‘judaism’

Trevor Blake: Johnny Law Serves Up a Mess of Faith-Based Ebola Fritters

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Two years ago (24 November 2007) I wrote about Mamie Manneh. Manneh was accused of illegally importing monkey meat “for religious ceremonies.”  Her lawyer wanted the charges dismissed “because they impinge on the importer’s right to freedom of religion,” that “bushmeat has spiritual significance and Ms. Manneh’s actions were protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” “From her baptism in Liberia to Christmas years later in her adopted New York City, Mamie Manneh never lost the longing to celebrate religious rituals by eating monkey meat.”  Here is what I had to say about that…

Mamie Manneh is an attempted murderer who illegally imported the remains of endangered species into the USA for the purpose of eating them. Handling and consuming this animal can lead to some of the most nightmarish diseases known to humanity. Only spongiform encephalopathy and religion can soften the mind enough to cause a person to hold Mamie’s ‘culture’ or ’sincere beliefs’ worthy of consideration in this regard. It’s easy to look around and see that no one around you is eating monkey and that almost anyone you ask would be horrified at the idea. It’s easy to not lie to customs. It’s easy to not run over people in cars. It’s easy to not have nine kids that you can’t take care of because you’re in prison for trying to kill a woman. I wish it was easy for judges to laugh and scowl and toss her superstitions out of the courtroom. But that would mean tossing out superstitions that are in better favor with the majority, such as Christianity and Judaism and Islam. How much better it would be if the Constitution of the United States were in effect, and there was no establishment of religion in America.

Time marches on.  In the past two years Manneh has had two more children, bringing the total to eleven.  And for her crime?  A crime Jane Goodall wrote could have “grave consequences on public health?”  A crime which could cause outbreaks of Ebola, measles, tuberculosis and retroviruses similar to HIV among even those who do not eat monkey meat as part of their superstition?  Probation.

Once again, religion is the get-out-of-jail free card.  You can chew off part of a baby’s penis, causing the baby to get herpes which leads to the baby’s death, then another, then another, and get… a warning.  You can neglect your child until they die of curable diseases… but if you are able to demonstrate you mumbled magic spells to an invisible monster that lives in the sky while you watched your child die and did nothing, you can get a reduced sentence.

Spitting contempt is all these morally retarded creeps deserve, and it’s all I have for them.  How much worse, though, that they are given leniency in court.

Trevor Blake: Hate the Haters

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

BBC, Straw retreats over gay hate law:

Ministers have admitted defeat in their efforts to remove a “free speech” defence from new laws against inciting homophobic hatred. MPs have voted four times to scrap it but it has been repeatedly overturned in the Lords, who again last night voted by 179 to 135 to keep it. Among those concerned about the new law were some comedians who feared it would leave them open to prosecution. Ministers argued only words intended to stir up hatred were being targeted. An offence of inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation was brought in by legislation last year – intended to protect gay people from threatening behaviour, amid fears attacks were increasing. [...]

Lord Waddington, who inserted the defence of free speech into legislation covering religious hatred last year, said peers had to maintain consistency. “If we are to finish up with a free speech clause in the religious hatred offence but no free speech clause here, we’re simply asking for trouble.” [...]

Who benefits from the free speech clauses for religious hatred?  Religious people, of course.

Wikipedia, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006:

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. [...] Critics of the Bill (before the amendments noted below, adding the requirement for the intention of stirring up hatred) claimed that the Act would make major religious works such as the Bible and the Qur’an illegal in their current form in the UK. The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening… if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred”. This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention – and not just the possibility – of stirring up religious hatred.

So when the Bible says “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” – when the Bible says homosexual men should be killed, that does not mean homosexual men should be killed.  The new law in relation to the old law means, well, what does it mean?  It means two things.  First it means the British government has recognized that the Bible contains the exact sort of hate speech they seek to ban.  Second, the majority of Christians are able to pick and choose which unalterable, eternal, exceptionless rules confirmed by their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ they will follow and which ones they will ignore when convenient.  To protect religious people from those with an intention of stirring up hatred, only religious people must be free to stir up hatred.  It’s something that brings Christians, Jews and Muslims together.

Religion: using the State to get a monopoly on hate.

Trevor Blake: When it Comes to Mutilating Babies, Do It Right the First Time.

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

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.

Chip Smith: The Gas Chamber of Samuel Crowell

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

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.

Trevor Blake: Heretical Two Timeline

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

The Heretical Two are Simon Sheppard [Wikipedia] and Stephen Whittle (Luke O’Farrel).  Their web site is heretical.com.  Previous OVO editorial about The Heretical Two here.  Their words speak for themselves.  Their words  and many of the sites listed below contain words and images I find in error and cruel.  It remains that words and images never hurt anyone.  It is wrong to imprison people for ownership or publication of words or images.  It is maddening that these two are in prison while the governments that put them there are releasing known murderers (US / UK).   Their freedom of speech is no different from that of Jews, Christians and Muslims, no different from political or sexual minorities, no different from yours.  Throw away the freedoms of one and you can be sure the freedoms of the others will not be far behind.

Phil Goetz: Reason as Memetic Immune Disorder

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

You may have noticed that people who convert to religion after the age of 20 or so are generally more zealous than people who grew up with the same religion.  People who grow up with a religion learn how to cope with its more inconvenient parts by partitioning them off, rationalizing them away, or forgetting about them.  Religious communities actually protect their members from religion in one sense – they develop an unspoken consensus on which parts of their religion members can legitimately ignore.  New converts sometimes try to actually do what their religion tells them to do.  I remember many times growing up when missionaries described the crazy things their new converts in remote areas did on reading the Bible for the first time – they refused to be taught by female missionaries; they insisted on following Old Testament commandments; they decided that everyone in the village had to confess all of their sins against everyone else in the village; they prayed to God and assumed He would do what they asked; they believed the Christian God would cure their diseases.  We would always laugh a little at the naivete of these new converts; I could barely hear the tiny voice in my head saying but they’re just believing that the Bible means what it says…

How do we explain the blindness of people to a religion they grew up with? Cultural immunity. Europe has lived with Christianity for nearly 2000 years. European culture has co-evolved with Christianity. Culturally, memetically, it’s developed a tolerance for Christianity. These new Christian converts, in Uganda, Papua New Guinea, and other remote parts of the world, were being exposed to Christian memes for the first time, and had no immunity to them. [...]

The reason I bring this up is that intelligent people sometimes do things more stupid than stupid people are capable of.  There are a variety of reasons for this; but one has to do with the fact that all cultures have dangerous memes circulating in them, and cultural antibodies to those memes.  The trouble is that these antibodies are not logical.  On the contrary; these antibodies are often highly illogical.  They are the blind spots that let us live with a dangerous meme without being impelled to action by it.  The dangerous effects of these memes are most obvious with religion; but I think there is an element of this in many social norms.  We have a powerful cultural norm in America that says that all people are equal (whatever that means); originally, this powerful and ambiguous belief was counterbalanced by a set of blind spots so large that this belief did not even impel us to free slaves or let women or non-property-owners vote.  We have another cultural norm that says that hard work reliably and exclusively leads to success; and another set of blind spots that prevent this belief from turning us all into Objectivists.

A little reason can be a dangerous thing.  The landscape of rationality is not smooth; there is no guarantee that removing one false belief will improve your reasoning instead of degrading it.  Sometimes, reason lets us see the dangerous aspects of our memes, but not the blind spots that protect us from them.  Sometimes, it lets us see the blind spots, but not the dangerous memes.  Either of these ways, reason can lead an individual to be unbalanced, no longer adapted to their memetic environment, and free to follow previously-dormant memes through to their logical conclusions.    (To paraphrase Steve Weinberg, “For a smart person to do something truly stupid, they need a theory.”  Actually, I could have quoted him directly – “stupid” is just a lighter shade of “evil”.  Communism and fascism both begin by exercising complete control over the memetic environment, in order to create a new man stripped of cultural immunity, who will do whatever they tell him to.)

Article continues.  High recommendations to Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias. – Trevor

Trevor Blake: Ecclesiastes 9:10

Thursday, August 27th, 2009

Ecclesiastes 9:10.  Trevor Blake, digital image.  Public Domain, August 2009.

Still More Things Atheists Didn’t Do | Quick Hitts

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

This is another installment in our continuing series of Things Atheists Didn’t Do.

Still More Things Atheists Didn’t Do | Quick Hitts

Jewish couple sue over lighting that makes them ‘work’ on sabbath -Times Online

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

The couple are suing their neighbours, saying that their human rights are being breached, and are claiming up to £5,000 damages. [Please go live in a cave.]

Jewish couple sue over lighting that makes them ‘work’ on sabbath -Times Online

M. Charemnich: The Atheist at His Bench

Sunday, June 7th, 2009

Defiance of Youth. Members of the Communist Youth League are still paying very little attention to the anti-religious front – such is the common news from where our correspondents are. Member of the Communist Youth League: “We shall climb up to heaven, and chase away all the gods!” Editor: “It would be much better, comrade, if you looked at what is going on in the world, and how on earth, under your very nose, priests, protestant preachers, mullahs and rabbis are trying to attract the youth into their dens. We must struggle with religion with deeds, not with loud words.” – 15 February 1931.

[Art and translation from a collection of anti-religious Soviet posters at Bryn Mawr college.]