Muslims stole my bacon sandwich

It's a pretty provocative headline for, well, any headline writer. To people like the EDL's Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Lennon) it would probably be used in the next pamphlet or banner that the group decide to release.

In fact, I think it would be a good exercise for a satirist to set up a blog and make up stories to see how many get taken as "gospel" by the EDL's cronies such is their lack of general intelligence. However, at times, the EDL's leader provides hours of entertainment and none more so than when he tweeted:

As a result, the #creepingsharia hashtag went viral and the inevitable happened; Tommy became the unwitting victim of what has been one of the funnier stunts in Twitter history.

I have to admit, I have some sympathy with those who argue that Islam is a violent and ugly religion. I temper this by saying that, at their worst, all religions can be guilty of the same. This does not make the people who follow that religion violent or extremist but, I do take Sam Harris' line:

"How do we recognize religious moderates in the first place?"

The trouble with Islam is that it tends to be embedded culturally and psychologically and thus is defended in such a way that one risks being accused of some heinous crime should they dare criticise the lunatic ravings of a 6th century warlord. The question that people should be concerned with is whether Islam, should it truly want political power, can justify it's beliefs which are "divinely" scripted? If it can, with evidence of Allah, it would indeed change the face of the planet... make no mistake about that.

If any religion was able to offer evidence of it's truthfulness faith would no longer be required. If Allah was to be proven with scientific, empirical evidence this would indeed change everything we know. Western culture would be finished. 

What was once faith, would be fact.

However, Islam has had centuries to offer this evidence and it's not likely to be offered any time soon (same goes for any other religion of course). So those arguing for the political adoption of Sha'ria (and those people are not hard to find) are doing so without a scientific or reasonable basis; this in turn makes it somewhat difficult to overturn centuries of British law and customs. Our parliamentary democracy is not going to be discarded for Quranic diktats unless there is some reasonable proof for everyone to be subjected to what was written.

But the same applies for any religious institution doesn't it? Yet millions follow these religions without, seemingly, any scientific or rational basis for doing so. Well part of the reason is that religions tend to be familial or cultural. And these tend to be powerful factors which require longer explanations. But people are often incredulous at how a person is sucked into what, on the face of it, appears to be complete and utter nonsense. 

But religions are followed by millions right?

Well, there is power in numbers for sure but that's a poor reason to suggest that those beliefs are based in fact. That so many people can fall for the delusional (or often sophisticated) ramblings of another is nothing new. Satya Sai Baba is a guy who convinced (or duped?) millions of people into believing that he was performing miracles. Yes, in an age of unparalleled  of scientific progress Sai Baba convinced people that performing a coin trick was somehow evidence of "divine power". 

Looking like the lost Jackson brother, one would think he would have had time to have performed a miracle on his haircut. 

But then I guess a haircut like that is good for hiding coins or other nondescript items to fool people with. 

The guy was a fraud like any other mystic or preacher than has gone before. That he was able to convince millions in the 21st century says nothing more than a fool and their money are easily parted or that, in a more general tone, people are gullible and tend to conform.

The Asch Experiment offers an amusing way in which people tend to follow others without thinking for themselves - AKA the "herd mentality).

However, whenever people said that Satya Sai Baba was a GOD, just remember that there are others who claim that their own figures of worship should be revered based on similar eye witness accounts and what we would call Chinese Whispers. No religion, to my mind, is exempt from this charge.

So while the #creepingsharia trend offers a welcome insight into how Twitter is best at self-regulation, as opposed to being the place from where legal proceedings tend to emerge (see here and here), there is a message which is being lost where Islam is becoming a genuine concern for people in Britain. 

The question is whether this concern is justified or if people, or groups like the EDL, are following the groupthink mentality of those who continue to worship Satya Sai Baba? Perhaps it is a case of both. Perhaps it is not. I welcome comments on this question.

But my bacon sandwich WAS stolen. 

By a 7 year old. 

And he's not a Muslim.

And I control his pocket money. 

Now that is power.

UCL and Freedom of Expression

The UCLU Atheist, Secularist & Humanist Society has been asked by the UCL (University College of London) to remove an image of Mohammed, worried that it will "offend" Muslim students.

I'm therefore asking anyone who reads this blog to go here and sign the petition.

Mohammed wasn't depicted banging a goat for goodness sakes. But the UCL complaint seems to only consider the view that it would upset Muslim students. Is there a good reason why the image of Jesus would not offend Christians?

The UCL need to think carefully about the road they are going down. And consider how ridiculous this really is in the grand scheme of things...

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/recent/

UPDATE 19/01/2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16615312

The President of the UCL Atheist Society has resigned.

"Robbie stepped aside because he signed up as president to organise events and run a student society," said Michael Paynter, secretary for the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies.

"He did not appreciate the stress he would be under when dealing with a controversy like this, so he wanted to make way for someone else."

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association is continuing with its protest against the image, saying it has wider implications.

Adam Walker, the association's national spokesperson, said the two student groups had worked well together in the past and said the offence was unnecessary.

"There is no need to print these things other than to cause offence and history has told us that these things cause offence."

No-one has the right not to be offended. And with logic like that on display, I would think that the Muslim Youth Association might be better of finding someone more equipped intellectually to cope with their press responsibilities. 

Gettin' rid of t'cross

Faith is on the menu again this week with Christian Concern spoiling another broth. This time, the anger is over the removal of a cross from a Christian Charity.

Andrea Williams will no doubt feature more often on here in the future because she is priceless.

I think my new nickname for her is going to be 'Kuato'... that protruding fella from Total Recall

Anyway, the story goes that a Christian Charity wanted to make itself more inclusive by removing overt references to Christianity. The story gained traction because it was discussed as part of an employment tribunal case for Tony Williams who was selected for redundancy. The Telegraph report says:

"Angela Painter, the chief executive of the Kenward Trust, said Mr Williams had been selected for redundancy because he had performed badly at interview.

Mrs Painter denied the Christian ethos of the charity had been diluted. “One of the things we know from our service users was that at times a very obvious big cross can trigger the memory of abuse in a Christian setting which would be upsetting,” she said."

"The tribunal found that Mr Williams had been “fairly selected for redundancy” and that he was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. He was ordered to pay £500 in costs."

So, in other words, Tony needed to perform at a certain standard and was offered a chance to save his job; he was crap, so they made him redundant. However, he wanted to get the last word in and criticised his ex-employers by claiming "religious discrimination". Not only was his case chucked out, he was spanked for costs too. Usually, there is a good reason you receive a costs order against you... I'll say no more.

Kuato was all over this like a fly around shit.

On her blog she wrote:

"Only this week I learned that a large cross was removed from the entrance lobby of a UK Christian charity, in order not to offend others.

Increasingly, it seems that Christian beliefs are allowed to be held ‘in principle’ but cannot be manifested in public. Attempts to stop any public display of the cross are a small but telling part of this dynamic.

Scripture warns us that the cross is an ‘offence’. Yet removing the cross from the public square is not going to negate his victory or stop his return. What was accomplished on the cross stands for ever.

We serve an incredible God."

Anyone else know what Kuato is on about? I'm sure there was a strawman, a red herring and then something about the rapture... 

It seems like Kuato was almost making a threat? 

You know, Jesus is coming back and when he realises that you have removed from public view the instrument of torture which led to his death he isn't going to be happy! 

But earlier in Kuato's blog she said:

"Sadly, this news by no means shocked me. It sits within a wider narrative of attempts to remove the cross (and the Christian faith) from the public square – attempts made by both secularists and Islamists on an increasing basis."

Er, does she realise that the case she was angry about concerned a decision made by the head of the Christian charity and not those damn Islamists and secularists? Fruitcake.

Kuato is also helping out some bird with a face like a bag of spanners... a case I reported on in this blog's previous life.

However, the fun doesn't stop in Kuato Land; the Christian Concern website is a treasure trove of ignorant bollocks dressed up as "concerns".

Under the heading "Islam" their concerns are as follows:

"The influence of radical Islam is growing in the UK and as an ideology it seeks to shape our political and social landscape. From the introduction of Sharia law and Islamic finance to the implications on freedom of speech and women’s rights, the presence of Islamism in the UK has great repercussions for all of us."

Replace 'Islam' with 'Christian' and "women's rights" with "gay rights"... then hopefully Kuato and her ilk will understand why it is secularism which is the future for Britain and indeed the world. As much as Christians like herself are concerned about the rise of Islam, secularists are concerned with the role of religion in society as a whole. Christianity is not a matter for politics, law, medicine or any other public concern.

Other matters which concern Kuato and her merry band of blood cult followers revolves around homosexuality. It just had to didn't it?

"Due to the recent increase in equality legislation there has been a profound shift in UK law, resulting in homosexuality being given increasing protection as a ‘right’. Unfortunately this has led to serious consequences for Christians."

&

"Sexual orientation is being given increasing protection under equality legislation."

How dare people be treated fairly under the law regardless of their sexual orientation! It's a sin I tells ya! Glad to have people like Kuato tell us about this "increase in equality legislation"

What Christian Concern wants is equality, but only for their own views. They want equality under the law to have the right to judge homosexuality but deny equality for homosexuals to be able to express their "sexuality
as a right". They cannot have it both ways.

"Although both religious belief and homosexuality are protected to some extent under equality law, these two strands are often incompatible with one another. The law is unbalanced in this area, first within the legislation and then worsened in judicial interpretation, favouring the protection of sexual orientation over the protection of religious belief""

Strange reasoning. Sexual orientation is natural whereas religious belief is a choice. While it is true some people may choose to partake in homosexual activity it is a fact that no-one is born with religious belief.

Therefore homosexuals deserve protections under the law over and above religious thought.

Which brings me to my final point really...

Anyone ever have homosexuals knocking on their door preaching about the benefits of such a lifestyle or say that you are evil/going to hell if you don't sign up?

Nah, didn't think so...

Next time you read a story about militant atheists/homosexuals/pro-choice advocates or general noisy secularism just remember that for centuries religion has been less than quiet and reasonable in the enforcement of its belief system.

Christian Concern is one of those fronts which wants to have it all their own way. And they still want everyone to believe what they believe. Don't think for second that they don't.

Two views on 9/11 from the Pope and a muppet

Two interesting views on 9/11 emerged today; one from Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of Billy Graham (a man who Christopher Hitchens said is "disgustingly evil" and "sick and twisted" in a brilliant TV interview) and the second from no other than Pope Benedict.

We'll start with Yahweh's representative on earth first who said:

"It is my fervent prayer that a firm commitment to justice and a global culture of solidarity will help rid the world of the grievances that so often give rise to acts of violence and will create the conditions for greater peace and prosperity, offering a brighter and more secure future."

It is a credible ambition and call to reason but it's clear that the Pope was referring to acts of terrorism being caused by "grievances". In other words, people do bad things because they are unhappy. And this is a view shared by Ron Paul who says that "U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation."

An argument that would gain credibility were it not for the very, very, very limited number of terrorist campaigns and incidents that occur. Extreme poverty, famine and oppression continues to exist in a number of sub-Saharan states yet these hard pressed people are not compelled to blow people up indiscriminately. 

Indeed, the 9/11 hijackers did not come from hard pressed backgrounds at all being mainly middle class, privileged and seemingly "normal" in the grand scheme of things. Not only does this make Ron Paul's comment stupid but the Pope seems to be a worthy bedfellow.

The second comment from Anne Graham Lotz is fucking stupid beyond all doubt. It makes me want to vomit all over my keyboard. Twice. Lick it up. And then vomit three more times. And I feel like this any time I read the bullshit that comes from the religious mind wrapped up in unprovable shite.

She says:

"We've been telling him [god] to get out of our business, out of our government, out of our schools, out of our marketplace. And then when something like this [9/11] happens, we wonder where he is,"

No, no, no. We don't have to wonder where he is. The fact that he is absent from every single major and minor event over the past 4.6billion years gives a pretty good indication that he doesn't exist.

"The Bible says that there's only one way to God, and that's through Jesus."

More contradictory bullshit because if this was the case, what happened in 1BCE? How would people have reached god before Jesus stepped foot anywhere on the earth? And the date of the New Testament presents more friggin' problems. Not to mention the BILLIONS who never had a hope in hell of knowing the word of the bible because they were DYING of HIV given to them in the womb by the cuntish creator who felt it necessary to kill a child before they could KNOW of the Jesus in the bible.

These people really do not stop and think before writing something do they?

Fuck.

More nonsense about the "end of days"...

"We see that in the storms, the floods, the forest fires," she said. "They're not only occurring more frequently, but when they occur, they break the record of the last one."

Says who? Who says they break the record of the last one? Who says they are getting worse?

Research indicates that "wildfires" have actually decreased in the 20th century - http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n10/full/ngeo313.html

This graph shows that she is talking bollocks about hurricanes:

The only argument that could be made for an increasing number of reported storms/wildfires etc is exactly that... the fact that they are reported. You obtain a frequency by measuring storms in the same region. 

You can't say in region A there were 10 storms in 2009 and in 2010 there were 5 storms in region A and 15 in region B and then use this data to suggest that storm rates have doubled... 

I think that's a good place to end this... I've drunk far too much and I need some sleep... but I'll end on these.

Science flies you into space. Religion flies you into buildings. 

Religion also makes normally kind and decent human beings say and do horrible and wicked things.

My thoughts and sympathies are with the people who lost their lives to mammals with far too much faith in fairy tales. If only mankind could learn a lesson from this that religion will keep making excuses for itself in the face of atrocities and fail miserably to attribute proper blame. And if they were indeed as faithful as they claim, they would find good reason for dropping the ridiculous ideas of bliss in the next life.

The reason the bombers took their own lives, as well as others that day, is because they thought that they were going to paradise. Most religions converge on this idea of another life. This happy medium and general consensus from religious moderates allows the idea to prevail that something else is waiting. A very dangerous idea indeed.

If they knew, and I mean really knew, that this is the only life that we have then those hijackers might have thought that this life, and the lives of their fellow travellers, was too precious to waste.