Category Archives: Religion

Religion

Repulsiveness

3 Comments

I’d like to be quite clear straight up, I loath Danny Nalliah and especially loath his god (and by that I mean his interpretation of god).  This is a man who claimed that Victoria decriminalising abortion resulted in the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 that killed 173 people and wounded 414, because he had a dream about fire and brimstone.

Now he’s come out saying that the floods in Queensland, specifically Brisbane, are the result of our former Prime Minister (now Foreign Minister), Kevin Rudd, being mean to Israel (don’t read the comments on that piece unless you’re prepared for a dose of scary).  Apparently asking Israel to to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open all its nuclear facilities to UN inspectors is mean, and Australia/Queensland/Rudd needed smiting as a result.

I can’t (and even when I was Catholic struggled really hard with this) worship or believe in a god that would happily kill (or make miserable) hundreds or thousands of people because of something that someone else did (or even that they did).  I don’t even get how that makes sense.  I never liked the whole fire and brimstone methods used by some ministers and hate the rhetoric of fear (which is something that Nalliah uses all the time).

That Fleming Gent posted a comment on Nalliah’s press release/blog post/thing and unsurprisingly that comment was not published, because it disagreed with the message that Nalliah was pushing.  PZ Myers also had some good commentary on Nalliah:

Kevin Rudd has been insufficiently zealous in his support for Israel, and Rudd is originally from Queensland, so God is making it rain great buckets in Queensland to send him a message.

It’s a rather opaque message, O Lord, and it seems to be causing far more suffering to other people, rather than Rudd. Wouldn’t it have been far more effective and efficient if, say, the Lord God Almighty made the plumbing in Rudd’s upstairs bathroom overflow? I should think it far more persuasive that something mysterious and ominous was going on if every time Rudd flushed, he ended up with a gusher of feces and urine on his shoes. Taking aim at the whole of Queensland is just a bit sloppy.

I also don’t understand, if god is loving, forgiving and understanding, why ordinary, regular sinners are being punished for their representative’s alleged sins (I refer to Queensland (and bits of NSW and Victoria) for Rudd and Victoria for the decriminalisation of abortion).  That doesn’t make any sense to me, and I’d hope it doesn’t make much sense to those Christians who actually critically think about things.

And then, Nalliah and his “church” took credit for the Brisbane flood not peaking as high as it did, because they prayed for Queensland, filling the gap between Rudd’s actions and god’s wrath… or something.  Seriously, they gathered on the steps of the Victorian Parliament (because they’d get publicity there) and prayed loudly and publicly (you know, something Jesus recommended against):

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. Matthew 6:5 (NIV)

Prayers such as Nalliah’s are great thing, it’s not like you can test them scientifically, and discover whether or not the prayers had any effect (they didn’t), and when things turn out well you can say that your prayers had the right effect, and if things turn out badly, you can say it was clearly god’s will, and that you tried.  It’s a win-win situation and really does nothing for anyone.  It’s not like someone, who claims that god speaks to them, would ever admit that their prayers were not heard.

I honestly would like Nalliah and his Ministry to stop receiving publicity, to go away and be on the fringe where they belong.  I’d love Nalliah to stop being so afraid and infecting others with his fear.  I’d love him to recant his hateful and prideful ways and to be humble and listen to the stories of those he currently considers sinful and learn that there is more than black and white in the world.  I’d love him to actually love, unconditionally as Christians are called to love, and to stop judging as he should really know better.

Related Posts:

Religion

Credibility? He no longer has some

3 Comments

I’m not claiming that the Catholic Pope actually ever had any credibility with me, but I know he does with some Catholics (still), and I wonder how they can let his latest two foot in mouth statements through without suggesting that he be sacked.  It would be nice if the Catholic Church was a democratic institution wouldn’t it… let me enjoy that vision for a moment…. mmmm… ok, sadly back to reality.

Ok, first stupid statement was published before Christmas, and I know I’m late to the blogging party with this one, but I thought I’d blog on it anyway, as well as link to already fantastic commentary on his ludicrous claims.  This claim being that “paedophilia wasn’t considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.”  All I can think, when I read something like that is, “WTF?  Have you no idea about the world you move in?”

Dispatches from the Culture Wars has an excellent deconstruction of the claims made by the Pope, as does Pharyngula here and here.

Continue reading Credibility? He no longer has some →

Related Posts:

Religion

A little bit of respect please

3 Comments

A dear friend, who is a devout Baptist, sent my husband and I a Christmas card this year.  He’s recently found out that we’re now atheists, both queer and probably that we’re also polyamorous.  This was probably a bit of a shock to his system, but I thought that the inclusions of the following in his Christmas card was not necessary:

He hasn’t forgotten you and neither have we

and

“If there is no God we must conclude that we live in a randomly generated mechanical universe in which moral judgements are merely a matter of preference and a moral objection to the holocaust has the same weight and validity as a dislike for lemon cheesecake”

The last quote is unattributed, so I don’t know if it was something that he wrote, or something that he quoted and failed to attribute.  I’ve done a quick google search and am unable to find the source of the quote, so if you do know, tell me and I’ll attribute the quote accordingly.

And then today my husband’s guest post received a comment from David which is kinda summed up (in essence at least) in the quote provided by my dear friend.  I want to point out to Christians, and believers in any other faith traditions, that this kinda behaviour is really rude.

Continue reading A little bit of respect please →

Related Posts:

Guest Post, Identity, Religion

Guest post: The genesis of my atheism

8 Comments

Hello everyone, my name is James. My wife Rebecca has kindly allowed me to write a guest post on her blog, discussing the end of my Catholic faith and the birth of my atheism. My usual writing topic is video games (here and here) so when I wrote a long email about atheism and Rebecca suggested I put it online, I did not have an appropriate channel through which to share it. This is why she gave me permission to put it on this blog as her first ever guest post. Thanks Rebecca!

– = –

As I showered this morning, I was thinking about the genesis of my atheism.

The process of losing my faith completely was a long, gradual one. At 21 I was a devout Catholic – anti-abortion, homophobic, and everything else that goes along with it. A couple of years ago, around the age of 34, I was surprised by my sudden realisation that a mostly unnoticed process of transition was complete and I was indeed an atheist.

I don’t remember the specific circumstances, but I will filling in some kind of survey or a form (the last census, perhaps?) and I was asked for my religion. Without even thinking about it, I ticked the box marked “atheist”. I then stared at the choice I had made, a little stunned. “I’m an atheist now!” I thought, shocked by the undeniable truth of it. “When did that happen?”

In my reminiscences this morning, I realised that there had been a little termite in the timber of my religious faith for almost two decades, nibbling away invisibly, until one day I found that the once solid structure had been replaced with a hollow shell. That termite was a single powerful idea that I never put into words until this morning.

In essence, that idea is this: God is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-everything-else, and he exists outside our human perception of time. All times are now to God, and all places are in his presence. This means that when he was a spirit floating over the water before the world began (if you subscribe to biblical literalism) he was aware of everything that was to come.

God made humanity and the world and everything in it, already knowing that Adam and Eve would sin, the human race would fall into damnation, that he would have to sacrifice his own son (technically himself!) to save humanity from a punishment of his own devising, and that this salvation would be scattershot at best, saving only a fraction of the people of the world.

God made humanity and the world and everything in it already knowing that the future would hold the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, the Black Death, two World Wars, the Jonestown massacre, and countless everyday atrocities and horrors.

God made humanity and the world and everything in it already knowing that human beings would suffer a multitude of cancers, blindness, brain tumours, strokes, heart attacks, and birth defects ranging from crippling to fatal.

God made humanity and the world and everything in it already knowing that human beings would persecute each other based on features outside their control, that in fact God himself had built into them – the colour of their skin, the place where they were born, the religion of their parents, the sex or gender of their bodies, the sexual orientation built into their brains, and any of the other multitudes of ways in which we make our sisters and brothers into “the other”.

This supposedly supreme being, with the power to make every whim become truth and the ability to foresee every consequence of every action before he has even begun to perform it, could literally have made any world at all. Physics, chemistry, biology, and even logic and causality are subject to the will of the Judeo-Christian God, and any world we can imagine would be within his ability to create.

Yet this is the world he made, with its wars and diseases and injustices without end.

Frankly, any God that believes that this world is the best of all possible worlds is must incompetent, evil, or (and this seems to be the most likely option) simply non-existent.

Without even realising I had been debating silently with myself, I had reached the conclusion that the cruelty of the world we live in is a reflection of its chaotic, unguided development, and the occasional horrific behaviour of my own species is psychological residue of its evolution in a brutal, uncompromising, and competitive environment.

I quote Marcus Cole from the great SF show Babylon 5:

“I used to think that it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn’t it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.”

How terrible a place would the world be if all of this horror was planned? If some invisible deity were wilfully causing murder and death and famine and drought because it aided in the completion of some opaque plan that would only reach fruition in some unhinted future?

No, like Marcus I find randomness far more plausible and comforting that a murderous and vengeful man in the sky who blames me for the very faults he built into me, like Geppetto casting Pinnochio into a bonfire as punishment for his own flawed workmanship.

The wonderful folk musician Penelope Swales said well in her song Monkey Comfort:

Can you see, my friends, why I don’t find my insignificance frightening? Oh, no! I find it comforting. It steadies me. /
When I’m hounded by fear, grief or loss, frightened by my death or yours it grants me some serenity. /
Coz I’m knowing that I will die and take my place in eternity. Ah, just one more monkey that lived on a rock where 10 trillion monkeys lived. /
No more important, nor less essential, than any other snake, bear, insect, or monosteria /
And when I go, it’ll be a compliment to me if some other monkeys grieve.

Related Posts:

Religion

Losing faith

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Once upon a time I was a relatively devout Catholic, it wasn’t even that long ago that I stopped being a Catholic and lost my faith completely.  It wasn’t a lightning bolt moment, waking up in the night and thinking, “OMG, I’m an atheist”, it was a gradual thing that happened quietly and peacefully in my head (thankfully I didn’t stress about it one way or the other overly).

The reason that this post has suddenly become relevant is that I’m reading “Eternal Life: A New Vision: Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell” by John Shelby Spong (a retired Episcopalian (Anglican) Bishop from the USA).  It is an interesting book, the first half makes perfect sense to me as Spong deconstructs religion and declares that god is dead.  The next section was far harder to comprehend where he attempted to argue that god is within each of us and that by knowing ourselves we know god, and that all the mystics are pretty much right.  Then he talks about the Jesus story through this lens and how this has affected his personal journey.

I have a few problems with the book which are fairly easy to summarise.

Self consciousness

Spong, in his recounting of evolution and why religions were formed, uses self consciousness as the basis for what separates humans from animals.  The fact that humans are aware of death and plan for the future, makes us different from animals he argues, and the corresponding fear of the unknown and death began the rise of religion in early human history as a form of security.

That may all be true, but there are animals which are aware of death and who can plan for the future, two key parts of what Spong says separates humans and animals.  Elephants are very aware of the death of members of their herd, and mourn when one dies, knowing at the same time that they must keep moving to get to food or water to continue the survival of the herd.  Dogs, apes and some monkeys are also aware of death, though less good at the planning for the future bit.  Dolphins and whales would appear to be conscious of death and plan for the future also.

Christianity

I know that Spong is an Episcopalian Bishop and has grown up in the Christian traditions, however I felt that in his writing, although he acknowledged other religions, returned to Christianity as the one true religion.  He hasn’t stated it directly, but clearly to be involved in a religion means that the other religions are wrong or incorrect in some fashion (wrong god/s, wrong worshipping practice/s, wrong dietary requirement/s, wrong clothing, etc).  Little was done to address any other religion’s views on life after death, to look at mysticism in other religions, to even compare the fact that the Jesus story appears in many other religions, and that there appears to be little historical proof to support Jesus’s existence. Ultimately this reinforces the privileged position that Christianity holds in Western nations.  His use of “religion” to generally also only describe Christianity also doesn’t help.

Belief and non-belief

The biggest issue I have with the book is that Spong states that the death of old-school religion (that currently practised by most Christians around the world), is just the stepping stone through to enlightenment and self-knowledge.  It did feel, while reading this part of the book, that those of us who state that there is no god, are lesser beings, as Spong states that those who have moved into new belief are effectively superior (though he probably means superior to traditional Christians).  In my opinion, stating that god is dead should be the end, and enlightenment is where you step free from the need to have any religion.

Currently I haven’t finished his book, so I’m not 100% sure what the end result is going to be in regards to what he believes that faith is going to be like.  The first third to half the book is an excellent argument as to why people should not believe in any god/s.  It details a lot of issues and questions I thought my way through when I started losing my faith, such as:

  • Why would a loving, all seeing, all present deity allow suffering and pain in the world (particularly in big environmental disasters)?
  • Why must we cajole and praise a deity in order to have our prayers answered? (Much like whining children getting what they want)
  • Why are there poor and homeless people, and why aren’t their prayers being answered?
  • Why must people who do not believe, but who live a good life, go to hell?
  • Why are the traditions/rules of this religious institution telling me that X is good and Y is bad, when both X and Y are neutral?
  • What do you mean women are lesser creatures?
  • If there are so many different religions, how can I know which one/s are actually correct?
  • If there was a god, surely there would only be one religion.

The standard responses to suffering, pain and misfortune in the world by religious leaders: they deserved it; it is god’s will; karma; etc, are all non-answers really.  No one deserves to have themselves or their family killed in a monsoon/earthquake/bombing/train crash/bushfire/flood, and any god who willed that such a thing should happen, is not a god that I could possibly respect or worship.

One last note.  Whenever I write about religion, it will typically be about Christianity because that is the religion I grew up in.  I will not spend time critiquing other religions because I know little about them.

ADDENDUM:  I realised over lunch that I haven’t said all I want to say on this topic, and that there are some very good excerpts from Spong’s book which might also help me get to the other bit of the point I was attempting to make.    Basically, there will be another post on this topic when I have time.  The worst bit about writing when busy, is that I tend to forget the points I had neatly ordered in my head.

Related Posts:

Feminism, Religion, sexism

Rampant sexism in Friday’s MX (10 September 2010)

Colour me surprised and everything… who thought I’d find rampant sexism and plain bad journalism in the Herald Sun’s tabloid afternoon news paper… but I did and I thought, why not blog about it with my OODLES of spare time (hah!).  For what it is worth, one of their journalists wrote an opinion piece dismissing the article discussing gender roles being linked to biology (thank you so much Amelia Grevis-James).

So onto the articles which upset me. I’ll find equivalent links to either news.com.au articles on the same topic, or other relevant news sources as I discuss each article that offended me.

Sin? Your biology made you do it  (Maria Bervanakis)

This article is so NOT newsworthy that it was not run by news.com.au nor any other actual news source (I cannot find it on google news at all).  Instead, the best source I can find for it is Newswise from August this year.  Maria tells us that:

A study by a church-backed uni found that biology has a major role in sinful behaviour.

US Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Matthew Stanford, of the Baylor University in Texas, examined years of research into people that commit the seven deadly sins and discovered their actions could be explained by their physical make-up.

What the article in the MX doesn’t say, which is reported in Newswise, is that Professor Stanford himself is religiously aligned, which is evident in the use of “sin” if you think about it.  The Newswire also doesn’t report of Professor Stanford actually has any qualifications in biology other than his qualifications in Neuroscience, and indeed where he obtained the qualifications he holds.

Newswire reports:

Stanford said all of the behaviors outlined in the book violate, in some way, the creative order that God has established, yet something biologically occurs in us that causes the behavior. However, biology is not destiny, Stanford said, and when we fully understand the effects of sin on our physical bodies, it becomes clear that “broken biology” can never be used as an excuse for sinful behavior.

As Stanford studied the data, he also noticed that, on average, men and women sin differently. Stanford said men tend to be outwardly manifested and focused on obtaining immediate gratification like aggression or adultery. The sins of women, on the other hand, tend to be more inwardly focused and concern on relational status, privilege or position like envy or pride.

“Because God created men and women physically different, it is understandable that the effect of original sin on our bodies and minds varies between the sexes,” Stanford said. “This is not to say that men and women differ in their degree of sinfulness, but simply that they sin in different ways. Men and women are equally sinful and sin is equally destructive in both.”

Each of these paragraphs should be addressed, although briefly because I don’t want to give this whackjob more time than he’s already had.

  1. Professor Stanford has published a book.  I haven’t read it, I’m not going to read it, and quite frankly am not interested in reading a book regarding what someone views as “sin” when I don’t share his religion.  To suggest that sin has any “effects on our physical bodies” without actually being clearer and providing examples (yes I know this is a summary report) and then saying that “‘broken biology’ can never be used as an excuse for sinful behaviour” comes across more as homosexuality is a sin and even if being gay is biological it is still a sin and you can control your behaviour.
  2. Look, men and women are different so they act differently and sin differently.  Quite frankly Professor Stanford, go fuck yourself and attend some Feminism 101 before ever saying such crap again.
  3. Look sinfulness is destructive (though it all depends on what you view as wrongful behaviour – according to Prof Stanford I’m a terrible sinner and would never get to heaven) and it impacts on women and men differently because they are different.  Seriously Professor Stanford, go and meet some actual real people and find out how similar (apart from societal conditioning) men and women actually are.

Wife’s pay can cost a marriage (unattributed)

This article was also run The Times of India, I can find no other news source in Australia that ran this piece.

Apparently, if a woman in a heterosexual relationship out-earns her male partner, that relationship breaking up is far more likely than in situations where a woman under earns her male partner. From MX:

The finding is the result of a 25-year study of more than 2500 marriages and follows other research showing that house-husbands are prone to affairs.

The US researchers found that women who consistently made more money than their husbands were up to 38 per cent more likely to divorce than others.

Jay Teachman, of Western Washington University, said possible reasons for the statistic were that financial independence makes it easier for women to escape an unhappy marriage, and dented egos – of both sexes.

For a happy marriage, Teachman recommends a 60/40 split in income, with the husband being the higher earner.

Thank you Mr Teachman for suggesting that women continue to earn less money than men and therefore have less money as a safety net to retire on.  Thank you Mr Teachman for proposing that instead of finding a way to solve the problem you’ve identified by having society treat each partner’s contribution to the relationship as valid, that women just take lower paying jobs.  And you know what lower paying jobs typically are Mr Teachman?  Would you do them?

This issue has been covered repeatedly, even on news.com.au.  So here are some good links so I don’t have to reinvent the wheel, you can just read it yourself.  🙂

So it’d be nice Mr Teachman if you actually think beyond “let’s make the wimmenz earnz less” and into whether or not those relationships should have been saved, what societal changes need to be made so that if women out-earn men then nothing negative happens.

Payback for hubby theft (unattributed)

Matching article at the Vancouver Sun.

Now… last I checked if you were going to have an affair with someone, that other person had to be willing – otherwise we’re entering the realm of unconsensual behaviour – and the MX and the Vancouver Sun certainly do not suggest there was any question of consent.  The MX used terms like “theft” and “stolen” in this article, which implies that the husband in this case was an automaton and had no part to play in the affair he clearly was involved in.  So yes, it takes two to tango here and suggesting otherwise removes agency from the now ex-husband and makes him completely blameless.  I note that the Vancouver Sun did not use either “theft” or “stolen”.

I’m not going to debate the strange law that North Carolina has on it’s books here right now.

So thank you MX for continuing the sexism that is prevalent in the world right now.  You had a great opportunity to dispel sexism and make the world a better place, but no you decided to wander the easy path and screw women over again.  I appreciate it, I really do.

Related Posts:

Feminism, Religion

Christianity and women and sex

This is going to be a really short post, but I have to share it after finding this blog post on the internets.  I don’t know who Mark Gungor actually is, apart from someone who claims some authority on Christian marriage and relationships… but after reading the blog post linked to above, I think he needs to start all over again, perhaps with proper education about relationships and statutory laws.

Relevant annoying and icky bits from his blog are below:

I’ll dispel the myth regarding the requirement of a huge emotional connection. Women, more often than men, get hung up on this one and think they have to have all these warm and fuzzy emotions to feel like they can get physical with their husbands. I’m not saying that you always have sex with no emotion or connection–that would not be a healthy relationship. But what I am saying is that sometimes sex can just be sex.

…

As I said, sometimes sex is just sex; it’s what you do when you are married. Just like cleaning the toilet is what you do to keep your house clean…and I bet you don’t have this great desire or huge emotional connection to scrubbing the porcelain! You do it because it needs to be done and that’s the way it is with married sex… it does need to be done! It’s the glue that God gave us to bond us to one another. The bible is very clear that it is your responsibility as a spouse.

Understand that there is no need for all this desire and emotion nonsense. Don’t feel badly if you aren’t overwhelmed by all the over-the-moon feelings and passion ahead of time. There is nothing wrong with you. If you can enjoy sex once you start and have a good time, that’s all that matters. Just break the mindset that you won’t do it unless you feel like it. Let not your hearts be troubled. Just enjoy the deal without all the fuss and worry over the desire and emotion. It’s actually a trap, that if you aren’t careful, you can get caught in and you, your spouse and your relationship will suffer. (Emphasis in original)

Some of the comments on this thread are horrifying.  One woman says she was sexually abused before her marriage and after marriage her husband was not affectionate and was resentful of the healing she had to do from the assault.  She claims that often sex was unemotional and she relived the sexual abuse, and had she known that she could have just been unfeeling about the whole thing, then it would have been ok.  I really didn’t know what to do when I read this comment apart from bang my head against the desk.

A lone atheist who has found the blog through a friend takes on almost all the Christian commenters and the author herself.  She calls out the rape apology present by clearly arguing that such expectations of “having sex when you don’t want to” apply only to women and actually is rape, which is illegal.  She discusses the difference between subservience and equality, and quotes the bible back at those who quote it to her, in good productive ways.  The comments that she participates in are AWESOME.  I’d suggest reading them just for what she’s written.

But this whole post is a big concern – apart from the fact that a marriage counsellor of some description is telling people to just lie back and think of … well something – because it’s aim is at women.  You would never see a man being told to just have sex with someone, even if they don’t want to, because its far harder to fake an erection.

The Christian commentators and author keep returning to the bible, and to their understanding of how relationships should work based on the bible, which is a bad place to start methinks.  Their thinking is narrow minded and flawed and because Christianity is inherently misogynistic, their attitudes towards women are terrible (and sadly so are the attitudes of some of the female commentators towards themselves), and the idea of equality of women in a relationship isn’t really considered.

Some of the male commentators said they liked to do things for their wives because it made their wives happy, but there was very little discussion about how they have sex with their wives when they don’t want to – because that isn’t going to happen.

There is a lot wrong with Christianity and women in Christianity and I could blog at length about it, but for now, I’m just going to headdesk at this post some more and then go to bed.

Related Posts:

politics, Religion

Tony Abbott – shut the f**k up

Tony Abbott, our delightful opposition leader, stated recently what Jesus would say and do regarding asylum seekers in Australia.  It showed yet again that Abbott’s Catholic beliefs are a cover for his arch-Conservative views and that he really has no idea what he’s talking about.  As a lapsed and possibly now agnostic Catholic, I know more about the bible than Abbot appears to.

Here is what he said recently, which really makes me wish he’d just stop talking and embarrassing the rest of us:

“Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone,” Mr Abbott said on ABC television’s Q&A program, according to the Herald Sun.

“Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it’s not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia.”

Mr Abbott was quizzed extensively on his criticisms of the Rudd Government’s softening of Australia’s border protection policies and how that criticism squared with his own strong Catholic faith.

Asked what Jesus would do on the issue of asylum-seekers, he replied: “Don’t forget, Jesus drove the traders from the temple as well.”

“This idea that Jesus would say to every person who wanted to come to Australia, ‘Fine, the door’s open’, I just don’t think is necessarily right,” Mr Abbott said.

“(But) let’s not verbal Jesus, he is not here to defend himself.”

Ok, now lets look at what Jesus is actually attributed as saying on such issues:

Matthew 7: 1 – 5

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

So Abbott, don’t judge others because you do not have the authority to do so.

Matthew 19:14

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

John 13:34

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

Both of these quotes would suggest that a welcoming and loving heart are the call of the day and not one that would willingly exclude others, whether it be from entering a country or seeking asylum.

And as far as Jesus driving people from the temple goes, the story is as follows:

Matthew 21: 12 – 13

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, ” ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.'”

Which has nothing to do with keeping asylum seekers from seeking asylum in Australia or any other country they can make it to and choose to seek asylum in.  Jesus spoke of befriending outcasts, the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 and, Zacchaeus the tax collector in Luke 19:1-2.  He healed Lepers (Luke 17:11-19) and others with diseases and disabilities.  He taught about humbleness and acceptance of others.  He is not the man that Tony Abbott keeps thinking he is.  And on a final note, a quote from Luke 18:9-14 that Tony Abbott needs to consider:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Related Posts:

Feminism, Religion

More rabid ignorance

I’m going to join the bandwagon of Hoydon About Town, FWD/Forward and Pharyngula and discuss the awful statements made by US Republican State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas.

As PZ suggested, I wrote directly to Bob Marshall and told him off in no uncertain terms (well as much as I tell anyone off), and thought at the time that perhaps I should blog about what I was saying, and then got distracted writing my other blog post.

Here are the comments that everyone is rightly objecting to:

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.

“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

After asking if he had any evidence to back up his first statement (which I’m 100% sure he doesn’t), I made the following points to Bob Marshall:

How could the god of love, forgiveness and compassion (the one I was taught about at school), punish children for their mother’s sins.  How could this Judeo-Christian god be so full of vengeance and hate towards his people?

What happens to those mothers who foetus/babies die of natural causes, either still birth or miscarried?  Are those mothers also punished by god or nature because their first born child was not “dedicated to the Lord”?

What about those who don’t believe in a Judeo-Christian god?  How are these arguments even remotely relevant to them?

Why can’t he and the rest of his posse, trust that women are capable of acting morally and capable of making their own decisions?  Does he honestly think that organisations like Planned Parenthood solicit abortions?  In addition to that, what business is of his whether someone does or does not get an abortion.  I remember from my bible days, that Jesus told everyone to stop judging others, and that’s what Bob is doing here… calling judgement on women who have abortions.

I also asked him what would he believe would happen in my case given I had to have an abortion or die when I had an ectopic pregnancy.  I found out I was pregnant the same time I was in the process of beginning to die.  I chose to live because I had that choice.  Is Bob and his posse trying to take that option away from women?

In the end I told Bob he needed to chill and relax, the world will look after itself and he’s not doing himself  (or anyone else) any favours by stressing over such things.

Of course he will never see my message to him as many other Pharyngula readers would have also contacted him expressing their displeasure at his inflammatory and terrible thoughts.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
LGBTIQ, Religion

The Gay Agenda!!!eleventy!!

From god hates protestors (http://godhatesprotesters.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/the-gay-agenda/)
From: god hates protesters

Every time I hear about “the gay agenda” I want to scream.  My father-in-law, when I have to spend time with him, will often wax lyrical on this topic, particularly about how gay people are trying to convert others to being gay.

I’m not 100% sure why I woke up this morning thinking about how stupid the whole “gay agenda” and “gay conversion” thing is, but I did, and so I’m going to talk about it for a bit.

I was talking to my girlfriend the other day about the “traditional Desi dyke” and how single Desi dykes are scary because they’re out to convert the innocent straight girls.  Her comment was that this really showed a lack of understanding about heterosexuality.  That’s been at the back of my mind for the past few days, as well as the other crap that is generally percolating in my head at any given moment.

To suggest that gay, lesbian or bisexual people are out to convert people or that they have some sort of agenda indicates that those saying this believe that to be gay, lesbian or bisexual is just a choice, and that the choice is so attractive that people have to be warned against it by religion and other forms of societal disapproval.

Because let’s face it, being a second class citizen in Australia, not having the same rights as your straight brothers and sisters, is a very attractive choice.  Not being able to marry, adopt children from overseas, obtain reproductive assistance (in some states) and the like is so very attractive, clearly I must rush now and divorce my husband and enter a lesbian relationship.  In the US it is even worse.  Gay, lesbian and bisexual people can have access to their partners denied in hospital, face discrimination in the workplace, are unable to bring their non-US partners back with them to the US, etc.  Why would people choose to do this?  Because, as many lesbian, gay and bisexual people state, as science has begun to back up, and as society is actually leaning towards… there is no choice.  You are gay, lesbian or bisexual… you can’t change that and you should have the freedom to be yourself just like all those straight people do.

I do love the idea as well that the gay, lesbian and bisexual communities, made up of disparate people with different ideas, wants and needs apparently has some “agenda” that threatens all the straight people.  What agenda?  The agenda that they want to be treated like everyone else?  The agenda that they might want to marry their life partners like their straight cousins can?

Conservative Christians say that gay, lesbian or bisexual people marrying will ruin the sanctity of marriage, and that since god (who the gay, lesbian or bisexual people may or may not believe in) stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that is how it has always been done, we can’t possibly change things now… like how we couldn’t change slavery or the role of women.  Its not like marriage is “sacred” these days with the ability to marry complete strangers as long as each are man or woman, or beating your new bride and being arrested twice on your wedding night, or  the ability to divorce and remarry.

I think it is far more accurate to say that there is a religious straight agenda.  They’re the ones who claim that there is some sort of “gay agenda” and are the loudest at condemning gays, lesbians and bisexuals who want to marry their same sex partner or who want equal rights.  They’re the ones who claim that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is a choice and that you can be “converted” back to being straight.  Of course, they’re wrong.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts