DAY 1, Thursday June 25th 2009

The CFI Library, Simply Amazing

The conference began on Thursday, June 25th. I took an overnight greyhound bus in, as it only set me back one US dollar. The bus surprisingly had Wifi, which came in handy since half way in, a fellow came in and took up a lot of my leg room, thus sleep was no longer an option. Once I arrived in the Buffalo airport, I met up with four other student leaders, Roy Nation, Michael Garret Amini, Jon Adams and Jamie Moore. We took the awesome CFI van to the CFI Head Quarters, and arrived about 10:00AM or so. I got the chance to get a very early building tour. The most amazing aspect of the entire tour was the library. It contains more than 60,000+ books, as well as many rare books such as a First Edition copy of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. This library is actually the largest skeptical and secular library in the word. I suppose, if there were ever a heaven, this would be it. If I am ever able, I would love to spend hours upon hours, or even days upon days in this library just devouring all the knowledge I possible can. Eventually many more student leaders began to arrive, such as the very awesome Sarah Kaiser who has done an amazing job in Indiana (especially with the Atheist Bus Campaign). The first day was not as action packed as the other days, and I spent most of it just interacting with the other student leaders and participating in small group conversations. As the day went on, many more students arrived and we attended a couple interesting sessions.

DAY 2, Friday June 26th 2009

This day was filled with sessions, it began with Coffee (yuck) and Breakfast at 8am and ended with disgustingly bad Buffalo Wings in a Buffalo restaurant around 3am on Saturday. A few informational sessions from D.J. Grothe (of the Point of Inquiry Podcast) Debbi Goddard (of CFI On Campus Outreach), Adam Isaak (Intern at CFI On Campus Outreach), Jefferson Seaver (CFI Michigan), and one very awesome session led by Roy Nation (UCLA) on using the internet as a tool to effectively market your group and keep it growing. Roy’s session actually inspired me to finally begin working on the SBU Freethinkers website again. I have started to build a few new pages (Executive Page), reconstruct the Footer, and begin using the blog again. We left for lunch (sandwiches ftw) and had quite a few more very informational sessions one of them being the Student Panel which consisted of Barry Greenstein, Adrienne Asselmeier, Eric Mathison, Michael Garret Amini, and Joel Guttormson. The student panel was probably one of my favorites as it gave me quite a few ideas to take back home and begin working on. The day wrapped up with a toast and a very nice lecture by John Shook. Hopefully the SBU Freethinkers can have the honor of hosting Mr. Shook at some point in the future for an event on campus. We went back to the dorms around 8 or 9 pm hung out for awhile talking about the future of SBU FT and other nubbyy business. After a late night run to some poorly run food establishment (as I imagine most are in Buffalo… at least compared to NYC and Long Island) we finally packed it in around 3am.

DAY 3, Saturday June 27th 2009

This was perhaps the best day there. It began with most of SBU FT’s executive board, including yours truly waking up rather late and missing most of the first session. We finally got our act together and attended the rest of the sessions. Saturday for us began with a talk from John Shook and Debbi Goddard about the new “Campaign for Free Expression” (more about that soon) followed by a few sessions from Whitney Kemp and Debbi Goddard. After these sessions we all went outside for a group photo. Thankfully the weather had cleared up and so the picture came out lovely.

CFI Student Leadership Conference Group Photo

Yours truly looking far too happy for just ice cream...

After lunch, my personal favorite session of the entire weekend was held. It was Massimo Pigliucci (the former Faculty Adviser for SBU Freethinkers, and all around amazing intellectual. His lecture was as always, informative, funny, and thought provoking. I got to chat with him for a bit afterward about a debate I am planning for this fall between him and Carl Safina and a few other related matters. If you are interested in reading Massimo’s material, feel free to check out rationallyspeaking.org as it is by far the best blogs on the internet. After a couple other workshops in which the students were able to interact and participate in discussions it was time for the amazing Eddie Tabash. He is always a treat as his ability to put forth a reasoned argument against god (or any other topic) is simply unmatched. After his talk, it was time for a debate between Ron N. Atas of the Church of Near Universal Damnation (Ron Lindsey, CEO of CFI in character) and Eddie Tabash. This was a rather amusing event, as Mr. Atas put forth the common arguments (at some points in a more articulate and intelligent way than most religious folk would) and Eddie Tabash smashed each one. Hopefully at some point we can bring Mr. Tabash back for a debate instead of a lecture. Then it was onto one of the best parts of the entire weekend, the ice cream social! So many toppings, which to choose? It certainly was not an easy decision. After a little socializing, the SBU FT e-board went out to Friendly’s for a nice dinner… we weren’t going to take any chances with local food this time around.

DAY 4, Sunday June 28th 2009

This was the last day at CFI, and I certainly was not looking forward to it ending, but I suppose like all good things, it had to end at some point. The morning began with awards handed out to some of the campus leaders/groups, hopefully we can win one of those next year as they looked awfully spiffy. Another session by D.J. Grothe on the Future of CFI, and then some more round table like discussion between the students. These sessions are always great as interacting with other people who share many of the same values is always fun. The next session was with Joe Nickell on “Investigating the Paranormal” which is always a fun thing to do. After Mr. Nickell, there were two more sessions which essentially were about the future goals of CFI and general future direction of CFI. After lunch, 2/3s of the SBU FT left for Rochester and I stuck around socializing with some of the remaining students. I got some contact information and by 3pm, it was time to head for the airport. The van to the airport was fun and even met someone who reads this blog! Overall the experience was amazing. I would really like to thank all those involved in planning and execution of the event. I would also like to thank the students who attended for being great company.

Related posts:

1. SBU Freethinkers Featured Student Newspaper In early M
2. god Loves Me! Choosing

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The case against the Zionism is not the case against all Jews, just those who buy into Zionist philosophy. One finds that during criticism of Israeli Government/Zionism, one could just as well be arguing against Imperialism. Make no mistake about it, Zionism is by definition an imperialistic philosophy. The entire purpose of Zionism is imperial, and the logic behind the Zionist philosophy boils down to that of superiority (essentially bigotry) and special rights (some sort of stone-age religious theology). Those two factors are essential to imperialism. A quick study of modern imperial states reveals that those two factors remain consistent. The most extreme example of this being by the Nazis. Imperialism at all times requires a large and lengthy justification and to my knowledge, it has rarely, if ever, been properly and appropriately justified.

Quite Shocking Isn't It?

That of course remains the case with Zionism and actually Zionism is an extreme case of poor justification. It imposes harsh restrictions and unjust laws on the Palestinian people, settlements within Palestinian territory without any justification other than pure greed. A map that overlooks the Israel-Palestine territory distribution from say, 1940 to 2000 illustrates that point in such a way that no words can compete. If one would like to state concisely what Israel has done and is currently doing, it would go something like this: “The unjustified confiscation of lands by an illegal occupying state-sponsor of terrorism.” I should state that, by unjustified I do not mean that no argument has been put forth, but the arguments themselves are embarrassingly bad. It is a surprise that people can deliver them with a straight face.

The first argument they begin with is, Jews deserve a homeland and therefore the land of their far distant ancestors is the only logical one. The first half of the argument is a sentiment that I agree with, of course a large population of people should have some sort of “homeland” which they can claim as their own. My issue with the argument is second half which chooses its location. In this case, god seems to be the ultimate imaginary and invisible real estate agent. So it seems, god is incompetent at another job as he also promised the same bit of rather poor land to another people, convinced that their prophet transferred at Palestine on route to Heaven to have Sunday Brunch with Jesus, Moses and a couple other blokes (one of them being god). I suppose in the current state of matters, it is a useless endeavor to question the argument for the location of the Jewish homeland as it already is there and that’s not going to change anytime soon. So the argument I have to battle against is slightly different now. The question is, how can one bring peaceful coexistence into a land that peace has rarely ever remained constant. Well… the obvious solution is and always has been a Two State Solution. We have two different people and both are making claim to the same land, therefore cut the land in half, draw up some reasonable borders and call it a day. Of course, if it were that simple I would have no need to write at length about this subject.

Recently, the Israeli Government under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu proposed a two-state solution with for main stipulations.

1. Demilitarized Palestine
2. Unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State
3. Jerusalem as an only Israeli ruled territory
4. No Right of Return for Palestinian People

In response to the notion of a demilitarized Palestine. This sort of request is absurd beyond belief, it implies the notion that the Palestinian people do not deserve nor have the right to a military force that can resist aggressive Israeli Expansion on the West Bank. It makes very little sense to say, “the only way we will accept you as a neighboring nation is if you have no chance of ever undermining our imperialistic policies.” Netanyahu also stated that settlement building in the West Bank would still occur, but perhaps not as aggressively as before. What nonsense! So, Israel wants to strip Palestine of its only form of a defense in order for it to be accepted as a legitimate neighbor? The next notion is rather difficult for me to disagree with at this stage in the game, but I suppose those who have had their land stolen and their homes seized have a much more difficult time recognizing Israel. To the notion that Jerusalem should only be ruled by the Israeli government, Netanyahu seems to forget (perhaps purposely) that those Palestinians have just as much an equal claim to that land (perhaps even more so, since it was recently legally Palestinian land). Sure the city of Jerusalem plays a big role in the Jewish theology, but it plays a just as big a role in Muslim theology. The denial of right of return is perhaps the most disgusting stipulation out the four. How dare they ask the Palestinian people to self-relinquish their right to their own land, and let us not forget that the Palestinian right of return is fully legal under international law. One could go as far as to say international law demands the right of return for refugees.

Again and again, we see that anti-Zionism and also anti-Israeli Government is not antisemitism nor is it any other form of bigotry. Rather, the general notion of anti-Zionism and opposition to the policies of the current Israeli Government is simply coming into defense of basic human liberties. I do not hate the Jewish people, I just ask that their government begin acting as if they respect the human rights and dignity of someone other than their citizens.

Related posts:

1. Israel and the Media Well, I a
2. Secularism is Incompatible with Islam With the r

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The quick and easy solution to this question is to search Islam (mainly the Qur’an) for a justification for secularism, or the opposite, theocracy. That quest is a rather short one as Islam not only advocates for an Islamic state but even has provisions on how to tax the non-believing elements (Jews and Christians, not Atheists) of society. Islam is very clear on this matter, it states in no uncertain terms, that the day will come when the entire world will face Mecca and pray. Mecca will be the center of the world, much like it is the center of Islam. There is absolutely no justification within the Qur’an or any other Islamic tradition for anything but theocracy. In fact, the very notion of the word secularism is unheard of in the language of Arabic. The direct translation of secularism translates into a word that is inherently thought of as “against-Islam” rather than the common connotations of the English word.  So the question is no longer if one can promote secularism on a Islamic platform, but rather, how does one do it without seeming directly antagonistic to Islam?

That question has puzzled secularists throughout the Muslim world for at least a hundred years if not more. Pakistan, a nation established primarily to ensure protection for a large minority was not intended to be an Islamic state. Rather, the goal was for a nation for Muslims. There is a very big difference between those two, as the former is a theocracy and the latter can potentially become a secular nation. As we see today, Pakistan is losing the battle to religious extremists and at this point unless something totally unexpected happens (which is possible given the instability) it is likely that Pakistan will become more of an Islamic state rather than a secular state. The issue for the Pakistani government (which is of course extremely corrupt) is how to combat religious extremists without bringing religion into the debate. If they bring religion into national discourse, it is impossible for them to win, even if they have a better argument. So how does one go about battling extremists who are fueled by religion without cutting off their fuel supply? The only good tactic that actually works is to expose the religious extremists as unsophisticated individuals who would be the much worse of two evils when compared to the secular and already established government. As we see in Gaza Strip, Hamas and other such terrorist groups are not very popular amongst the people, but they are the only choice that the people have. Unfortunately in the case of Pakistan, the government is so corrupt and has been that way for so many years that it is questionable if they are better than those religious extremists.

The Muslim leaders of the future really do have an unsustainable conflict and contradiction within their society. If they really want to accept modernity, it begins by removing Islam from the public domain and placing it within the private domain. How to go about that task (if its even possible at this point) begins with education and the proper treatment of women (equal rights). But of course, that is only the starting point and as of right now, not a single Muslim country is even close.

Related posts:

1. Islam and Women For the ma
2. Islam and Women, Revised For the ma
3. Interesting Tidbits about Islam My normal

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

So, to cut to the chase, check out this blog from a fellow ex-Muslim. Its quite well written and very original.

Dairy of an ex-Muslimah

Related posts:

1. Islam and Women, Revised For the ma
2. Islamic Feminism, The Ultimate Contradiction A few week
3. Muslim TV Network Owner Beheads Wife NEW YORK A

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I have already gone through and discussed specific passages of the Qur’an. So, I will not do that again, but just to summarize, in one chapter alone (the fourth), the Qur’an states that women are inferior to men, are worth half as much with regards to property, and creates the justification for the subjugation of women. Men are allowed to beat their wives and lock them away until they submit to them. In the following chapters it reinforces this imaginary inequality by forcing them to wear veils and references fairy tales that would be despicable to any person of reasonable morals. From what I have experienced, there are only two ways that Muslims attempt to get around it. The first is the assertion that I am taking passages out of context, this of course can mean two things. Either historical context or literary context. In the case of historical context, the argument is completely void as the Qur’an is the final revelation, and what ever was true for then, is true for eternity (or until judgement day). In the case of literary context, it is a bit more tricky, but nowhere near a convincing argument as, the overwhelming theme of the Qur’an establishes a separation between man and woman, even if it is not for purposes of superiority/inferiority, it is always clearly stated that men and women are not equal, and it goes on to say that women are inferior. So, it is not the case that I am taking the passages out of context, and thus the first objection is done with. The second objection is an odd one, but it is very common. It is usually coupled with criticism of Arabs. It happens to be the case that the Islam not only creates the inequality between men and women, but Arabs and Non-Arabs as well. So the argument goes, this female suppression is due to Arab-culture influence. This is often espoused by those liberal Muslims who are attempting to go against the grain and secularize Muslim countries (notably not the Arab countries). I do not think I need to insult the intelligence of those who read this by criticizing that point.

I hear this argument of “its the culture not the religion…” or “its the people, not the religion…” so often I feel I should address it again. To make sure I do not run into the same criticism again, I will concede (far more than I need to), that perhaps pure Islam does not contain the most vile sexist nonsense, and that it is indeed entirely a construct of local culture. Now, to be clear, I do not in anyway hold that position, and I am conceding it merely for the sake of argument. Now, the argument would go “don’t criticize the religion, but rather the culture/people.”  The minute one attempts to criticize the person who engaged in say, the forced marriage of a 6 year old girl to a 40 year old man, they automatically turn to the life of Muhammed as justification. There are only two ways to counter that, either to say, Islam is wrong or, it doesn’t really say that. In either case, it is impossible to avoid Islam in the conversation. It happens to be the case that, Islam does create the justification for a man to marry a young girl, and for me that leaves only one response. Islam is wrong.

Islam is not a religion of peace and it does not give respect to women, for respect is not something that can just be “given.” Islam does the exact opposite of giving respect to women, it belittles their intellect and treats them as the property of men. It was originally intended to favor the interests of the illiterate and disgusting men who created it. While it may be convenient for a male such as myself to support something so clearly in my favor, it just would not be intellectually honest. Karl Marx once said… “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social Progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex…” These words were true then, and remain true to this day. If we atheists and rationalists are serious about changing society, working to support the global feminist cause is absolutely crucial to success.

Related posts:

1. Islam and Women, Revised For the ma
2. Islam and Women For the ma
3. We Give Women Respect… That is a

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I remember when I was around the age of 7, my mother had paid for a Mullah from the local neighborhood mosque to come and teach my siblings and I the Qur’an. I personally did not like this instructor very much as his presence meant less time for me to play video games or other fun activities. Now that I look back, he was quite harsh and really there really was not any positive qualities about the man. Though, these few years of religious instruction were cut far shorter than my mother would have liked them to be. Unlike my cousins and other relatives, there was quite the strife in my family between my father and mother on the topic of religion. My mother, coming from a background of extremely devout and generally decent people was and still is quite religious, as is much of her family. My father has been a lifelong liberal in just about every aspect of life. He did not really follow any sort of rigid ritualistic aspect to Islam, as he regarded such behavior as the antithesis to an intellectual person. As a young man, living in the extremely religious climate of Pakistan (a nation primarily established for religious reasons) he stood out like a black sheep. He wrote poetry that was often rejected without a proper reading simply due to its provocative nature. He also had a great deal of friends amongst the huge Marxist (or in other terms, young intellectual atheists) though one could not quite describe my father as full Atheist or a Marxist, rather a Deist and a Socialist. Looking back, this difference in my parents religious views seem to be the early roots of my current non-belief.

Well, this sort of cultural Islam and continued for many years. I never really gave religion a second thought, it was just there and the notion of it ever leaving were just not conceivable (nor desired). This period of time finally ended at the age of 13. I remember walking with my grandfather (from my mothers side) to the local mosque one day. He said to me, “Now that you are reaching an age of maturity, it is time for you to take religion much more seriously.” So, I almost immediately acted upon his words and began the shift from a cultural Muslim (essentially, a Muslim by no choice of their own) to a practicing Muslim. I began to read the five daily prayers, and reread the Qur’an in Arabic. I tried to live my life as closely to what I thought a proper Muslim should, which is quite difficult living in the Western world. As you may already know, I am not one for half-measures. I may begin with moderate stances, but rarely do they ever remain. They often become more and more extreme, until they really cannot go any further. By the age of 15, I was quite the religious fellow. I read the daily prayers, had completed the Qur’an in Arabic countless times and I even annoyed my father until he would finally drive me to the local mosque. I remember feeling a sort of hatred for Western culture as it was becoming more and more anti-Islamic (this is post 9/11). The odd thing about this time of extreme devout belief was that my father actually attempted to take credit for my religiousness (some sort of bizarre logic that basically said that his lack of harsh instruction led me to love Islam) and my mother also attempted to take credit for this “blessing from Allah” as she put it.

Around this period of time, I began to research my country of birth, Pakistan, and its leaders. This study led me to the discovery of Zulifkar Ali Bhutto. A man that was the idol of my father (though I had never known until I mentioned him to my father). Bhutto was quite good friends with another leader in the Islamic world, Muammar Al-Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi, a self described “Islamic Socialist” is another interesting figure. Ghadaffi stood for essentially, anti-West, anti-European principles, and this was very attracting to a young liberal Muslim. I was quite knowledgeable on the Islamic aspect of Ghadaffi, but not the Socialist aspect. This is when I began to research Marxism, Communism and came to a startling discovery. For the Marxist worldview, god was dead and more accurately, god was never alive. I tried to reconcile this notion of Marxist/Liberal thought which I had now come to favor with my belief, but it was impossible. Atheism is a prerequisite for Marxism, and if any of the two had to go, it was most certainly going to be my religious belief. Even though I was a very devout believer in Allah and Islam, I was also very much more inclined to the notion that political and economic change in societies is far more important than the religious belief. Though, letting go of faith and belief is far more difficult than just that. Even though I tried to move forward and reject god for the sake of consistency, Marxism really only ended the cultural and ritualistic aspects of Islam that I followed, not my belief in god. To remove that, I would need something much more powerful than Marxism, science.

I had attempted to write this down before, but, I want to give it another go. Part two (science) of three, coming soon...

Related posts:

1. Islamic Feminism, The Ultimate Contradiction A few week
2. Undeserved Respect Over the
3. We Give Women Respect… That is a

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

One of the most common replies to the oppressive treatment of women is, “it’s the culture, not religion.” The people who say this, either know nothing of the religion they are speaking of, or are purposely lying. It must be one or the other, there is no middle ground in this matter. The Qur’an clearly outlines what rights women have, and which rights they don’t. In fact, the 4th chapter of the Qur’an deals directly with women, as it is titled “Al-Nisa” which translates to “The Woman.” If there were ever a place to prove my point, it would be this chapter of the Qur’an. So, let us explore the claim of whether or not Islam gives respect to women by reading this chapter.

4:3 And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.

This verse is often seen as part of the justification as to why men are given the right to marry multiple women. The first claim it makes is that, it is possible for a man to treat multiple women equally. All one needs to evaluate the validity of this claim is to ask any self-respecting woman if such is possible. The next interesting aspect is that, it allows men to marry multiple women, but not women to marry multiple men. Clearly, this verse implies that there is an inherent inequality, as it assumes that only men are in the position to provide for multiple women, but not the other way around.

4:11 Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half.

Unlike the previous verse that only implies an inherent inequality, this chapter essentially states this supposed inequality outright. Men are given double of what women are given. Again, the Qur’an is creates the justification for inequality and suppression.

4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Here is a cluster of sexist nonsense. Now, it clearly says, “men are in charge of women.” Why is this so? Why can’t women be in charge of men? How has god made males better than females? According to any sensible knowledge of modern anatomy, there are negligible differences between the two, so how is a male “made to excel over the female” ? Why is a good woman obedient to god and men? Why can’t a woman be simply obedient to god? Why aren’t good males obedient to god and females? If you had any objection to the other verses, surely there cannot be any mistake here. This passage also states the proper punishment for the women who aren’t obedient. First a male can essentially yell at them, second, send them to another bed and then third you can beat them and not allow them outside the house. This single passage allows men to be in charge of women, forces women to be obedient or else face harsh consequences. It ends off with a praise of god, surely no person of reasonable, or even mediocre ethics could not praise any god which would give such filthy and disgusting passages to be the final revelation.

24:31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women’s nakedness.

One of my main grievances with Islam and the Qur’an is that it states that modesty is a virtue for women in relation to god and men, but modesty is only a virtue for men in relation to god. This passage highlights this grievance of mine. I simply cannot understand the desire to force a woman to wear veils. I also do not see why a woman must lower her gaze, especially in direct submission to men. Surely this passage is convenient for males, as they can continue with their sick desire to subjugate women. However, as a male, I could not participate in any religion which states such blatant falsehoods and obvious sexist non-sense regardless of their convenience to me.

What I hope to have established is that, a person cannot consider themselves a feminist if they protect or even worse, follow Islam. The presupposition that men are inherently superior to women (which clearly exists within the passages of the Qur’an) is the antithesis to feminism. For those who are women and also follow the Islamic faith, my question is, why? Why follow a religion which so obviously against you. It is not the culture that allows for males to assume they can suppress you, but rather, it is the religion itself. For one to consider themselves a Muslim, they must follow every single aspect of the Qur’an, if even a single passage seems wrong, the entire faith falls down. One cannot submit to the word of god and at the same time challenge it. I stand baffled whenever a woman actually allows herself to be suppressed, and even more so, agrees with the logic behind it. For a woman following these filthy Abrahamic religions is similar to a freed slave staying with their owner. To put it as succinctly as possible, the notion of “Islamic Feminism” is essentially a contradiction in terms.

The Koran! well, come put me to the test–
Lovely old book in hideous error drest–
Believe me, I can quote the Koran too,
The unbeliever knows his Koran best.

- Omar Khayyám

(this is an updated, and revised version of my earlier “Islam and Woman essay. This one is specifically created for, and revised for publication in a feminist magazine at Stony Brook University)

Related posts:

1. Islam and Women For the ma
2. Islamic Feminism, The Ultimate Contradiction A few week
3. Secularism is Incompatible with Islam With the r

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

This chart (reposted from somewhere) beautifully puts into perspective the above posted quote.

Related posts:

1. My “spiritual” Journey, Part 1 (Marxism) As a young

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

NEW YORK A prominent Buffalo area businessman who founded the BridgesTV network to improve the image of Muslims in the U.S. has been arrested and charged with murdering his estranged wife – by beheading her at his company’s office in Orchard Park, N.Y., on Thursday.

Police have charged the husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder in the death of Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37.

Source

How hard is it to resist the urge to behead your wife? I mean, really, what could have she really done to deserve that? Ah, these Muslim folk just make it to easy…

Related posts:

1. Religious Official Arrested Don’
2. Islamic Feminism, The Ultimate Contradiction A few week
3. Why I Can’t Believe The questi

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.