America is not the only country where a subset of theist find the need to lie and whine in defense of their beliefs. After fact checking a piece I found on the Christian Concern website it was blatantly obvious how incredibly unethical and vicious the assholes who work there really are. Virtually nothing in "Humanists' hypocrisy after sending atheist manuals to every Scottish secondary following Christian book ban" turned out to be true.The Humanist Society of Scotland did not seek to "ban" the so-called "guide book" entitled It's Your Move.
What did the Humanist Society of Scotland actually have an interest in accomplishing? They sought to remove from public school curriculums a clearly Christian centric book and bar those public schools from paying for the books out of school funds. Got that? They did not ask that children be prevented from receiving the books. They just found it inappropriate for public schools to pay for and actively push a sectarian book on children. Christian Concern and the Free Church of Scotland both routinely misrepresented the facts and sought to demonize a group of individuals who actually applied basic civil rights and human decency to an incredibly bigoted set of circumstances.
This gang of assholes also left out a number of details along the way. They didn't bother to mention how well connected the Free Church of Scotland already is with various public schools around the country. They certainly didn't mention that the book the Humanist Society of Scotland has offered for distribution would be a small token in an attempt to deal with centuries of bias towards theism or that they have donated all the books. It definitely slipped their minds that these books from the beginning are only being offered as an option. They are not being forced on kids like the Christian guide book had been. The publisher, Scripture Union, of the It's Your Move book even brags about directly connecting churches to schools through it's books and curriculum in it's introduction video.
Anyone who even skims through the "Resource Booklet" that accompanies the Christian guide book can't help but realize that this really is a set of Sunday School lessons being passed off as public school curriculum.
The very notion that the humanists are the ones being hypocritical is absurd to the point of being laughable. Christian Concern, The Free Church of Scotland, and other supporters of this guide book being force fed to other people's children are being deceitful tyrannical assholes. Their whining about responsible adults opposing them is hypocritical not to mention despicable.
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Civil rights by anecdote
Apparently, according to Steve Neumann, there is no longer any such thing as sexism, racism, ageism, or any other similar forms of discrimination. That's right it's all just a delusion. Even though he never makes such a statement in his ridiculous Salon piece, "Atheism’s civil-rights delusion: Why non-believers don’t need their own Selma moment", that is where his grossly flawed logic leads. There seems to be only two main points in this idiotic piece of shit.
The first is easily summarized by his own statement in paragraph three, "But I’ve never suffered any prejudice in the 15 years since I came out as an atheist." Since he hasn't personally experienced any prejudice it seems it can't be real. Are you fucking kidding! Does this asshole really think that every woman all over the world has directly experienced discrimination or harassment? Since there would have to be at least a small fraction that have not that must mean that sexism no longer exists, right? Wrong! And what about those atheists who have been harassed and persecuted? If this moron paid any attention to the news he should have noticed that there is still plenty of prejudice aimed at atheists. There was just a case in Canada where a judge ordered a father to bring his children to church. There are constantly examples of atheists speaking up for their rights and then having their lives threatened for it.
His other point is just as fucked up.
"But there’s another, more fundamental reason why comparing the atheist movement to civil rights movements is a case of comparing apples and oranges. Being black or gay isn’t something someone chooses." Huh? Choosing to be a particular way or not, assuming it is a choice, is how you determine whether someone deserves civil rights? I actually, at various times, tried to believe in God. It never worked for me. It was in college that I came to understand that there is nothing wrong in not believing what others do. Seems that Mr. Neumann still hasn't figured that one out. There is also the implication that if you can hide who you are you should do precisely that. This seems to prove the exact opposite of what this dick head is claiming. If anyone is coerced in any way to hide who they are those are precisely the people who need a "Selma moment". Atheists shouldn't even have to consider any negative consequences for making it publicly known that they are atheists. Yet, we do.
Sounds to me like the "Jim Crow" he refers to in the subtitle of his piece is a matter of projection. Neumann is the worst type of self-deluded atheist. He seems more interested in ingratiating himself to the majority than he is with thinking about anything for himself.
The first is easily summarized by his own statement in paragraph three, "But I’ve never suffered any prejudice in the 15 years since I came out as an atheist." Since he hasn't personally experienced any prejudice it seems it can't be real. Are you fucking kidding! Does this asshole really think that every woman all over the world has directly experienced discrimination or harassment? Since there would have to be at least a small fraction that have not that must mean that sexism no longer exists, right? Wrong! And what about those atheists who have been harassed and persecuted? If this moron paid any attention to the news he should have noticed that there is still plenty of prejudice aimed at atheists. There was just a case in Canada where a judge ordered a father to bring his children to church. There are constantly examples of atheists speaking up for their rights and then having their lives threatened for it.
His other point is just as fucked up.
"But there’s another, more fundamental reason why comparing the atheist movement to civil rights movements is a case of comparing apples and oranges. Being black or gay isn’t something someone chooses." Huh? Choosing to be a particular way or not, assuming it is a choice, is how you determine whether someone deserves civil rights? I actually, at various times, tried to believe in God. It never worked for me. It was in college that I came to understand that there is nothing wrong in not believing what others do. Seems that Mr. Neumann still hasn't figured that one out. There is also the implication that if you can hide who you are you should do precisely that. This seems to prove the exact opposite of what this dick head is claiming. If anyone is coerced in any way to hide who they are those are precisely the people who need a "Selma moment". Atheists shouldn't even have to consider any negative consequences for making it publicly known that they are atheists. Yet, we do.
Sounds to me like the "Jim Crow" he refers to in the subtitle of his piece is a matter of projection. Neumann is the worst type of self-deluded atheist. He seems more interested in ingratiating himself to the majority than he is with thinking about anything for himself.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Another poorly worded rhetorical headline
Over all, "Why a band of American heathens is fighting to protect atheists — and Christians — abroad", is a good piece. I am glad that it was produced. I also would like to state up front that of all media outlets focused on religion/philosophy Religious News Service does a pretty good job presenting the views of non-theists.
That said, even when RNS publishes generally positive pieces on atheists any number of myths and stereotypes do to some degree slip in. The headline does imply that it is unusual or surprising that non-believers would actually be interested in fighting for the rights of everyone. Why? Being an atheist does not automatically mean that you are also a humanist but it is fairly common. As a humanist I feel an obligation to look out for my fellow human beings regardless of any other trait or characteristics. Human/Civil rights should be universal. I find this approach and attitude to be rather standard among atheists.
To some degree I think the surprise stems from the false notions that atheists are immoral and/or apathetic. I would pose the rhetorical question; why wouldn't you fight for the rights of all?, to anyone who didn't find the headline odd or slightly misleading.
That said, even when RNS publishes generally positive pieces on atheists any number of myths and stereotypes do to some degree slip in. The headline does imply that it is unusual or surprising that non-believers would actually be interested in fighting for the rights of everyone. Why? Being an atheist does not automatically mean that you are also a humanist but it is fairly common. As a humanist I feel an obligation to look out for my fellow human beings regardless of any other trait or characteristics. Human/Civil rights should be universal. I find this approach and attitude to be rather standard among atheists.
To some degree I think the surprise stems from the false notions that atheists are immoral and/or apathetic. I would pose the rhetorical question; why wouldn't you fight for the rights of all?, to anyone who didn't find the headline odd or slightly misleading.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
"Gay rights vs. religious rights"
I keep coming across the notion that by accepting gay rights you automatically must be infringing on someone's religious rights. Bullshit! There is s simple way to demonstrate that this tactic aimed at fighting the slow steady move towards equality for homosexuals is complete nonsense. Simply swap "homosexual" for any other identifiable group of people (ex. African Americans or Jews). If it doesn't sound reasonable anymore then how is it okay when aimed at homosexuals?
A couple fairly recent posts try to go after homosexual equality by making specific points.
Religious News Service "Gay rights vs. religious rights: 7 issues to watch"
Patheos "When religious liberty clashes with gay rights"
None of them stand up to any scrutiny. For the most part all the various arguments can be boiled down to two very bogus premises. First, they rely on the assumption that religious people somehow have, or should have the right to impose their views on others. They do not! These "points" also rely on the assumption that homosexuals and/or the government is somehow going to force people to participate in the lives and activities of homosexuals. They can't. I have yet to hear anything about there even being a desire to do such a thing. If an individual feels their religion forbids gay marriage they do not have to participate in one or have anything to do with it. As for the idea that someone should have the right to refuse services to gays that is no different than refusing services to any other group. If your service is offered to others (rather than expressly private) you forfeit the ability to pick and choose based on broad categories like gender, ethnicity, nationality, etc.
There is no innate conflict between gay rights and religious rights when it comes to civil law. Only the most ignorant, narrow minded, bigoted assholes could cling to such a bogus stance.
A couple fairly recent posts try to go after homosexual equality by making specific points.
Religious News Service "Gay rights vs. religious rights: 7 issues to watch"
Patheos "When religious liberty clashes with gay rights"
None of them stand up to any scrutiny. For the most part all the various arguments can be boiled down to two very bogus premises. First, they rely on the assumption that religious people somehow have, or should have the right to impose their views on others. They do not! These "points" also rely on the assumption that homosexuals and/or the government is somehow going to force people to participate in the lives and activities of homosexuals. They can't. I have yet to hear anything about there even being a desire to do such a thing. If an individual feels their religion forbids gay marriage they do not have to participate in one or have anything to do with it. As for the idea that someone should have the right to refuse services to gays that is no different than refusing services to any other group. If your service is offered to others (rather than expressly private) you forfeit the ability to pick and choose based on broad categories like gender, ethnicity, nationality, etc.
There is no innate conflict between gay rights and religious rights when it comes to civil law. Only the most ignorant, narrow minded, bigoted assholes could cling to such a bogus stance.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Lying for "Values"
I've always found it odd how easily some are able to justify the use of deceit for supposed "values." Then again, when all you've got to work with are lies and fear-mongering what is a self-righteous bigoted asshole to do? Donald Mendell has been answering that one in a new round of absurd TV ads. This time around, however, he's added to his routine. Now he's using the faux-victim ploy.
On top of claiming that extending basic rights to homosexuals (in this instance marriage equality) will somehow negatively impact anyone, Mendell is falsely stating that people tried getting him fired because he has defended traditional marriage. Bullshit. Setting aside that there isn't really any such thing as "traditional" marriage since society has always defined and redefined it, no one tried firing him. An ethics complaint was lodged against him that could have stripped him of his counseling license. Even though the complaint could have had a negative impact on his career it would not necessarily have cost him his job. He also happened to be a teacher. He could have easily continued on teaching. Then, there are the reasons for the complaint, which he also lied about. Appearing in an ad for the anti-gay marriage camp is what brought him to the attention of one of his colleagues at another school. However, there were a number of factors involved. Some of them were debatable while others were not.
Whether Mendell's negative comments about another colleague (not the one registering the complaint) rose to the level required by the Office of Licensing and Registration to revoke his credentials was debatable, the rules of ethics did make the complaint a legitimate one. The code does state, "...treat colleagues with respect and ...should avoid unwarranted negative criticism of colleagues in communications." He did not have to diss a colleague to make his point. The idea that he was persecuted for his beliefs is nonsense. He was being held accountable for his behavior as it related to others. Another aspect of the whole 2009 affair that Mendell omits is that he identified himself as a teacher and counselor of Nokomis High School. In effect, he gave the impression that he was representing the school. That is not only highly misleading it is grossly unethical. Unless the school administration had chosen to take a position on same sex marriage and then authorized him as spokesperson his presenting himself in such a way was extremely unprofessional. The school could have sought his resignation on that point but it never did. The complaint was dismissed.
There are any number of details in both the 2009 TV ad campaign and in the present one that are either grossly misleading or outright false. Mendell is just one example of the anti-gay scumbags onerous tactics. They have no legitimate argument so they resort to underhanded slimy attacks.
Unfortunately, I couldn't access freely online the few articles that covered the 2009 incident but if you have an interest in them I have listed two of them below.
Monroe, Scott. "Yes on 1 Backer Rebuts Claim." Morning Sentinel. 23 November 2009
Monroe, Scott. "Same-sex marriage critic fights effort to pull social work license." Portland Press Herald.
23 November 2009
Yes, they are variations of the same story. Each does have slightly different details. Most of the other articles I could find were even skimpier.
On top of claiming that extending basic rights to homosexuals (in this instance marriage equality) will somehow negatively impact anyone, Mendell is falsely stating that people tried getting him fired because he has defended traditional marriage. Bullshit. Setting aside that there isn't really any such thing as "traditional" marriage since society has always defined and redefined it, no one tried firing him. An ethics complaint was lodged against him that could have stripped him of his counseling license. Even though the complaint could have had a negative impact on his career it would not necessarily have cost him his job. He also happened to be a teacher. He could have easily continued on teaching. Then, there are the reasons for the complaint, which he also lied about. Appearing in an ad for the anti-gay marriage camp is what brought him to the attention of one of his colleagues at another school. However, there were a number of factors involved. Some of them were debatable while others were not.
Whether Mendell's negative comments about another colleague (not the one registering the complaint) rose to the level required by the Office of Licensing and Registration to revoke his credentials was debatable, the rules of ethics did make the complaint a legitimate one. The code does state, "...treat colleagues with respect and ...should avoid unwarranted negative criticism of colleagues in communications." He did not have to diss a colleague to make his point. The idea that he was persecuted for his beliefs is nonsense. He was being held accountable for his behavior as it related to others. Another aspect of the whole 2009 affair that Mendell omits is that he identified himself as a teacher and counselor of Nokomis High School. In effect, he gave the impression that he was representing the school. That is not only highly misleading it is grossly unethical. Unless the school administration had chosen to take a position on same sex marriage and then authorized him as spokesperson his presenting himself in such a way was extremely unprofessional. The school could have sought his resignation on that point but it never did. The complaint was dismissed.
There are any number of details in both the 2009 TV ad campaign and in the present one that are either grossly misleading or outright false. Mendell is just one example of the anti-gay scumbags onerous tactics. They have no legitimate argument so they resort to underhanded slimy attacks.
Unfortunately, I couldn't access freely online the few articles that covered the 2009 incident but if you have an interest in them I have listed two of them below.
Monroe, Scott. "Yes on 1 Backer Rebuts Claim." Morning Sentinel. 23 November 2009
Monroe, Scott. "Same-sex marriage critic fights effort to pull social work license." Portland Press Herald.
23 November 2009
Yes, they are variations of the same story. Each does have slightly different details. Most of the other articles I could find were even skimpier.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
A Question of Civil Rights?
I agree with much of what Eboo Patel says in his recent post "Attacking Mitt Romney, Attacking Faith" but with a few caveats. I firmly believe that everyone has a right to believe whatever they choose, which includes religious ideas. However, Patel seems to be confusing the idea of respecting an individual's rights with respecting the ideas that individual subscribes to. There is a huge difference. I can easily agree that you have a right to believe in faeries but that doesn't mean I am compelled to accept or tolerate that idea. In fact, it's my right to think you are complete moron for believing such nonsense.
Patel also makes an incredibly idiotic comparison when he states, "...our society has, again for the most part, recognized that counting someone's race against her in a political election is an act prejudice, and it's bad. So why is counting someone's religion against him any less an act of prejudice?" Why? You do not choose your gender (at least not till you are a legal adult) or ethnicity. Gender and ethnicity also do not come with a set of beliefs. Simply being a male Caucasian does not mean I have to believe x, y, or z. You choose a religion. Whether you end up following all the doctrines or practices is a separate matter but by choosing the specific religion you are at the least publicly endorsing those ideas and behaviors.
He is right that no one should be denied rights because of the faith they have chosen but that is not what is happening with Romney or any other politician who publicly proclaims, and rather loudly, their particular religious beliefs. I see no reason to apologize for thinking that Romney is not qualified to run the country I live in because among other things he is a practicing Mormon. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks their underwear (look it up) is magical is too fucking ignorant and stupid to run a country. I don't really care what the source of such a ridiculous notion is. If you endorse a system of beliefs that contains a huge amount of ludicrous ideas I'm going to assume you are an intellectual cripple incapable of making important policy decisions. I fail to see that as being a civil rights infringement. If there is evidence that clearly demonstrated that those ideas are sound I'll be happy to apologize and reconsider my own position. Till that time I'm going to reserve my right to think that Romney is an incompetent delusion ass.
Patel also makes an incredibly idiotic comparison when he states, "...our society has, again for the most part, recognized that counting someone's race against her in a political election is an act prejudice, and it's bad. So why is counting someone's religion against him any less an act of prejudice?" Why? You do not choose your gender (at least not till you are a legal adult) or ethnicity. Gender and ethnicity also do not come with a set of beliefs. Simply being a male Caucasian does not mean I have to believe x, y, or z. You choose a religion. Whether you end up following all the doctrines or practices is a separate matter but by choosing the specific religion you are at the least publicly endorsing those ideas and behaviors.
He is right that no one should be denied rights because of the faith they have chosen but that is not what is happening with Romney or any other politician who publicly proclaims, and rather loudly, their particular religious beliefs. I see no reason to apologize for thinking that Romney is not qualified to run the country I live in because among other things he is a practicing Mormon. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks their underwear (look it up) is magical is too fucking ignorant and stupid to run a country. I don't really care what the source of such a ridiculous notion is. If you endorse a system of beliefs that contains a huge amount of ludicrous ideas I'm going to assume you are an intellectual cripple incapable of making important policy decisions. I fail to see that as being a civil rights infringement. If there is evidence that clearly demonstrated that those ideas are sound I'll be happy to apologize and reconsider my own position. Till that time I'm going to reserve my right to think that Romney is an incompetent delusion ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)