Cheers Ireland!

I love Ireland for its long struggle against colonialist, for its music, for its literature, theater, cinema, for its beautiful landscape, its lovely people!

I did not like Ireland because it was so religious that it did not allow women to divorce, and it did not allow abortion!

I have now started loving Ireland much more than before because Ireland puts its faith in education, not religion.

People in Ireland prioritise education above all else. They are are most unhappy with the country’s health services, and rank religion and spirituality as the least important thing in their lives. Of the 119 priority options presented to respondents, eight of the top 10 items listed related to education and learning. The quality of the education system; literacy levels; universities and third-level education; and early childhood education topped the priority rankings in that order. The ranking of religion and spirituality, which respondents placed last of all 119 priority options, despite the country’s once strong Catholic identity.

Like other countries, Ireland is becoming less religious. Unbelievable, but true.

Guinness_pints
Cheers Ireland!

Islam and ignorance made some UK Muslims hateful bigots!

‘Don’t dress like this in Muslim area. No alcohol in this area, it’s a Muslim area. Move yourself away from the mosque, go away now, don’t come back, keep your mouth closed. We don’t respect them who disobey god.’

‘Mate, don’t you know this is a Muslim area. What’s wrong with your face? you’re walking through a Muslim area dressed like a fag. You need to get out of here. This is a Muslim area. You’re gay mate, get out of here you bloody fag. You can’t stay around here anymore.’

After seeing these videos, non-Muslims started protesting in UK. Muslims tried to avoid by saying, “The actions of this tiny minority (Muslim Patrol) have no place in our faith nor on our streets. We will monitor the situation closely and our Imams will be speaking out against such actions.” Muslim Patrol may be a tiny organisation, but their actions certainly have a place in Islam. Islam neither accepts women’s rights, nor accepts gay rights.

Many Muslims in UK are ready to create enclaves in major cities where, they believe, sharia will one day be implemented. Some areas in London are declared “sharia-controlled zone” as part of a new “Islamic Emirates Project”.

shariahcontrol1

sharia-law-in-the-UK

This is alarming.
Now the good news is, two Muslim patrol men who harassed gays are arrested. I was happy but Maryam made me wake up! She wrote:

This type of harassment and abuse (at best) is meted out day in and day out against “Muslims” who are “improperly dressed”, who are gay, who are ex-Muslim, who are dissenters, who question or criticise Sharia law….

But there are never any arrests of officials from far-Right Islamic organisations and Sharia judges and courts…

In fact outsourcing social control to religious organisations is encouraged by the British government .

This time, it all went horribly wrong only because they targeted non-Muslims.

As the spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain says in opposing the “Muslim Patrols” – all their threats and intimidations – applies only to Muslims.

Then, as we have heard countless times, Islamist bigotry, discrimination and violence must be “respected” no matter how many are abused, threatened, intimidated, or who refuse and resist.

Talk about different standards and rights for different people…

This is so true! I know it so well! When Muslim fundamentalists attack me for my thoughts and ideas, most non-Muslims keep their mouth shut or say, ‘the fight is between Muslims! We should not interfere in Muslim affairs!’ Muslim fundamentalists who issued fatwas against me, or set price on my head, or attacked me physically were never arrested.

A Muslim bigot called Owaisi was never arrested for threatening to kill me, but was arrested for threatening to kill non-Muslims. (I am an atheist, not a Muslim. But people don’t stop from labelling me with the religion of my ancestors.)

Hateful Muslim bigots harass, exploit, abuse, threatened, kill more Muslims than non-Muslims. No threat or violence should be considered less serious because it happens at home or in the community.

Good questions, good answers.

Gloria Steinem answered to some questions on violence against women.

Q: What do you think are the origins of male violence against women? Is it rooted in a patriarchal society? Is it biological? Sociological? A desire for power and control?

A: The origins of violence against women by men are not biological. If that were the case, it would exist in every culture. And it doesn’t exist in every culture. There are tribal and less patriarchal cultures in which there is very little violence, or in which the violence is almost equal, you know, especially among boys and girls. But in any case, there is no organized violence. There is no frequency of rape and so on. So it can’t be biological. It has to be social.

It comes in a very deep sense from teaching men to dominate. If you’re going to have a male dominant system, to maintain the system, you have to teach men to dominate. So they come to believe that at a minimum, control is part of masculinity. And some men really, not through their own fault, got born into this culture too, but they get hooked on violence and control as a kind of drug, you know, so that if you talk to men who have been violent against women in their lives, they will speak about it almost like an addiction. I needed a fix, you know, I didn’t feel like a real man. She was daring to not have the dinner ready on time, whatever it was that made him feel even marginally out of control, then causes him to respond with violence.


Q: How do gender roles tie into violence against women?

A: Well, if you consider that the gender roles are just political, then what you come to see is that the full circle of human qualities is divided up so that two-thirds are masculine and one-third is feminine. Women are missing more of their human qualities, so you’ll find us on the fore-front of trying to change this. But men are missing some too. And because they are taught that some inevitable qualities of vulnerability and compassion and empathy and uncertainty, sadly, are feminine. Then they suppress them and hate them and feel shame about them in themselves.

That is a loss of self. Those things are part of yourself, so that’s the deepest origin of a loss of core self esteem. When you see those qualities in other people, you may be threatened by them. You’re afraid to be close to women. Because it’s not masculine to be close to women. The last time you were close to a woman, you were a child. Men may feel just disempowered by intimacy, by being close to a woman, and also by feeling the tender feelings that they’re ashamed of.


Q: Some say society is structured to allow men to be violent? Do we not only allow but encourage men to be violent?

A: Society definitely encourages and condones men’s violence toward women. Not as much as it used to be when it was less visible, and there were still laws on the books that made it alright for men to beat their wives, as long as it was within certain limits, and women were chattel. During the first suffragist wave in this nation, women were possessions, like a table or a chair. So violence toward them was quite condoned. The attitude has diminished, but it’s still there.

It starts with the slippery slope of the supposition that gender that sexual relations between men and women are dominant passive. That’s the beginning of it. Because that’s not true. So, you know, it condones domination by saying that. And then it goes all the way up the scale to beatings, torture, murder, you can hardly open a newspaper today without seeing that a woman has been killed by a man for clearly gender-related reasons.

Q: Does society also encourage women to be victims?

A: Yes, society certainly encourages women to be victims in every way. I mean if we want approval, we have to sing the blues, even as singers we sing the blues. It’s not okay for a woman to be in control of her own body, her own reproductive system, much less of her life. There’s opposition even to that. So passivity is rewarded as feminine. And when you stand up for yourself and try to be autonomous and self-determining, you’re called a lot of names that we all know and that are very common. You may lose your job. You may lose custody of your child. You may be blamed for the failure of your marriage even though it was the man who couldn’t tolerate an equal relationship. If you are beaten, you’re said to have incited it. If you’re raped, you’re said to have invited it. I mean we all know these things that are very deep in the culture. They’re diminishing. I don’t want us to be discouraged because we have made progress. But they’re still very deeply rooted.

Q: What can we do as a society to discourage violence? There are those who say it’s inevitable. Is it? Can we change? How do we change?

A: Violence is not inevitable. I mean, the only inevitable form of violence is the kind that we understand, the only legitimate (if there can ever be legitimate violence) and that’s self-defense. No other form of violence is legitimate. It is never acceptable to use violence to solve a problem. Whether personal or political. So that, added to that statement I just made would be fiercely contested by a lot of people. They would say well there’s always been wars, men have always beaten women. But it isn’t true in all cultures. It doesn’t have to be true. And the first step is imaging.

You know, we have to imagine change before we can begin to move toward it. Then we also need to not only stand at the side of the river bend and rescue the people who are drowning, which is crucial, which is why we so badly need much more money spent on programs that aid victims of domestic violence and rape and so on. But some of us also need to go to the head of the river and see why people are falling in. You know, that has to do with boys being taught that it’s masculine to be dominant and girls being taught that it’s feminine to be dominated or to be passive. We’ve had a lot of people in this country have had the courage to raise their daughters more like their sone. Which is great because it means they’re more equal, and whole women who are now standing up for themselves, is why we’re having this program. But there are many fewer people who have had the courage to raise their sons more like their daughters. And that’s what needs to be done.

Q: Is part of the answer gender equity?

A: Yes, but not just equality, because equality can sound like making a feminine equal to masculine and that’s not the point. The point is because we will, if we keep on talking about masculine and feminine and following those stereotypes, then we will make women suppress and despise their so called masculine qualities and men suppress and despise their so called feminine ones, and that’s where all the trouble starts. So, what we’re talking about is a completing the circle of ourselves. To seeing that all people have all human qualities. Not carving up the self. You know, which is the cause of this cavernous inner, unfillable vacuum. You know that then we try to fill with violence, drugs, work, I mean all kind of addiction.

Q: In Revolution Within, you talk about self-esteem, saying that self-hatred leads to the need to dominate and be dominated. Is part of the answer to improve self-esteem in addition to challenging traditional gender roles? Is it a matter of teaching mutual respect? What specific advice would you give women? Men?

A: Well, I think that the advice is not different because it’s challenging gender roles. But it may sound different because even though we’re trying to complete the circle, we’re traveling in the direction we haven’t been in order to do that. So, for instance, if you think about the golden rule, which was written by men for men, and is very smart, you know, to treat other people as you would like to be treated. That’s very important and very helpful. But women need to treat ourselves as well as we treat others. We need to reverse it. We also need to recognize that there are some people who will be unable to change. So we need to enforce the law. You know, there’s much of a concern about crime in this country but not when it’s crime against women and children.

Q: How do we, as you say, diminish violence, not just punish it?

A: Well, we need to stop raising boys to think that they need to prove their masculinity by being controlling or by not showing emotion or by not being little girls. You can ask kids and if you ask a little girl what do you want to be when you grown up, she’ll tell you three things. And boys are the reverse. What do you want to be — well they name lots of things, but if you say do you want to be, what if you were a little girl, they get very upset at the very idea they might be this inferior thing. They’ve already got this idea that in order to be boys they have to be superior to girls and that’s the problem.

My cat is sad!

My cat Minu was sad.

Minu18
I asked her -What happened? Why are you so sad!
She said -You don’t know what is going on?
I said -No. Please tell me. I have never seen you so unhappy!
She sighed, and then said -Gareth Morgan is launching a campaign to eradicate domestic cats.
-Who is Gareth Morgan?

Minu sat on my stomach and said, -Gareth Morgan is a famous economist in New Zealand.

Minu9

-He wants to eradicate cats?
-Yes, he calls us natural-born killers.
-What do you mean by ‘us’?
-Cats.
-Oh!
-He says, ‘Cats are the only true sadists of the animal world’ and calls cats serial killers. He thinks every year, cats in New Zealand destroy their native wildlife.
-Did he talk about foxes?
-No.
-Did he talk about humans, that humans kill animals for fun?
-No. He only talked about cats.
-Is it true?
-Yes, he says, ‘The fact is that cats have to go if we really care about our environment.’
-Hard to believe an educated man can say this!
-Mr. Morgan has set up a website called ‘Cats to Go’. If you do not believe me, why don’t you just go Google yourself! The website encourages people to make their current cat their last.
-How did you know about his website?
-A friend of mine emailed me!
-I see.

Minu didn’t wait for me. She showed me the website Cats to Go.

MINUUU

Minu is right. Mr. Morgan seriously wants to eradicate cats. He asks cat owners to put bells on their pets, have them neutered, keep them inside from now on, and not replace them when they die. He wants cat owners to sign a petition asking local governments to require registration and micro-chipping of cats, to provide eradication facilities for unregistered cats, and encourage people to trap and turn in unwanted cats on their property.

Mr. Economist made me feel so sad! I stopped reading his anti-cat sermons and embraced Minu.

Minu5

I told her, you are not in New Zealand!
She said, so what, other cats live in New Zealand. Just imagine how sad they are!
– I can imagine. Listen Minu, you are neutered. You are a 100% indoor cat. You have never killed a bird. What if a bird sit on your bedroom window?
– I may chase the bird away but I will not kill him!
– Cool! You are a nice girl.
– I know I am nice, I get Royal Canin stuff, tasty fresh fish, cat treats everyday but many cats are unfortunately outdoor cats. Why shouldn’t they hunt birds if they are terribly hungry? What should those poor homeless cats do if no one adopts them? Dogs and other animals eat cats. Don’t they?
– Don’t worry, no one will eat you!
– Mom, I am worried for New Zealand cats. And also, I am afraid there are Gareth Morgans in other countries too!
– Oh Minu, come on! The man is obsessed with birds. To save beasts, one day he will say, kill all the tigers because tigers kill beasts. It can not be a solution. He knows about economics but not much about nature. People will not eradicate tigers, they will not eradicate domestic cats either. Cats are eating birds. Then try to find a solution that protects birds and saves cats from hunger. One day an insect enthusiast will pop up from nowhere and say, kill all the birds, because birds eat insects. We will not accept that. Don’t worry my lovely child, cats will not go, cats will stay. People in New Zealand consider cats to be a member of the family, Nobody can take away the civil liberties people have to choose who they want in their home.
– Are you sure?
– I am sure. It is true that some people hate cats. But it is also true that many people love cats. They love them more than anything. Don’t you know?
– Yes I know. But do you know that cats love humans more than they love cats?
– I know.

To give birth to Neanderthal man? Why not?

George Church, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School, seeks an adventurous-woman who is interested in giving birth to a Neanderthal baby.

George Church’s arguments for the recreation of Neanderthals:

1. Neanderthals were in fact a highly intelligent race and they could be recreated through modern medicine.

2. We can clone all kinds of mammals, so it’s very likely that we could clone a human. Why shouldn’t we be able to do so?

3. Recreating Neanderthals would benefit mankind. Neanderthals might think differently than we do. We know that they had a larger cranial size. They could even be more intelligent than us.

4. When the time comes to deal with an epidemic or getting off the planet or whatever, it’s conceivable that their way of thinking could be beneficial.

5.They could maybe even create a new neo-Neanderthal culture and become a political force. The main goal is to increase diversity. The one thing that is bad for society is low diversity.

6. This is true for culture or evolution, for species and also for whole societies. If you become a monoculture, you are at great risk of perishing.

7. Therefore the recreation of Neanderthals would be mainly a question of societal risk avoidance.’

Popular opinions on bringing Neanderthals back to life:

1. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should…

2. Why would anyone do this, what sort of life would that child have? Unnecessary.

3. This is wrong on so many levels !

4. Another fruitcake out of touch with reality . Surely there are more pressing concerns to be addressed

5. Playing with nature…

6. Did he not get the moral of Jurassic Park – don’t mess with nature. As fascinating as it would be to meet another species of hominid, they went extinct for a reason. Beside, this child would be brought up by H. sapiens, nurture would trump nature in personality traits therefore the main scientific gains would be from physical study which we can get from bones anyway – would be interesting to see speech capabilities and vocal range.

7. Disgusting, what would this child be treated as, human or animal to be owned, observed and experimented on? Genetic scientists have lost sight of a moral compass.

8. Plenty around where I live, professor I invite you to come and observe their behaviours.

9. How cruel. If a baby was born like that, he or she would undergo a lifetime of painful experiments and testing and would be treated like some sort of laboratory experiment. It’s a terrible thing to try to do, and any woman who agreed to take part in such an experiment would be a lowlife.

10. Maybe we should cure cancer first? No doubt the man is brilliant, but his goals seem a bit misguided.

11. Larger skull size, no woman would volunteer to push that out!

12. He’ll have no problem finding a womb for hire, esp if he pays well. But the innocent sounding reasons for doing this ‘they think differently and may help us with our problems’ are weak and lame. Do they really think we’ll fall for that? The real agenda may be much more sinister but will never be revealed.

13. There is a reason they are extinct. I believe this to be unethical, tinkering with nature and evolution in this manner is unlikely to end well. The planet is already overcrowded so it is unwise to introduce an extinct competing species to us. Just because you CAN, it doesn’t mean that you SHOULD. The risks outweigh the benefits at this time.

14. Who is going to raise the child, the mother or the scientist ??

15. But what kind of tragic life would that man lead? He would be an experiment. It’s inhuman to create life just for observation

16. The poor child would have a very lonely existence, spending its entire life as a scientific experiment and being constantly gawked at like an animal in a zoo. That scientist is a very selfish man.

17. Don’t be screwing with nature, Doc. The human species is bad enough as it is, without creating a mutant. Playing God is like playing with fire.

18. How disgusting, to deliberately have a child that will never lead a normal life. Will it live in a cage in a lab ?. Anyway as others have pointed out there are still plenty about if you look round the town. Dolly the sheep didn’t last long.

19. So wrong! I thought it was all about evolution, not going back. It’s not April Fool’s yet, is it, or have I missed something?

20. Sounds awfully like the start of horror movie to me…..

21. I’m all for cloning to be used, for example, to grow single organs, or even to reintroduce a species that we caused to become extinct, and that is needed to maintain an environmental balance. But cloning an intelligent, self-aware being that would be the only one of its species is simply immoral.

22. This is not a good idea, to bring about the birth of a child from an extinct branch of man would be cruel, on its own in our world with no-one of its own race to turn to when its troubled, it would be a prisoner, a lab rat, why not bring back T Rex?, at least it could EAT its tormentors.

23. Primitive man lived in the primitive world, and thats where he should stay.

24. This guy is truly as mad as Frankenstein.

25. Omg, please tell me this is a joke?

Not many people want to bring Neanderthals back to life. My opinion on the return of the Neanderthals is, if a woman agrees to give birth to a Neanderthal baby, then why not? It will be Homo sapien’s one of the best scientific achievements if Neanderthals are successfully recreated. I am curious to see the success of the experiment. 100,000 years ago, we shared this planet with several other species of human, all of them clever, resourceful and excellent hunters, but we Homo sapiens only survive. Scientists say, ‘one of the crucial elements of Homo sapiens’ adaptations is that it combines complex planning, developed in the front of the brain, with language and the ability to spread new ideas from one individual to another’. The Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago not only because the Ice Age limited available food supplies, but because Homo sapiens killed them off. Bats, bears, bees, birds, butterflies, buffaloes share their world with many other species of bats, bears, bees, birds, butterflies, buffaloes. Why should humans be afraid to have another species of humans? Just because we can, I think we should. Life without challenges is boring.

Religious fundamentalists disagree with each other on everything but agree on one thing!

Male-female equality is against nature, says Sunni scholar.

A Hindu fundamentalist says, ‘male-female equality is against nature’.
A Muslim fundamentalist agrees with the Hindu fundamentalist, says, ‘yes,you are right, male-female equality is against nature.’

If you ask a Christian fundamentalist, he will say the same thing, ‘male-female equality is against nature’. Ask a Jewish fundamentalist or a Buddhist fundamentalist or a whatever religious fundamentalist, they will give you the same answer that male-female equality is against nature.

Why do all religious fundamentalists go against women? The answer is easy. Because all religions are against women.

Justin Bieber’s mother is brainwashing women to go against abortion.

“We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus and start worrying about children.” - Joycelyn Elders

Justin Bieber’s mother is now brainwashing women for not to have an abortion, because their babies can become world famous & billionaire like Justin Bieber.

Pattie Mallette, better known as Justin Bieber’s mother, has been very open over the years about her anti-abortion stance. The single mother got pregnant while she was still in high school, but after converting to Christianity, she decided to keep the child, which worked out pretty well considering he turned into the most famous pop star in the world.

Earlier today, Mallette announced she’s executive producing an anti-abortion short film that will be shown at various events across the country starting on February 28. Entitled Crescendo, it was conceived and shot with a goal of raising $10 million for pregnancy centers across the country that will advise women to consider options other than abortion. Here’s what Pattie had to say…

” (I want Crescendo to) encourage young women all over the world, just like me, to let them know that there is a place to go, people who will take care of you and a safe home to live in if you are pregnant and think you have nowhere else to turn.”

Mack Rawden from Cinemablend wanted to know whether or not people would watch this short film if it was available for free.’What do you think? If Crescendo was available on YouTube, would you watch it?’
My answer is, I will watch the film to see how far Justin’s mother has gone to brainwash women against abortion but I will never agree with them who think women should not abort their fetuses because fetuses become babies and babies can become Biebers. They can become Biebers, but they can become Monsters too. Women must have an abortion if they want to have an abortion. Their body, their choice. Nobody has the right to force women to go against their choice.

You can halt publications of books on evolution. You can not halt evolution!

Daily News:

The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) has put a stop to the publication and sale of all books in its archives that support the theory of evolution, daily Radikal has reported.

The evolutionist books, previously available through TÜBİTAK’s Popular Science Publications’ List, will no longer be provided by the council.

The books have long been listed as “out of stock” on TÜBİTAK’s website, but their further publication is now slated to be stopped permanently.

You are not Turkey’s religious council. You are Turkey’s Scientific and Technical Research Council and you have stopped publishing the books on evolution! I am shocked! You should be ashamed of yourself! Don’t say that you do not believe in evolution!

Nothing is worse than the decision that scientists make to stop believing in science. They can drag society backwards more than the religious bigots.

Bangladesh sucks

Bangladesh sucks. Yes it does. It does everything to make Islamists ruin the country. It started a war against me more than 20 years ago. Hundreds of thousands of Islamists took to the streets for my execution by hanging, they did it because I told the truth about the incompatibility between Islam and women’s rights. The government filed cases against me on the charges of hurting religious feeling of the people and I was forced to stay in hiding for months and then was forced to leave the country. I have not been allowed to return to my country since then. Politicians or army whoever ruled the country did not take any action against the Islamists who threatened to kill the writers and intellectuals for criticizing Islam. A renowned writer, Ahmed Sharif, was attacked by the Islamists. Shamsur Rahman, a famous poet was also attacked. Islamists almost killed Humayun Azad for writing a novel that made fun of them. A cartoonist called Arifur Rahman was in jail after the government said his drawings had insulted Muslims. Asif Mohiuddin was arrested 2 years ago for his blogs that criticized Islam. Now he is stabbed by the Islamists.

It can be dangerous to be an atheist. In Bangladesh, a popular atheist blogger was attacked and stabbed by a group of Islamic fundamentalists in a suburb of the capital city of Uttara on Monday night.

According to reports, Asif Mohiuddin was stabbed multiple times in the neck and upper body by three unidentified attackers near his office in Dhaka’s upscale Uttara district. Friends of Mohiuddin, who were with him at the time of the attack, blamed “Islamic fundamentalists.”

As of Tuesday, Jan. 15, Mohiuddin was “improving but still not out of danger” at the Dhaka Medical College Hospital, where surgeons spent more than three hours trying to repair the damage done by the would-be assassins.

Mohiuddin’s blog, is one of the most visited web pages in Bangladesh. Mohiuddin is known for advocating what some have termed “Militant Atheism” in a country where Islam is the state religion, and over 90% of Bangladesh’s 153 million people identify as Muslim.

The biggest harm Bangladesh did to herself is not really by killing or imprisoning atheists or forcing atheists to go into exile, but by forcing millions of citizens to keep their mouth shut forever. They no more express their opinions that the majority finds different.

Secularism was one of the pillars of new born Bangladesh. It was supposed to become more liberal and more secular than Pakistan. But in four decades, the rulers of the country managed to make it a truly Islamist country. The country was separated from Pakistan. But the truth is, Bangladesh is no better than Pakistan.