Irish blasphemy law: Monty O'Python with a darker side

US-conscience

Same sex attraction is not a disorder;there is no such thing as SSAD.

People like you regard gay people as blasphemous; that is how the subject came up.

Being gay is not an abomination.

You cannot see through the eyes of God.

Being gay is not egregious behavior.

Your comment on God judgeing our nations is senseless babble, so I cannot refute it.

Gay people to not need to repent for being gay; but you need to repent for being bigotted against your fellow man, and for expressing hatred for your fellow man. (I do not need to quote the Bible verse, do I? I think you must know it already, even if you do ignore it).

Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist for your religious mania. But I know you will not, because one of the characteristics of a seriously ill person is denial that there is anything wrong with them.

The problem is that people do not seek the truth, though they are cleaver and cunning enough in forwarding their view point. - Is it a willful oversight?

I know your views and you knows mine, it makes no differece what ever you figure out and label me.

Hitman

I assume your religion is Islam. If that is so, then you are showing just how much in common Islam really does have with conservative Christianity. Even though you have not said, it is pretty easy to see through your attempt to disguise it.

hitman2

You have not answered a single answer for my many questions which are simple questions and not threads. You have no answers because all that you say about gay are lies; lies on top of lies, and when a person is making up lies, it takes time to put the lies together. For me speaking truth, it takes no time at all, but merely the effort so to summon the truth.

You are seeking to prove what a good person you are because you have witnessed suffering and felt "something." But I am not sure what you felt is human, because above all else, you despise and revile gay people, and seek to persecute them in the name of God. All you are doing is devolving any concept of God to a more and more pitiful level.

Daniel.....

I have read your passionate arguments and desperate annoyance with me.

You have thrown so many threads before me; I have to think for a while, from where to start from.

Excuse me for my English as I have no time to write a draft and to check the spellings etc.

First of all, I do not hate the gays but the evil attitude, therefore I cannot think even to hit anyone. Open advocacy of an evil practice saddened my soul.

Blind wishes manifest's itself in the shape of a deity to whom we worship and still claim we believe in no one.
Let me give you an example, in my whole life I have never seen a single smoker who would tell that smoking is good thing.

There are much deeper cuts and wounds on the face of humanity than such issues over which west is disputing.
I have seen with my own eyes a live body without legs and arms covered under a jute cloth breathing, placed ay Mumbai train station, to beg money.
I had cried for a 14 years girl in Sao Paulo, working in a store, just waiting for a time to be molested by the cruel society.
In Temma, Ghana, I have met a young girl selling single piece of cigarettes to get some money for the day.
And is USA a young lady prostitute weeping because she has to vacate her house if the rent is not paid out.

You have raised the question of world population; yes it is a very serious problem. Already most of Europe is facing serious consequences of betraying the institution of marriage. A human race is at the verge of extinct if this problem is not corrected.
Unless we do not listen what God commands us to do we are sure to miss the righteous path.
You can't see in the darkness and you can't make the dead listen.
The truth and light is within us, simply we have to explore ourselves.

hitman2

Tell us more about all of the sex positions that have studied intensively.

And then tell us what should be done with gay people? Should they all be shot, as your name suggests? Or put in the ovens? or what? And I suppose it would be an ongoing project, since there would always be more in every new generation; and at what age do you send gay people off to be killed? 18? 15? 12? or just abort them, if a gay gene can be found? or maybe allowed to be born, baptised, then killed? you tell me. What is your plan?

Yes, I'm calling on you, to answer the question, the man in the back with the tiny moustache, and raised hand.

hitman2

This obsessive - compulsive gay-hatin' comes up in every subject, even though the gay-haters don't hate the sinner just the sin, because God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and because the sex parts don't match, and because God spoke, with his very own words, given in dictation, that gay people are an abomination, and we know it must be true, because it is written in the Bible, and everything found there is automatically, sight unseen, true, if we allow gay marriage, there could be a sudden sharp drop-off in the birth-rate, God forbid the world population should not top 7 billion 000,000,000 !!! Oh For Cryin' out Loud.

hitman2

... and number 5 (I can't believe I overlooked this one)

... what studies are you talking about? Cherry-picked, I'm sure, if not completely bogus.

number 6: What has any of this got to do with gay marriage? There are generally no rules regarding prior sexual conduct, when straight people seek to get married.

hitman2

Number 1: Yes, gay couples pretend to be in love with each other and seek to be married, just to incon-veen-yence you. I call that paranoia; what do you call it?

Number 2: You have alot of statistics about gay people; ALOT of them; I call that obsessive-compulsive; what do you call it? How many homo-sexual experiences have you had?

Number 3: If gay people are so much more promiscuous than straight people, then where are all these unwanted pregnancices and abortions coming from? I do not have a long list of statistics, like you have, because I am not obsessive-compulsive about other people's sexual behavior, like you, but I have my common sense and my observations, and by far, straight people are the ones leading the way in promiscuity, venerial disease, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, insaninty of all kinds, depravity, and debauchaery, because they are ones most dominant in numbers, and most dominant in the formation of all that we know of society.

Number 4: Apart from the logistics of sexual positions, which you seem obsessed with studying in detail, there is more to being gay; it is a complex of many personality traits; by my own observations, gay people are far more creative, artistic, and intelligent than straight people; what a dull, drab, colorless, and illiterate world this would be without gay people. I suppose you would have preferred that the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel be painted in beige plaid.

continuee:

•In a New Zealand study, data were gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders among gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people. At the age of 21, homosexuals/bisexuals were at fourfold increased risks of major depression and conduct disorder, fivefold increased risk of nicotine dependence, twofold increased risk of other substance misuse or addiction and six times more likely to have attempted suicide. (Fergusson DM et al. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80.)

•In a recent US study of the mental health of homosexuals, it was found that gay/bisexual men had a more than 3-fold increased risk of major depression and a five-fold increased risk of panic disorder. They were three times as likely to rate their mental health as only 'fair' or 'poor' and to experience high levels of distress. Gay/bisexual women had a nearly four-fold increased risk of general anxiety disorder and both groups were more than three times as likely than the general population to require treatment in a mental health setting. (Cochran S. et al. Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003; 71 :53-61.)

•It is claimed, that the high rates of mental illness among homosexuals are the result of 'homophobia'. However, even in the Netherlands, which has been far more tolerant to same-sex relationships and which has recently legalised same-sex marriages, high levels of psychiatric illness, including major depression, bipolar disorder ('manic depression'), agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder and drug addiction are found. (Sandfort TG, et al. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.)

No one of you could make the case as to why gays need to marry? Just to spoil the meaning attached with the institution of marriage.
You people are blind to reason.

Here is again some eye opener facts:

•A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).

•Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many 'lesbian' women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)

•Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within 'committed' gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)

•In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)

•The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that 'gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.' (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)
B. Among homosexuals, highly risky sexual practices such as anal sex are very common.

•The majority of homosexual men (60%) engage in anal sex, frequently without condom and even, if they know that they are HIV positive. (Mercer CH et al. Increasing prevalence of male homosexual partnerships and practices in Britain 1990-2000. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8) As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others. (www.netdoctor.co.uk; www.gayhealthchannel.com;)

Bishop Spong has outdone himself this time. An excellent, excellent essay. Cut and pasted by yours truly.

There is no corresponding mass movement for people to marry their cousins, parents, sibblings, pets, farm animals, or beasts of the forests, so you can just shutup about that, ok?
___________________________________________

No. 8: Muslims marry their first cousins.

No. 9: Fatima Mernissi, "Beyond the Veil"

ONe can get the Mernissi book from any library.

There is no mass movement down on certain Middle East farms, I grant you.
-----------------------------------
Sorry, in a way, to Hitman2, but I've about had it with insanity for today.

DITLD:

"number 3: The divorce rate is right around 50 percent;"

Actually, the divorce rate is 50% for FIRST marriages. For second marriages, the divorce rate is 67%. And for third marriages, the divorce rate is 74%.

The idiot Hitman2 fails to understand that heterosexual marriage is unsuccessful -- a failure by any measure. Perhaps gay marriages will be more successful and enduring.

... and I forgot to say ...

number 7: My grandmother got married when she was 67 years old, and everyone knew she was not getting married to raise a family; she was getting married to make a life for herself with a man that she loved; no one asked her why she would be getting married at her age, and no one spoke openly about what kinds of sex positions that she might engage in with her husband; so there very definitely is a double-standard which is based on feelings of social superiority, which in my opinion, is a certain kind of snobbery, that one group feels innately superior to another group, a sense that is obvious to the superior class, but not to everybody else.

... and I forgot to say ...

number 6: The world is overpopulated, and stressed to the max with all the people that are already here. I hardly think that it is really a credible argument to oppose gay marriage because not enough babies will be born.

... oops, I may have mispoken by saying "animalistic hate."

I suppose animals do not realy hate; that is a human emotion.

hitman2

number 1: You forgot to say what you were quoting from.

number 2: Your Enlish is not so good; why don't you have a friend proof-read and edit your comments before pressing the submit button?

number 3: The divorce rate is right around 50 percent; don't blame that terrible statistic on gay people; the way straight people take their marriage vows is really an abomination, don't you think?

number 4: There is grass-roots mass movement among gay people and their friends and families, numbering into the tens of millions. There is no corresponding mass movement for people to marry their cousins, parents, sibblings, pets, farm animals, or beasts of the forests, so you can just shutup about that, ok?

number 5: Gay people are not sinners for being gay, and being gay has nothing to do with morality or immorality; but you are a sinner and you are immoral, for posting all of your lies, and then hiding behind Jesus to justify, what is really, just plain old fashioned animalistic HATE!

Marriage is an institution which lays the foundation of a family which is a basic unit of a society.

Abnormal behaviour do not need legal permissions. so far so if a person is mentally derainged, he is exempted from the course of law.

quote:Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life
To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding....People advocating same-sex marriage argue that we should accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two people, and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination. They are correct if the primary purpose of marriage is to protect an intimate pair-bond. But they are not correct if its primary purpose is to protect the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding or to protect an intimate relationship for the purposes of its procreative potential."

Hitman2:

It's a done deal. Gays will have the right to marry in this country.

If you don't like it, you have two options: Go live in a country which discriminates against gays OR don't marry a man.

SUSAN:

Again, they removed your icon from the Main Page.

Can you please do something about this?

Farnaz

Hitman2:

"Idiots! marriage pregnates and gays do not. Such a dirty act even the annimals hate to commit. Know the nature - even the fruits are the results of impregnation."

You are more idiotic in each of your postings! There is no requirement for a married couple to "impregnate"...children are not legally required of a marriage. Persons who cannot have children are free to marry. Persons who do not want to have children are free to marry.

Idiots! marriage pregnates and gays do not.
Such a dirty act even the annimals hate to commit.
Know the nature - even the fruits are the results of impregnation.

Dont take the shelter of civil liberties in USA for such immoral behaviour.

There are an awful lot of idiots in America, it would seem. Gay couples can legal adopt children in forty-eight states. The other two do not permit unmarried couples to adopt.

The rights of gays to marry is on the way to the Supreme Court. Even with a Catholic Court with Roberts at the helm, America will win and gays will be free to marry.

That's America when it works. Sorta idiotic, like the idea that we're all endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Are gays not free to concent for having sex with eachother, without a legal contract. What is the problem?

Is it an agenda for chaos and confiusion in the society or something else.

Marriages are pious unions and are not meant for material gainful ends.

Abnormal behaviour do not need legal rights.
Only the idiots can openly raise such immoral demands in the name of freedom equality and civil rights.

Hitman2:

"Is anyone free to marry an annimal of his or her choice?.(Wishes need to be freely fulfilled)."

You are an idiot. Marriage is a legal _contract_ between two consenting persons. Animals are not able to give consent to marriage. Therefore, marriage between humans and animals is a legal impossibility.

Well, we now know what Hitman2 was getting at.

These are the NT verses most frequently used by right-wing Christian/Catholic clerics in their attempts to limit the rights of gay citizens:

Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Timothy 1:10,11

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Within a year, two at most, I think gays in the United States will have the right to marry, just as they do in other countries.

In a few more years, homophobes will be in this nation what the KKK is today.

Gay marriages????? What a joke!

Marriage is a social contract - a binding?
Does't gays need freedom?
After all the were having sexual gratification out of wedlock,at free will.

Is freedom limitless?
can we discribe expliotation of the human beings and its connection with intellectual dishonesty?

Is anyone free to marry an annimal of his or her choice?.(Wishes need to be freely fulfilled).

Yes! incest, dont be shy about it, legalise it, make it a part of freedom.

Shame on such corrupt intellectual insolvency.

if the conversation on faith had truly wanted the rite poster boy or image for this argument they should have maybe looked closer 2 ire?-land itself and used the painting by the artist franscis bacon commonly called the screaming pope (google it its quite disturbing in an artistic non violent way) maybe.. technically it is a masterpiece because it is hard to tell if the pope is in front or behind the curtain of simplly dramwn lines making maybe the point exquisitely that one persons speech or words should not be valued above anthers maybe... (and maybe the true life truth mabe pope to scream at times and what would that look like) at least not by government... that is what society and humanity and spirituality, and yes maybe most of allsince it is the only unbridled and uncensored at times..art.. it is after all the goal to sort out the wheat from the chaff and it should be noted maybe there are real life uses for chaff and God himself placed it in the world so who would deny it from simply being itself non violently, but quite audible in public.. tha tis the point.. eye think

FINally, same-sex marriage starts down the path to SCOTUS.

What is most encouraging is that the two attorneys representing the petitioners are a Conservative Republican and a Liberal Democrat.

Same-sex marriage set for big day in federal court

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/10/AR2010011002606.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Hello, America. I have missed you terribly.

Schaum:

Farnaz:

"Btw., Hitman2 is a Muslim."

OK. But what point is he attempting to make by repeating a story that is already well-known to everyone?

BTW, Hitman2, there is an alternative interpretation of that story: that god did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality, but because of its inhospitality toward strangers.
-------------------------------------
I don't know. Christians have different takes on it.

Christian/Catholic clergy, however, do not use it in their battles against gay rights; rather, they use certain NT passages that I've posted.

As for Chasidic and Orthodox Jews, they refer to certain Talmud passages, which, however, lend themselves to interpretation, as other Jews have pointed out.

In Judaism, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has many implications. They are the epitome of evil, which their persecution of strangers indicates. Lot could not find ten good men, not one good man, from what we can see.

Btw., a Lot figure occurs in Quoran.

It is very clear to Jews that they wished to rape the three strangers.

Don't really understand how Christians misread it.
------------------------------
Interesting that you recall Counterparts, in particular....

Farnaz:

"Btw., Hitman2 is a Muslim."

OK. But what point is he attempting to make by repeating a story that is already well-known to everyone?

BTW, Hitman2, there is an alternative interpretation of that story: that god did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality, but because of its inhospitality toward strangers.

Schaum,

Btw., Hitman2 is a Muslim.

As I've posted before, Tanakh has nothing to say about homosexuallity. The homosexual construct did not become a "social fact" until the nineteenth century.

Tankh was at pains to end the rape of one man by another, of a weaker man by a stronger man.

What is at stake in the Lot narrative is the rape of the three guests.

I would imagine you know this, to anyone else who may be interested, recommend you see any Oxford Study Bible.

Schaum,

Thanks for the link to the video. I always had some idea of the pull Chasidism has on its adherents. It informs their lives, is a way of being. Hopefully, some day, they will understand that Torah has nothing to say on homosexuality. As for Talmud, it is not "written in stone." For example, no one takes seriously some of Rashi's comments of Bruria, and we are talking about Rashi.

At all events, I emailed the link to a Pakistani Muslim friend, who had a great deal to say about gays in Islam, attacks right here in the US of gays by Muslims, fundamentalists, I guess. (She is a liberal, observant Muslim.)

She also recommended a film called "A Jihad for Love." She says I can download it, but I haven't been able to find a site.

At all events, here is a link from Wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Jihad_for_Love

My sons in Christ:

I encourage all men to convert to, and be confirmed in, the Roman Catholic Church of Pedophilia. Even the body of Christ cannot compare to the body of a boy!

Farnaz:

"The issue is that Jewish gays raised Chasidic and Orthodox don't want to leave those communities."

Yes, that point is made several times in the video.

Who promotes, what non-sense, hav't you lost the way?

In Deuteronomy 29:22-24 and Deuteronomy 32:32-33 Moses warns the Jews who just fled Egypt not to end up with the afflictions and sicknesses of Sodom and Gomorrah.

wikipedia:

For the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven."[Gen 19:24-25] In Christianity and Islam, their names have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's wrath. Cf.Jude 1:7, Qur'an(S15)Al-Hijr:72-73.

Sodom and Gomorrah have been used as metaphors for vice and sexual deviation.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (NIV: can have sex with them , NJB: can have intercourse with them)."

In response, Lot refuses to give his guests to the inhabitants of Sodom, and instead offers them his two virgin daughters to "do to them whatever you like."[Gen 19:8]NASB However, they refuse this offer, and threaten to do worse to Lot than they would have done to his guests, and press sore upon him. Lot's angelic guests rescue him, and strike the men with blindness. They then command Lot to gather his family and leave, revealing that they were sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. As they make their escape the angels command Lot and his family not to look back under any circumstance. However as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with fire and brimstone by God, Lot's wife looks back longingly at the city, and becomes a pillar of salt.

Thanks for the link, Schaum. I'm watching it now. The thing is that at this point any number of Conservative Synagogues are de facto Orthodox and fully accept gays and lesbians.

The issue is that Jewish gays raised Chasidic and Orthodox don't want to leave those communities.

At this point a woman (straight) can hold all the authority of a male rabbi--in Modern Orthodoxy--but she cannot lead a Congregation. Still, these brilliant women, some with two doctorates, stay.

Liberalizing is under way, but it will be a slow process, slower for the Chasidim.

Just watched an excellent movie, "Trembling Before G-d"...about Orthodox and Hasidic Jews who are also gays and lesbians. They REALLY have a rough row to hoe.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/76545/trembling-before-g-d

Farmaz,

In fun, of course, I actually did catch that. Nothing wrong with some parody, nothing wrong at all. Just wanted to insert a different perspective, what the hell.

Hi Arminius,

I know. The site is meant to be in fun!

Farnaz,

Those 5 proofs seem to be distorted versions of the 5 'proofs' of the existence of God, as set forth by Thomas Aquinas. All these have been discredited, and are simply an exercise in futility. Further, they are not at all necessary to one who has faith.

Atheism has been defeated. The link below opens onto a site with many proofs for the existence of God, eg.,

Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence
Formerly: Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence
Originally adapted from a forum on the Internet Infidels.

1. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

3. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5. MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Schaum,

I have just finished rereading "Jude The Obscure". I don't know why I decided to reread it. Now I'm all depressed.
-----------------------------------
Yes, well, I mean it's not really cheerful.
All that determinism, fatalism, classism, moorsiness, doom, etc.

Hard to get to Christminster, IMHO.

Farnaz:

"Along with another book, I'm rereading Dubliners."

I remember reading that in college. A collection of 12 or so stories, I think. The only one I remember well was one called "Boarding House", I think.

I have just finished rereading "Jude The Obscure". I don't know why I decided to reread it. Now I'm all depressed.

Thanks, Farnaz. Yours was well put, and much better worded than mine.

I don't like to fight anymore, so I have decided that when I do go to war, it will be total. It is then that I obey Gen. George Patton's Law of Combat: "You poor bastards are not here to die for your country, you are here to make sure that poor bastard over there dies for his."

Arminius,

Excellent post on R. Brous's thread! My compliments!

Along with another book, I'm rereading Dubliners. I wonder to what wonders Joyce's pen would have led him were he alive to read the Blasphemy Law.

Perhaps, the Irish can require that all the law's supporters be required to read Joyce.

Arminious,

Thanks for the heads up on Whistling. A creature of the dark is he. He lives in the night. Worms his way onto blogs throughout WaPo.

The blogs here are littered with his fellow travelers, needless to say. Even among the writers one finds them. But no one posts to Whistling, not even they.

Farnaz,

I found your email about Dali - thanks. Timeless, yes, of course - and it whispers of other dimensions, it hints of unguessed infinities. It moves me.

Meanwhile, a common enemy, Whistler, has emerged on Sharon Brous' current thread. Turns out he is - surprise! - a denier of the Shoah. I think some well-placed broadsides might be in order.

Arminius,

I posted to you on Waters' thread. We had the same painting in mind.

Greetings All,

Kindly check out this posting by CCNL1 from Patrick Deneen's thread. This, I think, is partially in response to my suggesting to him, yet again, that he learn something of Judaism prior to commenting. (I find that knowing something whereof you speak lends substance to one's views, but that's just me.)

At all events, he's been at multiplying identities again; they seem to be spinning out of control. In another comment, he accuses me of being Coloradodog, as well. I am, then, a Muslim, former Lutheran, former Baptist, atheist. Mutable and protean am I.

Once again for Farnaz's benefit since she still cannot come to grips with her obvious problems:

Hmmm, Farnaz would like me to leave so she can possibly continue her violation of the Torah's ninth commandment and violation of On Faith's rules?? Now would that be fair to those who play by the rules??

And please note, reiteration is a major tool of education and indeed On Faith readers are getting one with respect to the errors and flaws in the history and theology of the major religions although considering the few followers of Judaism these days, should we even consider Judaism in the discussion? Even Farnaz has given up on said religion being a professed atheist. Actually, if not for said Judaism being the mythical foundation for Christianity and Islam, there would be no need to bring up the errors and flaws in Judaism.

And if Farnaz needs added clarification, she can contact the likes of "Schaum", "Zebra4", "DOUG_WHITE", "Carstonio" et al.

Posted by: ccnl1 | January 9, 2010 12:54 PM
-------------------------------------------
Link for Patrick Deneen's thread:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2010/01/its_religion_stupid.html

US-Conscience,

"God will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

And you know this how, exactly? Your Book?

Wake up, man. Come on, shake thyself toward lucidity. You may still have deep experiences of connectedness and a relationship with the Divine while not needing to get there on the lilt of storytelling and fabricated mythologies.

Take the bigger leap, out of conditioning! Take another Brick out of the Wall!

US-Conscience wrote:

"There is only one true God..."

Prove it.

There is only one true God, and He holds his own name, for his own glory, in high regard. Blasphemy is very serious. More serious than any of you know. God will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

Having said that, I know remind you all of something that God revealed to mankind. "Vengence is Mine, saith the Lord"

God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness, and pure justice will be done on that day.

I dunno, Schaum. There are plenty of fundies on the blogs, and I have never seen any of them agree with Spidey. Contrast him with Peter Huff, certainly a fundamentalist, but one who is almost painfully polite, and easy to converse with. Thomas Baum does answer Spidey, disagreeing with him politely - but Baum is not a fundamentalist.

Further, early on, before you were on board, Spidey would come up with his 'scientific' explanations of biblical stuff that had entire threads convulsed with laughter. I still think that the hidden agenda is somewhat possible, but the more probable explanation is that he is seriously troubled.

Arminius:

"proposed in On Faith early on, that Spidey's actual aim is to totally discredit ultra-right-wing Protestant Christianity."

I thought of that, some time ago, inasmuch as I never expect things on the internet to be what they seem. But he is/was his loudest and most virulent with people for most of whom right-wing christianity is already discredited. He also said something (I forget what, now) that left me with the feeling that he is exactly what he appears to be.

Criticizing religous practices and religions should be OK. This should not extend to freedom to express hatred of a minority that is already sidelined in Europe. The lessons of the holocaust shouldn't be forgotten so fast. The Nazi used cartoons to de-sensitize its population and de-humanize Jews. Cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad as terrorist are intended to extend the war on terror against muslims and make it OK for the local population to accept invasion of muslim countries and killings of innocents.

Its really not much difficult to draw a line where one is legitimitely critcizing a religion or religous practice and where a deliberate attempt is being made to spread fear and hatred of a community (Danish Cartoons, case in point!). The Athiests/Secularists are hardly neutral in this argument, so there views need to be taken with a considerable pinch of salt. Why should we, the people who follow one religion or another follow their lead. WHO says there's is the way to go? We dont like mass burnings of our religous books them being peed upon. I dont think there's an equal and opposite response to the Secularists thats why I say they have no axe to grind in this issue. Who do we denigrate?

Hello arminius3142,

"... that Spidey's actual aim is to totally discredit ultra-right-wing Protestant Christianity. If this is the case, he is succeeding very well indeed, and should be commended."

Sorry, Arminius, but he is not succeeding at anything, this the least. If anything he aids their cause, if for no other reason than he is clearly fringe, and so takes away from their claim to that territory, so swings them more toward rational. He does *hit to discredit. All I ever do, and most any other honest person here, is to speed over his crap.

Samefa91

Did you get anything good for Christmas?

"Spidey's actual aim is to totally discredit ultra-right-wing Protestant Christianity."

Spidey is another Zyclon-SSchaum/Farnazi sock puppet?!

"Sock puppet:

Multiple accounts are the natural result of a non-anonymous website. People switch accounts just to stay anonymous. But a sock puppet is when a person uses these accounts to prove they've not gotten laid for a very long time, if ever.

Anonymous websites let you samefag with little pissing away of your life and people can spot them with just a little bit of intelligence.

However, non-anonymous websites are MMORPGs where people work their sock accounts up to epic activity histories. Then when the sock puppets come by to back each other up, people look at their long histories of activity and go, "There's no way someone would spend that much of their time making all these accounts look like different people. They must be different people in real life because no one could have that less of a life spend that much time building these accounts up just to win some petty arguments."

And that, prey tell, is why sock puppets are effective. It's not that people can't tell, it's that they really don't want to believe."

Tomorrow: "Sock Farms"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Schaum,

We are also in agreement about CCNL.

As to Spidey, well, we can agree that he comes across as seriously deranged. There are, however, two theories about Spidey:

1. He belongs in a padded cell (probable)
- or -
2. He has a hidden agenda (possible).

#2 was proposed in On Faith early on, that Spidey's actual aim is to totally discredit ultra-right-wing Protestant Christianity. If this is the case, he is succeeding very well indeed, and should be commended.

After Iraq is formally annexed into the United States with one Senator and one non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, we could change the name from Iraq to Am-Iraq-ah ...

... and we could change the name of the Tigrus and Euphrates Rivers to the Joan and Melissa Rivers ...

... and we could change the name of Baghdad to "New San Antonio."

Allah bless Afghanistan
Land that I love
Stand beside her
And guide her
With the light
Shining Bright
From above.

From Iraq
To Pakistan
To the Hindu-Kush
White with snow
Allah bless Afganistan
My home, sweet home.

(This is a purely original poem, that I made up creatively out of my own head, and any resemblance to any other poem or musical lyrics, written by any other person, living or dead, is purely coincidental).

Arminius:

"Some of America - usually the ultra-right - howls in dismay that the rest of the world does not recognize America's 'guiding light of democracy', while all the time they strive to destroy the current administration only because they wish power, not a better way. The far left are little better."

My god. We agree on something.

I have to lie down.

"Had emailed a friend, suggesting he read Susan's essay, and, at first, he couldn't find the icon."

You can always go to "Panel" at the top, and scroll down to find her (alphabetized by first names.)

Walter-in-fallschurch

Now, you're just being silly.

DITLD,
don't forget yahweh!

"yahjesuhammed".

imagine if they could all get along....

peter, pam, perhaps here?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sharon_brous/2010/01/raising_little_blasphemers.html

Walter, where to?

Don't you think that if God were wise, I mean really, REALLY wise, he would bring Mohammed and Jesus into a room together, probably a large white room, perhaps with some CO2 dry ice mist floating around the floor, and he would perform some kind of ceremony in which he would unify their spirits into a single spirit named, Jemohammus, and then don't you think if would do that, it would help to patch things up here on earth a little?

I am just brain-storming here ...

... brainstorming for God.

Maybe that cartoon of Mohammed that caused all the rioting was not really Mohammed. Maybe it was just someone who looked like Mohammed. You know, the cartoonist could have been mistaken in his identification of the cartoon as Mohammed. They say that eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable.

Yeah that's it.

Perhaps Susan gets shoved into a corner out of a knee-jerk defense mechanism by On Faith. Her total of posts almost always puts other contributors to shame, so the powers-that-be want to push forward those who are less fortunate.

On another subject, why does OnFaith keep hiding Susan? First they take her off the main page, then put her in a corner.

Had emailed a friend, suggesting he read Susan's essay, and, at first, he couldn't find the icon.

Disgraceful, IMHO.

"It's taken awhile, but folks are beginning to ask how the majority of Americans became relegated to a spectator position.

Asking the question is a good place to start, no?"

Perhaps, Farnaz, the best question possible now. America squats on its thumb and spins, bemoaning its loss of luxuries while the rest of the globe starves, dies of preventable diseases, and fights anyone they can blame.

Some of America - usually the ultra-right - howls in dismay that the rest of the world does not recognize America's 'guiding light of democracy', while all the time they strive to destroy the current administration only because they wish power, not a better way. The far left are little better.

Due mostly to the previous eight years, America has become the hopeless Scarecrow of the World, beset with the crows spawned by the Bush administration. Consumed with Gog and Magog (I thank Schaum for discovering that), we no longer have street cred in ht world community. Hell, we don't even agree on the slightest detail of our domestic problems.

Colin Nicholas,

What do you think of this blasphemous blasphemy law?

Arminius,

It's taken awhile, but folks are beginning to ask how the majority of Americans became relegated to a spectator position.

Asking the question is a good place to start, no?

Farnaz,

True about the attacks on Christians. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia. Have I missed a country?

Apparently all minorities there are becoming endangered species. This includes B'hai. India is not quite there yet, but that could change.

The UN is powerless, obviously, and the despotic states will continue to find bogeymen to persecute to cover their own corrupt arses. Kristallnacht, anyone?

Arminius,

Attacks against Christians in the Middle East and Asia, including India, have been going on for many years.

There are about one million B'hai in Iran, many in Iraq. The UN is mightily "concerned" about their welfare, considers them an endangered minority.

That should reassure them.

What's next? Who's next? Desperate lunatics, manipulated by corrupt regimes strike out at bogeymen, displace their anger onto innocents.

WaPo is now carrying the AP article on the Egyptian Christians. Will wonders never cease.

Farnaz,
"Had the African Americans not taken to the streets, they'd still be unable to vote."

Yes, but the demonstrations that counted were inspired and led by MLK, an admirer of Gandhi. Peace, not violence. (There were riots, of course, but these did not help.)

The Coptics, as I understand, are maybe 10% of the Egyptian population. Formerly, they got along reasonably well with the Muslims, but the upswing of fundamentalism seems to be putting an end to that. Yes, I think we will see more violence in coming days.

Christians are being driven out of the Mideast from almost all countries there. The Jewish population had already been driven out.

I wonder about Iran. Now that Jews and Christians are pretty much gone, along with the Zoroastrians, who is left? Apparently plenty. From what I read the Shi'a population is 52% of the country, and the ruling mullahs apparently have no use for the remaining 48%. Shi'a and Sunni seem to be an explosive mixture of late. Are the mullahs perhaps squatting on a large box of C4?

Meant to write:

"the three million of us Jews in exile from the Middle East."

Maybe, one day, Johanna Justin Jinich's parents will have their say in the media, but I doubt it.

Maybe one day the families of the dead Pakistani Christians will rise up and be counted. But I doubt it.

Maybe one day, we'll learn about the hurricaine destruction in Texas, but I doubt it.

A Pakistani friend informed me via email that this would be an excellent time for the US to begin relocating Christians. She is Muslim, liberal, and frightened.

Farnaz,

I read the Egyptian story, and not in your source. The NYT now has an update (in World News), that riots are happening - the Coptics have taken to the streets. Violence begets violence.
------------------------------------
I am glad it was reported in the Times. A great deal of pressure has been visited on national newspapers from some Christian groups.

Jews should take note. Who knows? Maybe one day, people will know about the three million of us Jews in the Middle East.
-----------------------------
The Copts are wildly outnumbered. Since the government knows the world is watching (and it is now), it may attempt to forestall their mass murder.

Had the African Americans not taken to the streets, they'd still be unable to vote.

Farnaz,

I read the Egyptian story, and not in your source. The NYT now has an update (in World News), that riots are happening - the Coptics have taken to the streets. Violence begets violence.

Schaum,

Great link! Gog and Magog, eh?

This suggests several possible Constitutional amendments, among them this: We hold this truth to be self-evident: All religion is in need of disolving. To this end we firmly dedicate ourselves to blaspheming frequently and with abandon.

Schaum,

My earlier post was meant for you. Amazingly, this story did make it into USA Today, though not into other national newspapers. If you or anyone else is interested in knowing more, just use google.

January 7, 2010

Egyptians riot after 7 killed in church attack

CAIRO (AP) — Witnesses and security officials say relatives of seven people killed in an attack on churchgoers leaving a midnight Mass for Coptic Christmas smashed ambulances in riots outside a southern Egyptian hospital to demand the bodies be turned over for burial.

A security official says police fired tear gas to disperse the crowd Thursday. The official and witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Three gunmen in a car sprayed automatic gunfire into a crowd leaving a church in the town of Nag Hamadi, about 40 miles from the ancient ruins of Luxor. The lead attacker is identified as a Muslim.

The release of bodies could be delayed for fear the funerals will turn into a flashpoint for more violence.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-01-07-egypt-riots_N.htm

Farnaz:

"The media has always had a blackout on these events, not only in Pakistan, but in Egypt, India, and other countries."

Yet this information came from the internet, which would suggest that they are not able to black out, entirely, the communication of these events to the world.

Posted by: Schaum | January 6, 2010 8:22 PM
-----------------------------------
Not from the world, no, simply from most Americans--in the case of the United States. Hence, those who did not wit to ask exulted in the myth of "precision bombing" perpetrated by the media during the Gulf War, the corollary myth that since we kept Israel from defending herself against Saddam's rockets, we owed her protection against them, succeeding gloriously. The Israeli burnt and exploded dead had no voice to challenge the lies. Then we might move on to Yugoslavia, where almost every nation aside from this one was aware of the casualties.

But why venture outside of the US? One might, for instance revisit the blackout on the hurricane damage in Texas. Much praise is due local reporters who struggled to get their voices heard nationally, wading through putrid water, climbing over debris--all to no avail--as the Bush media cooperated, including WaPo, of course--cooperated in the stifling.

Or, we might consider Johanna Justin Jinich, a beautiful, young Wesleyan undergraduate gunned down while working in the Campus Bookstore by the Catholic Jew hater, Steven Morgan. Morgan's Jew-hating ways, plans to eliminate the Jews in the Wesleyan community were known to the police, as was his particular obsession with Johanna.

The day he murdered her, he had written in his planner, "Kill Johanna."

This happened only last May. In the Fall there were other developments in the case.

Read about them in WaPo? The Times? No, no one did.

Is blasphemy anything like apostasy?

I think blasephemy sounds worse. It would be awful to be called a "blaphEEEmer," but being an "apostate" sounds a little glamourous. I think apostates must wear tailored clothes that match.

What about heresy? Is blasphemy anything like heresy? I think the word "heretic" sounds scary, like a hairy tick; couldn't a person get Lymes Disease from a "heritic?" No wonder they used to boil them in oil.

What about an abomination? Is that anything like blasephemy? What is someone who is an abomination? an abominateur? How come it is always applied to gay people? The only other context where I have heard abominaiton is Mzz. Drysdale, referring to her next door neighbors, the Clampetts. Are the Clampetts like gay people? mmmmmmm ? I always wondered why Ellymae and Jethro never got married.

I guess all of these things are just examples of wrong thinking. Sometimes wrong thinking goes on inside my head. I say, "hey you stop!" and then everyone at MacDonalds looks up at me from their burgers, and then I know I should just keep quiet.

Utterly bizarre!

"Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse......"

http://atheism.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&zTi=1&sdn=atheism&cdn=religion&tm=202540&f=10&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/

It's unanimous.

Everyone is against a blasephmy law.

Evidently, no one in favor of it can write.

So ... onward ... to the next question.

"What makes the holy land holy?"

"Should minarets be banned in Afghanistan?"

"How is Biblical infalitbilty traced to the Bible?"

"Do gay priests have cooties?"

"If a Moslem woman underwent trasgender surgery to become a man, and could grow a beard, would she be admitted into the Islamic clergy?"

"Is the Pope's taste in shoes infallible?"

"Is there bus exhaust in Heaven?"

"Do people wear clothes in Islamic paradise? and if so, where are they made? in Malaysia?"

"Do the Japanese go to Heaven?"

Part one.

Blasphemy a crime?

Let me be honest about this: Ever since I was a boy I have never understood the word "blasphemy". I have never been able to understand if it means being skeptical about say, Roman Catholicism, or if it means uttering in anger and with hatred a statement such as "your religion is absolute sh*t and you and your kind can go f*ck yourselves in every orifice with your crosses!"

This bothers me because it seems the most natural thing to be skeptical about religion what with our increasing capacities for logic and scientific reasoning. If just thinking skeptically about religion means blasphemy then blasphemy will only increase. And what worries me is that precisely because thinking in general is more dangerous to religion than any utterance out of anger blasphemy will ironically be directed toward the thinkers in the world and people uttering the most vile things will not be punished as severely.

Part two.

But let me give an example of my reasoning about the Roman Catholicism of my youth and why I have decided to become an atheist. First of all it seems Roman Catholics really have no faith at all, which is to say that ironically they seem to require logical proofs and evidence for their beliefs much in the way of a logician or scientist. They do not merely believe, have faith in God, they want proof of God. Thus we have supposed eye witness accounts of Christ's resurrection, proofs such as Aristotle's that God exists and so on.

And this is not necessarily a bad thing this demand for logic and proof of Catholics--it can be argued that Roman Catholicism was conducive to the increase of logic and the birth of science. The problem is all this logic and proof of Roman Catholics is glaringly deficient. Following their own methods we first can easily observe that no reliable evidence exists for Christ being anything more special than just another holy man at the time let alone that he rose from the dead. And as for logical proofs of God and logical consistency in general in Roman Catholicism we have serious problems as well.

Part three.

Take for example Aristotle's celebrated proof for God. What it essentially declares is that all effect must be traceable to a cause and this regression to a cause results in the concept of a "prime mover" or origin or God. Now the proof of Aristotle is quite rigorous, I must admit, but the grave deficiency of this proof is that it traces ALL EFFECT, ALL CHANGE, back to this cause. In other words it does not at all demonstrate with clarity that God exists and that he is all good. On the contrary, it leaves us with the feeling that perhaps God has been demonstrated logically to exist but that this God is ambiguous, not clearly good over evil.

In other words, Aristotle has not managed to say only positive change is traceable to God and that negative change (evil) is divorced from God. He tries to state such in a sense when he argues that although all change (potentiality) is traceable back to the prime mover (pure actuality) the prime mover is separate from the very change which is supposed to demonstrate its existence in the first place--but of course the argument does not work. So we are left with God perhaps existing but not at all convincingly good in our minds.

Roman Catholics however twist logic left and right trying to see Aristotle demonstrated both the existence of God and that he is good. But they get into the same trap as Aristotle: All change traceable to a prime mover and then in the attempt to make the prime mover good as well effect a separation between himself and at least negative change (evil). But this just results in God causing only a part of change and not total change thus resulting in him not being omnipotent, omniscient and in control of all!

Part four.

In other words we have the classic dilemma of God either having created evil as well as good or not being God for precisely having a certain aspect of existence out of his control. We remove evil from God at the price of diminishing his power. He is either responsible for all, in which case he is indeed God (but also evil), or he is not responsible for all in which case his power is only partial and not total. This was expressed wittily by Stendhal who observed that God's only excuse (for the evil that exists in the world) is that he does not exist. In other words God either created evil as well as good, in which case he is indeed God, or he created only good in which case he is not God for being responsible for only a part of existence, the good and not the evil--which is to say a part of existence, again, is out of his control and that makes him less than omnipotent and omniscient, not God.

Another tack Roman Catholics try to take when faced with this fundamental problem is to say that man is responsible for the evil which befalls him and that he does. In other words the story of Adam having been in the garden of Eden and having sinned (original sin) is stressed. But this argument is full of errors of logic as well. We are told that God created Adam and that Adam was given free will and abused it. It was all Adam's fault that he sinned and God is correct to have persecuted him, considered him not fit for the garden of Eden. But a simple question throws this theory into question: Was Adam created by God to be as powerful, knowing and wise as God or did God create Adam as a lesser being than himself?

If the former Adam could not have sinned being as God. If the latter Adam had to have sinned not being God and not all good. And as we all know, Adam was not created by God to have the power and knowledge of God. God created a lesser being than himself. So Adam could not have been responsible for original sin. God is the responsible party. God, first, created a fallible being, thus immediately demonstrating he is not all good and does not act perfectly. Then when his creation sinned he persecuted his creation as if his creation could have behaved as wisely as himself. But of course if his creation was not created as infallible as himself his creation did indeed act as himself because he himself was not all bright in creating a fallible being in the first place. God got the creation he deserved.

Part five.

Then supposedly Christ came out of the love of God (who persecuted Adam for not loving him as he wished--apparently good God is just as jealous as any man when it comes to love) to redeem man for his sins, which is to say man is supposed to walk in the footsteps of Christ which of course is an impossibility because Christ is God and man is man, just as fallible as poor dumb Adam...Is it too much to observe here that first God did not get it that Adam being fallible had to have sinned and then continued to not get it by sending his son (Christ) to show man the way when of course man being man cannot walk in the footsteps of God? Does God learn at all? Does it not appear he is as stupid as man?

And then we have it drummed into our heads what a great and painful sacrifice it was for Christ to die for our sins although of course Christ knowing he was the son of God (and God as well, the mystery of the trinity...) knew full well his suffering would end in himself ruling in full glory in heaven, a knowledge--not to mention power--no man ever had which means of course that routinely men suffer far more than Christ ever did...Must be nice to know one is the son of God and that most certainly a heaven exists and that one will rule in full power in it. Sure makes suffering bearable, especially suffering which cuts a life short and does not drag out year after year into old age. Must of been nice for Christ not to have experienced old age and dying alone in a lonely house as so many people routinely do today.

Now is all this blasphemy? If yes, then I stand convicted. By man. God however will have to present his case to me. He will have to convince me of the error of my ways after I die. Or I suppose he can be just as he is as told by the good priests in which case being tried by him is no better than being tried by man. In which case I will never have any faith again in him (I had faith when younger). In which case I will go at life and death alone. With maybe a few like-minded humans. Blasphemers all of us and never really understanding the meaning of that word.

Decent 40-minute video on the origin of life.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/63314/origins-of-life

Farnaz:

"The media has always had a blackout on these events, not only in Pakistan, but in Egypt, India, and other countries."

Yet this information came from the internet, which would suggest that they are not able to black out, entirely, the communication of these events to the world.

Schaum,

Regarding the anti-Christian atrocities, no, I don't think you will hear anything about them, just as you heard nothing about them when they occurred.

The media has always had a blackout on these events, not only in Pakistan, but in Egypt, India, and other countries.

Just as you will hear nothing about the atrocities against Jews, anywhere....

The reason is best expressed in three letters: O.I.L.

To this one should add the prospect of media sites in the Middle East and elsewhere, worth hundreds of billions, perhaps, trillions of dollars.

There's gold in them thar atrocities.

Schaum,

Interesting about pronouncing the word "Allah."
Arabic is the second language of Israel. Israeli students are required to learn it. When speaking to Muslims in Arabic, Israelis routinely use the word Allah, as do Muslims, needless to say.

Farnaz:

Thanks for the links re: the atrocities in Pakistan, which I overlooked earlier.

I suspect we will see a lot more of this...

Speaking of lunacies involving religion, I discovered this, yesterday: in 655 CE, in an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, the 9th Council of Toledo ruled that all children of priests were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into the canon law of the church.
-------------------------
Hummm. Interesting. I wonder if it discouraged lusty priests.

Yes the events in Malaysia are "disturbing," as you put it. The events in Pakistan are worse. They are horrific. There was supposed to be a revisiting of the blasphemy law there, but the Pakistanis have been distracted by the bombs.

Check out the links I posted when you have a moment. Wikipedia also has an article on the August riot and on the bishop who committed suicide.

Meantime, I'll try to recover the links to some of the Pakistani web sites on the events in Ireland. These folks are incredulous and think the Irish government has been eating too much Al-Kabsa!

Farnaz:

Greetings! No, I did not see the posting, which I just now read. I don't think there is any question of a reconciliation. And there is certainly no chance of them being invited back for dinner.

The Irish blasphemy law, and the attempt in Malaysia to prevent non-muslims from using the word 'Allah', a word which predates Islam by several centuries, are both disturbing developments. Utter madness.

Speaking of lunacies involving religion, I discovered this, yesterday: in 655 CE, in an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, the 9th Council of Toledo ruled that all children of priests were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into the canon law of the church.

HI SUSAN,

Last week, the OnFaith powers that be removed your thumbnail from the Main Page! Unacceptable to Jacobyans, possibly also intolerable for Jacobins, probably not for Jacobites.

Also, not the first time. (To add insult to injury, further injuring the insulted)

Schaum,

I read a little of what happen at your house; at least the duck wasn't ruined! My holidays were quiet, just my brother and son, and we like each other. :-D

As for this year, well, my mortgage company is trying to raise my payments by $300 a month for flood insurance. I suppose I shouldn't mind so much, but the amount of insurance they want is more than $30,000 than is left on the loan (and more than ten times the original insurance!). I've yet to get thru to someone with authority or brains, but I'm still trying.

Schaum,

I posted to you on Susan's last thread, after they removed it from the Main Page, an outrage, IMHO.

Did you see it (the post)?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/12/the_year_in_faith_and_reason.html#comments

As I posted last week when I first got wind of this, the insane legislation, which passed by one vote was motivated by the desires of a high ranking official, admiring of the democratically minded Saudi prince's stand on blashphemy.

In Ireland, more than a fine is at issue. Police may raid apartments and seize "blasphemous" literature. I posted parts of the new law on Susan's previous thread.

Obviously, a referendum is desired; hopefully, it will take place and soundly defeat this ridiculous "law." In the meantime Ireland would do well to demand an apology from the Roman Catholic Church for sinning against human and God for decades, for raping, starving, molesting; for lying, hiding, and obstructing justice.

Again, it is interesting to check out the Muslim blogs, especially, on Pakistani web sites, which find the Irish legislation hilarious and profoundly stupid. Satire, much of it very good, abounds, some of it with references to why the blog owner will not publish cartoons (!)

Blasphemy laws are used often though not exclusively to persecute nonMuslims in some Muslim nations. Pakistan is notorious for this. Not long ago, a Roman Catholic bishop committed suicide to protest the 20 year prison term visited upon an intellectual for blaspheming. And then there are the famous August riots and the incidents of yesterday.

Again, good luck Ireland. Go for it this time.

As for the famous Danish cartoon, READERS, BE AWARE. A scholarly work thoroughly exposed the "riots" as having been incited by two politicians strictly for the purposes of political gain. I'll post the title of the book whenever I find the bookmark.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100104/muslim-mob-in-pakistan-wounds-christian-family/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/augustweb-only/131-51.0.html

WICCAN!!

Et tu. Are you having a good new year so far? I found five holly logs that I burned as yule logs on Christmas. Christmas day was really wierd here! From now on, Christmas is for family only.

Merry Meet, Arminius and Schauam!

Just last night I was watching this bit from George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8

Those who voted for this inane law should watch this until they learn wisdom, or their heads explode, whichever comes first.

Blessed Be, Mr. Carlin. I hope your soul is happy up there on the roof. :-)

Can anybody help me? I have an intense fear of toenail fungus. Just seeing it can make me turn away from other people. I don't know what to do? This phobia is making me very unhappy. Can anybody make any suggestions? I don't like to reject people because they have this problem.

Edbyronadams posted this on another thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010400976.html

Do these blasphemy laws apply to people like me: Atheists? How can those who do not believe any "God" commit blashemy by "taking the name of god in vain".

How many people say "Jesus Christ" as swearing? Rmninds me of the little boy in Roman Catholic School who asked the Nun: "Why did Mary and Joseph name their son after a swear word?

Addendum - Hey, Susan, is there some reason you have been cast out of the main page of On Faith? Perhaps because you attract more comments than any others?

From the standpoint of this religious person. blasphemy is totally ridiculous and completely subjective. It is a sure sign of weak faith. Does anyone really believe that God gets His ego bruised by 'blasphemy'? If He does not, why should we? Laughter is a great weapon in such circumstances, and the Irish atheists are using it well.

On the other hand, Susan is right in saying that this misguided idea can drive people to violence. Further, as she mentions, it is a direct violation of freedom of speech, as is enshrined in our Constitution, and also in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Otherwise, this strange upheaval in the Emerald Isle promises some interesting news in the future.