there is no doubt in it

greta christina's open letter to concerned believers

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:40:33 -0700

It is difficult to avoid the observation that, whenever believers give advice to atheists on how to run our movement, it is always in the direction of telling us to be more quiet, to tone it down, to be less confrontational and less visible. I have yet to see a believer advise the atheist movement to speak up more loudly and more passionately; to make our arguments more compelling and more unanswerable; to get in people's faces more about delicate and thorny issues that they don't want to think about; to not be afraid of offending people if we think we're right. I have received a great deal of advice from believers on how atheists should run our movement... and it is always, always, always in the direction of politely suggesting that we shut up.

More at http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-concerned-believers.html

Permalink | Leave a comment »

is islam a hate crime?

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:26:30 -0700

Permalink | Leave a comment »

science can answer moral questions

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:11:06 -0700

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The Internet - Where religion goes to die

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:17:00 -0700

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Women's Day a Communist plot? Oh, wait I mean Capitalist. No, I mean Zionist!

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:45:59 -0800

The article can be found here, but I don't recommend going there because the website is damned slow. The author is, I believe, a popular blogger who is a member of PAS, the Malaysian Islamic Party. Proof that religion rots the brain?

(TERJEMAHAN: 1932 Poster Soviet yang bermaksud: 8 March adalah hari pemberontakan oleh wanita bekerja terhadap "perhambaan dapur". Katakan “TIDAK” kepada kekerasan dan penindasan kerja-kerja rumah”)
Mengikut pengkajian saya, sejarah "Hari Wanita" telah dimulakan oleh Parti Komunis Russia (Bolshevik) selepas mereka menjatuhkan Czar di Russia. Ia telah dimulakan oleh SU Agung Parti Komunis Russia yang pertama, Vladimir Lenin, bagi tujuan yang amat jahat dan seperti dirasuk syaitan. Yakni, menghancurkan institusi keluarga di Russia.
SAMBUTAN 8 MARCH DIMULAKAN PARTI KOMUNIS RUSSIA
Dari poster di bawah, ia menjelaskan kepada kita sambutan 8 March sempena “Hari Wanita” adalah ciptaan Parti Komunis Russia dan bersumber dari ideology Komunis.
Tujuannya tidak lain dan tidak bukan adalah untuk mengeluarkan para wanita dari peranan sebagai ibu dan surirumah kepada peranan sebagai pekerja untuk mengkayakan negara.
Dalam konteks kapitalisma pula, para wanita digalakkan bekerja sendiri kerana mereka bakal digunakan untuk mengkayakan para korporat-korporat yang senantiasa tamak dan haloba untuk mencari wang. Tidak pernah mereka cukup dengan wang yang ada, mereka mahu wang mereka sentiasa bertambah.
Tujuan Parti Komunis menyuruh wanita keluar rumah dan bekerja adalah supaya anak-anak mereka kelak akan dibesarkan dan diindoktrinisasi oleh negara. Ertinya, tugas ibu bapa hanya memberi sokongan material sahaja tetapi dari segi pemikiran dan cara bertindak,semuanya akan ditentukan oleh negara (dalam kes ini negara yang diperintah Komunis).
Dalam kontek kita sekarang ini, apabila wanita bekerja, anak-anak akan diracuni pemikiran mereka oleh media yang mempromosikan budaya konsumerisma, hedonisma dan berpeleceran serta keduniaan yang melampau.
Tidak hairanlah semenjak wanita-wanita bekerja dengan ramai, masaalah sosial dalam masyarakat umat Melayu semakin serius dan membarah. Apa yang berlaku adalah tugas membangun keluarga sudah menjadi tugas “separuh masa” manakala tugas sepenuh masa adalah mengkayakan para korporat yang sentiasa tamak haloba.
Apabila makin ramai wanita bekerja, maka kos “labor” (tenaga kerja) semakin menurun kerana bilangan pekerja dalam pasaran semakin bertambah. Di kala wanita 90% duduk di rumah dan menjadi surirumah, kos pekerja berada di tahap yang agak tinggi. Apabila para wanita mula bekerja di luar, maka kos pekerja menjadi murah kerana secara tiba-tiba bilangan pekerja bertambah.
KEMPEN KOMUNIS SECARA SENYAP-SENYAP
Kita semua tahu Gerakan Bolshevik adalah gerakan yang dipimpin oleh Zionist antarabanga. Leon Trostsky adalah dari keturunan Yahudi berasal dari New York. Begitu juga Vladimir Lenin yang mempunyai keturunan Yahudi dan begitu juga Stalin. Kebanyakan pembesar-pembesar Parti Komunis Russia sewaktu Revolusi Bolshevik adalah dari bangsa Yahudi termasuk director pertama “Polis Rahsia” Parti Boshevik (Cheka) yang bernama Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky. Beliau ini telah bertanggungjawab terhadap pembunuhan berjuta-juta nyawa yang tidak berdosa selepas Revolusi Oktober yang menjatuhkan Czar Nikolas Romanov dari takhta beliau.
Agenda komunis ini diteruskan oleh agen-agen mereka di Amerika. Dalam hal berkaitan pembebasan wanita, dua nama yang sering dikaitkan adalah Betty Friedandan Gloria Steinem. Kedua-dua wanita ini dianggap sebagai pengasas kepada gerakan Hak Kesaksamaan Wanita di zaman moden ini. Kedua-dua wanita ini juga dalah dari bangsa Yahudi berfahaman Zionis.
Maka yang selama ini dulaungkan sebagai “Hak Wanita” adalah sebenarnya kempen senyap untuk mengkehadapankan agenda Komunis kepada manusia seluruh dunia. Mereka berkata kononnya wanita ditindas kerana terpaksa duduk di rumah sahaja dan menjaga keluarga.
Hakikatnya, kita lihat sekarang ini, wanita-wanita dari keluarga yang kaya kesemuanya tidak bekerja dan duduk di rumah. Wanita-wanita dari keluarga tidak berada terpaksa bekerja sepenuh masa demi untuk mengkayakan sejemput wanita-wanita dari keluarga kaya ini dan membolehkan mereka tidak bekerja.
AGENDA SEBENAR KOMUNISMA
Agenda Komunis adalah untuk menukar peranan masing-masing dalam masyarakat kepada peranan yang dikehendaki oleh ideology komunis, yakni menjadi pekerja.
Institusi keluarga dianggap hina dalam ideology Komunis kerana ia menyebabkan 50% dari rakyat sesebuah negara itu tidak menjadi pekerja.
Bagi saya, pertubuhan-pertubuhan seperti WAO, Sisters in Islam etc adalah anak beranak Pol Pot kerana mereka ini berjasa menghancurkan institusi keluarga dalam masyarakat.
Mereka juga menamppakan sikap hipokrit mereka yang tinggi terutamanya dalam kes sebatan syariah. Kalau mereka benar2 mahu meperjuangkan kesaksamaaan, mengapa marah Kartika disebat? Bukankah kesaksamaan menjamin bahawa wanita dan lelaki dilayan sama rata?
AGENDA SEBENAR GERAKAN HAK KESAKSAMAAN WANITA
MEreka mahu menghancurkan institusi keluarga. Secara turun temurun, kaum lelaki adalah ketua di dalam keluarga. Mereka bertanggungjawab menjaga serta memberi nafkah kepada wanita dan kanak kanak.
Kita tidak nafi memang ada lelaki yang tidak berguna dan tidak boleh diharap sebagai bapa, tetapi majoriti lelaki yang menjadi bapa bertanggungjawab menjaga keluarga mereka. Namun, dengan bantuan media yang dipunyai Yahudi, kes-kes terpencil ini diperbesarkan menjadikan tugas lelaki memimpin keluarga dipandang serong oleh masyarakat.
Hakikatnya, kempen “Hak Kesaksamaan” ini adalah kempen yang menguntungkan segelintir kecil masyarakat sahaja. Dalam negara komunis yang untung adalah ahli-ahli Politburo Parti Komunis. Dalam negara “Kapitalisma” ia menguntungkan tuan punya syarikat yang besar-besar sahaja.
Majoriti rakyat akan menderita dan tersiksa di bawah polisi-polisi yang mendukung “Hak Kesaksamaan”. Masyarakat akan menjadi hancur dan berkecai. MAsalaah sosial akan menjadi lumrah hidup kerana tugas menjaga keluarga sudah menjadi tugas separuh masa.
Zina, minum arak, judi, rogol dsbnya akan meningkat dan terus meningkat.
PEnyalahgunaan dadah akan menjadi lumrah hidup. Semuanya demi mengkayakan dan memberi kesenangan kepada segelintir orang kaya dan berkuasa di dalam masyarakat.
Seharusnya syarikat membayar gaji yang lebih kepada seorang bapa berbanding dengan seorang wanita kerana bapa menggunakan wang yang beliau dapat untuk menyara keluarga. Wanita tidak diwajibkan menyara keluarga, maka apa salahnya mereka dibayar lebih rendah dari lelaki?
Tulang Besi

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Ethnicity and religion

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:03:00 -0800

I have just read this article on The Nut Graph about a lecture on Islam and Christianity in the Middle East. The lecturer, a Dr Chawkat Moucarry, does have a valid point about not entangling and confusing ethnicity (your genetic heritage) with religion (a cultural heritage). He relates an experience that I think would not be out of place here in Malaysia.

During the lecture, Moucarry, who is a Syrian Christian, related his own negative experience when he travelled to Algeria in 1982: "[The name in my passport] is Chawkat George Moucarry as I was born into a Catholic Syrian family and was given the second name of George.

"The [Algerian] immigration officer asked me, 'Are you Arab?' I said, 'Yes'. Then he asked, 'Are you Christian?' I said 'Yes'. He told me, 'That cannot be. You are either Arab or Christian, you cannot be both.'"

Moucarry was detained for several hours and initially not allowed to enter Algeria due to the officer's disbelief about his ethnicity and religion.

"It was a humiliating experience," he said. "For the first time in my life, I was denied my Arab-ness, as being Arab was defined as being Muslim [only]."

Moucarry said a person should not have to give up their ethnic identity just because they have another religion.

But, he is spot on about the similarities between Muslims and Christians:

I wonder what he thinks about us atheists?

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Where do atheists come from?

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:21:26 -0800

HERE's a fact to flatter the unbelievers among you: the bright young things at the University of Oxford are among the most godless groups ever studied in the UK. Of 728 students surveyed in 2007, 48.9 per cent claimed not to believe in any god, with 49.6 per cent claiming no religious affiliation. And while a very small number of Britons typically label themselves as "atheist" or "agnostic" (most surveys put it at about 5 per cent), an astonishing 57.3 per cent of the Oxford sample did.
This may come as no surprise. After all, atheism is the natural stance of the educated and the informed, is it not? It is only to be expected that Oxford students should be wise to what their own professor Richard Dawkins calls "self-indulgent, thought-denying skyhookery" - and others call "faith". The old Enlightenment caricature, it seems, is true after all: where Reason reigns, God retires.
Of course, things are never quite that simple. Within the sample, for instance, the postgraduates (that is, the even-better educated) were notably more religious than the undergraduates, in terms of both belief in God and self-description. Although the greater number of non-Europeans in the postgraduate population is almost certainly a significant factor here, evidence from elsewhere backs the idea that there is no straightforward relationship between atheism and education.

from newscientist.com

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Persuasion, not compulsion

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:34:27 -0800

Inspired by Unscientific Malaysia's decision, I am mirroring this as well since The Star has taken their copy down.

QUESTION TIME

By P. GUNASEGARAM

When federal laws unambiguously prohibit whipping or caning of women, religious laws must not be allowed to do the opposite.

ONE of the small things that I am grateful for is that I cannot be legally whipped or caned for any offence any more. Yes, there are criminal penalties which can specify whipping, but not for those over 50, I am told. Sometimes being old(er) is an advantage.

The other reason that I won’t be legally whipped is that I am not a Muslim and therefore my personal behaviour is not subject to syariah courts, which can hold me liable for offences such as drinking alcohol and have me caned.

For me and for millions of Malaysians of all races and religions, Feb 9, 2010, was a sad, black day in the history of our country. On that day, three women were caned legally for the first time ever in this country. They, all Muslims, were caned for engaging in illicit sex, an offence under syariah law, it was announced.

It is shocking that such sentences are being meted out for such offences. While religious laws may allow for such sentences, it is possible for judges to mete out lower sentences, especially when such “offences” are of a very personal nature and harm no one else.

When there are loopholes in religious laws which allow such punishment out of all proportion to the “crime” committed, and which go against the sensibilities of most Malaysians, then it is incumbent upon the Government of the day to use the legislature to do the needful. Otherwise it abdicates its responsibility.

Illicit sex means sex out of wedlock and if we are all not hypocrites, we will admit that it happens all the time, among both Muslims and non-Muslims. To prescribe caning for such an offence is something that most Malaysians are likely to consider just too much.

It also opens the door for caning for more minor offences in the eyes of religious officials, such as drinking alcohol. In fact one Muslim woman, who has refused to appeal her case, is currently awaiting a caning sentence to be carried out after she was found guilty of drinking alcohol.

That case attracted international attention and made it to the front page of two international financial dailies – The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times – on the same day last year. The current case, announced on Wednesday, is already beginning to attract world attention.

With three women already having been caned for illicit sex, the way has been paved for more caning of women in the future. That will not endear Malaysia to Malaysians, let alone foreigners who are inevitably going to equate us with the Taliban. And who can blame them?

And are we going to go further down the slippery road and cane women for dressing immodestly too, as has been done in some countries?

There are already indications that Malays, especially women, are migrating and leaving their homeland, not because they don’t have opportunities here but because as Muslims, their personal freedom is restricted – and there is danger that it will be curtailed even more.

Yes, it has been said the three women did not suffer any cuts or bruises following the caning but that is scant consolation to those who have to undergo such humiliating punishment on top of the intrusion into their personal affairs.

As if the caning was not bad enough, alarmingly they spent months in prison. One of them is still serving her jail sentence and will be released only in June.

All three were found guilty of committing illicit sex by the Federal Territory Syariah High Court, which issued the caning order between December last year and last month. Perplexingly, they were not made public at that point of time. The public had no idea of the caning before it was done.

Also, it was not clear if the women had exercised their full rights under syariah law by appealing the court’s decision.

These are behaviours which should not be treated as if they were criminal offences; but they have been. The offenders have not only been caned but also jailed, which is rather harsh punishment for something which did not harm anyone else and was done in privacy and behind closed doors.

This is clear indication that there are laws in our statute books – both syariah as well as civil – which are outdated and need to be revised in keeping with the times and the recognition that individuals have personal rights.

Personal behaviour between consenting adults that do no physical harm to them and to others should not be legislated. This is in keeping with the development of personal rights throughout the world, and anything that takes away these rights is a step backwards.

Religion is open to interpretation, man interprets it and man can – and does – make mistakes.

Even if religious rules are flouted, we should have a system which does not mete out punishment for offences, and focus instead on rehabilitation and counselling. That will be in keeping with the universal tenet that there is no compulsion when it comes to religion.

Custodial and punitive sentences by religious courts should be limited via statutes because personal behaviour of adults is often involved and there is no hurt or harm to any others arising from such behaviour.

Religion is about persuasion not compulsion, about faith not certainty, and that is the way we should keep it. Otherwise, bigotry is going to get in the way and we won’t be following the tenets of religion but of those who choose to interpret it the way they want to.

We have all seen what happens when religion – no matter what religion – is carried to extremes and hijacked by bigots. We don’t want public flogging, we don’t want arms chopped off, we don’t want people to be stoned to death, and we don’t want people to be burned at the stake.

We have already moved way past that. Let’s not allow a small number of religious bigots to take us back into the dark ages. And for that, we all need to stand up and speak up when our individual rights are trampled upon.

Managing editor P. Gunasegaram is appalled by the number of sins committed in the name of God.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Liberals and atheists smarter?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:24:11 -0800

More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

via sciencedaily.com

Permalink | Leave a comment »

How to make a believer from a healthy human being

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:31:46 -0800

via Pharyngula

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The Advantages of Pretending to be a Christian

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:04:00 -0800

This hits home.

The Advantages of Pretending to be a Christian

via Friendly Atheist by @hemantsblog by Hemant Mehta on 2/24/10

I got this email yesterday from a North Carolina resident:

Over the past couple of years I have slowly realized, that… I don’t believe in the spirit in the sky with magical powers. This is all fine and dandy, except I literally live in the middle of the bible belt. Nearly my entire community it Christian, I have 6 churches in walking distance of my house. I am constantly being invited to church and to youth functions. I do not know how to respond to these invitations, it seems everything that I try always is negative in some sort of way. I have tried to just tell them no thank you but that just encourages them to pester you about why you wont go. I have even told someone that I am atheist and that is why I will not go, but this returns the worst result of all. They then make it there personal mission to “save” me. I don’t live in a very accepting community.

What an awful situation to be in — you (almost) wish you were a Christian so that life would become that much easier.

In some cases, that’s what the atheists have done.

They’re pretending to be Christians so that they can fit in with the crowd, as this couple mentions at the Freakonomics blog:

… We found by experience that if we were truthful about not being regular church attenders, the play dates suddenly ended. Thus started the faking of the religious funk.

It seemed silly but it’s all very serious business down here. We don’t go to church or teach [our] children one belief is “right” over another. We expose them to every kind of belief and trust that they will one day settle in to their very own spirituality. However, for the sake of friends and neighbors, we pretend we are Christians. We try not to lie but rather not to disclose unnecessary information.

That sort of deception can start at a young age, too. You discover it’s easier to go along with the crowd instead of just calling religion out on its bullshit, which could just get you into trouble with the adults.

There was a great interview on Tavis Smiley the other day with actor Mark Ruffalo — Ruffalo talks about how he pretended to get “knocked out by the spirit of the Lord” just to appease his family:

(The ending of the clip is awesome)

You have to wonder how many fake Christians there are out there — people who secretly doubt their faith or have cast it aside altogether, but stick with the guise just so they can be part of a community.

It would be wonderful if those “Christians” could just be honest.

It would be great if they realized that their personal convictions were worth so much more than the Christian communities they want to be a part of — that’s easier said than done, of course.

But imagine if it happened. How much better would life be for those people who have to currently lie in order to be accepted by the “true” Christians?

Permalink | Leave a comment »

from the prime minister's department

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:38:56 -0800

It's a translation of the Quran made available by the Prime Minister's Office, so I assume it is the Officially-Sanctioned-Translation-of-the-Quran™. It is from surah al-'Ankabut, verse 46, which says:

Dan janganlah kamu berbahas dengan Ahli Kitab melainkan dengan cara yang lebih baik, kecuali orang-orang yang berlaku zalim di antara mereka dan katakanlah (kepada mereka): "Kami beriman kepada (Al-Quran) yang diturunkan kepada kami dan kepada (Taurat dan Injil) yang diturunkan kepada kamu dan Tuhan kami, juga Tuhan kamu, adalah Satu dan kepadaNyalah kami patuh dengan berserah diri."

It also has an English translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, which reads:

And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you Our Allah and your Allah is one and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

Emphasis mine, of course. Now, it seems to me that if you are a proper and obedient Muslim, you should be aware that the God of your religion and the Christian God are one and the same. After all, your holy book says so in no uncertain terms. Unless of course, you had never actually read it and its translation. Baca bunyi saja sedap tapi tak tahu makna tak guna jugak. This leads me to the conclusion that if you are sincerely against the usage of the word "Allah" by Christians (at least), you are horribly ignorant. If you are not sincere, then you are no better than a scavenging dog looking to somehow profit by exploiting religious sentiment. Ignorant or dirtbag, your call.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Untitled

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:44:37 -0800

Firstly, I applaud the High Court's decision to overturn the Home Ministry's ban on the usage of the word "Allah" by non-Muslim publications, declaring it unconstitutional. It's a slight balm on our bruised and battered rights record. Secondly, I find the Prime Minister's call for calm quite funny particularly since that it is generally his people (and by that I mean UMNObots) that are stirring things up. Take a look at this Facebook group as an example and check out its list of officers. Notice a pattern? It seems that rulers really do find religion useful.

The parties in the Opposition on the other hand seems to have better respect for basic human rights (in this particular instance, at least), except for some notable exceptions (read: Zulkifli Noordin). I am under no illusion that this is not at least partially politically motivated, but at least they are coming down on the right side of the fence.

The government has said that it will appeal the decision. I hope that the decision will be upheld by the Court of Appeals. Many seem to be skeptical about that but for once I'd like to see someone stand up to the government.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

ex-muslim atheist explains deconversion

Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:23:57 -0800

Permalink | Leave a comment »

just say no to sharia law

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:32:00 -0800

This Saturday's London rally against sharia law and all religious tyrannies should be huge. Millions of people are suffering at the hands of clerical regimes, especially our Muslim brothers and sisters in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Sadly, the turn out in Hyde Park will probably be quite small. This is odd. Most liberals and leftwingers would protest loud and strong if these persecutions were perpetrated by a western regime or by Christian fundamentalists. But they get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam. They fear being denouned as Islamophobic. They confuse protests against fundamentalist, political Islam, which seeks to establish a religious dictatorship, with an attack on Muslim people and the Muslim faith. These are two very different things. Saturday's protest is in defence of Muslim people – and all people everywhere – who are victims of any form of religious tyranny.

While other faiths are also often oppressive, sharia law is especially oppressive. Its interpretations stipulate the execution of Muslims who commit adultery, renounce their faith (apostates) or have same-sex relationships. Sharia methods of execution, such as stoning, are particularly brutal and cruel – witness the stoning to death this week in Somalia of a 20-year-old woman divorcee who was accused of adultery. This is the fourth stoning of an adulterer in Somalia in the last year.

Somalia is an extreme example of the sharia oppression that exists in large parts of the Muslim world. As ever, Muslim women are often the main victims. Our rally is in support of Muslim women who are campaigning for equality.
…
Contrary to the way our critics are trying to misrepresent our campaign, this is not an attack on Muslims or Islam. Nor are we uniquely condemning sharia law. We reject all religious laws and courts, including those inspired by Judaist and Christian fundamentalism.

In a democracy, everyone should be subject to the same laws, with the same rights and responsibilties. Religious rulings should not influence the laws or courts in any way.
…
However, it is important to acknowledge that the religious right, which exists in all faiths, is a serious threat to human freedom wherever it manifests itself – whether in the US, Iran, Russia, Italy, Uganda, Israel or the UK. This is why our protest supports secular democracy. We believe there should be a separation of religion from the state. No faith should dominate any government and seek to impose its creed on the rest of society. When this happens, freedom of expression is diminished and minority faiths are victimised. We saw this happen when Protestantism became the state religion in England and Catholics suffered great persecution from the late 1500s. We also see it today in Iran where the Shia-dominated state persecutes the Sunni Muslim minority (especially the Arabs and Baluchs). The reverse happens in Sunni-ascendant Saudi Arabia, where Salafi and Wahhabi interpretations of Islam are enforced and Shia Muslims, and dissident Sunni Muslims, are the victims.

For these reasons, secularism is not only an important element of freedom of expression. It is also the best guarantee of religious freedom, as it prevents any one faith becoming politically dominant and abusing its powers to oppress people of other faiths.

more at guardian.co.uk

Permalink | Leave a comment »

zulkifli’s choice

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:51:28 -0800

KULIM-Bandar Baru Member of Parliament Zulkifli Noordin names the Perak mufti as his candidate of choice to lead Pakatan Rakyat. Zulkifli, no stranger to controversy, was responding to a blog posting by Datuk Zaid Ibrahim. Zaid had said that PAS spiritual advisor Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat was the right candidate to helm the yet-to-be registered Pakatan Rakyat as its spiritual leader.

Zulkifli disagreed and endorsed Harussani instead. (Source: Zaid says coalition needs a spiritual leader, New Straits Times, 18 Nov 2009)

via thenutgraph.com

I wonder what Zulkifli Noordin is smoking? Let me have some of that too, please! No one sane would agree to the appointment of Harussani. He is the poster child of what is wrong with Islam specifically and religion generally in Malaysia!

Permalink | Leave a comment »

the top 15 excuses religious people give for the horrible behavior of their god

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:11:56 -0800

My personal favourites:

(1) Unknown greater good.

God must commit or allow some evil to accomplish an unknown greater good.

But doesn’t that limit God’s knowledge and power? Doesn’t that say that God couldn’t think of a better way to accomplish his goals other than by torturing innocent people? Until this “greater good” is revealed to us, we are not obliged to accept this argument.

(4) The devil did it.

God isn’t really responsible for evil in the world, a devil is.

But who created this devil? And isn’t God supposed to be all-powerful? Can’t he stop this devil?

(5) God is testing our faith.

Evil is God’s way of testing our faith, like Job was tested in the Old Testament.

If this is true, what sense does it make to impose a “loyalty test” on an infant who dies from disease or natural disaster?

(10) Evil is necessary for compassion.

We are born as self-centered people and evil is necessary for us to learn compassion.

But if God wanted us to be compassionate, why didn’t he just make us that way? Why this sadistic scheme of torturing innocent babies to instill compassion in their parents? What about suffering and death that occurs where there are no witnesses?

(14) Evil brings us closer to God.

Evil is justified because suffering makes us turn to God for comfort.

But doesn’t that limit God’s knowledge and power? Couldn’t he think of a better way to entice us without torturing us first? How much gratitude, for example, should we show to a doctor for curing us from a disease he inflicted upon us in the first place?

More at http://augustberkshire.com/2009/11/13/problem-evil-excuses-religious/

Permalink | Leave a comment »

johann hari vs hizbut tahrir

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:21:37 -0800

Permalink | Leave a comment »

islamic state a threat to humankind?

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:01:24 -0800

Islamic states are a threat to humankind though not the only one – US-led militarism is another. I do think the two feed off each other and need the other for legitimisation in the same way that Israel and Hamas do or the Soviet Union and the US did during the Cold War. But like any threat much depends on the resistance it meets. Worse threats have been pushed back by the working class and progressive movements and this will be too.

In my opinion, an Islamic state that respects human rights is impossible; in fact the two are antithetical. It is the same for any religious state where religious dogma and rules take precedence over rights and freedoms and real live human beings. In fact religion is at its best when it restricts and represses. Religious laws and states belong to an era of medievalism and brutality. The enlightenment managed to push back the Church’s role in public life to a large extent – the same is needed with Islam in political power.

via http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2009/11/islamic-states-and-sharia-are-threat-to.html

Those are strong words, and I agree with them. Thoughts?

Permalink | Leave a comment »

state religion is bad for freedom of speech: hasan ali says arrest of ex-perlis mufti according to the law. yes, it was

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:07:20 -0800

Hasan, who is also the state PAS Commissioner, said the law was in place to prevent deviant teachings.

“It’s better for anyone who wants to give religious talks to get accreditation, regardless of the background, so we will know who they are and what they are going to talk about.”

"We are not trying to stop anyone from preaching and are just trying to be careful," said Hasan.

via themalaysianinsider.com

Which is why the law needs to be changed. Who are they to decide that their version of Islam is not the deviant one? Isn't there a hadith that says that says (and I paraphrase here): that there will be 72 factions calling themselves Muslim but only one, and it will be a *minority*, is true to the faith? Having the State machinery under your command doesn't seem like a minority to me.

Permalink | Leave a comment »