OVO

Everything has already been said about photography. We have it here in 1911 but even now we can see how it may have been a big mistake.

The Byzantine Iconoclasts were no mere smashers of idols – their arguments ran deep, subtle & profound. They claimed that the Image colonizes the Imagination – other people’s magic overcomes your own personal magic & imprints itself on your soul. Only the Imagination free of such (mis)representation can truly be called autonomous & capable of poiesis, the creative act. To depict the sacred (& all things are potentially sacred) is to degrade it & thus to blaspheme. Only the Eye of the Heart can actually see.

Many Sufis would agree with these sentiments, as would many Jewish & Protestant mystics. The more accurate & scientific the representation the more it lies & blasphemes. “Abstract” art is more moral than any form of realism. Music & architecture, which are simply themselves (ideally), are considered permissible, although Islam suspects even music of threatening the soul’s integrity. But painting & sculpture & especially photography must surely be damned. Looking itself is a compromised or even guilty pleasure, lacking the intimacy of touch or smell or even hearing – too akin to “pure reason” – to cruel.

Against these arguments however we might assert the possibility of Hermetic Imagery – which (as Giordano Bruno or Athanasius Kircher would say) can allow us to free ourselves from the Image through the Image.

Certain symbols, Emblems, hieroglyphs or works of art can liberate the Imagination rather than “enchain” it. These images stimulate your own creativity rather than stifle or suffocate it under their beauty or shock-value or subliminal potency etc.

In the Renaissance this theory of art was called “Egyptian,” thanks to a fortuitous misunderstanding of the ancient hieroglyphs (ie that they were “magic”). Cagliostro was pushing the same notion in the late 19th Century. I believe we need such a theory in order to redeem our various arts – to save them from merely forming new chains, like advertising or propaganda.

Does this argument rescue photography from its own special hell? Maybe not. But maybe there’s something to be said for a touch of damnation. Maybe photography is a vice, like pornography, but then perhaps it could be a magical vice.

If we must have photography in 1911 let it be slow, clumsy, alchemical, rare – somehow still innocent of theory – not so much a spectral doubling but rather Magic Lanterns, a kind of stained glass, primitive & luminous, posed & formal, static, sepia-toned, nostalgic & slightly comical.

On the morning of Sunday, September 11th 2011, I will be drinking coffee with sugar and cream and eating a croissant. I will do this in commemoration of the victory of the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth over the Ottoman Empire near Vienna on September 11th, 1683.

Wikipedia: Battle of Vienna Culinary Legends

Several culinary legends are related to the Battle of Vienna. One legend is that the croissant was invented in Vienna, either in 1683 or during the earlier siege in 1529, to celebrate the defeat of the Ottoman attack of the city, with the shape referring to the crescents on the Ottoman flags. This version of the origin of the croissant is supported by the fact that croissants in French are referred to as Viennoiserie, and the French popular belief that Vienna-born Marie Antoinette introduced the pastry to France in 1770. [...] After the battle, the Viennese discovered many bags of coffee in the abandoned Ottoman encampment. Using this captured stock, Franciszek Jerzy Kulczycki opened the third coffeehouse in Europe and the first in Vienna, where, according to legend, Kulczycki himself added milk and honey to sweeten the bitter coffee, thereby inventing cappuccino.

I might have a side of bacon, too.

See also Trevor Blake: 9/11 Timeline.

“I came here from the United States of America to stand for freedom, with all free people, against the forces of oppression and darkness that you all are representing. I came here in order to stand with the people who are fighting for the freedoms that make it possible for you to do what you are doing today. Not the violence and hatred, but to stand in dissent. But you can’t stand to have any kind of rational discussion. You can’t stand any dissent. You have to try to throw bottles, and drown us out, because you are cowards. Because you know that you stand on nothing except oppression and darkness and hatred. And that is why you are there, and that is why I am here.

You are fronting for the most radically intolerant and hateful ideology on the planet. Everywhere in the world where there are Muslims and non-Muslims there is conflict because the Muslims attack the non-Muslims. The Quran teaches to make war against the unbelievers and to subjugate them. And you are already subjugated. You are already their useful idiots. You are already their tools. You are out here in their service, and you think you’re fighting for freedom, and you are fighting for your own slavery. You are fighting for your own enslavement.

And it will come, it will come to you. You are fighting for an ideology that denies the freedom of speech. And one day you will wish you had the freedom of speech that you are trying to fight against today. ”

Links added by OVO. Watch the rest on youtube.

Robert Spencer: Spencer Versus the Leftist/Islamic Alliance, Stuttgart, Germany, June 2

Thursday afternoon I spoke in Stuttgart, Germany at the invitation of the human rights group Pax Europa. The event was well advertised, and so the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist alliance mobilized and was out in full force.

About 1000 Antifa protesters showed up, banging drums, holding signs with the usual accusations of racism and “Islamophobia,” blowing whistles, and menacing people who came out for the Pax Europa event. There were also about 500 German police on hand in riot gear. The Pax Europa organizers told me, “This is all for you” — because they had publicized that I would be there. One young man came up to me as I was standing right in front of a line of German police and said, “You’re lucky there are so many police here today.” [...]

It was an incredible din. We had loudspeakers that appeared to be able to reach the considerable crowd behind the protesters, but the Antifa thugs did all they could to drown us out: the drums got louder, the vuvuzelas came out, they were blowing whistles, and of course they were screaming and yelling.

They started throwing things: bottles, eggs, excrement and more. One bottle narrowly missed the Coptic activist’s head and crashed onto the stage — other bottles crashed at our feet. Several speakers were hit with eggs. The manure they threw was all over the stage floor.

I stood right in front (they missed me; I dodged a few projectiles) and watched them as they screamed and gestured and threw things — it was like looking into the pit of hell. Here were young people passionately committed to their cause and believing it to be that of justice and freedom, and they are eager and willing useful idiots for the most radically intolerant ideology on the planet. So when my turn came to speak, I addressed them, and told them just that. I told them they wouldn’t like what happened to them when their friends took power, but by then it would be too late.

And it may be already, for Europe. But I was glad to be there yesterday, and to stand against what was so obviously a force for oppression, hatred, and evil.

Robert Spencer: Ugliness and Beauty in Germany

This morning I had the great honor of meeting with Susanne Zeller-Hirzel, one of the last surviving members of the White Rose, the nonviolent resistance movement that worked against Hitler’s regime in Nazi Germany in 1942 and 1943. We discussed numerous parallels between the Nazi era in Germany and the advance of Islamic supremacism today — as we saw in Stuttgart Thursday, Nazis and Islamic supremacists are remarkably similar in their taste for violent intimidation.

Susanne Zeller-Hirzel is the beauty mentioned in the headline of this post. The ugliness comes from an increasingly dangerous situation here in Germany. I have learned that the fascist Antifa and/or Islamic supremacist thugs have burned the truck belonging to the company that set up the stage for Pax Europa’s Thursday rally. Then last night they found out the hotel that the courageous anti-jihad politician René Stadtkewitz was planning to stay in when he came to Stuttgart to announce the founding of the local branch of his new Freedom Party; they broke the hotel’s windows and painted threatening messages on its walls. Also yesterday, I spoke to a Pax Europa meeting at a location in Stuttgart; Antifa thugs found out the location after the meeting had ended, and stormed and surrounded the place. Thirty-six were arrested.

Fascism is indeed coming back to Europe. But not because of the anti-jihadists.

Trevor Blake: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day 2011.  May 2011.  Ink drawing.  Public domain.

See also:
Trevor Blake: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day 2010.
Trevor Blake: The New Comics Code Authority.

Via youtube.

It is annoying to attend religious services and annoying not to. One who has had deep feelings for some organized religion finally gives up on its extant and visible self, usually after bouts of non-involvement, aggrieved attendance, and conquering indifference.

“It is the evil of the age,” explains the voice of tradition. “It is the self-judgment of an illusion,” comes the modern explanation. Have we really no slicker attitudes to cop than these: a sour sense of personal purity or an embittered belief in our rational integrity?

The real culprit is the whole idea of organized religion, which ought to be stacked next to military intelligence, public education & jumbo shrimp in a museum of dizziness.

How could we have believed that we could walk into any mosque / church / temple – the spiritual equivalent of a waiting room – and find our undiscovered and secret desires? Shame shame shame on us for having tried to share our spirit with less care and precaution than we would ordinarily exercise in sharing our sperm.

The people with whom one can do religion are as rare as those with whom one can make love – and not always the same persons!

Better to make religion a beautiful personal solace, like masturbation, than to rely on paid priests / rabbis / imams, licensed by the state to practice unsafe spirituality and spread mental diseases, especially those which undermine the mind’s natural defenses and immunities against silliness.

Anyone will tell you that religion is a private thing – but I teach you that religion must be a secret thing! Fools, guard your dreams! The wise have none so beautiful as yours!

Therefore, Moorish Orthodoxy. Because the title is less cumbersome than Anarchopaganzen – Hebreaochrislam.

Moorish Science Monitor. Volume 2 Number 6. Winter 1987.

Amnesty International has made its name as a champion of free speech, campaigning on behalf of prisoners who have spoken out against oppressive regimes around the world. But when it comes to speaking up about the organisation itself … well, that seems to be a different story.

Last week [February 2010] Gita Sahgal, a highly respected lifelong human rights activist and head of Amnesty’s gender unit, told The Sunday Times of her concerns about Amnesty’s relationship with Cageprisoners, an organisation headed by Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo internee.

Since his release in 2005, Begg has spoken alongside Amnesty at a number of events and accompanied the organisation to a meeting at Downing Street last month. Sahgal felt the closeness of the relationship between Amnesty and Cageprisoners — which appears to give succour to those who believe in global jihad — was a threat to Amnesty’s integrity. “To be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment,” she wrote to Amnesty’s leaders following the Downing Street visit.

Feeling her concerns were not being addressed, she decided to go public. Hours after our story appeared she was suspended. Sahgal’s phone started ringing off the hook with news organisations seeking interviews. The story also lit up the blogosphere, partly because of Amnesty’s importance — it has some 2.8m members and a raft of glamorous supporters — but also because what Sahgal was talking about touched that raw nerve, the naivety of white middle-class liberals in dealing with Islamic radicals.

To say the past week has been a difficult one for Sahgal would be an understatement. She fears for her own and her family’s safety. She has — temporarily at least — lost her job and found it almost impossible to find anyone to represent her in any potential employment case. She rang round the human rights lawyers she knows, all of whom have declined to help citing a conflict of interest. “Although it is said that we must defend everybody no matter what they’ve done, it appears that if you’re a secular, atheist, Asian British woman, you don’t deserve a defence from our civil right firms,” she says wryly.

So no one in the human rights world wants to cross swords with Amnesty: that’s no surprise and least of all to Sahgal. “I know the nature of what I’m up against,” she says. “I didn’t do what I did lightly.” [...]

If the men incarcerated in Guantanamo were white fascists, she says, “I hope we would defend them. We would have to defend them — but we wouldn’t necessarily put them on 50 or 100 platforms after that”.

Article continues.

I place small value in knowing a person by the company they keep. Using myself as an example, what could you learn about me by way of my facebook friends? There you will find many men and women who have only myself in common. Were they ever to meet, they would surely wonder about the wretched company I keep. They are Christians and atheists, occultists and skeptics, anarchists and fascists, regular folks and weird artists, feminists and anti-feminists, gainfully-employed and work-free, family-types and libertines, and perhaps even yourself. I will gladly call all of them friend and count myself fortunate for being able to do so. It is also the case that (with luck and effort) people grow and change, old beliefs and identities no longer apply, and (with luck and effort) we can be forgiven for past mistakes. I certainly appreciate when I have been forgiven for my past mistakes, of which there are a few. When Ms. Sahgal questions Amnesty International for the company they keep, I can see some merit in the question but not much. I hope that Mr. Begg has turned the corner and abandoned the more loathsome aspects of Islam, and am willing to give him a chance to demonstrate this is true.

When Ms. Sahgal hopes that Amnesty International would defend white fascists as well as Muslims, she expresses a hope that was closed off years ago. Since February 2006, Amnesty International has adopted the policy that ‘freedom of speech carries responsibility for all.’ In September 2005 the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons depicting Muhammad in rejection of the self-censorship the editors saw among publishers afraid of Muslims. Muslims around the world protested in exactly the way they did not protest against 9/11. As quiet as the Muslim world was after 9/11 in which thousands were murdered, they rioted after the publication of twelve cartoons. Hundreds died and great economic damage through arson was done. Rather than commit itself to freedom of speech and the separation of state and superstition, Amnesty International gave the rioting Muslims what they wanted: submission.

Events of recent weeks have highlighted the difficult question of what should be the legitimate scope of freedom of expression in culturally diverse societies. [...] 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. [...]

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.

There’s the universal human right of free speech, and then there’s the publication of twelve cartoons in a newspaper. Don’t confuse the two.

Hate speech laws are a funny thing when it comes to religion. The United Kingdom’s Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is an example. According to this Act, an offence has occurred if “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.” But if the “hate speech” is interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998, which guarantees freedom of religion and expression, then no offence has occurred. Consider the Criminal Code of Canada. It prohibits ‘any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide [against] any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.’ But if the “hate speech” is made ‘to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text’ then the “hate speech” is exempt.

That’s right: religion is exempt from laws protecting religion, and “hate speech” done in the name of religion is allowed while “hate speech” critical of or outside religion is forbidden. This exemption is necessary to preserve and protect the “hate speech” found in the Bible and the Quran. This exemption suggests “hate speech” laws exist to protect religion from criticism, not combat genocide or uphold the universal human right to Not Have Your Feelings Hurt.

I was a member of Amnesty International for many years. I paid annual dues and held fund-raising events. I supported AI because I support freedom of speech. I support the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscious. AI began as a support system for prisoners of conscious, and some measure of that mission remains in place. But over time, AI has abandoned the success found in doing one simple thing very well in favor of doing a number of exciting things poorly. A few years ago the board of AI was populated by a group that supported adding “economic, social and cultural rights” to the mission of the organization. I will not argue the merits or demerits of these claims here, nor the merits or demerits of AI having a ‘gender unit’ (of which Ms. Saghal was a leader). I will say that advocacy of economic, social and cultural rights are adequately addressed by other organizations and by many millions of individuals. I wrote AI saying that these new goals were at odds with being able to offer support to some prisoners of conscious. I was told that I could get my donated money back but that the decision had been made by a vote to adopt these goals. I replied that the same vote that brought about these changes might bring other changes later on – but apparently not, as I got no reply, AI continues to list left, and with the support of “hate speech” laws AI has abandoned its original mission of supporting prisoners of conscious.

I’m not a believer in natural rights, but I do support laws respecting freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be mistaken, the freedom to offend, the freedom to criticize, the freedom to inquire. Let Mr. Begg speak, and just as much let Jyllands-Posten publish. I do not claim Ms. Sahgal has been censored, as Amnesty International is not a government organization and did not use the force of law to enforce its way.

All that having been said, Amnesty International has erred by dismissing Ms. Sahgal. Any effort to defend freedom of speech must include a sound criticism of Islam and a record of its crimes. Ms. Sahgal touched the raw nerve, the naivety of white middle-class liberals in dealing with Islamic radicals. For that, she was dismissed from Amnesty International. I still get requests for money from AI. I consider bleeding them of the postage and printing it takes for them to send me these requests to be a small protest against what AI has become.

via youtube, where citation links are available.

Wikipedia: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day:

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was a 2010 protest in support of free speech, specifically in opposition to those who threaten violence against artists who draw representations of Muhammad. It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, “201″ by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for the segment. Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that “everybody” create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech.

U.S. cartoonist Molly Norris of Seattle, Washington, created the artwork in reaction to Internet death threats that had been made against cartoonists Trey Parker and Matt Stone for depicting Muhammad in an episode of South Park. Depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden by a few hadith (Islamic texts), though not by the Qur’an. Postings on RevolutionMuslim.com (under the pen name Abu Talha al-Amrikee; later identified as Zachary Adam Chesser) had said that Parker and Stone could wind up like Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was knifed and throat-cut to death by a Muslim extremist, who afterwards pinned a letter to his body with a knife. The individuals running the website later attempted to deny that the postings were actual threats, although they were widely perceived as such.

Norris said that if people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamic terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic. Within a week, Norris’ idea became popular on Facebook, was supported by numerous bloggers, and generated coverage on the blog websites of major U.S. newspapers.

[...] On July 11, 2010 it was reported that Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had put Molly Norris on a hitlist. In an English-language Al Qaeda magazine named “Inspire,” Al-Awlaki wrote “The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of Allah is the execution of those involved.” and was quoted as saying “The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are more targets to choose from in addition to the difficulty of the government offering all of them special protection [...] But even then our campaign should not be limited to only those who are active participants.” FBI officials have reportedly notified Norris warning her they consider it a “very serious threat.” Norris has since changed her name and gone into hiding under advice from the FBI.

You can’t find a comic nerd walking this green earth who is ignorant of and holding no opinion regarding Dr. Frederic Wertham, or the law team of Disney Inc., or the de-emphasis of politics and drug use in film adaptations of Alan Moore’s work. But this comic nerd is significantly more agitated about the fate of Molly Norris. For a cartoon far more tame than the one I drew and posted at the head of this post, she has lost her name, home, livelihood, friends, family and art.  Seattle Weekly: “She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program — except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.” Score one for Islam, the new comics code authority.

Robert Spencer: The Jihad Against a Seattle Cartoonist

Molly Norris’s cause should be taken up by all free people – not least the President of the United States. Obama could have explained that human beings control their own reactions to things. If Muslims chose yet again to riot and murder because of Terry Jones or Molly Norris, that would be a choice they would be making out of an unlimited array of other choices. Instead, Western authorities have fallen into the Islamic supremacists’ trap and are starting to behave in just the way they want them to: thinking that they must not do certain things, because if they do, there will be violence from Muslims. Yet that violence is in every case solely the responsibility of the perpetrator, not of anyone else.

Obama could have said that the idea that Molly Norris would have to give up her career and live in hiding because of cartoons is unconscionable. He could have told the Islamic world that cartoons depicting Muhammad did not harm Muslims, and that the willingness of some Muslims to commit murder over such depictions was the only thing that made people care to draw Muhammad in the first place.

Obama could also have said that to threaten people with death because of cartoons was destructive to free speech and hence to free societies — and as such, it was something that the U.S. would do everything it could to resist. He could have announced that Molly Norris and others who were threatened for exercising their freedom of speech would be given full round-the-clock protection — and that if violent protests and riots over cartoons broke out in areas where American troops were deployed, those troops would put down those riots and protect the innocent to the fullest possible extent.

Whatever Obama does, I’m on the side of free speech. How about you?

via youtube.

Driven by thirst, I eyed a fine icicle outside the window, within hand’s reach. I opened the window and broke off the icicle but at once a large, heavy guard prowling outside brutally snatched it away from me. “Warum?” [Why?] I asked him in my poor German. “Hier ist kein warum” [Here there is no 'why'], he replied, pushing me inside with a shove.
- Primo Levi, Survival in Auschwitz: the Nazi Assault on Humanity

There is no ‘why’ to 9/11.  I talk about it, study it, organize information, chase down conspiracies real and false, consult those I disagree with to see if I’ve missed anything, and there is no gesture that makes this senseless act sensible, this victory of stupid into a rational experience.   There are times when being an intellectual, looking for reason and preferring answers with a why, is no benefit to getting along in the world.  And there is no ‘why’ to the administration of President George W. Bush.  If only class war existed, if only historical materialism existed, then the heavy hands of the tyrants would be on the same puppet strings as my own hands and it would all make sense, it would all be rational.  But the closest I’ve found to a ‘why’ in this world is ‘because I said so’ being said by someone with the physical force to see it happen.  Sometimes we get a Cincinnatus or a Jefferson, sometimes we get a Caligula or a Bush.  Usually we get a Lincoln, neatly declining to be one or the other.  History unfolds without destiny, following no law, often changing but without pattern, and the best we can hope for is a tyranny of relative peace.

Is there anything to be gained by marking this day, repeating what I and others have already said?  Probably not for the world, but it offers me some relative peace.  Here is my public memorial to 9/11 for the year 2010.  Where there is a date in the front of the entry the entry is an eternal link.  Where there is a date in parenthesis the entry is from OVO.

• 2000: George W. Bush, having won a minority of votes, votes with profound irregularities, votes ‘corrected’ by the Supreme Court, is declared President of the United States.
• 22 May 2001: President George W. Bush gives the Taliban $43 million.
• 11 September 2001: Al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden and funded by Saudi Arabia, attacks the United States. President George W. Bush initiates an emergency reading of My Pet Goat while Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family flee the US in a secret airlift authorized by the White House.
• 14 October 2001: President George W. Bush is offered Osama bin Laden by the Taliban he’d given $43 million to months earlier.  He turns down the offer.
• March 2001: When asked about the urgency of the search for Osama bin Laden, President George W. Bush replies: “I don’t know where he is, nor do I – I just don’t spend that much time on it. I’m truly not that concerned.”
• 16 December 2001: Osama bin Laden, in visual range of US forces, is allowed to escape the Battle of Tora Bora.
• 11 January 2002: The first twelve men of many more men are disappeared by the administration of President George W. Bush into Guantanamo Bay.  They are held indefinitely without charge or trial, subjected to torture and left to die.
• 20 March 2003: Having been attacked by forces with backing from Saudi Arabia, President George W. Bush initiates a war against… Iraq.  Definitely no attack on his friends, the House of Saud.
• 1 May 2003: President George W. Bush tells the nation the status of the Iraq war: Mission Accomplished.
• 2004: President George W. Bush, with the aid of faulty voting machines, again is declared President of the United States.
• 7 October 2005: “George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.”
• History Commons: Complete 9/11 Timeline (06 November 2005)
• NASA: World Trade Center Zoom (11 November 2005)
• George Bush: 9/11 Speech (11 November 2005)
• Zombietime: World Trade Center, September 13, 2001 (31 July 2006)
• George Galloway vs. U.S Senate 17 May 2005 (06 August 2006)
• 26 October 2006: Former Bush administration Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld flees France to avoid being served papers branding him a war criminal.
• English Russia: Russian Pilot Making Photos 9/11 Flying Above NYC (06 December 2006)
• 18 December 2006: Vance v Rumsfeld alleges former Bush administration Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the torture of Donald Vance.
• Sibel Edmonds: Official Web Site (15 March 2007)
• Reuters: French knew in 2001 al Qaeda was planning hijack (19 April 2007)
• Yahoo! News: France told US before September 11 of Al-Qaeda plans (19 April 2007)
• FBI: Bin Laden may have arranged family’s US exit (21 June 2007)
• Robert Scheer: Bush’s Faustian Deal With the Taliban 22 May 2001 (28 August 2007)
• Trevor Blake: On September 11 (12 September 2007)
• Times Online: Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith (12 September 2007)
• Western Resistance: Islamism, Six Years After The Wake-Up Call [archive] (12 September 2007)
• Jihad Watch: The date which will live in infamy (12 September 2007)
• FOXNews: Six Years Later: Bin Laden Still Free, U.S. Mired in Iraq (14 September 2007)
• 9-11 Review: A Resource for Understanding the 9/11/01 Attack (14 September 2007)
• The Young Turks: Verbatim Quotes from Republicans when Clinton was Prez (23 September 2007)
• Agence France Presse: Bush certifies Saudi Arabia as ‘war on terror’ ally. (21 October 2007)
• Truthout: Bush Covered Up Saudi Involvement in 9/11. (09 December 2007)
• Gerald Posner: The CIA’s Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 9/11 Connection. (09 December 2007)
• Trevor Blake: Two Ways of Funding the Taliban. (14 April 2008)
• 25 July 2008: Thirty-five articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush die in committee.
• Dhimmi Watch: U.S. court exonerates Saudis from lawsuit filed by relatives of 9/11 victims. (15 August 2008)
• Astronaut Frank Culbertson photographs ground zero on 9/11 while in the International Space Station. (15 September 2008)
• Asia Times Online: Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders were able to skip Afghanistan for Pakistan unimpeded in the first weeks after September 11, 2001, as the George W Bush administration failed to plan to block their retreat. (01 October 2008)
• New Scientist: The 10 most unusual objects to have flown in space (29 December 2008)
• Project 2,996: An Online Tribute the to 2,996 Victims of 9/11 (26 January 2009)
• Intense, Prolonged Exposure To World Trade Center Attack Linked To New Health Problems Years Later (06 August 2009)
• Trevor Blake: 9/11 (11 September 2009)
• Barbarossa: Obama says Islam has changed the face of America… (12 September 2009)
• Sibel Edmonds and Philip Giraldi: Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds? (23 September 2009)
• 2 June 2010: Former President George W. Bush admits to committing a war crime.
• Trevor Blake: Trajectory Through Anarchism (05 June 2010)
• … more 9/11.
• … more Islam.
• … more Bush.

Which brings us up to today.  While 9/11 first responders among the New York City Fire Department and New York City Police Department read books to children, children in Muslim countries are poisoned for wanting to learn to read.  While the United States leads the world in donations to flood victims in the Islamic nation of Pakistan, not a single Islamic nation appears on the list of donors.  While “Allahu Akbar, God is Great” is now carved into a medieval cathedral in Lyon, it is next to impossible to build or repair any cathedral in most Muslim nations.  While the streets of Paris are blocked by Muslims praying to Mecca, “apostates” are put to death in Muslim countries.  While the President of the United States asks a small church to refrain from burning a small number of Qurans on a specific day, Muslim nations burn Bibles every day as a matter of law.  The nation afraid to speak plainly of tyrants will get the tyrants it deserves.  As monstrous as the Bush administration and its bootlickers are, they are amateurs – amateurs – compared to the writhing pest hole that is Islam.

I vow eternal contempt for those who kill to serve an invisible monster that lives in the sky, be it god or allah.

via youtube.

Mr. Condell says (0:22 – 0:53): “People keep framing this as a religious freedom issue.  But there’s a difference between practicing your religion, which everyone has a right to do, and rubbing your religion in people’s faces as a triumphalist political statement, which is what’s happening here.  I’d be interested to know just how bad an insult has to be before it’s no longer protected by the First Amendment.  After all, the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.  But in practice you need a permit to walk around packing hardware, and not everyone can get one despite the Second Amendment.”

I enjoy Mr. Condell‘s videos very much and have posted quite a few at ovo127.com.  I have not always agreed with everything he says or how he says it, but the agreement was general enough to post the videos without comment.  This video is an exception.  Here Mr. Condell confuses what is right (moral, respectful, virtuous) with rights (legal status).  And Mr. Condell appears to be suggesting that insults, if they are bad enough, do not deserve First Amendment protection.  I disagree on both counts.  What is legal and what is illegal are not necessarily what is right or what is wrong.  And the most vile of insults are deserving of First Amendment protection.  Otherwise, enjoy the show.

Jim Goad: Planet Islam

For the past 1000 years, the Muslim world has given us almost nothing in the way of math or science. It has, however, given us a slave trade that predated the Atlantic slave trade by seven centuries and shackled nearly twice as many black Africans as the Europeans did – a fact that continues to get lost on black Americans who cozy up to Islam.

Yahoo! News: Afghan Girls Fall Ill After Apparent Gas Poisoning

About 40 schoolgirls became ill and were taken to hospital after a suspected gas poisoning in the Afghan capital Wednesday, another apparent attack by hardline Islamists opposed to female education.

SSC Times: Alshabaab Cuts Tongue

The Mother of Ahmed Ali Shuuke has told the media that her son receives all food through injection and according to her statement he gets fed using the needles often used for injecting Camel herds. [includes photograph of a man with his tongue cut out.]

New York Times: In Bold Display, Taliban Order Stoning Deaths

The Taliban on Sunday ordered their first public executions by stoning since their fall from power nine years ago, killing a young couple who had eloped, according to Afghan officials and a witness.

BBC: Taliban ‘Kill Adulterous Afghan Couple’ in Marketplace

Two witnesses from Mullah Quli told the BBC that the Taliban asked the villagers to attend the stoning through an announcement on loudspeakers in the mosque.

Reuters: Iran Stoning Case Lawyer in Turkey, Seeking Asylum

The lawyer who defended a woman sentenced to death by stoning in Iran is in Istanbul and has applied for asylum in a third country, a source at the United Nations’ refugee agency said Thursday.

canada.com: Muslim Women’s Group Opposes Addition of Honour Killings to Criminal Code

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women opposes the addition of “honour killings” to the Criminal Code on the grounds “murder is murder” and a special category could stigmatize new immigrants and some ethnic or religious groups.

Middle East Quarterly: Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings

Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.

All articles continue at links. Part of a series that never ends… [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and etc. Cutting out a man’s tongue is in compliance with Islam. Stoning those accused of adultery is in compliance with Islam. Honor killings are in compliance with Islam.  These evils co-exist with Islam, and I’ll venture a guess they are related.  Perhaps the secularization and reform of Islam will cause a reduction in these evils.  Pending the complete withering away of Islam under the twin suns of reason and scorn, I’d like to give that a try.

Sometimes people scowl at me when I talk about religions like Islam or Christianity withering away to nothing.  But the evidence is on my side.  All religions die out, given enough time.  If we learn from our mistakes (if) then religion itself may also wither away, given enough time.  If.

OUTLAW CHRISTIANITY! DEATH TO ALL CHRISTIANS!

The above does not reflect the intention of OVO, and in fact stands opposite to it. The above is provided to feed the presuppositions of those who will not actually read this issue of OVO. Any review of this issue that quotes the words above is likely to have been written by someone who never read beyond them to learn what OVO actually states. This issue of OVO has a purpose, but the likelihood that it will be misrepresented is great enough that a clear statement of what the purpose is not is in order.

OVO does not advocate the criminalization of Christianity. Existing criminal law suffices to address what is harmful, and law is among the least appropriate means of addressing what is merely mistaken. Christians deserve equal sanction by the law, and voluntary and informed activities among consenting adults (including religion) should not be outlawed.
OVO does not advocate the murder of Christians except in self-defense. Because of the potential for legal error, capital punishment is immoral in all cases. War and murder are immoral in all cases except in self-defense. Except in self-defense, it is always immoral to kill (including killing Christians).

OVO does not advocate the replacement of the Christian God with another God, a Goddess, a pantheon of deities, nature worship, or similar substitution. OVO does not advocate worship, be it of the Christian God or any other. To any reader who uses OVO to build up their own superstition: your faith is equally contemptible.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because it does not understand it. Many years research went into this issue, and along the way misunderstandings about Christianity (whether in its favor or against it) were abandoned. OVO criticizes Christianity not because it does not understand it, but because it is worthy of criticism.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because the editor had a traumatic experience with Christianity. The editor had a generally positive experience with Christianity while growing up and has Christian friends today. It is a silent admission of defeat that Christians use this psychological, secular explanation for why someone might criticize their superstition. The editor came to reject Christianity the old fashioned way: by reading the Bible.

OVO is not critical of Christianity because the editor is possessed by Satan, demons or evil spirits. Such ghosts have never existed.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because it is a socialist publication. OVO is not a socialist publication.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because Christianity is false. Christianity is false, but that is not in itself sufficient reason to advocate that it wither away. There are many non-fiction books, films, plays, poems and recordings that are also false but serve to inspire humanity. But these false stories do not claim to be true, are not taught to impressionable children as true, and are not used to support legislation that meddles in the affairs of non-Christians. No one is arguing that the epics of Homer be taught as history; no one is legislating that Aesop’s fables be posted in courtrooms. These stories, though false, serve to inspire those who seek them out and are rightly preserved. It is the secular power of Christianity that is the problem, not merely its falsehood. Christianity does not attempt to identify and lessen its falsehoods: it revels in them as ‘tests of faith.’ Christianity is holding back science and art, culture and philosophy, tools that actually can and actually have improved humanity’s lot in an indifferent Universe.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because it is a good religion perverted to bad ends. It is much more the case that a few good people (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, perhaps) have perverted the bad religion of Christianity to good ends. All the good done in the name of Christianity could and does occur through entirely secular means. What remains distinctly Christian if such duplication of labor is removed? Threats of eternal damnation, denial of the pleasures and wonders of this short life, confusion and deception. When Christianity has supported individual rights it has done so only after a ‘revelation’ that (a) goes against its own history and (b) miraculously is in harmony with contemporary public opinion. For example, many Christians opposed slavery in the United States; but many more supported slavery and did so for much longer. Even today the Bible contains many passages supporting slavery and not one passage condemning it. Christianity is a slave religion, a misogynist religion, a queer-killing religion, a nonsense religion, but good people keep twisting their bad faith to good ends. Wouldn’t it be better to just do good deeds without wasted efforts to placate an invisible monster that lives in the sky?

OVO does not criticize Christianity to criticize individual Christians. It is often the case that an attack on a person’s unconsidered beliefs is perceived as an attack on their person. If a person’s beliefs are profoundly unconsidered, to merely state that one holds differing beliefs is perceived as an attack. For example, Christians who see other superstitions get equal time in the eyes of the law sometimes complain that their freedom of religion is under attack. Those who hold considered beliefs are secure when challenged and (hopefully) willing to admit error. Those who hold unconsidered beliefs, who repeat what they have been told without deliberation, are more likely to confuse who they are with what they believe. Christianity, like all religions, encourages strong belief but also encourages a lack of consideration. Posturing, bullying and stubbornness are substitutes for consideration of belief among most Christians.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because its claims contradict the evidence of our senses, science, history, archeology, astronomy, mathematics, common sense and the like. It is true that Christianity is incompatible with all of these, but science progresses by way of challenges to all our claims. If Christianity challenges the evidence of our senses, all the better: let the challenges be considered and considered again. If the Bible contradicts science, science can be tested to see if the Bible has a better explanation for reality. Where the Bible holds true, the Bible holds true. Where the Bible is found to be false, it should either be re-written or re-classified as folk tales. Resolving contradictions between the Bible and the evidence of our senses can be of value to us all, and so the contradictions between the Bible and the evidence of our senses are not in themselves why the Bible should be criticized. Internal contradictions in the Bible, and holding on to falsehood when falsehood has been identified, are worthy of the greatest of criticisms.

OVO does not criticize Christianity as an argument for atheism. The editor is preparing an argument for atheism that is distinct from this argument against Christianity.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because Jesus Christ was a good person whose followers have gone astray, or because we do not have the secret teachings of Jesus, or because Jesus was a complex person with both good and bad qualities. Jesus never existed.

In 1991, the editor published A Call to Heresy on a BBS in Knoxville, Tennessee USA. The document found its way onto BBS’ around the world as well as other formats, including an Internet domain in Hong Kong and a CD-ROM of public domain texts published by Palm Computers. Various editions of the text can be found on the Internet today. Some of the research done for that text has found a new home here in OVO 16 AntiChrist.

OVO criticizes the Bible. Some Christians say that it is an error to overly attend to what the Bible says, and one should rely on the Bible as inspiration rather than fact. But the Bible itself makes claims of perfection, and so taking it at its word in claims of perfection are as justified as any other perspective; perhaps more justified than some ‘inspired’ interpretations. If any interpretation of the Bible is as good as any other, then Christians in no way can distance themselves from the worst among them. Having failed to amend the contradictions, atrocities and absurdities in the Bible with over two thousand years to do so, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible is considered factual among Christians. Some Christians (called Dominionists or Fundamentalists or Conservatives or the Christian Right) are explicit in their claim that the Bible is factual, while the rest hold it to be factual but requiring ‘interpretation’ (often by way of asking the reader to simply ignore parts of the Bible).

But this issue of OVO does not limit itself to criticisms of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church claims a history pre-dating the Bible. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity, wrote inspired texts. The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints and the Watchtower Society claim to have Christian revelations in modern times. All of these Christians are well deserving of criticism and contempt.

There are a set number of responses offered by Christians when confronted with their own beliefs. The first and most common is to be told that these Bible verses have been taken out of context. It is claimed that the verses surrounding these quotes give them a meaning other than their apparent meaning. If this is the case it will be easy to demonstrate; full citations for each quote are given throughout. The reader is encouraged to read the Bible. There is no more sure path to rejecting Christianity than understanding it. Some claim that the contexts of the times change how we should understand the Bible. But does the Bible say it is relevant only until the time of Job (the last time God speaks directly to humanity), or does it claim to be relevant to all times? Some claim that one translation of the Bible offers a more accurate account than another, but existing fragmentary early Christian texts contain their own contradictions, atrocities and absurdities.

The second common reply made by Christians when confronted with their own beliefs is that the Bible, God, Jesus and the rest are not to be understood by reason in the way math or science is. Christianity is to be understood by faith, by the heart, by the spirit, by the soul. Therefore any apparent contradictions, atrocities or absurdities should be ignored because those are all ‘reason’ and not ‘faith.’ But there is no ‘alternative to reason’ as faith is said to be. One can hope, one can wish, one can pretend and ignore, one can scream or run away or kill one’s critics, but none of these are alternatives to reason. Even if there were an alternative to reason, how is the ‘feeling’ that Christianity is true (and all other religions false) different from the ‘feeling’ that Islam is true (and all other religions are false)? Why is it that Christian ‘feelings’ are so regional – does God not inspire such ‘feelings’ everywhere equally? Why don’t children have that ‘feeling’ until an adult tells them to say they do, and why do adults spend so much effort making sure that ‘feeling’ is planted in children?

All religions claim to be the only true religion. Even the ecumenical religions claim to be the only true religion, by claiming that the non-ecumenical religions are false. But since all religions contradict each other at most only one can be the only true religion. Since all religions by definition put themselves outside what can be demonstrated as true, it would be unjust to establish any religion as secular law because the likelihood of error would be too great. Suppose Mithrism became the law of the United States when actually it was Ah Pook that was the real living God? Those countries that have a legal assumption of atheism serve freedom the most. At times this has been the case in the United States, where OVO originates. Christianity threatens the legal presupposition of atheism in the USA, necessitating this issue of OVO. Christianity is the superstition behind the US support of Israel, the war in Iraq, lack of access to Plan B and a vaccine for two strains of cancer-causing HPV, the removal of science from public education, the ongoing imprisonment of the West Memphis Three (among others), blue laws, laws forbidding atheists from holding elected office and more. Reform from within should occur in Christianity. Civil discourse should occur between Christians and non-Christians. But should Christianity elect to ignore the opportunities of positive reinforcement, let it learn the sting of negative reinforcement. OVO is not reforming Christianity from within, nor is it a civil discourse. It is an attack – using only Christianity’s own beliefs as weapons. When Mithrism or the faithful of Ah Pook establish their superstition as law in the USA, they will be equally worthy of criticism. Readers in countries where Islam or Judaism are the majority superstition are encouraged to make similar efforts.

This issue of OVO advocates the withering away of Christianity through reason and scorn. Reason alone withers Christianity to a hostile party guest that has long overstayed his welcome; scorn provide us with laughter and satisfaction as we show him to the door. Perhaps reason alone, or reason and compassion, might be a more noble endeavor. But any belief that cannot withstand a little mockery is perhaps not worth holding in the first place.

Subject religious organizations to the same requirements as secular non-profit organizations: demonstrate they perform a quantifiable public good to receive tax-exempt status. Do not donate any funds, labor or resources to Christian organizations: there are secular equivalents to any Christian organization for those who seek to aid others. Do not vote for politicians who make their Christianity a part of their platform. Oppose ‘faith based’ funding and theocratic laws. Learn more about Christianity than the Christians themselves. Confront Christians with their own claims and history.

OVO is fortunate to originate in the United States, where Christianity and other superstitions may be legally practiced and criticized. The United Kingdom, Holland, Sweden, Italy, Turkey, Norway, Canada and other countries forbid criticism of religion as a form of ‘hate crime,’ while China, North Korea and other countries forbid religion as a form of ‘thought crime.’ In the United States religion may be both practiced and criticized – for now. If Christianity continues to become the state religion of the United States, this may not be the case much longer.

OVO is a tool kit to disabuse the reader of Christianity.

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

This essay makes the case against tax exemption for religious organizations in Oregon. The amount of revenue lost as well as the harm caused by religious organizations is not compensated for by the social good they are alleged to provide (this alleged social good being the justification for their tax exempt status).

Tax exemption for religious organizations in Oregon brings about three problems for Oregonians. First, there is no definition of religion to differentiate ‘real’ religious organizations from ‘fake’ ones, thus making any decision for or against tax exemption on the part of the government arbitrary. Second, religious organizations are not compelled to make contributions to their community that are comparable to the amount they are awarded in taxes breaks, nor is there any effort or means to hold them accountable for aiding the community. Third, the revenue needs of Oregon could be met by taxing religious organizations at only a fraction of the rate other organizations are taxed.

It is helpful to delineate what is under discussion in any argument. In this case, the topics under discussion are Oregon, taxes exemption and religion. Oregon is the state to the North of California and Nevada, to the South of Washington, to the West of Idaho and with a Western boundary of the Pacific Ocean. Tax exemption means that the agencies in question are not compelled to pay taxes. The definitions for Oregon and tax exemption are easy to find, confirm, and understand. But the search for a definition of religion is doomed to failure.

There is no legal definition of what a religion is, be it on the international level, the national level or the state level. Although many nations define religion as something deserving of political protection, there is no legal definition of what a religion is in international law [1].

There is also no legal definition of what a religion is in United States law. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that the religion of a US citizen cannot be used to deny them public accommodation, equal protection under the law, segregation in public education or college education, the right to vote, or employment [2]. While the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensure protection of religion, neither define what it is they are protecting. The United States has never offered a definition what a religion is, although it has offered a definition of what a religion is not. In Thomas vs. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the Supreme Court determined that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection [3].” In the eyes of the law, a religion is anything that declares itself a religion.

There is no legal definition of what a religion is in Oregon law. ORS 128.620 (4) states a “religious organization means any organized church or group organized for the purpose of divine worship, religious teaching, or other directly ancillary purposes [4].” ORS 307.140 states property owned or being purchased by religious organizations is exempt from taxation [5]. ORS 65.001 (39) states that a religious group “is designated a religious corporation by a statute or is organized primarily or exclusively for religious purposes.” The Department of Revenues states that exemption from property tax is available for any religious group that has a constitution, bylaws, or charter which states its mission and purpose [6]. Religious organizations in Oregon are clearly given exemption from property tax, and are clearly expected to ‘be religious.’ But there is no legal definition of what a religion is or how to ‘be religious’ in Oregon law.

Whether it be international law, United States law or Oregon law, there is no legal definition of what a religion is. What if legal sanctions and prohibitions for other issues were left similarly vague? For better and for worse, there are legal definitions to who is and is not a Native American; what is and is not an endangered species; which chemicals are and are not legal to ingest. If there were no definition of who is a Native American, anyone could collect federal benefits reserved for Native Americans. If there were no definition of what an endangered species is, any species could be declared no longer endangered and hunted to extinction. If there were no definition of who is authorized to sell morphine, anyone who would like to make some fast money would do so. The reason legal definitions exist is so that laws may be fairly applied to all, and so that exemptions from the law may be justified. But a religious group is a religious group merely because it claims to be a religious group. Religions exempt themselves from definition, aside from the definition of ‘that which is tax exempt.’

Because there is no legal definition for religion in Oregon, there is no way to determine if religious tax exemptions are being fairly applied. Some religious organizations may be tax exempt but not deservedly so, while other religious organizations may not be tax exempt and deserve tax exemption. There is no way to determine if religious tax exemptions are being fairly granted to all applicants because there is no way to determine which applicant is ‘being religious’ and which is not. Whatever ‘being religious’ means, religious organizations are exempt from paying taxes. This includes taxes related to their property, businesses, income, and donations.

The justification offered for religious tax exemption is similar to that of secular groups that qualify for non-profit status (501c3). Secular non-profit organizations earn their tax exempt status by providing services that might otherwise be provided by the state, such as housing or medical care. Since the state does not have to pay for these services, no taxes are gathered from organizations that offer such services. Since the perceived need for taxes is thereby reduced, secular non-profit organizations can justify their tax-exempt status.

But there is an important difference between the tax-exempt status of secular organizations and the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. Secular non-profit organizations are held accountable for their work. They must demonstrate that the service they provide is necessary, that they have provided that service, that the service they provided was taken advantage of, and that the cost of lost taxes is less than the benefit of the services provided. If a secular non-profit organization cannot demonstrate each of these characteristics, they do not retain their tax-exempt status.

The standards that secular non-profit organizations are held to makes them very different from religious tax-exempt organizations. Religious tax-exempt organizations are not held to these standards or to any other standard. A religious organization may deliver food to the hungry, offer shelter to the homeless and counseling to the troubled – or they may do none of these things, or it may do these things to a standard far outside accepted norms (such as offering “prayer” as a substitute for medical care or counseling). Religious groups are exempt from taxes whether or not they serve their community and lessen the tax burden. There is no legal obligation on a religious group’s part to demonstrate they have delivered food, shelter or other tangible services; there is no legal obligation on a religious group’s part to do anything to retain their tax-exempt status other than filing or re-filing the proper forms. It is not possible to measure measures how much religion Oregonians need, how much religion religious organizations provide, how many people take advantage of religion, whether one form of religion is more beneficial than any other, or whether or not religion is cost effective. While is it possible to state how many people claim religious affiliation, it is not possible to state what that means. It is not possible to determine if a two-year-old just as religious as an adult. It is not possible to legislate how often or in what way a group must be religious to qualify for tax exempt status. Because there is no oversight to determine how much a religious group serves its community, there is no justification for tax exempt status for religious organizations in Oregon.

Oregon law does not state what religion is. Oregon law is also not consistent in when individuals are exempt from legal punishment due to religion. Sometimes activities are forbidden by law irregardless of religion, other times they are allowed if religion is said to be involved. In the case of Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith it was determined that the state of Oregon is not compelled to allow the use of peyote [7]. Although peyote has been a part of Native American religions for centuries, and although the plaintiffs were themselves Native Americans and were using peyote for what they claimed were religious reasons, the state Supreme Court determined they were not entitled to unemployment compensation after being fired due to using peyote. The legal injunction against peyote use trumped their religious claims. This is an example of an activity being illegal whether or not it was ‘religious.’

Conversely, Oregon law provides immunity to many charges if the crime occurred as religion. These crimes have included homicide by abuse or neglect, first and second degree manslaughter, criminal mistreatment, requirements for children to wear a bicycle helmet, and nonsupport of children. Until recently, all of these crimes could be excused if the defendant claims they were committed as religion [8].

All newborns in Oregon are given a drop of vitamin K by law, but parents can prevent their children from receiving protection against spontaneous hemorrhaging for religious reasons.

The Followers of Christ Church in Clackamas County took advantage of religious exemption for murder by allowing nearly eighty children to die since the 1950s from treatable medical conditions. In over half of these deaths, the state did not attempt to establish the cause of death, the record was lost or their deaths were listed as due to ‘natural causes.’ Even when an Oregon medical examiner brought these deaths to the attention of the District Attorney’s office, the prosecutor declined to file charges. In the words of Rita Swan, “a parent may be beating or torturing a child, but if he or she can show that the child was prayed for, criminal charges must be dismissed [9].” Oregon House Bill 2494 revised criminal exemptions for parents who treat children only with prayer in 1999, after hearing opposing testimony by Oregon churches [10]. While child sacrifice in Oregon now carries some consequences, other criminal exemptions such as not requiring a religious child to wear a bicycle helmet remain [11]. These are examples of an otherwise illegal activity made legal by calling it ‘religious.’

One of the larger religious organization in Oregon is the Archdiocese of Portland. The Archdiocese of Portland is under the direct orders of the Roman Catholic Church, led by the Pope of Rome. In 1962, Pope John XXIII gave his approval to a document outlining the policy of the Roman Catholic Church in the event of child abuse by clergy. The policy was to keep child abuse by clergy secret and to transfer abusive priests to new parishes. The policy itself was to be kept secret but was revealed in 2003. The policy has never been retracted [12]; in fact, the current Pope stated in 2001 that the policy was still in effect [13]. More than one hundred and sixty nine victims of clerical child abuse have sued the Archdiocese of Portland for child abuse, and more than $53,000,000.00 has been assigned to settlements so far. While the Archdiocese of Portland filed for and received permission to delay paying its victims, it did have the funds to make building upgrades costing $1.6 million dollars [14]. The Archdiocese of Portland is estimated to own between $300,000,000 and $500,000,000 in property, none of which is taxed. It also owns special-purpose funds, investment funds, and loan funds, none of which are taxed. In 2003 its revenue was no less than and perhaps greater than $8.2 million, none of which was taxed [15]. The Archdiocese of Portland is only one out of 6,862 religious organizations claiming ORS 307.140 tax exemption in the state [16]. To quote the Oregonian, “The Catholic Church operates not by secular law, but by church law [17].”

Religious organizations in Oregon are not compelled to follow the same standards of education and employment as any other educator or employer in the state. Fundamental facts of nature which are part of the basic curriculum for any other school in the state may be omitted or deliberately misrepresented in religious schools. Any secular employer who hires and fires based on gender, ethnicity, sexuality, marital status or beliefs is subject to legal sanctions, but if the employer is religious they may hire and fire at will are protected by law in doing so.

Non-profit organizations (both secular and religious) are forbidden from endorsing political candidates. But some religious tax-exempt groups want to have their cake and eat it too. The Sonrise Church of Hillsboro lost its tax exempt status after partisan campaigning on its property [18]. The Christian Coalition has published the same sort of voting guides that cost the Sonrise Church its tax exempt status [19]. The New Hope Community Church of Clackamas has held partisan campaign meetings on its property [20]. The campaign to elect George W. Bush solicited the support of hundreds of religious organizations [21]. To further blur the line between state and superstition, the House of Representatives has initiated a bill that will merely fine religious organization that engage in partisan politics rather than revoke their tax exempt status [22]. Religious organizations can now avail themselves to federal funds through George W. Bush’s ‘faith based initiatives’ law – but apparently this money is made available mainly to Christian organizations, as few other religious organizations that have applied have received such funds. Under faith based funding, tax dollars can go to agencies that refuse to hire or serve minorities, women, homosexuals or anyone else for any reason.

In 1998 the Audits Division of the State of Oregon Department of Revenue conducted an audit of property tax exemptions. It determined that among religious organizations claiming tax exempt status under ORS 307.140, the sum of $2,010,492,000.00 was lost in tax year 1995-1996 [23]. This figure represents only revenues lost from property taxes, and does not include other lost forms of revenues connected to employment, businesses, museums and other sources of income for religious organizations. The audit states that 41 of the 154 organizations audited that were granted tax exempt status did not even meet the minimal state standards for tax exempt status (whatever those might be). The audit does not specifically state how many of these organizations were tax exempt under ORS 307.140. But the fact that one third of the organizations that claimed (and were granted) exemption totaling seventeen percent of $170.9 billion dollars in property taxes [24] were not qualified to do so suggests that Oregon religious tax exemption law is in dire need of supervision and revision [25]. Among other recommendations, the audit suggested that Oregon needs a clear definition of what a religion is to be able to fairly evaluate applications for ORS 307.140 tax exempt status [26]. This recommendation was not mentioned in the Department of Revenue’s reply [27] nor in a 1999 report on their progress in implementing 1998 audit [28]. Religion continues to go undefined, but religious tax exemption continues to be granted.

At what cost does Oregon grant tax exempt status to religious organizations? The state deficit for fiscal year 2004 was between $950,000.00 and $1,267,000.00 [29]. If religious organizations were taxed only for their property and only at half the rate of any other organization, the state budget would be all-but balanced within a single year.

Being religious, the defining trait that has no definition, is in the main an excuse to do as one pleases without consequence in Oregon. The majority of religious organizations in Oregon do not abuse and sacrifice children. Instead, they do nothing. Doing nothing and ruining childrens’ lives should not be rewarded with tax exemption.

Notes:
[1] Gunn , T. Jeremy: The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law. Harvard Human Rights Journal Volume 16 Spring 2003. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml
[2] Civil Rights Act of 1964. Document Number: PL 88-352. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
[3] Thomas vs. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division. 450 U.S. 707. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/450/707.html
[4] ORS Chapter 128 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/128.html
[5] ORS Chapter 307 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/307.html
[6] Property Tax Exemptions for Special Organizations. http://www.dor.state.or.us/InfoC/310-664.html
[7] Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith http://laws.findlaw.com/us/494/872.html
[8] Children’s Health Care. http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/
[9] Swan, Rita. Letting Children Die for the Faith. Free Inquiry, Volume 19, Number 1. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/swan_19_1.htm
[10] Larabee, Mark. Shield-law bills face easy win in House. Oregonian, March 5, 1999 http://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc9.html
[11] Children’s Health Care. http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/
[12] BBC News. Excerpts: Vatican document. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3157859.stm
[13] Pope ‘Obstructed’ Sex Abuse Inquiry. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html
[14] Funds are Released to Florence Parish http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/111813879118220.xml&coll=7
[15] Sunday Oregonian, May 23, 2004, Page A-14.
[16] State of Oregon Department of Revenue Property Tax Exemptions. March 24, 1998. Page 51. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[17] Sunday Oregonian, May 23, 2004, Page A-14.
[18] Americans United Reports Eight Churches to IRS for Distributing Christian Coalition Voter Guides During November Elections. December 10 1998. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6112&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr012=i6cieg36h2.app1b&news_iv_ctrl=1502
[19] Christian Coalition of Oregon http://www.coalition.org/
[20] Dobson speaks to NW pastors about same-sex debate. KATU April 5 2004. http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66042
[21] Bush Campaign [...] To Forge Church-Based Political Machine. Americans United, June 2 2004. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6692&abbr=pr&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241
[22] House steps into church-politics debate. USA Today, June 8 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-06-08-church-politics_x.htm
[23] State of Oregon Department of Revenue Property Tax Exemptions. March 24, 1998. Page 51. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[24] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page 56. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[25] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page iii. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[26] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page 44. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[27] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page 55. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[28] State of Oregon Department of Revenue Status of 1998 Audit Recommendations as Reported by State Agencies. November 17, 1999. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1999_year.html
[29] State Budget Shortfall Map http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/budgetmap.html

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Between April 11 and April 15 of 2004, I hosted an atheist table at Portland Community College in Portland, Oregon. This is an account of what I did, how I did it, and the response to what I did.

Getting the table was not difficult: I submitted the same paperwork that the religious groups on campus submit every other week of the year and my request was approved right away. I only asked for an hour a day for four days, due to other school obligations. Most religious groups have their tables out all day for weeks on end.

I spent about $40 printing some pamphlets I made. My pamphlets consisted of quotes from religious sources such as the Christian Bible and the Quran. The idea was that direct quotes from the source presented without comment would speak louder than any criticism I could offer. The quotes were gathered according to themes such as science, women, prophecies, etc. I also requested literature from atheist groups and several generously answered my request: Campus Freethought Alliance, Center for Inquiry, Council for Secular Humanism, and United States Atheists. I decided to keep the effort ‘ecumenical’ in that I wasn’t there representing any particular organization. By the end of the week I learned that the professionally published literature is taken more readily than the home-made photocopies, and that everyone loves stickers. I decorated a second-hand tablecloth with the word ATHEIST in large, black letters – no missing this table, no missing what this table was about (or so I hoped). PCC specifically forbids collecting personal information on campus, so I didn’t have a sign-up sheet as the Campus Freethought Alliance suggests. Nor did I primarily promote humanism rather than critique religion, as the CFA suggets. For this first effort on campus I want it to be clear that religion itself, not just particular groups or people or claims, was not exempt from criticism. I also set up a simple Web page for those who wanted to get or share more information.

Many people had questions about the atheist table. Some wanted to know if there was an official atheist club on campus, and what the club did. I said that there was not school-sponsored club because I knew that some students wouldn’t feel comfortable if their student activities fee went toward such a club. PCC offers up to $500 per group per year. There are at least five or six religious clubs on campus at all times, and no limit to the number of clubs that could exist. Two people said ‘but the Christian groups don’t hesitate in taking my money.’ I said that was a decision that PCC and the Christian groups made, and suggested they take it up with PCC and the Christians if they disapproved. I said many times that while there was no club, we did have a Web page and that I hoped in the future to either bring in or be a guest speaker on atheism, religion, church/state issues, and the like.

Some who stopped by the table had questions not about what I was offering but what I wasn’t offering. Why not have a separation of church and state table instead of an atheist table? Why aren’t there any pamphlets on creationism versus evolution? Why are there only pamphlets about Christianity and Islam, and not other religions? The general answer was that there was only so much I could do on this first attempt at an atheist table but all of these issues had relevant links and information at the Web site.

Some people had philosophical questions such as why we are here, where the first life came from, what happens when we die, whether or not there was a spiritual world, and ‘how do you live’ (which seemed to mean how can an atheist have ethics and a joy in living while remaining unconvinced by claims of God or an afterlife). I replied that I have read several theories as to how the earliest life appeared on Earth but I don’t consider myself versed enough in science to have a deep understanding of the subject, so I didn’t know for sure how life first formed. But I said it is more likely that there is a natural explanation than a supernatural one. Regarding ‘how I live’ I said I was not convinced by claims that there was an afterlife or a spiritual world or God. I said people can have the purpose they give themselves, and that can be its own reward. I have worked at a homeless shelter and as an American Sign Language interpreter for many years. I’ve taken classes on how to teach children with learning disabilities and how to be a better counselor. I am a member of Amnesty International and donate to charitable organizations. That’s some of ‘how I live’ without God.

A few people offered their unsolicited analysis about why I was hosting an atheist table. They said I must have had a bad experience with religion, or I must have never read the Bible, or I must have never really read the Bible, or I must have never had someone explain the Bible to me in just the right way. I replied that I had an entirely positive religious experience growing up, and that part of my religious upbringing was being encouraged to read the Bible. I started reading it as a child, and I have read from it ever since. The more I read, the more problems I find. Is it possible that the right explanation from the right explainer will make it all true again? It is possible, but I think it is very unlikely this will happen. Some claim atheism is obviously false because it claims to have ‘all the answers,’ but I suggest it is religion that has a one-size-fits-all answer (‘God did it’) and it is atheism that keeps asking questions.

People asked me what atheism was. I gave two answers: that atheism is what is left over when the claims of religion are found to be false, and that atheism is a rejection of the supernatural. The former explains why atheism is not ‘just another religion,’ the later explains what atheism is against. It might have been less confrontational to have a secular humanist table instead of an atheist table, but I confess I enjoyed tweaking the noses of the religious on campus. The worst I can say about them is I don’t believe their claims. Their holy books say I should be put to death (the Christians have Deuteronomy 13:6-10, the Muslims have Quran 2:191). I think they can stand a little confrontation.

I managed to distribute nearly all of the literature I had, but the experience wasn’t only one of being a teacher. I also learned from the experience. I learned there was a uniformity in how non-Christians perceived Christians: without exception, non-Christians spoke of Christians as liars and bullies. I was asked seven times if I was ‘serious,’ if I was really an atheist. I was asked this more than anything else. The reason why people asked if I was ‘serious’ was they thought the table was a trick by Christian. Five times I was asked if any Christians had harassed me yet. Christians are clearly are not viewed favorably on campus outside of their own circle. Non-Christians see Christians as people prone to misrepresent themselves to ‘win souls’ and to abuse those who disagree with them. I hope Christians reading this do not use this as evidence they are a persecuted group; being disliked is not evidence of being put down, and there may be entirely valid reasons for their being disliked. If anyone reading this who is not a Christian has thought in the past they were alone in mistrusting Christians, that they are in a critical minority, they might like to know that instead they are the majority. But it is a majority that has been deceived and bullied into silence.

The dislike and mistrust for Christians on campus was one thing I learned from hosting an atheist table. Another thing was how clearly divided Christians are in their behavior based on gender. Of those who identified themselves as Christians, wore Christian jewelry or carried Christian Bibles, the men and the women acted entirely differently. The Christian women both asked questions and gave answers. They spoke and listened to me and to other people at the table. The Christian men, however, were angry and condescending. I was told by the Christian men I ‘must live an empty life,’ that I ‘didn’t know what I was talking about,’ that I ‘should read the Bible before I quote from it,’ and more. Men also tended to exhibit a ‘rant and run’ behavior – they would bark out a comment or a judgment, sometimes in the middle of my listening to someone else, then literally run away. Sticking around to hear anything I had to say in reply was not in the cards for these Christian men. It was a man who asked the confusing question ‘Why are you pointing out all the things that are wrong in the Bible that are true anyway?’ It was a man who said that asking Christians to defend their claims, as I did in my pamphlets, was saying Christians are stupid. If the bad reputation of Christians is based in experience, I suggest it is Christian men and not Christian women who are to blame. No other categorization of Christians, such as age or ethnicity, was apparent.

A few Christians of both genders came to the table more than one day. And both a male and a female Christian gave the same reply to what turned out to be the most popular pamphlet I offered (see below). Regarding the fact that Jesus said that He would return and the world would end ‘soon’ (a ‘soon’ that came and went two thousand years ago), they said that a day to God was like a thousand years and a thousand years was like a day. Although one Christian mistakenly said this was a quote from Psalms, I found the quote in 2 Peter 3:8. The unknown author of 2 Peter references the letter of Jude, which was written around 80-100 CE. Thus the 1=1000 claim could only have been made after Jesus was already one or more generations late. In fact, the main point of 2 Peter Chapter 3 is to answer those who were asking, all the way back then, why Jesus hadn’t returned in their lifetimes as He had promised He would. People were asking if Jesus had lied (or been a lie) two thousand years ago. People are still asking today. But some aren’t asking anything: they just accept that when you put God into the picture, you don’t have to mean what you say or say what you mean. Jesus promised (thirty times or more!) to return within the lifetime of those who saw Him; He didn’t, but His followers claim He said that, He never lied, He is coming back, and somehow at the same time He is coming back two thousand years ago. Might all this confusion contribute to the perception that Christians are liars?

Based on conversations, repeat visits, and other signs of apparent interest it seems that my pamphlet questioning Christian prophecy was the most popular. It is possible that the topics presented in the pamphlets I offered were not the main reason people selected some and not others. Perhaps they picked up what was closest to them, or what was the most colorful. For whatever reason, here are the topics covered and how many of each pamphlet were taken:

Thirty Failed Prophecies: 28
The Bible Condones Slavery and Racism: 20
Women in the Bible: 16
Antisemitism in the Bible: 14
Papal-sanctioned Child Abuse: 10
Antisemitism from Martin Luther: 9
Fantastic Claims of Islam: 9
God Hates Homosexuality: 8
The Bible on the Origins of Life: 8
The Bible on the Origins of the Earth: 6

Only one person mentioned Islam at all (saying he had seen a table for an Islamic group before). Although there is no small Islamic presence on campus, no Muslim identified themselves to me, sought to understand what I was doing or challenge my claims. Nor was any other religion defended during this week. Instructors at PCC seemed to neither entirely avoid from nor come to the table: a few did each. It was only the Christians and those who have been cowed by the Christians who engaged me.

Some of those who came to the table were sympathetic but had concerns with atheism. One said ‘I understand the importance of the separation of church and state, but when they start banning Christmas in public grade school that’s going too far.’ I suggested that because not all religious holidays enjoy the same investment of tax dollars that celebrating Christmas was an instance of government establishment of religion and thus a violation of the First Amendment. One person said they liked what I was doing but ‘most people think atheism means evil’ (Devilishly, I said that’s why I did it). Another said I was just pushing my faith on other people: I reminded him that he came up to me and started the conversation, and that disbelieving the claims of religion was not a matter of faith.

A small number of people looked at the Web page. For all of four hours, there was a freethinker on campus that people could ask questions to and hear answers from. But what I value most out of the experience was the words of encouragement I got from the non-Christian majority who stopped by. Most of them appeared concerned about being seen talking to me but they each quietly said something nice. ‘Thank you for doing this!’ ‘I’m always trying to explain these things and it’s hard, can I take two pamphlets?’ ‘It’s good to see everyone get a chance, not just the religious groups.’ ‘I look forward to discussion with you.’ ‘This is great, I’m a recovering Catholic.’ ‘My boyfriend is an atheist.’ ‘This is interesting!’ Three people gave me the ‘thumbs up.’ And my favorite vote of confidence: ‘Good on you!’

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

for Ira Cohen

I
off to the beiad what ho for the Fayyum & Egyptian solitude. This yearning for renunciation out-seduces other Lesser lusts & becomes our secret vice our coenobitic luxe. Our athletic asceticism is crypto-aestheticism

our grottos

coat our grotesque bodies in mother-of-pearl we grow a few herbs nudge nudge & every day wink wink a raven arrives with a loaf of “bread.” The desert so monochromous to jaded urbanites offers auras & auroras to the

anchroritic eye

Our nothingness is a giant suck-hole

that

re-appropriates the world & our friends the devils

Little Anthony & the Temptations we succumb to every one of them

especially

the succulent succubus of dolce far niente

which the worldly call prayer.

II
Juice for Jesus

You yourself are a kind of food of love & love a kind of spiritual cannibalism – & not so totally spiritual for those whose taste in love runs to precious bodily fluids. Jesus is the juice of your genitalia your tears your underarm sweat et cetera music at best the sauce High Church Victoriana pompous as beeswax & ammonia.

Appetite

would never feed on itself if it could lick the dirt from your shoes. Real food is based on you like distant emanations from the Platonic kitchen

caviare

champagne

& other disgusting sacraments of the Libertine Gnostics

They laughed at Yeats because he never missed the dinner bell at Colle no matter how

entranced

with swans. Fools

the food of love is actually food.

III
Everyone talks about negative capability but nobody ever does anything about it

Every day

we cram ourselves with juicy disasters

planning

later to dry out our heads with whiffs of some bodhisattva’s farts

or Art

or ideology or shopping

hoping

to forget what the wise old elves always stage-whispered to me on the most radical afternoons of unreconstructed Summer

Psst! hey kid

come & eat clouds like us eat emptiness & feel the scintillating buzz the enticing somethingness of a rich

long-ago nothing that can hover in mid-air like a

dragonfly

or Jesus the water-bug.

IV Twelve Steps to Hell

1.
Abraham & Eggs
vaudeville duo advocating
the meltdown of monotheism
in a maelstrom sweet as treacle
Breakfast of heretics shed for me
blackpudding mushrooms kippers
rashers of bacon & lashings of tea
because it’s not what enters the mouth
that pollutes as the Borborites say
or pale Carpucrateans with their sacrament
of precious bodily fluids
but what comes out of it
language as puke

2.
The Sevenheaded Cobra demands
immediate re-paganization of the Abrahamic Traditions
or hostages will be shot
out of circus cannons & bounce
like swans in widespread nets
with Theosophical warps
& polymorphous wefts
too complex for even the most advanced
generation of military computers
to map with any degree of inaccurate
inaccessible mountain somewhere
in the almost Martian landscape
of Waziristan.

3.
Why should the Right monopolize
mystic runes groovy grafitti
skull-&-crossbones or the color black
Ice shelves of Arctic unreason
are melting melting
leaving behind
only a pair of red shoes such as
vegetarian spirits like to sport
hobgoblins haunting Europe
with nastly recrudenscence
of funkadelic thaumaturgy &
illiterate syncretism
the snakes cult to end all snake cults
return of the never quite sufficiently
repressed
in the form of goat panic terror
& shameless idolatry.

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Jihad Watch: Nine Years Later, Church at Ground Zero Still Not Rebuilt, But Mad Rush to Build Islamic Supremacist Mega-Mosque

The rebuilding project is mired in bureaucracy, with New York City officials being uncooperative and throwing up roadblock after roadblock. The contrast is telling with the mad rush on the part of New York City officials to build the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero, sweeping aside calls to landmark the Burlington Coat Factory building, into which crashed the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes.

Clifford D. May: Dear Mayor Bloomberg

After the 9/11 attacks, your predecessor Rudy Giuliani turned down a $10 million check from a Saudi prince who had said that America shares blame for the atrocity. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the Islamic center project, has said that U.S. policies “were an accessory to the crime that happened.” How is that different?

Time: Afghan Women Fear Their Fate Amid Taliban Negotiations

“They are the people that did this to me,” she says, touching her damaged face. “How can we reconcile with them?”

Yahoo! News: Brazil Offers Haven to Iran Woman in Adultery Case

“If she is causing problems there, we will welcome her here,” Silva added.

Kenan Malik – How to Become a Real Muslim

A media reliant on scandal has colluded with self-promoting but marginal Muslim clerics to create a cycle of self-reinforcing myths around the Mohammed cartoons.

All articles continue at links. Part of a series that never ends… [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and etc.

Supporters of the World Trade Center Mosque are correct in saying they have a right to build this place of worship.  It is not up to the State to prevent them from doing so.  Construction of this building should go through the same review, safety and historic process as any other building.  If it passes those tests, and if the money is there, the State should not prevent it.  But I would prefer it not be funded, not be built, not be patronized.  I’d prefer no more houses of worship be built anywhere, but not through legal roadblocks.

While some feminists in the West spend time loving themselves in the mirror, shaming the media and advocating cheerleading be considered a sport, their ‘sisters’ in Muslim countries are being mutilated and killed.  Western feminists might also advocate against female genital mutilation, but through a veil. “Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a horrendous, excruciating, and life-threatening practice forced upon women and girls around the world, including countries such as Canada and the United States. [...] FGM is a practice that takes place in parts of Africa, some Asian and Middle Eastern countries, and in certain communities within North America and Europe. The procedure is customary in several cultures, and is perpetuated by a mixture of cultural, social, and religious beliefs.” When described through a veil, it sounds like FGM is part of a multicultural rainbow, practiced a little bit here and there by all sorts of folks.  But if you lift your gaze from Aphrodite’s hand-mirror, you will see that it is a Muslim practice.  Are you a Western feminist who wants to do something for women?  Follow the example of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Look at me, advocating a legal right to build a mosque where debris from a 9/11 plane crashed and the immigration of Muslims to the USA.  I must be one of those Islamophobes you read so much about.

I was in my late twenties when I stopped identifying myself as a liberal. When evidence started mounting that shot machine-gun holes through the block of liberal cheese I’d purchased at the local liberal co-op, I concluded that liberalism was not a logically consistent belief system.

But it wasn’t only liberal illogic that caused me to dump the whole program – much of it had to do with gradual changes in liberal attitudes and behavior. I’m old enough to remember when liberals were free-speech absolutists and conservatives tended to be the book-burners. But historical forces can blur, erase, and often invert party lines.

Over the years, I watched as liberals slowly became the group most likely to flat-out refuse discussing certain topics and answering certain questions, their purportedly “open” minds snapping shut like a giant clam. They became the group most likely to try and silence their opponents by shouting them down, defaming them, assaulting them, and even urging legislation to ban the use and expression of certain terms and sentiments. They became the group most disposed toward emotional appeals, double standards, wishful thinking, and wretchedly malodorous sanctimony.

Up through my teens and twenties, I had considered liberals to be the most open-minded and free-thinking group in America, only to watch them morph into the most ideologically rigid pack of true believers I’d ever seen. With modern American liberalism, it’s as if their cute, multicolored, and sincerely curious little 1960s caterpillar had blossomed into a hardened grey butterfly fossil. Liberalism had become an emotion-driven folk religion that somehow had convinced itself science and logic were on its side.

These days, I suppose I’d rather hang out with conservatives than liberals, if only for the fact that I offend conservatives less, and it’s a drag to hang out with people who are always getting offended.

Article continues.

via youtube.