Hey Secret Service, what about Wiley Drake?

1 comment

Posted on 8th June 2009 by Jack in politics | re: theism

, , , , ,

Let some mentally challenged homeless guy mumble a drunken threat against the president and he’ll be swarmed by agents in dark glasses and locked away for a while. But let a religious believer use the excuse of his personal delusions to call for the president’s death and what you want to bet nothing will happen to him. Talk about a double-standard.

A former Southern Baptist Convention officer who on June 2 called the death of abortion provider George Tiller an answer to prayer said later in the day he is also praying “imprecatory prayer” against President Obama.

Wiley Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., and former running mate of American Independent Party presidential candidate Alan Keyes, said June 2 on Fox News Radio he didn’t understand why people were upset with his comments quoted by Associated Baptist Press from a webcast of his daily radio talk show.

Wiley Drake, domestic terrorist

Wiley Drake, domestic terrorist

“Imprecatory prayer is agreeing with God, and if people don’t like that, they need to talk to God,” Drake told syndicated talk-show host Alan Colmes. “God said it, I didn’t. I was just agreeing with God.”

Asked if there are others for whom Drake is praying “imprecatory prayer,” Drake hesitated before answering that there are several. “The usurper that is in the White House is one, B. Hussein Obama,” he said.

Later in the interview, Colmes returned to Drake’s answer to make sure he heard him right.

“Are you praying for his death?” Colmes asked.

“Yes,” Drake replied.

“So you’re praying for the death of the president of the United States?”

“Yes.”

Colmes asked Drake if he was concerned that by saying that he might be placed on a Secret Service or FBI watch list, and if he believed it appropriate to talk or pray that way.

“I think it’s appropriate to pray the Word of God,” Drake said. “I’m not saying anything. What I am doing is repeating what God is saying, and if that puts me on somebody’s list, then I’ll just have to be on their list.”

“You would like for the president of the United States to die?” Colmes asked once more.

“If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that’s correct.”

Here’s a fun thing to do; read the following quote from Wiley then lean your head back, close your eyes and picture in your mind that drunken, mental homeless guy and put these words in his mouth. Not hard to believe, is it?

Asked if he claimed to know God’s will, Drake replied: “In some cases I do. Not in all cases. I know this, that if I do die right now, I’ll go to heaven when I die because I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s why I’ll go to heaven and not to hell. And the reason George Tiller went to hell when he died was not because he killed babies, as terrible as that was. If he went to hell, and I think he did — that’s God’s judgment and not mine — but if he did go to hell it’s because he did not accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.”

Drake said he did not believe Tiller’s accused killer is a pro-life Christian.

“I’m of the opinion — and now everybody’s going to say ‘There goes Wiley down the conspiracy-theory road,’ I’m of the opinion that somebody in the Obama camp had this guy killed.”

“Who benefits the most from this man killing a doctor?” Drake asked. “We certainly don’t. Pro-life people certainly don’t. It hurts us. It damages us, but Obama will indeed advance it. This will be one of those crises to take advantage of, and he’s already done that.”

Drake said he had no evidence and admitted his opinion for now is “pure speculation.”

“Everybody said [Lee Harvey] Oswald was a lone gunman, et cetera, et cetera, too,” he said. “But I think we’re going to find there was somebody else involved.” (emphasis mine)

Now you might suspect that a story about this bat-shit crazy religious extremeist who has threatened the life of the president has to come from The Onion (”Abortion Doctor’s Murder Sparks Waves Of Calm, Rational Discussion“) or maybe The Landover Baptist Church (”guaranteeing salvation since 1620″). Nope. This exposé appeared on the Associated Baptist Press website. Lends a certain credibility to the tale.

So, Secret Service, does this person openly threatening the life of the POTUS qualify for the same treatment we see you hand out to other terrorists who threaten our president in the name of their god, Allah?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

God says, “Quit worrying about global warming.”

0 comments

Posted on 29th March 2009 by Jack in politics

, , , ,

This is why the separation clause needs to be strictly enforced, and why Shimkus needs to be replaced.

Terrorism-Religion’s not to blame, it’s because we’re human

0 comments

Posted on 20th January 2009 by Jack in politics | society | theist misconceptions

, , , , ,

If terrorism were simply another human trait it would be much more common among all people.

True, all humans have the potential to be terrorists, but that potential requires a motivation. Motivation is what turns any human potential into human behavior. And the most powerful and effective motivator for most people is religion. Fanatic religious belief acts like a fuse on a bomb. No fuse, the device is inert. With a fuse the device has the potential to be deadly, light the fuse and that possibility becomes a near certainty. sp_terrorist

Religion is the fuse and the spark that lights the fuse is a fanatical belief that your god wants you to kill as many other people as possible. Christians do that, but generally in a rather inept way. Fanatical Christians are quite often more amusing than frightening. Fanatical Muslims on the other hand…

Oh, and worst of all? Those roving bands of fanatical atheists with their tracts and their bullhorns, trying to blow people’s minds. Dangerous lunatics.

US refuses to sign UN condemnation of anti-gay law

0 comments

Posted on 18th December 2008 by Jack in human rights | in the news | politics

, ,

Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.’s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to some of the declaration’s backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.rainbowflag

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States — despite its unwillingness to sign — condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.

More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians. The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to “the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts” such as pedophilia and incest.

The declaration also has been opposed by the Vatican, a stance which prompted a protest in Rome earlier this month.

The European nations backing the declaration waged their campaign in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Dutch foreign affairs minister, Maxime Verhagen, said countries which endorsed that 1948 document had no right to carve out exceptions based on religion or culture that allowed discrimination against gays.

“Human rights apply to all people in all places at all times,” he said. “I will not accept any excuse.”

(Source-Chicago Tribune)

<sarcasm>Now that we’ve found common ground with Muslims, our common intolerance and bigotry, perhaps relations between us will improve.</sarcasm>

Actions like this only serve to further remove us from our former role as the sole world superpower representing freedom and democracy. Our government seems determined to undermine our image in the world and put us in league with those whom we denounce as totalitarian and theocratic.

By refusing to sign non-binding resolutions like this, we put ourselves on the wrong side of this issue. We are siding with hatred and injustice. Is this what we want our country to stand for?

Wanted: Sense of Humor and Perspective

0 comments

Posted on 9th November 2008 by Jack in politics | re: theism | theist misconceptions

, ,

Heidi Klum, who dressed up as Hindu goddess Kali, who symbolises death and destruction, for her Halloween bash, has left the Hindu community in America fuming.

And now upset Hindus have asked Klum to make a public apology for posing as a sacred figure.

“Goddess Kali is highly revered in Hinduism and she is meant to be worshipped in temples and not to be used in clubs for publicity stunts or thrown around loosely for dramatic effects,” Contactmusic quoted Indo-American statesman Rajan Zed as saying.

He added: “Hindus welcome Hollywood and other entertainment industries to immerse themselves in Hinduism, but they should take it seriously and respectfully, and not just use the religion for decoration or to advance their selfish agenda.

“Casual flirting sometimes results in pillaging serious spiritual doctrines and revered symbols and hurting the devotees.”

Other than Zed, various Hindu leaders, including Jawahar L. Khurana of the Hindu Alliance of India, and Bhavna Shinde of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, have condemned Klum for posing as Goddess Kali.

They went to the extent of calling Klum’s act as “denigrating”. (Yahoo)

The Muslims are all heady now. Their religion is finally being noticed again after being relegated to the status of a 3rd or 4th rate religion for last few hundred years.

Yeah, they were something once. Muslim contributions to Mathematics, Astronomy, and Philosophy in the Middle Ages are well documented. Then they started putting more emphasis on religion and turned their backs on their own discoveries. Their religion became as irrelevant as their culture until Islam started being interpreted by clerics with political aspirations as well as the means to control their people’s minds.

But now they’re famous, everybody’s aware of Islam these days. And like many celebrities Islam is getting a little carried away with its new-found fame. It’s getting a little snooty, it’s taking itself a bit too seriously.

It’s not enough that Islam is now acknowledged as a major religion. Islam’s own teachings, as interpreted by modern (only about 1500 years out-of-date) clerics, demand that non-believers are not acceptable.

There’s a lot of similarity between Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. They both lack a sense of humor. Neither can laugh at themselves, they are humorless theologies.

They both operate under the misconception that respect can be demanded of everyone without even trying to earn it. They can conceive of no reason why everyone shouldn’t share their beliefs, so they see nothing wrong with forcing their beliefs on others.

Well, sorry guys, but not everyone buys it. Not Islam, not Christianity, not Scientology, none of you. All your posturing and demanding respect makes no impression on us. Your threats of eternal damnation or worse don’t intimidate us. We are not awed by your displays of wealth, influence and firepower.

Those of us blessed by genetics with a sense of humor take you no more seriously than we take ourselves. We are happy blasphemers. We defend ourselves from you with mockery and exposure.

Quit being such drama queens and join the human race. Get over yourselves. Grow up. You won’t get your way by throwing a tantrum.

(Note: I’ve had a few comments asking if I was confusing Islam with Hinduism. No, but I wasn’t completely clear in the transition from the article quoted and my commentary. The attitude of the Hindus was illustrative of the current attitude of many religious, especially Muslims and fundamental Christians. Everything in my commentary applies equally to Hinduism, though they aren’t as obnoxious and demanding as their theological cousins usually.)

Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job

0 comments

Posted on 4th November 2008 by Jack in politics | satire

, ,

It may be from The Onion, but that doesn’t mean it ain’t the truth.

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation’s broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, “It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can’t catch a break.”

Fox News bloggers reach new low, keep digging

0 comments

Posted on 25th October 2008 by Jack in media | on the web | politics

, , ,

James Pinkerton, a contributing writer to the Fox News blog The Fox Forum, has decided to try a new tactic in discrediting Obama. Instead of barely believable innuendo, he’s stooping to bat-shit insane fantasy.

In an article entitled “The Devil Is In the Details: Another Obama Connection You Ought to Know About” he shares his delusions with whoever reads this crap and takes it seriously:

Could Lucifer play a role in this presidential election? It may sound crazy, but one of the candidates in this race has publicly praised, even emulated, a writer-activist who himself paid tribute to Lucifer.  That’s right, Lucifer, also known as the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub—you get the idea.

Do you think that admiring a Lucifer-admirer would make a difference to some voters?

If you’ve never heard of this true fact—and most Americans obviously haven’t—well, that might help to explain why John McCain is behind in the polls.

OK, you might be asking, where is this Lucifer stuff coming from? It comes from a man named Saul Alinsky, who devoted his life to left-wing agitation in Chicago.  He also wrote two seminal books, “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals,” still regarded as key how-to manuals for left-wing activists.

But Alinsky was more than just a leftist; he was a genuine out-there crazy, someone who loved to shock and stun, just for the helluvit. And so in the first edition of “Rules for Radicals,” published in 1971, he offered this astounding dedication: “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgement of the very first radical, from all our legends, mythology, and history … the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

This dedication is no secret.  David Freddoso wrote about it in his book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate;  and the inimitable Ann Coulter noted it, too, just last month.

I won’t subject you to the full article, I’m sure you value your mental health. If you’re interested and fully inoculated against rampant stupidity , follow the links for the full “story”. He got one thing right. Ann Coulter is indeed inimitable. No one else would willingly sacrifice their credibility and expose their ignorance by trying to imitate her.

I’m not even sure why anyone at Fox is still defending McCain’s candidacy. After all, Fox News Executive Vice President John Moody already posted that if the Ashley Todd story was a hoax, McCain’s candidacy was over. The fat lady has sung.

Hanged for being a Christian in Iran

0 comments

Posted on 12th October 2008 by Jack in politics | re: theism | society

, , ,

Islamic law isn’t based on a single interpretation of the Qur’an. “Islamic jurisprudence is not codified law: it is a series of formulations developed across generations by scholars and clerics. Depending on the Islamic school or historical era, these formulations can differ and even contradict each other.” (from the following article)

Iran follows a form of Islam that’s perhaps the most brutal and disgusting of any Muslim country. In 2005 two Iranian teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari (16) and Ayaz Marhoni (18), were both sentenced to death for what some human rights groups claimed was “consensual gay sex”. And now they are endorsing the killing of Christians and others they identify as apostates.

Eighteen years ago, Rashin Soodmand’s father was hanged in Iran for converting to Christianity. Now her brother is in a Mashad jail, and expects to be executed under new religious laws brought in this summer.

A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled “Islamic Penal Code”, which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against.

Imposing the death penalty for changing religion blatantly violates one of the most fundamental of all human rights. The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the European Convention of Human Rights. It is even enshrined as Article 23 of Iran’s own constitution, which states that no one may be molested simply for his beliefs.

And yet few politicians or clerics in Iran see any contradiction between a law mandating the death penalty for changing religion and Iran’s constitution. There has been no public protest in Iran against it.

For one woman living in London, however, the Iranian parliamentary vote cannot be brushed aside. Rashin Soodmand is a 29-year-old Iranian Christian. Her father, Hossein Soodmand, was the last man to be executed in Iran for apostasy, the “crime” of abandoning one’s religion. He had converted from Islam to Christianity in 1960, when he was 13 years old. Thirty years later, he was hanged by the Iranian authorities for that decision.

Today, Rashin’s brother, Ramtin, is also held in a prison cell in Mashad, Iran’s holiest city. He was arrested on August 21. He has not been charged but he is a Christian. And Rashin fears that, just as her father was the last man to be executed for apostasy in Iran, her brother may become one of the first to be killed under Iran’s new law.

Not surprisingly, Rashin is desperately worried. “I am terribly anxious about him,” she explains. “Even though my brother is not an apostate, because he has never been a Muslim – my father raised us all as Christians – I don’t think he is safe. They assume that if you are Iranian, you must be Muslim.”

But six months later, the police came back and took her father away again. This time, they offered him a choice: he could denounce his Christian faith, and the church in which he was a pastor – or he would be killed. “Of course, my father refused to give up his faith,” Rashid recalls proudly. “He could not renounce his God. His belief in Christ was his life – it was his deepest conviction.” So two weeks later, Hossein Soodmand was taken by guards to the prison gallows and hanged.

Life for Rashin, her siblings and her mother became extremely difficult. Some Muslims are extremely hostile to people of any other religion, never mind to those who they consider apostates: Ayatollah Khomeini declared that “non-Muslims are impure”, insisting that for Muslims to wash the clothes of non-Muslims, or to eat food with non-Muslims, or even to use utensils touched by non-Muslims, would spoil their purity.

“After the revolution of 1979, Iran’s rulers wanted to turn Iran into an Islamic state, and to abolish the secular laws of the Shah,” explains Alexa Papadouris of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a human rights organisation that specialises in freedom of religion. “So the clerics instituted a mandate for judges presiding over criminal cases: if the existing penal code did not include legislation on whether a certain kind of behaviour is an offence, then the judges should refer to traditional Islamic jurisprudence.” In other words: sharia law.

There is another factor: President Ahmadinejad. “The President didn’t initiate the law mandating the death penalty for apostates,” says Papadouris, “but he has been lobbying for it. It is an effective form of playing populist politics. The Iranian economy is doing very badly, and the country is in a mess: Ahmadinejad may be calculating that he can gain support, and deflect attention from Iran’s problems, by persecuting apostates.”

The new law is not yet in force in Iran: it requires another vote in parliament, and then the signature of the Ayatollah. But that could happen within a matter of weeks. “Or,” says Papadouris, “it could conceivably be allowed to drop, were there a powerful enough international outcry”. (Source – The Telegraph)

As a non-religious humanist I denounce the killing of anyone for their religious beliefs. It’s not only inhumane but inefficient. You can’t kill a viewpoint.

It’s not only humanists who should be loudly opposing this violation of basic human rights. Christians and those of other, non-Islamic religions should be protesting this as well.

Islam will never be viewed by Western, may I say humane, societies as a peaceful and loving religion until these crimes against humanity have been forever renounced and abandoned.

Christian ministers – breakin’ the law

0 comments

Posted on 28th September 2008 by Jack in politics | society

, ,

So much for rendering unto Caesar. A few Christian ministers feel they have the right to break the law and endorse McCain from the pulpit. At risk is their tax-exempt status.

These ministers obviously believe their desire to violate the separation clause and attempt to influence their parishioner’s choice of presidential candidate is more important than obedience of the law. They should then be willing to accept the punishment for that violation, the loss of their tax-exempt status. Since Christians enjoy feeling persecuted (in a country where the majority of the population calls themselves Christian) I should expect them to rejoice in this removal of their status. Every time their church has to pay taxes on income and property, they can beat their chests and cry about how put-upon they are. Time to break out the hairshirts, kids.



Thanks to the Atheist Media Blog for a link to the video.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The world would go to hell if gods didn’t exist. (Democracy requires god.)

0 comments

Posted on 14th August 2008 by Jack in history/archeology | politics

, ,

Consider that the majority of humanity has believed in some god or another for nearly as far back as we can trace societies. Consider the fact that throughout that same length of time man has been killing man, robbing, raping, abusing, hating, warring, denigrating, assaulting and refusing to hold the elevator door for their fellow human beings. You’ll have a hard time convincing me that a world without a belief in gods could be worse. At the worst it wouldn’t be any different than our world is now. There’s no reason to believe it couldn’t even be an improvement.

The only way democracy and religion are connected is that they are both ideals. In their purest form they both establish inhuman standards. We all do that to some degree. Many of us plan our day down to the minute. I dare say that in most cases our ideal schedule has suffered a few adjustments due to reality. The ideals, democracy and religion, likewise get adjusted and tweaked to accommodate our humanity. Absolute morals create a “guilt” factor to decision making, meaning we’ll most likely make social and political decisions based on emotion (feeling or avoiding guilt) rather than reason.

UA-661665-3