OVO

Nick Squires, Vatican condemns Hallowe’en as anti-Christian:

The Holy See has warned that parents should not allow their children to dress up as ghosts and ghouls on Saturday, calling Hallowe’en a pagan celebration of “terror, fear and death”.  The Roman Catholic Church has become alarmed in recent years by the spread of Hallowe’en traditions from the US to other countries around the world.  The Vatican issued the warning through its official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, in an article headlined “Hallowe’en’s Dangerous Messages”.  The paper quoted a liturgical expert, Joan Maria Canals, who said: “Hallowe’en has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian.”  Parents should “be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death,” said Father Canals, a member of a Spanish commission on church rites.

Won’t someone think about the children!  Christianity certainly thinks about the children.  Christianity thinks children who sass their parents are to be killed [1][2][3], perhaps by having their eyes plucked out by ravens and eaten by eagles [4].  The Christian God is a-ok with killing children [5] [6] and you should be as well [7], perhaps by eating your own children [8][9][10]. Like it says in the Good Book, “happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” [11]  Jesus is into it! [12][13]  Here’s a wholesome and beautiful story that Father Canals might want to share with the children today: 2 Kings 2:23-24.  “And [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, ‘Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.’ And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.”  If you mock the bald head of a prophet, God will send bears to eat you.  Praise the LORD!

Last year a newspaper controlled by the Italian bishops, Avvenire, called for a boycott of Hallowe’en, calling it a “dangerous celebration of horror and the macabre” which could encourage “pitiless [Satanic] sects without scruples”.  Earlier this week the Catholic Church in Spain also condemned the growing popularity of Halloween, saying it threatened to overshadow the Christian festival of All Saints’ Day.  The Bishop of Siguenza-Guadalajara, Jose Sanchez, said there was a risk that Halloween could “replace Christian customs like devotion to saints and praying for the dead.”

Let’s take a look at the pitiless sect and their scruples so that we may better compare their attitude toward children with that of the Vatican.  On the left hand we have the Church of Satan founded in 1966.  Satanism includes “Do Not Harm Little Children” in its Eleven Rules of the Earth (1967). The Satanic Bible (1968) reads: “If you attempt to impose your sexual desires upon others who do not welcome your advances, you are infringing upon their sexual freedom. Therefore, Satanism does not advocate rape, child molesting, sexual defilement of animals, or any other form of sexual activity which entails the participation of those who are unwilling or whose innocence or naïveté would allow them to be intimidated or misguided into doing something against their wishes.”  And further: “The Satanist does not hate himself, nor the gods he might choose, and has no desire to destroy himself or anything for which he stands! It is for this reason he could never willfully harm an animal or child.”  These are clear statements made by the founder and leader of the religion and published in foundation documents of the religion.  It has never been disavowed by the leaders of the religion.  Although millions have been spent over decades in the effort to discredit these clear statements, there is no evidence that satanists abuse children and plenty of evidence that satanists do not abuse children.  Now, on the right hand we have the Roman Catholic Church.  In 1962 Pope John XXII established the Crimine Solicitaciones.  The Crimine Solicitaciones is a clear statement made by the leader of the religion and published in foundation documents of the religion.  It has never been disavowed by the leaders of the religion.  But while the clear statement of satanists is ‘do not harm little children,’ the clear statement of the Roman Catholic Church is something much different.  The Crimine Solicitaciones states that children abused by clergy should remain silent and that the abusing clergy should quietly be moved to a new parish.  The reason sexual predators in the Roman Catholic Church appear to have been empowered by their post is because that is what has happened.  Because the Pope suffers the duel burden of leading the Roman Catholic Church and leading the Holy See (a nation), his bishops – those who operate under the Crimine Solicitaciones – have diplomatic immunity from prosecution when they are found guilty of child rape.  Given the choice of the Church of Satan and the Roman Catholic Church in this regard, who has scruples?  Is the reason Christians blame satanists for child rape because they don’t want any competition?  It’s okay to be devoted to saints and pray for the dead if you do it as a Christian but not as anything else.  Just because the pagan holiday of Samhain was co-opted by Christianity to become All Saints Day doesn’t mean anything.  Necromancy is okay as long as one’s magic powers come exclusively from a Church-approved corpse.

Happy Halloween from Portland, Oregon.

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

More here and here.

There are at least two laws being discussed to change health care and insurance in the United States.

S.1679 Affordable Health Choices Act (Placed on Calendar in Senate) reads in part:

The essential benefits provided for in subparagraph (A) shall include a requirement that there be non-discrimination in health care in a manner that, with respect to an individual who is eligible for medical or surgical care under a qualified health plan offered through a Gateway, prohibits the Administrator of the Gateway, or a qualified health plan offered through the Gateway, from denying such individual benefits for religious or spiritual health care, except that such religious or spiritual health care shall be an expense eligible for deduction as a medical care expense as determined by Internal Revenue Service Rulings interpreting section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as of January 1, 2009.

H.R.3200 – America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 reads in part:

Sec. 125. Prohibition of discrimination in health care services based on religious or spiritual content.

Alternative medicine, Christian Science, the healing powers of prayer, Scientology auditing, exorcisms and more will get federal funding if these proposals become law.  If any kind of medical care gets federal funding I’d prefer it be evidence-based.  When you have to pay taxes and the taxes pay for this kind of nonsense, it isn’t alternative medicine any more.

Followup:
Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger, Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments [November 3, 2009]

Catholic Culture, Bankrupt diocese offers $11 million to settle 292 abuse cases: The diocese plans to raise $7.5 million by selling its chancery office, schools, and other assets to a legally distinct diocesan endowment fund.

Chicago Tribune, Man claims fraud, cover-up by Milwaukee diocese: Murphy assaulted 200 children and the archdiocese covered it up.

Chicago Breaking News, Sexually violent priest released from custody: At the 2008 hearing, prosecutors said Lenczycki admitted abusing as many as 30 youths in Hinsdale, Naperville and Romeoville and in California and Missouri.

The Honolulu Advertiser, School puts teacher on leave: A Mainland Catholic order that sanctioned one of its friars for alleged sexual misconduct said Kamehameha Schools did not contact it when the school decided to hire him as a teacher at its Kapalama campus.

Chicago Breaking News, Accused, suspended priest worked in Chicago: Kenneth Roberts, a suspended priest who served in the Archdiocese of St. Louis and the Archdiocese of Dallas, came to Chicago in October 1973 with permission from the late Cardinal John Cody to conduct a two-day retreat, according to letters between church officials.

All articles continue at links.  What do these articles have in common?  They are all about the results of the Crimine Solicitaciones.  The Crimine Solicitaciones is the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church.  If you want confirmation of that claim, just ask Pope Benedict himself.  The Crimine Solicitaciones states that victims of abuse by clergy should keep silent about it, and abusing clergy should be quietly  relocated to a new parish.  Why is abuse by Roman Catholic clergy so widespread?  Because the Holy See has been running a child sex ring with diplomatic immunity for over 30 years.  The problem won’t get much better no matter how many millions the Church pays itself, selling its property to itself (or, once in a while, pinching out a penny or two for victims).  As long as the Crimine Solicitaciones is the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church this problem will endure right along with it.

When openly gay college student Matthew Shepard was targeted, tortured and murdered in 1998 the story made national headlines. Soon after, MTV sent a camera crew down to Charleston, South Carolina searching for a redneck or two who might offer some insensitive remarks about homosexuals for their “True Life” series. They found one. Me. I was a student at the College of Charleston and as the lone conservative writer at the school paper, was asked to participate in the television tapings. I remember telling MTV I believed Shepard’s murderers should receive the death penalty. I also told them, when prodded, that I believed homosexuality was “against God.” It’s a comment I’ve regretted ever since. My first regret stems from the blasphemous assumption that I could know the mind of God and secondly, that I had portrayed gay men and women as somehow lesser children of that God. Despite my youthful ignorance, there is nothing more obvious to me today than the fact that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are born gay. It is nature, not nurture and certainly no choice. [...]

Most violent crime is born of some sort of hatred and examining motive is certainly crucial in any criminal investigation. But “hate” – for gays, minorities, women, chivalrous men – is still just a thought, and should not be itself, a criminal action. Criminalizing the thought behind a violent act sets dangerous precedent and gives special justice to special groups and lesser justice to victims of similar crimes who do not belong to those groups.

Article continues at link.  How is freedom of speech defended on the left, on the right, and at the extremes of each?  How does that change over time?  Are you ready to go this far to defend freedom of speech?  How about this far?  How far, my friend?

BBC, Universal phone charger approved:

A new mobile phone charger that will work with any handset has been approved by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations body. Industry body the GSMA says that 51,000 tonnes of redundant chargers are generated each year. Currently most chargers are product or brand specific, so people tend to change them when they upgrade to a new phone. However, the new energy-efficient chargers can be kept for much longer. The GSMA also estimates that they will reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 13.6m tonnes.

I remember hearing about the Universal Serial Bus (USB) in the mid 1990s.  There never was a good reason for having so many different kinds of cables to connect electronic equipment, and pending a way to do it wirelessly the USB sounded like a good solution.  Not even twenty years after the introduction of the USB, I count more than ten different kinds of USB cables at the Wikipedia entry.  It’s not quite universal if it’s not… universal.  I’m old enough to remember BETA and VHS tapes in video stores, stores now crowding out the DVDs to fill the shelves with Blue Ray.  And so while I greet the news that phone chargers may have a standardized form soon, I have been misled by such claims before and I’ll believe it when I see it.

Outside of the problems raised by so many different forms of chargers are the problems of so many types of alternating current.  There’s no engineering reason for home users to have different kinds of power based on their nationality, but that’s how things ended up.  Rail gague varies by country so that the enemy’s trains can’t just roll into town.  When was the last time that happened?  I think alternating current varies by location so that each location’s companies / governments can sell us new equipment.  That’s a good capitalist decision, just like my preference in buying less redundant stuff is a good capitalist decision.

Those who know me know that I’ve got a soft spot for R. Buckminster Fuller.   Fuller wrote about the savings that could come if we were to link the world’s energy networks.  The global energy network could save billions of dollars and prevent a great deal of pollution the moment it is turned on.  Leading the charge for this effort is the Global Energy Network Institute.  This proposal requires no new technology that I’m aware of, only the cooperation of governments and corporations.  Fingers crossed…

Yesterday [October 2009], Andrew Sullivan put up a post about an extremely brutal hate-crime attack on an openly gay man. The 2-minute news report he embeds is depressing, but there was something to laugh about at the end. The studio interviewed one of the attackers’ friends, who proudly displayed this tattoo. It’s a tattoo reading “[Thou] shall not lie with a male as one does with a woman. It is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22″. Who else sees the problem here? Leviticus also forbids tattooing. In the very next chapter. “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28″

Via Mutate! via The Friendly Atheist via Paul Bingman.

Burqas and security cameras: where one is allowed or compulsory, why is the other not forbidden?

The Associated Press reports Rabbi Elior Noam Chen will be picked up 27 October 2009 in Brasilia by two Israeli agents. “Chen allegedly hit the children in the head and face and burned their hands [as part of a purification ritual]. One child sustained permanent brain damage and is in a vegetative state, according to Israeli officials. In Israel, Chen faces charges of child abuse, violence against minors and conspiracy.” The Associated Press is careful to say that Rabbi Chen is a ‘self-appointed’ Rabbi.  This follows the pattern of the mainstream media disassociating clergy with religion if clergy are caught doing something bad.  Pastors become former pastors, Muslims become Islamists, Rabbis become self-appointed Rabbis, unnecessary “quotes” are added as are the words so-called, etc.  Because religion is always good, and if someone does something bad then they aren’t religious, because religion is always good, la la la la I can’t hear you…

Rabbi Chen should have come to the USA, where mutilating babies is both intimate and convenient.  Why, you can even cut a little baby boy’s penis with knife then suck out the blood with your mouth.  If the little baby boy gets herpes and dies as a result, however, watch out for trouble.  You might be called a bigot if you criticize grown men who suck blood from little baby boy penii.  Because religion is religion, religion is traditional, religion is custom, religion is culture, religion is good.

Nick Griffin of the [British National Party] has been gagging to appear on Question Time, because it is a test of his continental-style strategy of normalising and legitimising the extreme right. On the model of the Italian National Alliance, Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National and Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, Griffin is attempting to yank his party into greater acceptability and live down its Mosleyite roots of confrontation and street violence. Since the BNP’s objectives have not changed – and they remain racist – that is a very good reason to be sceptical about the BBC’s decision to give him a platform. However, the issue is one of thresholds. The BBC has judged that two MEPs in a nation-wide election entitles the BNP to a voice on Question Time, just as previously a similar threshold elevated Ukip and the Greens. The BBC’s duty of impartiality is too important to have broadcasting executives decide that some opinions are acceptable and others are not, providing of course that those opinions are within the law (notably in avoiding incitement to racial hatred or violence). Therefore I do not myself criticise the BBC for making the invitation, even though I am acutely aware that extending such democratic rights to a party that does not respect them is paradoxical. [...]

The issue here is different to the old “no platform” policy. I would not appear at a meeting organised by the BNP, and nor would I extend an invitation to them. It is no part of the business of an elected liberal to drum up larger audiences for our most reviled opponents. They are welcome to their freedom of speech, but they can choose their own street corner and their own soapbox without my help. But the BBC has decided to invite Griffin, and I fear that Thursday night’s excitement would not have been called off just because the Liberal Democrats decided not to participate. Better surely to champion the great British values of moderation and tolerance rather than give bigotry the only say.

Article continues at link, with much to recommend it. I am not a member or supporter of the BNP, and I don’t expect them to fare well on the television show Question Time. I am a supporter of public debate. I believe people’s words and actions speak for themselves. I believe accurate judgments are best gained by access to source materials and not second-hand opinion. The contradiction of offering a debate platform to someone who would not do the same to you is an important one. It is exactly the reason the tradition of debate is superior to the ‘no platform’ policy. If you can articulate why it is superior, you will have advanced in your defense of free speech.

Having said that, a few comments on Huhne’s article. Huhne compares the BNP to the Italian National Alliance, Front National and Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. But only the BNP has limitations on the race of who can join, so the comparison is not entirely accurate. Huhne writes about confrontation and street violence and incitement to racial hatred or violence. Are these all the same thing, or points along a continuum, or actions that always and only appear as a set? The heart of public debate is confrontation, and there’s no getting around some of that confrontation being awful. Incitement to racial hatred is illegal in England and in much of the world, but not in the USA. I do not support ‘hate speech’ laws for the same reason I do support public debate. I do not believe hate speech leads to violence (in the street or otherwise) any more than I believe love songs lead to love. Huhne talks about Mosley and Pin Fortuyn, who did know about street violence. Watch a film of Mosley in 1936 trying to march down Cable Street. Look at a photograph of Mosley in 1962 as he speaks to a crowd. Marching, speaking, violence – but who is committing the violence, and against whom, and for how many decades? Free speech has its contradictions, and Mosley had some practical lessons in these contradictions by being put in prison (along with his wife) for years without charge or trial. Pin Fortuyn had fewer experiences with street violence, but one was enough. Again, who is committing the violence and who is speaking their mind?

No matter your beliefs, at some point in its evolution it got in your head because you or someone else proposed it at a time when it was a heresy. All religious founders are by definition people who were heretics of their time. Science progresses by questioning what has come before, not by observation of what is. I sometimes feel frustrated (even confronted and incited) by other people, but the knowledge that belief is a market of ideas and not a battleground of ideas gives me calm. I am glad the BNP will appear on Question Time and that has nothing to do with my general dislike for the nationalists, racists or television.

BBC, Village ‘witches’ beaten in India:

Five women were paraded naked, beaten and forced to eat human excrement by villagers after being branded as witches in India’s Jharkhand state. Local police said the victims were Muslim widows who had been labelled as witches by a local cleric.

BBC, Father collapses in murder trial:

A father accused of murdering his daughter in a so-called “honour killing” has collapsed during the trial at the Old Bailey. Mehmet Goren, 49, denies killing Tulay Goren, 15, from Woodford Green, north London, who went missing in 1999.

Mail Online, The Jihad fanatic peddling a message of hate to 11-year-old Londoners (funded by the taxpayer):

Anjem Choudary urges Britain to adopt public stonings, amputations for criminals and wants to see the flag of Islam over Downing Street.

Daily Express, Now Muslims demand full Sharia law:

Mr Choudary has said that under sharia law in Britain people who commit adultery would be stoned to death, adding that “anyone who becomes intoxicated by alcohol would be given 40 lashes in public”.

BBC, Defying the Taliban to get an education:

Girls are defying Taliban attempts to stop them going to school.

Rasmussen Reports, 48% Say American Muslims Should Speak Out Against Terrorist Attacks:

Just 15% of all adults say American Muslims already are speaking out enough against potential terrorist attacks on the United States. Forty-six percent (46%) say Muslims living in this country are not speaking out enough. Thirty-nine percent (39%) are not sure.

BBC, Teenage girl ‘murdered by father’:

Tulay Goren, 15, a Kurdish Turk from Woodford Green, north London, vanished in 1999 and her body has never been found.

BBC, Saudi court jails ‘sex boast’ man:

A Saudi Arabian man who boasted about his sex life on a TV talk show has been jailed for five years, his lawyer says. Mazen Abdul Jawad was also sentenced to 1,000 lashes by a Saudi court on charges relating to immoral behaviour.

DR News, Virginity tests worry social workers:

Concerns that an increasing number of young Muslim women are being sent to doctors to prove that they are virgins has social workers and doctors taking steps to help them.

Freethinker, Adulterers can be stoned, and gays jailed under new Islamic laws in Indonesia:

“We feel that it is time now for people to understand the real meaning of Sharia.”

All articles continue at link.  Part of a series that never ends [1][2][3][4][5] and etc.

Amnesty International comes in two flavors.  First we have Irrepressible.info, an Amnesty International campaign:

Chat rooms monitored. Blogs deleted. Websites blocked. Search engines restricted. People imprisoned for simply posting and sharing information. The Internet is a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. Governments – with the help of some of the biggest IT companies in the world – are cracking down on freedom of expression. The web is a great tool for sharing ideas and freedom of expression. However, efforts to try and control the Internet are growing. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it.  The more people take part the more we show that freedom of expression cannot be repressed.

And second we have Freedom of Speech Carries Responsibilities for All, an Amnesty International public statement:

The right to freedom of expression is not absolute – neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such “hate speech” should be prohibited by law. AI calls on the government officials and those responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice to be guided by these human rights principles in their handling of the current situation.

What is the ‘current situation’ mentioned in the above quote?  Was it the publication of twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005? Or was it the murderous response of thousands of Muslims around the world after the publication of twelve editorial cartoons?  Again, from Freedom of Speech Carries Responsibilities for All:

Newspaper editors have justified the publication of cartoons that many Muslims have regarded as insulting, arguing that freedom of artistic expression and critique of opinions and beliefs are essential in a pluralist and democratic society. On the other hand, Muslims in numerous countries have found the cartoons to be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and an abuse of freedom of speech. In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence. [...] AI also calls on those working in the media to act with sensitivity and responsibility so as not to exacerbate the current situation. This incident highlights the power and reach of the media and AI calls on those in the media to apply greater political judgement, taking into account the potential impact of their output and the range of often competing human rights considerations involved. While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable. Community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence. Culture and religion are of central importance to many people’s lives, but they cannot be used as an excuse to abuse human rights.

Amnesty International presents ‘the current situation’ as a controversy.  On the one hand are cartoons and on the other hand are murderers.  Both sides are equally worthy of respect and should talk it out.  But they are not equally worthy of respect.  Murdering people over cartoons is never worthy of respect, not in any circumstance.  It is never a controversy, it is never open to debate.  It is absolutely wrong, in a world where much is morally ambiguous.  The comics did offend some Muslims, perhaps even deeply.  I think some of the cartoons may have been drawn and published with that goal in mind.  And even then, murder over cartoons is not justified.  The publication of cartoons is a peaceful expression of opinion and a peaceful protest.  Every Muslim on the entire planet should be free to make offending cartoons (even deeply offending cartoons) about anything they like.  Amnesty International does condemn the use and threat of violence and urges community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence.  That’s an organization I can support.  Amnesty International does consider freedom of expression as a fundamental human right.  I can get behind that too.  But shame on Amnesty International abandoning its own principles when it comes to “hate speech.”

Why is the right to freedom of expression not absolute?  If freedom of expression is not absolute then what is it other than a lack of freedom of expression?  The Bible and the Quran call for the murder of non-believers.  If we are to respect a believer’s freedom of superstition, we do so by respecting their freedom of speech.  And if we respect their freedom of speech, we must respect the freedom of speech of others.  Absolutely.  All the way up to these pesky heretics, who are now serving time in prison exclusively because of words and pictures they published on the internet.  I say freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it. The more people take part the more we show that freedom of expression cannot be repressed.  What do you say?

Katharine Houreld, Churches involved in torture, murder of thousands of African children denounced as witches:

Nwanaokwo Edet was one of an increasing number of children in Africa accused of witchcraft by pastors and then tortured or killed, often by family members. Pastors were involved in half of 200 cases of “witch children” reviewed by the AP, and 13 churches were named in the case files. Some of the churches involved are renegade local branches of international franchises. Their parishioners take literally the Biblical exhortation, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” [...] The idea of witchcraft is hardly new, but it has taken on new life recently partly because of a rapid growth in evangelical Christianity. Campaigners against the practice say around 15,000 children have been accused in two of Nigeria’s 36 states over the past decade and around 1,000 have been murdered. In the past month alone, three Nigerian children accused of witchcraft were killed and another three were set on fire. Nigeria is one of the heartlands of abuse, but hardly the only one: the United Nations Children’s Fund says tens of thousands of children have been targeted throughout Africa. Church signs sprout around every twist of the road snaking through the jungle between Uyo, the capital of the southern Akwa Ibom state where Nwanaokwo lay, and Eket, home to many more rejected “witch children.” Churches outnumber schools, clinics and banks put together. Many promise to solve parishioner’s material worries as well as spiritual ones — eight out of ten Nigerians struggle by on less than $2 a day. “Poverty must catch fire,” insists the Born 2 Rule Crusade on one of Uyo’s main streets. “Where little shots become big shots in a short time,” promises the Winner’s Chapel down the road. “Pray your way to riches,” advises Embassy of Christ a few blocks away.

BBC, Vicar who raped young boys jailed:

A West Yorkshire vicar has been jailed for 14 years after being found guilty of raping two young boys and sexually attacking others. The Reverend Peter Hedge, 47, from Holy Trinity Church at Queensbury, near Bradford, had denied the attacks, which happened between the 1990s and 2000. A jury at Bradford Crown Court found him guilty of more than 30 indecent assaults as well as the rapes. A judge said he was a “dreadful disgrace” to the church. Hedge was also found guilty of another serious sexual assault. The court heard the vicar abused his position of trust to gratify himself sexually with six boys and then paid them to keep silent. The judge described Hedge’s actions as “calculated and systematic abuse”.

Greg Risling, Prosecutors brought fraud charges Thursday against a family doctor accused of promising terminally ill cancer patients in their darkest hours that they would be cured with an herbal treatment:

Using her influence as an ordained Pentecostal minister, Dr. Christine Daniel tapped into the vessel of faith to entice people from across the nation to try her regimen. She even appeared on cable’s Trinity Broadcasting Network in 2002 touting her cancer cure and its 60 percent success rate, according to federal investigators. Authorities arrested Daniel, 55, at her San Fernando Valley home Thursday and charged her with two counts each of wire and mail fraud. If convicted, she faces up to 80 years in prison.

John Christoffersen, Court won’t block release of sex abuse papers:

The Supreme Court refused on Monday to block the release of documents generated by lawsuits against priests in Connecticut for alleged sexual abuse. The justices turned down a request by the Roman Catholic diocese in Bridgeport. Several newspapers are seeking the release of more than 12,000 pages from 23 lawsuits against six priests. The records have been under seal since the diocese settled the cases in 2001. Courts in Connecticut have ruled that the papers should be made public. The decision ends a legal battle that dragged on for years and could shed light on how recently retired New York Cardinal Edward Egan handled the allegations when he was Bridgeport bishop.

Mark Mcgivern, College Reverend found dead faced investigation over child indecency:

A Cambridge University churchman who was found dead in his home faced child sex allegations in Scotland. Police were investigating indecency claims against the Rev Ian Thompson, 50, who is thought to have killed himself. Thompson, the dean of chapel at King’s College, died of asphyxiation at his house in Great Shelford, Cambridgeshire, on Thursday. The Glasgow-born cleric had already been reported to the procurator fiscal by Strathclyde Police over indecency allegations in Kilmarnock. His widow, Ann, said: “He was a wonderful man who was well-loved by people of all walks of life.” A university spokesman said: “We are neither confirming or denying any of the allegations.”

Nick Pisa, Vatican priest caught in red light district after police chase:

A Vatican priest led police on a high speed car chase leaving three officers injured after being caught in a red light zone, a court has heard. Father Cesare Burgazzi, 51, said he ‘floored’ his Ford Focus car after he mistook the plain clothes officers who tried to flag him down during a spot check as robbers. During the twenty minute early hours chase – which was described in court as “like something from a Hollywood movie” two police cars crashed and three police left injured. The court in Rome heard that Father Burgazzi was a priest who worked at the Vatican’s State Department and was also a master of ceremonies at St Peter’s Basilica.

Philadelphia Inquirer, Church court rejects Pa. ex-bishop’s new trial bid:

An Episcopal Church court has rejected a defrocked Pennsylvania bishop’s bid for a new church trial based on a recently discovered cache of letters related to his case. Charles E. Bennison Jr. was removed from his post last year after a church trial in Philadelphia found he covered up his brother’s sexual assaults of a teenage girl in the 1970s. Bennison’s lawyers argued that more than 200 letters recently found contradict witness testimony and show the victim tried to hide the relationship, hampering any intervention by the bishop.

Riazat Butt and Anushka Asthana, Sex abuse rife in other religions, says Vatican:

The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was “busy cleaning its own house” and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger. In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males. The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that “available research” showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

Jennifer Dobner, Woman in Smart case competent for trial:

A state court judge said Friday the Utah State Hospital has determined that the woman charged in the 2002 kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart is competent for trial. [...] Barzee, 63, and her estranged husband, Brian David Mitchell, 55, face charges of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated burglary for the June 2002 kidnapping of Smart in Salt Lake City. [...] Barzee had long refused medication for religious reasons. In 2006, Atherton ruled Barzee should be forcibly medicated, and the Utah Supreme Court upheld the ruling in late 2007. Attorneys for Barzee appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court but were denied a review in May 2008 and Utah State Hospital doctors began forced treatment. [...] A self-proclaimed religious prophet, Mitchell also has been ruled incompetent for trial. Last year, Atherton refused to order forced medication, saying she was not convinced that anti-psychotic medications would restore Mitchell’s competency. Mitchell faces a Nov. 30 competency hearing in the federal case. Smart was 14 in 2002 when she was taken from her bedroom at knifepoint. In federal court testimony Oct. 1, Smart said Mitchell raped her daily and forced her to use drugs and alcohol. She also said Mitchell used religion as a ruse to get what he wanted, but never appeared to be spiritual or close to God.

Press Association, Priest jailed for child sex attacks:

A Roman Catholic priest referred to as the “devil in a dog collar” has been jailed for eight years over a string of sex attacks on young boys. Father David Pearce, of Ealing Abbey, Charlbury Grove, Ealing, used his “undoubtable charm and guile to bamboozle these boys and put them in a state of mind control”, Isleworth Crown Court heard.

Mike Ference, Let’s make a deal – let’s finally protect children instead of dysfunctional sex freaks:

My last examiner article was not meant to be prophetic. I guess after almost 20 years of investigating dysfunctional sex freaks like Raymond Lahey, a 69-year-old Roman Catholic Bishop who was recently released on $9,000 bail, charged with possessing and importing child pornography, maybe it just comes with the territory. [...] CBS News quoted from an email Earle had sent to his brother Billy: “During the investigation in 1989 I did reveal to police that during a visit to Father Raymond Lahey’s house in Mount Pearl, I found catalogs of child pornography addressed to Ray Lehay. The pictures were of teen boys sexually aroused.” If the report is accurate, did Lehay play let’s make a deal with the Canadian court system to keep the information hushed up? Was Lehay rewarded with a bishop post because of his skills in parleying deals with government officials to cover up sex abuse crimes against innocent children? Did Lehay help Catholic hierarchy cover-up other clergy abuse crimes? If so, how many other victims went without help? How many resorted to drugs or alcohol? How many victims committed suicide? We have to ask these questions. Catholic church hierarchy have had decades – if not centuries – to fess up to dysfunctional sex freaks parading around as priests, bishops, cardinals -  and yes, even popes. Instead, God’s most precious commodity – innocent children – are nothing more than bargaining chips for whatever prizes the Catholic church doles out to protect dysfunctional sex freaks. Contestants can win cash and other prizes; scholarships to Catholic universities and colleges for sons and daughters; lucrative distribution contracts with Catholic institutions; career advancement and job placement with corrupt political cronies; the list goes on and on. And so do the crimes and the cover-ups.

Tanya Gold, Ignore the bells and the smells and the lovely Raphaels, the Pope’s visit to Britain is nothing to celebrate:

In his actions on child abuse and Aids, Joseph Ratzinger has colluded in the protection of paedophiles and the deaths of millions of Africans. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Pope John Paul II’s chief enforcer), it was Ratzinger’s job to investigate the child abuse scandal that plagued the Catholic church for decades. And how did he do it? In May 2001 he wrote a confidential letter to Catholic bishops, ordering them not to notify the police – or anyone else – about the allegations, on pain of excommunication. He referred to a previous (confidential) Vatican document that ordered that investigations should be handled “in the most secretive way . . . restrained by a perpetual silence”. Excommunication is a joke to me, perhaps to you, but to a Catholic it means exclusion and perhaps hellfire – for trying to protect a child. Well, God is love. He also waved aside calls to discipline Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican founder of the global Legion of Christ movement. Allegations of child abuse have stalked Maciel since the 1970s. His victims petitioned Ratzinger, only for his secretary to inform them the matter was closed. “One can’t put on trial such a close friend of the Pope as Marcial Maciel,” Ratzinger said. Two abuse victims sued him personally for obstruction of justice, but he claimed diplomatic immunity.

All articles continue at links.  Part of a series that never ends [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and etc.

I think that the people who approach the social sciences with a ready-made conspiracy theory [...] deny themselves the possibility of ever understanding what the task of the social sciences is, for they assume that we can explain practically everything in society by asking who wanted it, whereas the real task of the social sciences is to explain those things which nobody wants – such as, for example, a war, or a depression. (Lenin’s revolution, and especially Hitler’s revolution and Hitler’s war are, I think, exceptions. These were indeed conspiracies. But they were consequences of the fact that conspiracy theoreticians came to power – who, most significantly, failed to consummate their conspiracies.)

Lecture delivered to the Third Annual Conference of the Rationalist Press Association on 26 July 1984.  From Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge 1963.

It is one thing, I am told, to defend the free speech rights of Holocaust deniers; but to engage and defend the content of their views, however cautiously – well, that’s another matter. Smoky’s over the line, says the one consumed with electric suspicion. And questions must follow. What are your motives? Do you hate Jews? Do you still beat your wife? Of course, the abstract argument is fine as far as it goes. It’s just that it doesn’t go very far. If we are serious, the next question must, at some point, intrude. Put another way, if people are being sent to jail for expressing ideas and writing words – and they are – it is only natural and fair to ask: what are those ideas? What are those words? When does a thought expressed become a crime? When it is incitement? When it is a lie? Could it be more complicated? Or less? My position is simple. I believe that you absolutely have to get your fucking hands dirty. I am convinced this is ultimately a matter of decency, and I mean this without irony. [...]

Decades ago, when the works of Henry Miller and William Burroughs and Hubert Selby and Jean Genet and other “literary outlaws” were at issue, expert witnesses lined up to testify as to the redeeming merit of every presumed obscenity. Sometimes the good guys won, and sometimes they lost. But such recourse is largely denied to today’s class of thought criminal. When Ernst Zundel’s lawyer attempted to defend the credibility of her client’s presumptively criminal views, they locked her up. Thus a game is rigged. Grove Press isn’t going to step up this time. It’s easier to sign the petition and shrug. If the lying fuckers should’ve known better, if they’re as bad as CP traders, if they only stoke the embers of a special hate – then a problem may filed away with an asterisk, that might as well be a swastika.  A subject has become inseparable from the stigma that latches. In lieu of discourse, one finds crass signage and deflective satire. A genuine controversy is held hostage by the nuanced strictures of dinner-party form, by the huff and heat of the latest never forget editorial. Yet the noise can only mask a familiar authoritarian gesture. The greatest taboo of our age is sustained in the synchronized cultural choreography of finger-wagging, sometimes from the professoriate, sometimes from the judge’s bench. You are being admonished. You are being told not to consider that there could be a second possibility. You are being told, in so many ways, not to look. And it’s only too easy to abide. All you have to do is read from the script you’ve been handed. Tell yourself it’s of a class with snuff porn or whatever agreed-to boundary. Console yourself with anti-hate sugarplums and bubbles and Frankfurt-schooled excuses. Play it safe. You will have their blessing. Yet something is wrong. Because people are in prison for writing and selling books. Once again, the public library etagerie is arranged for your edification. Construction paper letters stapled to the tackboard. Mark Twain and D.H Lawrence chain-locked in the display case. Harry Potter facing off against familiar cartoon christian enemies. Newsclips about southern school-board busybodies wringing hands over Heather’s two mommies. Banned Books Week as nostalgia, as distraction. As crude extortion, really – once you know what’s missing. And you don’t even feel the chill.

People are in prison for writing and selling books.

Article continues at link.

As if the issues surrounding socialized medical care weren’t complex enough… should the United States expand its tax-supported medical care programs to cover all tax payers, here are some of the issues that will have to be addressed:

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Puerto Rico’s Largest Medical Facility Unlawfully Fired Nurse Because He Refused to Disobey His Religion:

Puerto Rico’s largest medical center violated federal law when it refused to accommodate a male nurse’s religious beliefs, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed yesterday. Further, the EEOC said, Hospital Auxilio Mutuo unlawfully suspended and fired the employee because of his religion. According to the EEOC’s suit, EEOC v. Hospital Auxilio Mutuo, Case No. 3:09-cv-1797, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, a male registered nurse told the hospital he could not cut his hair short as an observance of his religion, Santeria. Nevertheless, the man was suspended after he explained his religious beliefs to the hospital and asked for an accommodation. Further, the EEOC said, the hospital retaliated against the nurse by firing him after he complained about the discrimination. The hospital’s policy allows female employees, but not males, to wear their hair any length, the EEOC said.

Barbara Anderson, Hmong shamans help at Valley hospitals:

Staff at most hosptials would be baffled by an instruction like this on a bedside chart: to prepare patient for surgery, provide 15 minutes of soft chanting and tie a red string around the neck. It’s different at Mercy Medical Center in Merced. There, nurses know they must call a shaman. Mercy is the nation’s first hospital with a formal policy for Hmong shamans, allowing the traditional healers, working alongside doctors, to help patients recover. Hospitals across the country are paying attention as they seek to accommodate cultural beliefs of diverse patient populations. In the San Joaquin Valley, the Hmong are one of a few ethnic groups — including some indigenous Mexican cultures — that practice shamanism. For those with traditional beliefs, calling on a spiritual healer is as important to good health as making an appointment with a doctor. They may go without care if they can’t have a shaman nearby, sometimes with devastating consequences.

American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Understanding Satisfaction with Shamanic Practices among the Hmong in Rural California:

The Hmong are a group of people from Southern China, Laos, Northern Vietnam, and Thailand who have immigrated to the US and who have settled in rural counties in Central California. The literature suggests, the Hmong routinely use the services of shamans as part of their health care services. The purpose of this study was to determine the difference in the levels of satisfaction among Hmong clients who use shamans and their services in Fresno County with regard to factors associated with animal sacrifice, gender of the shaman and the practices inside or outside of the client’s home. Data were collected from 115 study participants in a rural California county. Findings from this study suggest that clients who had shamans conduct the rituals at their own homes and those who used live animals were significantly more satisfied than those had to travel to meet the shaman and those whose shamans’ use dead animals.

If the State must offer medical care, and if the State is forbidden from establishing one religion over another, and if medical care and religion are considered one in hospitals, then the State is forced into the position of paying for religious services – all religious services – if they are claimed to be “medical” or “traditional” or “healing.”  Is there anything that religion can’t make more complex and oppressive and harmful?  The alternative is for the State to insist only on secular medicine, leaving “alternative” services to the patient in question.  That seems reasonable to me.  Will that happen?  Is that happening now?

Jesús Colina, Pope Cannot Exchange Vatican Treasure for Food (16 March 2009):

The proposal of a member of the social networking Web site Facebook suggesting that the Vatican should exchange its treasures for food in Africa is an impossibility due to international law, says Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes. The president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum said this Friday to ZENIT at a press conference Friday in which he commented on the online petition titled “Exchange the Vatican’s Treasures for Food for Africa. Do You Want to Sign a Petition?” The cardinal noted that, apart from the ideological aspect of the proposal, the Pope cannot consider it because he is prevented from doing so by international law. This Pontifical council is responsible for the direction and coordination among the charitable organizations and activities promoted by the Catholic Church. Alberto Juesas Escudero of Spain launched the initiative, which now has more than 40,000 supporters. Escudero claims “it is a shameful to see the Vatican’s riches and then watch the news.”

The Telegraph:

Miss [Dalia] Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice”. The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party. The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world. Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”. They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”. Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West. She said: “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media. The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance. The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases.” [...]

Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that… to many people seem unequal to women,” but added: “Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.” The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir’s website.

Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration’s determination to reach out to the Muslim world. She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world. During this week’s broadcast, she described her White House role as “to convey… to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.”

Article continues at link.  Wikipedia confirms Miss Mogahed’s role in President Obama’s Council.  Miss Mogahed was on this television program due to her leadership role in the United States government.  There are a limited number of ways to interpret the simultaneous nature of Miss Mogahed’s leadership in government and her faith which prohibits women having leadership in government.  She could consider Islam to be a two-tiered superstition, with one rule for other women and another rule for herself.  Or she could consider it acceptable to tell a lie to non-Muslims as long as Islam is advanced through that lie.  In the West these acts are called hypocrisy, lying, propaganda, manipulation, treason, betrayal, machiavellian, etc.  In the Muslim world, these are called Taqiyya [neutral] [pro] [con].

“You just don’t understand” is sometimes presented as a way of saying “you just don’t agree” by people who consider themselves to have a direct line to immutable and obvious truth.  Because they hold the immutable truth, and because truth is obvious, anyone who disagrees must not understand.  If they understood, they would agree.  But no one has a line to immutable truth, and truth is not obvious.  “You just don’t understand” is the mistaken notion that exposure to a claim will magically cause the observer to adopt it.  We all can err.  There is no ultimate foundation of truth claims to build on, but we can build on the practice of identifying our errors and not repeating them.  No particular group has a monopoly on the “you just don’t understand” ruse.  Feminists use it and so do fundamentalists.  It’s used on the left and the right.  Believers use it and atheists use it.  No matter how many people use it (and I admit I have in the past), this ruse is not a proof of the claim in question.  It is an attempt to evade criticism and introspection.  When lives are at stake, it is contemptible.

Regarding Sharia law as gender justice or justice for women, I will defer to the experts.  Experts like Tulay Goren and Yasmine Larbi-Cherif and Ayman Udas and Sabina Akhtar and Aasiya Hassan and Sahar Daftary and Lidia Motylska and Sandeela Kanwal and Morsal Obeidi and Hatin Surucu and Banaz Mahmood and Aqsa Parvez and Caneze Riaz and Uzma Rahan and Samaira Nazir and Hina Salem and Methal Dayem and Sazan Bajez-Abdullah and Rudayena Jemael and Hesha Yones and Ibtihaz Hasoun and Fadime Sahindal and Zahida Peeveen and Ghazala Khan and Dua Khalil and Rim Abu Ghanem and Sabia Rani and other experts and these experts as well and another group of experts and more experts.  If you’re not at work and have a strong stomach, you can even see images and videos of experts as they earn their expertise.

The Wikipedia entry on Hiz ut-Tahrir appears even handed.  Unlike the Telegraph, it does not identify Hiz ut-Tahrir as extremist.  It confirms the group “wants combine all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and with a caliph head of state elected by Muslims.”  Wikipedia claims Hiz ut-Tahrir is opposed to violence and has a focus “on ‘ideological struggle’ to establish its vision of the caliphate in the minds of Muslims.”  This is the democracy that Hiz ut-Tahrir claims to be dead-set against, and so what they are opposing when they oppose democracy is unclear.  Perhaps they intend to use democracy to get in power, then destroy democracy?  It’s happened before.  Perhaps they oppose violence until they get into power, then… ?  That’s happened before too.

Miss Mogahed is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House.  In the United States is is neither forbidden nor compulsory for a woman to veil herself in most (not all) situations.  Miss Mogahed may be projecting her own liberties (oh, those lethal liberties) on women in the Muslim world.  Hiz ut-Tahrir is less confused on the issue: Article 116 of their draft constitution makes the veil obligatory for women.  Debating the veil is a low-hanging fruit in the West.  It’s easy to fight for the right to wear a veil when it’s an option and you can pretend your options are shared elsewhere.  It’s also a good distraction from more pressing concerns for women in Islam.  Issues like Muslim girls being able to go to school without being blown up, poisoned or burned with acid.

I prefer the lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism to anything the Muslim world is offering up in the 21st Century.