cimb a mountain and speak to Zeus, who would give him laws to bring back to the people.) Moses would then lead the people through the desert towards the promised land of Israel, although he would die at the age of 120 in approximately 1271 BCE before making it to their destination. (Come on, god... You couldn't have given him a few more weeks? Dick.)

Now, friends, for the reason for this long-winded (and parentheses filled) post. I've been reading a lot about a man named Ze'ev Herzog, director of the Institute of Archaeology at the Tel Aviv University. If you're at all interested in archaeology or history, particularily Israeli biblical history, this man is most definately the "King of the Castle." His works include Beer-Sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements, Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Social Implications, The Arad Fortresses, and Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah. He's quite an interesting person, and most of his publications are available on the internet, translated into english. However, one of his articles really stood out; In Ha'aretz Magazine, on Friday October 29th, 1999, Herzog had the following to say about the Exodus from Egypt.

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

tinyurl.com/ykd4wom - for more of his statements in this article.

So, friends, again I implore you. Educate yourselves. If you've read what I've written and accepted it as either truth or blasphemy, you're only hurting yourself. If any of the things I've mentioned interest you, look them up.

Christmas, or is it Wayeb?

It's only the beginning of November, and walking through stores and malls we can already see shops getting ready for Christmas. As we get closer and closer to the date, the streets will be lined with lights, and people will be swarming said shops looking for decorations and gifts. Over the centuries, Christians have come to "own" the date. Every religion likes to believe that it's "right" about it's beliefs regarding any subject, and the Winter Solstice is no different. Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, but that's really not what it's about.

In fact, there are over 30 different celebrations about to take place, all over the world. Most of them, needless to say, are no longer celebrated. They're ancient history, but the reasons for their acknowledgement are the same as those still in practice today. They all revolve around the Winter Solstice... yet only one of them involves Jesus.

Alphatbetically... Amaterasu celebration, in Japan. The Beiwe Festival, in Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Brumalia, celebrated in ancient Rome. Choimus or Chaomos, in Pakistan. Deuorius Riuri, in ancient Gaul. Deygan, or Maidyarem, in ancient Persia (Zoroastrian.) The Dongzhi Festival, in East Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese Buddhism.) Goru, in ancient Mali. Hogmanay, in Scotland. Inti Raymi, in the ancient Incan civilizations (Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador.) Junkanoo, in the Bahamas. Karachun, in ancient western Slavic civilizations. Koleda, an ancient eastern Slavic tradition. Lanaea, in ancient Greece. Lucia, a feast in ancient Scandanavia, later appropriated by the Catholic Church and renamed to the Feast of St. Lucy (those sly dogs.) Makara Sankranti, in India and Nepal. Maruaroa o Takura, by the New Zealand Maori. Mean Geimhridh, by the ancient Celtic people. (This includes Montol, Wren day, and Alban Arthan, holidays celebrated on the same days all around what is now the UK.) Midvinterblot, a holiday belonging to an old Swedish Folk religion. Midwinter, a modern celebration for people working in Antarctica. Modranicht, and the Perchta ritual, two ancient Germanic celebrations. Rozhanitsa Feast, in Russa. Shab-e Chelleh, a four thousand year old Persian celebration. Sanghamitta Day, a Buddhist holiday. Saturnalia, in ancient Greece. Seva Zistane, a Kurdish holiday. The Sol Invictus Festival, a 3rd centuray Roman Holiday. Soyal, a holiday for the natives of North America (the Zuni and Hopi.) Wayeb, celebrated by the Mayans. We Tripantu, in southern Chile. Yule (Jul, Jol, Joul, Joulu, Joulud, Geol, Geul) Pagan celebrations. Zagmuk, an ancient Mesopotamian celebration. Ziemassvetki, an ancient Latvian celebration.

Oh, and Christmas. There were so many to make note of that I nearly forgot it. One has to consider, with so many holidays being celebrated at the exact same time, what's so special about it? Why December 22nd to the 25th? If this holiday is so widely accepted as the birth of Jesus Christ, why was it being celebrated two thousand years before he was even supposed to have been born? Does it not seem at least a little strange that a day celebrating the birth of a deity is shared by so many different holidays, several of which celebrate the births of various other deities?

If there's one thing that could be considered common knowledge about ancient cultures, it's their obsession with astrology. Many of these civilizations used the stars for everything from naming their children to navigation to predicting seasonal changes. The Winter Solstice, and all celebrations associated with it fit into the latter of those three examples. Observing the stars and where the sun would rise and set each day would allow them to predict just how far along they were into a season. The reason the Winter Solstice was cause for celebration is that it signalled the beginning of the end of winter. From that date on, the days would get longer, the nights would be shorter, and spring seemed right around the corner. These ancient peoples celebrated the time by telling stories and creating metaphorical deities, and Jesus Christ is just another one of those metaphors, another character in a four thousand year old group of fairy tales.
Rather than explain exactly what occurs in the sky during the Winter Solstice, or what took place during all of those celebrations, I'll encourage you to read up on it. Take a few minutes to look into it, and educate yourself.

Disclaimer

Before I get started, I'd like to explain my intentions. While I understand that people who read this may become offended, it is not actually my intention to offend them. In the same way that a political blog mocking a certain party would offend people who disagree, this will likely arouse frustration and anger among religious folk. It should be understood that while I foresee this happening, it is not the goal. I approach religion with the same amount of respect in which I would approach a discussion on... anything. Our society has built a wall around the topic, marking it as taboo, as extremely personal, as a no-go-zone. In my opinion, no subject should be regarded as such. People with strong beliefs about anything else are always willing to discuss and defend them, and it is my belief that religion and one's religiosity should be included in the daily deluge of discussion topics.
Between reading discussion boards online, and speaking with people in person, I've come to the conclusion that the reason for this taboo is not the sensitivity of the subject at all. People, religious people, just don't know that much about their religion. Only in very, very rare cases have I seen someone defend their faith with meritorious knowledge of their own religion. In most circumstances, not only are people unsure of what they're arguing about, they'll actually make shit up to legitimize their arguments. Done. Conversation over. God did it. Jesus had a rocketship. This behavior leads to speculation on what came first; the "Taboo-ness" of the topic, or the lack of understanding itself? Did the topic of religion become taboo because nobody really knew what they were talking about, or has it always been this way and people have become complacent in their willingness to learn about it? How is it that since the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment that this subject has actually become more constrained?
It's a chicken-egg thing, I guess.
So, I challenge you - atheists, theists, and agnostics alike, to read on with an open mind. Educate yourselves before responding. If I poke fun at your god, relax. I'm sure I'll do it to someone else's god (albeit one you probably don't believe in) another day. If, after reading any of the blogs to come, you find yourself angry without a retort, without an explanation for your frustration - it means that at least for a second, I've managed to instill doubt in your mind. That, my friends, is my goal.