Age of Kali – Freedom to Insult and the Satanic Verses

What gets me the most about Indian secularism is it’s unwillingness to insult a religious belief that is blatantly unreasonable. That religion is sacrosanct and cannot be criticised or complained about.

A society cannot function on the whims of extremists. India is no different. I understand, it’s the land of a million gods. Everyone and their dog has one, but this means you cannot walk for tripping over someone’s beliefs and nor should it mean that these beliefs ever come into consideration.

And India’s problem? It is conservative and, it’s willing to satiate death threats to people. It’s unwilling to improve itself because it is entrenched in the notion that there is some mystical value of indianity that we can

And it shows again with the Indian Government’s frankly cowardly position on Salman Rushdie. You cannot express yourself as a free nation or as a modern nation by banning books. Any book!

Instead what the Indian government has demonstrated is a core weakness. A fragility to threats. That the belief of a few anti-progressive muslims (Or Hindus!) can dictate government policy via threat and that free speech and expression can be stifled if someone threatens someone loudly enough.

And the ultimate irony? How many of the people bitching about The Satanic Verses have actually read the book? Do they even know what the blasphemous bit is?

It refers to the Prophet by a epiphet used during the crusades (Mahound), it calls the city of Mecca by a different name (Jahilia). A movie star becomes Gibreel (Gabriel) and Saladin becomes shaitan. The prostitutes in Jahilia have the same names as the prophet’s wives and it gives a muslim name (Ayesha) to an Indian girl whose pilgrimage ends in a deadly fashion.

The equivalent prophet is portrayed as not holy but opportunistic and that it is impossible to not break the rules created because they are so banal and pointless and it’s so easy to take offence. But what irks people the most? There is a single line in it. That calls attention to the sheer madness of Hindu and Muslim relationships. 

“Fact is, religious faith, which encodes the highest aspirations of human race, is now, in our country, the servant of lowest instincts, and God is the creature of evil” 

That’s it. That’s what caused such a big fuss. A couple of names and a statement that implies that God is a creature of evil. And in response? Muslims proved his statement right. India proved his statement right, that religion and the belief in God allows you to commit real evil. That the claim that you are aspiring to some greater truth comes at the cost of greater ignorance and a violent ignorance that not only ignores reality but also threatens it. The highest aspirations of the human race are replaced with a group of people who are so fanatically devoted to a single book that they do not really grasp anything else. That islamic faith has created a massive anti-science drift which is a far cry from it’s hey day. That a sizeable amount of muslims respond to any sort of criticism with either the rallying cry of Islamophobia (Which exists. However genuine criticism also exists too.) or with death threats and violence. That the ultimate true evil in the book is a bitter line about a man who regards the partition of India and Pakistan and the religious violence that ensued as a horrible manifestation of faith and a demonstration of everything that is wrong with religious belief. That 12.5 million people migrating simply because some people believed in one mythical being and another in a whole bunch of others is an exercise in madness. That even after that there are wounds so deep that it has spilled over as mass violence time and time again. That at no point did anyone stand to think about how utterly insane it was?

If any group of people says “If you don’t do as we say we will do x and it will be your fault”, and you cave in to them, then it is people attempting to subvert freedom of others solely for their own benefit.

The Indian government response is nothing short of stupid. It has ranged from “Well Rushdie isn’t that great an author anyway!” to “Indians always think foreign authors are so much more better! This is foreign author syndrome!” and “India never stopped him from entering the country”.

Show a spine. Religious extremists of all sorts should not be allowed to derail the idea of free speech.

And if you are Indian? I urge you to break the ban on Rushdie’s book and have a read of it yourself. See what the controversy is. Because I guarantee you this, the people bitching about Rushdie’s book haven’t read it. Because if they did they wouldn’t have complained. By complaining they have proven the entire point and necessity of the Satanic Verses. It showed us decades ago what we are coming to realise today. That religion without criticism turns into an insular mess of ignorance that actively and forcefully defends it’s ignorance. 

It Gets Better – Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

William Henley

William Henley’s teenage life was a terrible one, as he suffered from tuberculosis until aged 20 he had both legs amputated due to miliary TB. The surgery was done prior to the widespread usage of ether and Henley did not have any anaesthetic while they sawed through his legs to save his life.

When lying in a dark room recovering from the horrific procedure, Henley wrote a poem to strengthen his resolve into words. William Henley went on to becoming a successful lawyer graduating from Oxford.

And the words of Henley live on in us. When I am at my lowest, I often read this poem to gain the fortitude and indeed focus my own desires to make the changes that I want or tough it out. When ever I felt like giving up, the words would come to me and encourage me to fight harder. I learnt about this poem from Nelson Mandela.

Mandela would write this poem down every single day he was in jail. When they took away his freedom it kept him free. When they took away his pen and paper, he carved it into the desk.

And I want to share that with people. Maybe they will see the same meaning in these words. In the idea that someone is truly their own master and that we can survive the odds. That no matter how bad things are we can do better and we can do something to make it better. Maybe it will encourage some person to keep trying to reach their goals. Maybe it will help some kid bullied at school to not let it hurt as much and give him the strength to persevere.

Because nothing describes humanity better than Invictus. Unconquerable. We are the only species that sought to get hit by lightning to see if it could be done and then did it again simply to see if it was just dumb luck or does lightning behave the same way every single time. And then we went off to see how we could make and use our own lightning.

And yes, every single one of us is capable of all the good things that we so desire. Love, Compassion, Care, Kindness, Honour, Intelligence and all those other conditions that we so desire. And it all comes from the fact that one of our best strengths is that we will not give up. The words that hurt us have meaning to us, then these words can have meaning too.

It does get better. Do not give up. 

Stupidest Weapon Ever

We medical business types have unleashed our latest weapon against the puny humans who inhabit the USA. The Rabies Bomb! 

I don’t even know where to start about the fears over this nonsense from usual suspect Mike Adams the health ranger.

Health Rangers are no match for my
swarthy tan and luchadore skills!
The article is a fine collection of anti-vax lunacy at it’s finest. All the right ingredients are there, there is the conspiracy theory of the medical industry producing weird and wonderful weapons to defeat it’s enemy. There is the collusion of a shadowy cabal. And there is the plan which is frankly insane.

The weaponization of vaccines just took another leap forward in America with the recent air-dropping of rabies vaccines by the Texas Department of State Health Services. Using a battery of small planes based out of Del Rio, Texas recently dropped 1.8 million edible vaccine packets over 7,700 square miles of rural Texas. The packets contain edible rabies vaccines dipped in fish oil and coated with fish meal to entice foxes and coyotes to eat them. Once consumed, the animal is “vaccinated” against rabies, researchers claim. Of course, what these researchers don’t yet understand in their scientific ignorance (and arrogance) is that they are also engaged in a rabies DNA / RNA bombardment of Texas.

The price of a single vaccine is around $60, the price of a single cluster bomblet is $60… Do you know what’s more effective than dropping rabies RNA (there is no rabies DNA on the basis of the virus is an RNA virus)…

In addition the vaccine being used is the V-RG (Recombinant Vaccine) which is often used in wildlife drops to reduce rabid animals in the wild. The virus is vaccinia (spreads cowpox not rabies) with rabies glycoproteins being expressed on their protein coat. Meaning it is harmless to animals and humans and that there is no rabies RNA in the vaccine.

Thus making it the absolute worst weapon ever. Do you know what’s more dangerous? Taking 10 dollars worth of 1 cent coins, melting them down into a block and hurling that at people. I am sure we could kill or injure more people that way than burning our money on $60 worth of fancy viruses that don’t even kill humans. Since when have we been so incompetent? The only way this could injure someone is if some moron choked on it.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has already conducted bizarre experiments on genetically engineered mosquitoes that carry vaccines to be silently injected into unsuspecting humans. And that same foundation has also invested heavily in covert vaccination technology that could, for example, vaccinate you with a spray mist used at airport security checkpoints

Yeah… I cannot read anymore. I cannot stop laughing.

Who takes this lunatic seriously? Is he seriously one of the major proponents of the anti-vaccine movement? And he believes that we are weaponising mosquitoes to spread vaccines rather than say the three deadly diseases that mosquitoes already spread? Surely this is a drop in deadliness than say using Malaria, Dengue fever and Yellow Fever…

And we are expected to take them seriously. 

Moshe Averick II – Electric Boogaloo

If a man lies with a man
 as one lies with a woman,
both of them have done what is detestable.
They must be stoned.
Well… If you think it helps.
We continue with Part 2 of dealing with Moshe Averick’s litany of hate constructed of the finest of strawmen

Many of the hundreds of comments posted were thoughtful and insightful, but most were angry and indignant push backs from non-believers who felt I was accusing them of child-molestation. Many also charged that it was unfair and misleading of me to cite statements from atheistic philosophers of “ethics” that seemed to indicate that there was nothing inherently immoral about pedophilia. The most common complaints were (a) that I falsely implied that these philosophers approved of pedophilia and (b) I was guilty of presenting a sweeping generalization that atheists have no moral values.

Apparently I got it all wrong when I missed the subtext behind his post titled “Paedophilia is Next on the Slippery Slope“. Oh well that’s alright then! I must have completely misunderstood the part which implied that my moral code accepted child and animal abuse and was somehow inferior to those of the Torah on which we based the utter foundation of western society. Now if you would excuse me, I need to go tell my slaves to bring in that virgin I captured when I exterminated her village after which, I shall go stone some gays. 

Atheists certainly have values and principles that guide their lives and decisions. The word(s) that one chooses to describe or conceptualize these values – morality, ethics, utilitarianism, humanism, etc. – is beside the point; the values are whatever they are, no matter what one calls them.

Sure. Moshe implied that atheists have ideas that allow us to fuck children and animals and explain it away since Moshe forgets that the law against owning slaves is not enforced by the vague threats of divine being but by the angry fist of humanity wielding rules forged by men over time. We forged the equality of man with human blood and that means more than any divine rule since it is something we recognise. Be it the blood of nameless slaves who fought their masters to those who fought for the right to be free in our modern world. Gandhi, King, Havel and Mandela fought because they were human beings, not because of some divine inspiration or magical spark.

Basically what he created was a clumsy attempt at spin in order to imply that atheists are capable of justifying anything and all it needs is a justification. 

I have never called into question the existence of atheistic values; it is the significance of atheistic values that is the crucial issue under discussion. In other words, it is an attack, if you will, on the concept of atheistic ethics and morality, not an attack on atheists themselves.

Of course not! I didn’t call you atheists “dog fucking child rapists”, I merely implied that you theoretically could make love to a dog and a child. Well by his logic he is a genocidal rapist and murderer who is quite prone to keeping women in a locked cage. I mean a potential genocidal rapist and murderer who is quite prone to keeping women in a locked cage. 

I have never accused any of the so-called atheistic philosophers of “ethics” – be it Peter Singer, Joel Marks, Michael Ruse, Michael Tooley, (Sam Harris?) et al – of approving of pedophilia. I accused them of laying the philosophical groundwork that could pave the way for the acceptance and approval of pedophilia.

Except for the fact that the philosophical groundwork for the criminalisation of paedophilia was laid down by humanists rather than religious people who often opposed it since it was quite fashionable to marry children. That and you are implying that we approve of paedophilia. 

The central point of my presentation was that an honest, consistent, and candid articulation of an atheistic worldview must admit that “ethical” values (including those on pedophilia), have no significance at all outside of the heads of those who espouse them. They have no objective reality and any actual significance ascribed to these values is rooted squarely in the human imagination. They are desperate attempts to create the illusion that human actions and decisions have real purpose and meaning. In other words, they are as foolish and illusory as (what the atheist would consider to be) my imaginary notion that God spoke to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai.

The ideas that mankind espouses are much  more than that because we can implement them. The idea is based on the fact that kids cannot understand what sex  means and indeed do not show any inclination towards it bar as a sort of self discovery and vague interest. These are concepts that we as people have discussed in producing a kind of world which we would like to live in. We accept due to the medical knowledge of children and the effect of child abuse that paedophilia is harmful to children. We accept that children by their natural naivety and lack of understanding of what consent means and the repercussions of said consent cannot give it till they reach an age we set at 18 (the end of secondary education) for the most part where they will be legally considered an adult and may make decisions of a nature pertaining to who they sleep with. It’s arbitrary but no more arbitrary than say considering a girl ready to be married immediately after her first period. 

Human beings have an innate sense of compassion, empathy and the ability to love. Human beings also have an innate sense of selfishness, the ability to hate, dominate, and the desire to act with brutality and cruelty. From the viewpoint of the intellectually honest atheist, none of these – in objective reality – are “better” or “worse” than the others. How an individual views these different emotions and drives and chooses to prioritize them are matters of personal preference. If one so desires, he can label these personal preferences with the words moral or immoral; theword that one chooses does not change the fact that they are nothing more than personal preference or perhaps societal conditioning.

Ira. A famous child soldier.

No. Compassion, empathy, love are all learnt expressions. A child brought up to be a cold hearted killer will probably turn out to be a cold hearted killer. The world is filled with children who never had the chance at compassion, empathy and love. There are children brought up with hate, fear and ignorance and many of these children will grow up to hate, fear and be ignorant.

Society is what drives and protects humanity and makes it move forward. The selfish, the haters, the violent and the cruel damage society as a whole. Thus we treat those attributes as undesirable. These are immoral to society because it harms humanity as a whole if we behaved like that since it reduces our ability to survive.

We gain our values from our parents. It is why jewish children are born to jewish parents and hindu children to hindu parents. It’s our parents that teach us the values they value based on their experiences. In time these children grow up building on these values or rearranging them to what they think is important but the core values rarely change. I may not value prayer as much as my mother does. The assumption Moshe makes is that atheists label their values arbitrarily rather than by experiences and what we learn out of them. 

To put it a different way; in an atheistic world, the terms morality and personal preference are identical and interchangeable. Examples: (1) I believe it is immoral to put Down-syndrome babies to death so as not to waste medical resources that could be used more efficiently = Mypersonal preference is that Down-syndrome babies not be put to death…etc (2) I believe it isimmoral to sodomize young boys in a shower room = My personal preference is that young boys not be sodomized in a shower room. In many cases the term societal conditioning could also be substituted: I have been conditioned by my society to believe that young boys should not be sodomized in a shower room.

Hardly. One person’s personal preference can be categorically regarded as immoral simply by logic and debate. I believe it is immoral to kill children with Down’s Syndrome while being bang alongside proper screening of older mothers where Down’s is more common and offering the option of terminating pregnancies.

And my opinion of the sodomisation of young boys relies on one important question. How old are you and how old is the boy? Because see we live in a world of grey, not of black and white. What if you are under the age of consent and have consensual anal sex in a shower with another person (Gender isn’t important, Age is) who is also under the age of consent? You can’t charge them for paedophilia? What if one of them is 17 and the other is 18 (assuming age of consent is 18)? See… that’s the thing. It’s not a simple world we live in.

I assume this is the Penn State Sodomy issue that Moshe is trying to imply? The rules regarding consent and minors applies here. And yes, society dictates that we don’t sodomise underaged people be they boys or otherwise (good grief! Why do religious people think women and straight men don’t enjoy anal sex? If the gays like it does that mean straight people won’t give it a whirl?). In the same way society doesn’t like it when you rape women and puts you in jail rather than asks you to pay a fine and then punishes the woman by forcing her to marry her rapist. 

Here, Ruse is clearly stating that morality is purely subjective. It’s not like he is the first thinker to come to this conclusion. To most believers it’s rather obvious. Bertrand Russell said the same thing: “I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it.” In Russell’s atheistic world all values are subjective and the only thing that could possibly be wrong with wanton cruelty (or pedophilia, for that matter) is that he doesn’t like it. Ruse understands the dilemma quite well. A subjective system of morality is nothing more than a rickety shack with no foundation; it will collapse in the first good wind:

Subjective morality can come to absolute truths. A child by it’s nature is naive, it is a survival mechanic. A human child is blessed with human inquisitiveness but not human judgement because judgement comes with experience. We can TEACH children things. It’s why we encourage schools and education, it’s why children tend to believe in a Santa Claus. Because we teach them maths and science and a relatively harmless little traditional religion called Santa Claus. However if you couple this naivety with an adult trying to take advantage of a child then you have a terrible situation because children cannot give consent. It is a crime of coercion and threat and force.

Therefore it is safe to say that this is rape or the sexual assault on an individual through the use of force or coercion against their will. This will not change. We have quite categorically realised that children cannot be trusted to make decisions regarding what cereal they should eat, and Moshe somehow thinks that any person who willingly listens to Willow Smith is capable of making rational decisions. Kids are great! Don’t get me wrong, I love kids. But they are stupid by the standards of adults and thus are incapable of giving consent. There is an adult case for this kind of action in the abuse of the mentally ill who may not be capable of giving consent for instance in the case of severe mental retardation where the individual cannot comprehend the value and meaning behind sexual consent.

I find this is a more rigorous form of morality than the rules dictated by bronze age Jews. 

We are back where we started fromWe are, of course, right back where we started from. In an atheistic world there is nothing inherently wrong with pedophilia or anything else for that matter

Well that’s the thing. There is no outright condemnation of paedophilia in Abrahamic faith. It is actually a construct of our developing morality. And no, there is nothing inherently wrong about paedophilia. We as humans recognise the harm paedophilia does to children and we recognise the kind of mentality that it requires since we as human beings value our children in a different way to early jewish people. That jewish people themselves have outgrown the morality of their predecessors.

Put it this way. Abraham is a terrible father. I have no respect for such a character who would rather sacrifice their own kid. Do you know who I would put up as a good father figure for a kid?

God has nothing on a man that dedicated to getting his
daughter back. And that’s the kind of father I want to be.
Not one who sells out his kid for fear of his own life.

We all know of course that human preferences are notoriously fickle. What is the deadly, logical outcome of Dr. Marks’ atheistic moral philosophy 

“I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime…if a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? (Jeffery Dahmer) 

What is the point, indeed? If we are not accountable to a higher power for our actions, it only becomes a question of “am I psychologically able to jettison the societal conditioning to which I have been subjected?”  Please ask yourselves the following question: If I had the sexual desires of a pedophile, how  would I view the actions of Jerry Sandusky? If there is one thing we have learned from the horribly bloody history of the 20th century, it is that there is nothing that human beings are not capable of doing.

And now he is implying that we are all going to turn into homosexual rapist murderers? Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer and by definition was crazy. Fobbing off his crimes on the Theory of Evolution is really low. For instance the fact of evolution doesn’t change, that we as a species have no divine spark or magic impetus and are merely a product of natural selection as seen in our DNA in the same way that we are attracted to the earth due to our mass. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Dahmer’s behaviour. This is just another straw man to make atheist seem like closetted homosexual psychopaths rather than normal people who just chose to not believe in a divine god called Yahweh.

And if there is one thing we have learnt about the 20th century is that theism breeds a special kind of hatred that is unmatched. Lest the good rabbi forgets… The Nazis didn’t kill the most people in WW2… (It was the Japanese and their belief in Shinto)

I repeat my original plea to atheists: 

“The choices before us are clear: we will either seek a transcendent moral law to which we will all submit, or we will seek our own personal and societal indulgence. If we turn to God in our quest to create a moral and just world, we have a fighting chance; if not, we are doomed to spiral into the man-made hell of the human jungle.” 

Atheism stands for nothing, signifies nothing, and affirms nothing except for one thing: All the moral aspirations of the advanced primate we call a human being are nothing more than a cosmic joke….and not a very funny one at that.

The God of rape, genocide and slavery is not the god for mankind. It is a god of fear and death. It is a twisted Santa Clause, a Bogeyman. It is nothing but a meme that feeds on your fear of the dark and creates ignorance so that you forever live in the dark. Moshe may want a single divine law but it’s not the divine law of the Hindus or Muslims or Christians that he wants. It’s his specific Judaic law. When any man claims that God’s Law exceeds the morality of Man you are almost guaranteed to see him somehow consider our current world as immoral rather than being one of the most moral societies that has ever existed. 

Human actions and decisions have real meaning. Moshe lives in some fantasy world where he assumes the trappings of human jungle dropped like manna from heaven rather than created by the ideas, the actions and the decisions made by mankind. The decisions I make affect those around me and those who I matter to. Ultimately? In the grand scheme of things? It’s pointless since the entire univer
se will stop one day, but we are alive NOW. The universe is still working now and we have a planet under our feet and everything is relatively golden. And so the actions of mankind at least to other members of mankind matters and that makes these actions even though they are transient and small the most real of all.

Forged in the fires of Mount Pharmacology

I wear a ring, it means nothing to anyone else but it means the world to me. Even if you offered me money beyond compare I would feel uncomfortable parting with the ring. It’s not that it has vaguely established magical powers that make me the Dark Lord of Mordor, it’s just that it was worn by a friend who died. She died thinking she was unloved and alone when she was not and I wear it to remember her and to remember myself that even when I feel alone and small that there exists hope and love and all the good things in the world that we ourselves as human beings have to be in order to make the world better. To me this worthless piece of titanium and artificial diamonds that cost £15 in an Argos means more than anything else in the world, to you it’s just a ring. The value of the ring is relative and indeed transient. It’s original owner didn’t see it as anything but jewellery. To the average person it means nothing, but to me it means something because the actions of another human being make it mean something. And that’s what matters. We all have things that mean this much to us not because we are greedy but because the value of an object isn’t determined purely by monetary value. The feelings that I feel are not made better by the ring having magic powers or being tied to the mystical spirit of my dead friend. There is meaning in an atheist’s world, it’s just not a meaning attributed to mythical creatures. To me the ring is not a memory of her death but an affirmation of her life and the things she loved.

My faith in mankind and human beings changes the world every day so that we live in a place without fear. My friends, family and loved ones drive me to be the best that I can be as a human based on what I think is right. It is not blindly following a set of rules without thinking of the consequence. It is a cogent thought process born out of the idea that all humans are equal.

What does Moshe’s do? 

M. Averick – Less of slippery slope and more of a cliff

Moshe Averick took on atheism producing an argument that is effectively summed up as “Atheism leads to Paedophilia and Beastiality“. This was a while back but in light of his recent addition I feel we should go back to setting his entire argument on fire. His older one consists of.

“It is axiomatic that in the world of the atheist there is neither morality nor immorality, only amorality.This is often misunderstood to mean that atheists have no values. That conclusion would clearly be erroneous. To associate atheism with amorality is not to say that atheists have no values, they certainly do; amorality is a commentary, not on theexistence of values, but on the significance of those values. Since in the atheistic worldview we are nothing more than upright walking primates, our value systems have no more significance than those of our jungle dwelling relatives. In the Darwinian view, the human is to the cockroach as the cockroach is to the paramecium. To imagine that we are something “more” is just that: a product of the human imagination.”

Let’s just say that I think rats are pretty awesome.

On the contrary. Our value systems are based on things humans have come to value and the idea that all human beings are equal irrespective of their gender, colour or creed. Our morality has exceeded the constraints of the bronze age god of the Abrahamic faith long ago and thus we see it’s practitioners consider us as immoral simply because we do not fear and loathe idiotic things.

How can one be so blinded as to think we are something less merely because we are an animal. Does Moshe ever wonder about the elegance of function and the biochemistry within a paramecium? Does Moshe really think that cockroaches are not wonderful? They certainly are. I may dislike them as a creature but their ability to survive rivals our own and is frankly astounding. Humans share a lot with the rat and the cockroach because we like them are consummate survivors. We may not like them because they spread disease and eat our food but I can atleast appreciate the complexity they represent as life. And what’s this Darwinian View? Darwin merely stated that organisms evolve by those that survive the rigours of life and those that survive are the fittest by the mode of their survival and their genes shape the next generation. Nowhere does it speak of value systems.

And the human value system. AKA rules and morality is a survival skill. Human beings are weak and useless on their own. In groups our survival rises exponentially mainly because we can specialise in our efforts and make technology that enables this. You need a specific number of hunter gatherers to have a stone chipper who makes hunter gathering more effective. You need a specific number of carpenters to help make houses but to support them you need wood cutters and to support them you need farmers and to get all the different people to support each other we need a system of rules that helps us get along. That is what morality and rules come from. It’s evolutionarily sound since societies without moral codes aren’t nice places to live in while ones with liberal accepting codes are seen as nice places to live in. For instance Somalia plain sucks and is like living in a post apocalyptic wasteland, Saudi Arabia while a lot nicer than somalia excludes a lot of people and it’s strict moral code means it is very exclusive but the UK has nice social rules that are accepting of a variety of people and thus is liked. The social acceptance of various groups in the UK makes it stronger than Saudi Arabia and Somalia and a much nicer place to live in because of that. It’s why people want to go to the UK to live and work and not to Saudi Arabia or indeed Somalia. 

Somalia AKA Call of Duty – Reality

It  would be absurd then for the atheist to suggest that any particular individual or society has the authority to dictate to all human beings what their values should or should not be; it would be even more absurd to suggest that the pronouncements of any individual or society obligates others to behave accordingly. For the atheist, morality is simply a word that is used to describe the type of system that an individual or society subjectively prefers. Each society establishes, maintains, and modifies its values to suit its own needs.

Humanist morality does not stem from a single source. It is a system of ideas that guide the way you live your life based on the fact that all men are equal irrespective of caste, colour, creed, genitalia or what adult they chose to spend the rest of their life with.

Morality is subjective. What one does in duress and what one does when not are entirely different things. I have no qualms about people who steal when they are faced with starvation. I cannot fault their logic, they steal to live. I have no qualms about those who have eaten human flesh to survive such as the Andean Plane Crash survivors. Lying is bad, but if my lie saves a life it is good. That’s the point of having a system of morals rather than a system of hard and fast rules. It’s that a system of morals guides us to use our minds to decide whether something is right or wrong without having to refer to a series of rules written by bronze age shepherds and applying their morality to what we have at present without applying any of our knowledge to it. 

There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting – including the sexual molestation of children.

The sexual molestation of children is more common in history than today. If we use the Old Testament (I don’t speak Hebrew so cannot comment on the Torah directly but I am aware that the OT carries the same information) as a guideline one notices that slavery, rape and genocide are all perfectly acceptable behaviour. I am sure Moshe will defend slavery in one of two ways. Either stating that “people back then didn’t know any better” which begs the question as to how one can use a moral code written by people who didn’t know any better. Or by stating that the Jewish rules for slavery isn’t real slavery. Rape was treated as property crime and indeed women would be forced to MARRY their rapist… And this is without going into the idiocy of a Rabbi speaking about a moral code that protects genocide if done by people who were told to do so by God… In fact the people who made it a crime to molest children did so against the grain of the religious texts as not one part of Abrahamic faiths make a stance on paedophilia. By the text of the bible, the Catholic child molestation cover up was not wrong in any way shape or form bar the breach of the catholic priest rules on marriage.

So my argument is this.

1. Children cannot give consent as they are incapable of understanding what consent entails
2. Children who have sex with adults tend to do so out of force, compulsion, survival and psychological reasons.
3. Any adult forced to have sex out of force, compulsion, survival and psychological reasons is considered to have been molested or raped.
4. Therefore children cannot give consent because they are incapable of understanding what the consent implies and any person wanting to have sex with a child therefore uses force, compulsion, survival or psychological manipulation to get what they want. 

It is therefore a form of rape and rape is wrong because it breaches the basic human right to say who they have sex with and a right to not be forced to do so, since by definition a child cannot give consent, no more so than an animal can. 

Singer went on to explain that he is a “consequentialist.” For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain “consequentialism” in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it’s ethicalif you don’t like the consequences it’s unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it’s ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it’s unethical.In an article entitled “Heavy Petting,” Singer likewise gave his stamp of approval to bestiality. As a reward for producing such pearls of wisdom, he has been granted the privilege of teaching our children “ethics” at an Ivy League university. Moreover, he is by no means the only atheistic philosopher industriously engaged in greasing the precarious slope on which Western society totters. Hence, my “plea” to atheists, for the philosophical groundwork for the acceptance of pedophilia has already been put in place by such philosophers.

Again, bestiality is animal abuse. Animals don’t have the capacity to give consent. They are technically property with special laws pertaining to their living status. So while I am perfectly allowed to take my laptop outside and set it on fire and dance around it, I am not allowed to do so with my cat since my laptop is not alive and my cat is. We believe against unnecessary cruelty to animals because we can afford to do so and we don’t think it is the right thing to do. (Nothing in the OT about it either).

So it’s abuse of an animal.

The recognition that there is something inherently and intrinsically abominable in child molestation renders the act immoral,rather than merely not to one’s taste. Morality implies that there are principles of behavior that are part of the very fabric of reality; principles which Dr. Marks understands can only have significance if they come from God. Preference, on the other hand, is subjective and notoriously capricious. As in: Iprefer chocolate ice-cream over vanilla. I prefer jazz to hip-hop. I prefer that people have sex with adults instead of children and the family pet.

The idea that sex with a child is immoral is a relatively recent idea with plenty of literature dating back to the late 18th century about child marriage across different societies. In most of the world, a boy would be considered a man at any point between their 12th to 14th year and women would be considered of marriageable age immediately after menses. In fact I used to be Hindu. Child marriage is a major problem in Hinduism because it was acceptable until quite recently. I know my grandmother married my grandfather at a really “old” age of 15. I am sure Moshe would be pleased to hear that so i shall throw a specific shot at his faith.

The Talmud specifically mentions that a female child between ages 3 to 12 can be married off depending on her father’s wishes. The choice of anulling the wedding
was treated as quite abhorrent. Child marriage was common in Hassidic Judaism until we told them to knock it off.

Infact child marriage was only made illegal in Europe in the 1920s with a series of bans and many of them were fought quite strongly as anti-cultural and communist.

In plain English, this is a symposium whose goal is to facilitate the removal of Pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Societies official list of Mental Disorders (DSM). B4U-ACT has already coined a bland, innocuous, and inoffensive term to make the idea of child-sex more palatable: “minor-attracted persons.”  This phrase sounds almost pleasant, distinctly unlike those nasty and soon-to-be-politically-incorrect words like “pedophile” and “child molester.” (How does pedophobic grab you?) Not surprisingly, the featured speaker is Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University, a colleague of Dr. John Money. Child advocate, Dr. Judith Reisman disclosed that the conference is part of a strategy to condition people into accepting pedophiles: “The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of his emotional state…to empathize and sympathize…You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop, you have to change it by conditioning.”

Not all paedophiles abuse children. Many recognise that they have a problem and seek help for it. The entire point of the DSM is to catalogue diseases and the B4U-ACT is there for psychiatrists to speak to people who are attracted to children (Paedophiles are associated with child abuse so even a non abusing paedophile who admits it is bound to be lynched SOLELY because he admitted to a sexual obsession.). The entire point of such meetings is to produce a series of diagnostic criteria to improve on diagnosis and care for such conditions. The current DSM treats the action of child molestation as paedophilia but the attraction as not. Which is frankly idiotic. DSM V is planning to treat both the molestation and the attraction as different forms of paedophilia.

Many people molest children out of power rather than because they are attracted to children, are we to define them in the same category? Really? How stupid. The entire point of the DSM is to understand mental conditions such as this, categorise them and learn how to diagnose and prevent them. Not about making the public feel happy about them. And the DSM campaigns for mental health issues. I don’t see why we should punish people who merely have inklings. The difference between thought and action is huge (irrespective of what religious people think) and someone thinking about molesting children seeking help is admirable. Someone who acts on that is not…

The atheistic notion that life emerged randomly from ancient Earth’s prebiotic slime, coupled with the Darwinian belief that humans are no more than intelligent chimpanzees, leaves us morally bereft. In a society whose schools consider it a noble undertaking to teach a teenage boy how to use a condom, but streng verboten to teach him that God has forbidden us to steal or murder, how can one anticipate anything other than a gaping and ever-expanding moral sinkhole? While there exist real challenges in determining exactly what God requires of us in the moral sphere, let us, at least, agree on the following before it is too late, and move forward from there:

It’s not a notion. Evolution is fact, just like gravity. Stating that humans are no more than intelligent chimpanzees is like stating that NASA is filled with orbital planeteers.

Your version of god also accepts genocide as perfectly normal, rape as acceptable and keeping slaves as okay while not saying a single word on child molestation. The gaping moral sinkhole Moshe fears is utterly idiotic. We live in some of the safest societies on earth and murder is amongst the most harshly punished crimes. Murder is immoral because it takes away another human life against their will, not because some mythical being said so. We are amongst the most moral societies on earth at this point, lest Moshe forget what moral societies existed during the 60s where men could not be free because of the colour of their skin. Or during the 40s where men were killed because of their percieved inferiority. Whether they be jewish, gypsy, mentally ill, slavic or atheist. Whether they be chinese or indonesian, or burmese. (Remember readers. A lot of  not white people died in that war). Or during the 20s where women were denied the right to vote. Or during the various periods of time in the past where people followed religious law rather than the laws created by men and men did terrible things to each other.

What Moshe argues is a slippery slope argument. That somehow the liberalisation of sexual mores (I assume his slippery slope is going to start with allowing homosexuals to exist and find love) between two adults will turn into child and animal rape becuase he is is incapable of understanding the difference between adult and child and animal.

  • All men are created in the image of God and are therefore inherently and intrinsically precious.
All men have evolved. This is utter truth and can be verified by the genetics. On the other hand there is no evidence that a god of any sort has been involved with the creation of any human being. 

  • All men have been endowed by God with unalienable rights and among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Which is why the Old Testament lets you keep slaves. The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were terms coined by humanists. It’s an extension of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite
which was the slogan of the French Revolution

  • Thou shalt not murder.
This rule predates Judaism. My old faith is older than Judaism and has this rule in it. So did the ancient egyptians. You cannot build pyramids that that many years without rules against murder.

  • Thou shalt not steal.
Again. Every culture that predates Judaism has this. Must be some sort of cryptic time travel malarky… Or you know stealing reduces the survivability of a group of people and having a law against it is kind of good. 

  • Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Again… Predates Judaism.

  • Thou shalt not commit adultery, incest, or bestiality.
Predates Judaism… And I wonder how Noah had sex… 

  • Thou shalt not have sex with children, and if you do you will be looked upon as a disgusting and contemptible criminal and will be treated as such.
Not in the Old Testament. This is a new law. 

  • Thou shall teach these laws to your children.
We teach our children critical thought. The entire point of laws and rules is to understand that there is indeed some situations where murder is acceptable. If my future children are threatened then I do not think I shall have any qualms killing anything that threatens them. None of these laws come from any god, these are laws that have come about as you require them to run a society and more complex societies are more survivable and these laws help create such a society as the more complex a society the better it’s survivability. We see this historically when tribal leaders such as Temujin (Ghenghis Khan) came to the fore from a society of brutality and became emperors. You slowly see them shed their tribal ways and instead place laws and regulations often quite rapidly. Temujin himself after uniting the clans of Mongolia made laws to protect this coalition and resolve conflicts which would normally have caused these clans to go to war over. A society without these rules is a mess of tribes much like Afghanistan where the tribal families go to war over the slightest of insults because there is no rule that stops this kind of behaviour and no drive to create such a rule. 

Claiming that these rules came from a divine source of the abrahamic god ignores the fact that nearly every society EVER has had these rules because it is impossible to run one without these rules. It’s just that recently we created more rules (except the child molestation one – that is a recent addition) and removed some of the more pointless ones. Does Rabbi Moshe serious expect me to believe that the correct treatment for pimples is quarantine until they are sure it isn’t smallpox? Does Rabbit Moshe seriously think that Dapsone is against god’s will (cures lepers who used to be said to have been cursed by god for their sins like Uzziah) and that we should cast them out to be dressed in sack cloth? Does Rabbi Moshe think rape victims should marry their rapist? These are also the rules of his god.

Part 2 to come…

Age of Kali: When it rains, it pours

Sometimes words cannot express how utterly insane and disgusting people can be.

I don’t even know what to write about this. How do you blog about human sacrifice and the hold that these priests have on the population? You can condemn it but so does everyone else.

It’s also terrifying that it isn’t the only human sacrifice that has occurred that year with atleast two other children being sacrificed and a factory worker beheaded at a temple. Sufficient amounts of people believe in it to go through with the idea of killing someone else for the purpose of gaining a benefit from a non-existent being.

It’s utterly shocking that there is no drive to stamp out these witch doctors and priests who utilise people’s ignorance to drive them to such horrific crimes and scare them into behaving like the monsters they are supposed to fear.

Age of Kali: Using Religion as an Excuse

Religion can be used to excuse a lot of things. Religious war, terror, rape and even assault and battery.

Indian newspapers range from the delightfully staunch supporters of journalistic integrity to the vaguely sycophantic. Often one has to read between the lines to find out if a person is condemning an action or not.

The fact remains is that different cultures have different boundaries on personal space and what is acceptable or not. However the fact also remains that in a civilised country mob rule is not encouraged. I see no action being taken about the assault of two people who for all intents and purposes probably had no idea about Indian Cultural and Social Rules. Hell even I didn’t the first time I came here and I am indian by ethnicity. I used to eat with my left hand back home because I found it more comfortable, in India I have to eat with my right. I am quite used to women treating you like you are normal in the UK, in India they treat you (IMHO) like you are a rapist with a contagious disease. The first few times it actually hurt my feelings but then I realised that it’s just the culture. I cannot change it and I am sure when they come to the UK they too think that british women are promiscuous simply because they treat men as equals. Cultural differences exist and sometimes they are insulting to other people. I genuinely worry about the instance in this case because the reporter’s relatively coy language belies the seriousness of the assault. The paper clearly shows two heavily bloodied men with head injuries and treated it as if the citizens of Tuticorin involved with this attack were upstanding citizens rather than brutal thugs.

It is however shocking that the police didn’t consider assault by a mob of people as an acceptable reason to issue a warrant for the crime of assault and grievous harm (Or injury as it is called in India – I have had to study Forensic Medicine in India as part of my course and it deals with junk like this).

What shocks me even more is that these men are being charged for a crime… Section 295A is a law that states that

Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.”

Wait a second? Doesn’t that mean that any atheist can technically be charged for the crime of merely existing since a lot of faith treats us as an outrage? That I can technically be charged for speaking out against religion as I am critical of it’s actual flaws? I am deliberately criticising religion and I am sure this outrages many people. And many people do get insulted by what I write. It’s quite an insulting post to take when you criticise the many mores, follies and failures of any faith.

The scary bit is the use of the word attempt. This entire law has so much weasel words in it that it can apply to anyone. The mere phrase of “Goddamnit” if offensive to someone could theoretically apply the law to me. In fact I am pretty sure any damn person who has complained about a religious activity can be jailed simply because someone got insulted.

This law is the death of free speech and rational discourse. It is a law aimed at the heart of dissent and can be applied to anyone who doesn’t believe in a god at whim. It is a law that can be used to protect sadhus, priests and other charlatans from the derision of rationality and it is a law that can definitely be invoked to crush the freedom of speech.