Sell a few Michelangelos and feed Africa this year

I think most reasonable people, where ever they are on the political spectrum, would agree that hunger and poverty are objectively bad things and the fact that one in six people on this planet does not get enough to eat is pretty awful, especially when we in the wealthy developed world look at the plenty that surrounds us.

So when I saw this story about the UN food conference in Rome, it perturbed me. As usual, all the diplomats sitting at the banquet table agree that hunger in the poorer nations is a terrible thing and "somebody ought to do something about it" - at least, they all agree until coughing up some money to irrigate fields in Africa or start fish farms in South East Asia or build better dykes in Bangladesh is discussed and then suddenly everyone is full of excuses.

But then I read a little further and got really ticked off.

"Despite endorsing the strategy in the first hours of Monday's meeting, the 192 participating countries did not commit to the $44 billion a year for agricultural aid that the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization says will be necessary in the coming decades.
Soon after the delegates approved the declaration, Pope Benedict took the floor to decry "opulence and waste" in a world where the "tragedy" of hunger has been steadily worsening. Benedict's speech marked the first time a pontiff attended such a gathering since Pope John Paul II took part in a 1996 food summit.
The pontiff, lending his moral authority as head of the world's 1 billion Catholics, also called for access to international markets for products coming from the poorest countries, which he said are often relegated to the sidelines."

The Pope, who insists that every sperm is sacred and his flock must keep having lots and lots of Catholic babies, who lives in a golden palace full of priceless art in his own nation-state in the middle of Rome with his own private army and bank (estimated to have at least $10 billion invested in foreign corporations), who presides over a global organization that brings in an estimated $50 to $100 million a year in donations alone, who made sure that the Church spent millions defending pedophiles in the U.S. and elsewhere and who wears simply fabulous hats, is decrying "opulence and waste."

Yeah, right.

Sure, the Catholic Church is one of the world's largest charitable organizations and Catholic charities do a lot of good work, but how many of "Peter's Pence" get spent on running a parallel religious school system where there is already a perfectly good public school system? How much of that money is going to the pay for the Monsignor's Cadillac? What is the ratio of bibles to bags of rice that are getting shipped to starving nations? How much is getting spent on making women feel bad about seeking an abortion or using birth control? How many lives, how many man-hours of labour, skull-sweat and angst have been dedicated to appeasing an invisible sky-daddy instead of helping humans in the here and now?

I'm not saying the Catholic Church (or any other church for that matter) doesn't do good works -- it does provide some vital services in some pretty grim places around the world. But for God's self-proclaimed spokesman on Earth to sit in the lap of luxury and start railing about "opulence and waste" is just a bit rich.

Preach it Brother George!

Death to all violent extremists!
I agree with Pete King, but not in the way he might think.
He says:There are too many mosques. Imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if one were to replace "mosques" and "muslims" in his remarks with "churches" and "christians" or "synagouges" and "jews." Personally, I think we have too many of all three, especially of the fundementalist sorts, who refuse to cooperate with the state, send their children to public schools or abide by the law of the land regarding tolerance for those whose lifestyles or beliefs they disapprove of. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion so quit knocking on my door to try to get me to take a copy of the Watchtower when I'm too hungover sleepy to argue with you. And stop trying to get the secular state to teach your addled, scientifically comic notions of where we come from alongside accepted, rational, emperical science. Believe what you like at home, but keep it to yourself, 'nuff said?
If there is one thing I can't stand, it is intolerance.

Akash Bhairab is my co-pilot

Faith-based aircraft maintenance, an idea whose time has come...and gone. I think I'd rather walk. Go ahead and laugh at the heathens and their goofy religious practices all you enlightened Christians. Then on Sunday when you are finished speaking in tongues, handling snakes, or particpating in ritual cannibalism you can explain to me how this is different from Christians praying for someone to have a good flight or for the cancer to leave someone's body or for the President to save all the little fetuses. The difference between Athiests and Christians is that we disbelieve in one more god than you do.

Responsible speech
Whenever someone is criticized for saying outrageous things, whether it is Ann Coulter or Michael Moore (not that I equate the two) or even Canadian Cynic, (read more than just the linked initial post and comments, this one went on for a while)the defense is usually that in a free society we all have a right to free speech. True enough, but there are limits on that speech - the old standby of "shouting fire in crowded theatre" being one limit, slander, uttering threats and perjury being others. The notion that there should be limits on what is referred to as hate speech has been denied in the United States but has taken hold in Canada.

From the CBC backgrounder:

Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added to that list.
Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means. The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion.

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Short version: It is okay to hate a given group-- say left-handed, redheaded Straussian economists and lawyers-- it is even okay to tell your friends in the course of conversation that you think they should all be horsewhipped. But when you step up on a soapbox, electronic or actual, and advocate horsewhipping any group of people, it is officially naughty - UNLESS your statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion.

I'm not sure how the idea of a truthful statement comes into this as I'm not sure how one would justify genocide - - does this mean it is okay to say "We should kill all the caucasians in North America because white North Americans caused and sponsored the slave trade and committed genocide against the First Nations' people?" --I'm guessing the answer is probably no, you could probably denounce whitey until you turn blue in the face, but I suspect calling for people to be killed would, or at least should in my book, land you in trouble. The last part seems to mean it is okay to advocate murder if Allah/Jesus/The Flying Spagetti Monster says you should kill all the Infidels/Gays/Republican Klansmen. And the only reason its is there is that Christian activists demanded that they be allowed to denounce gays and promote hatred against them.

Effort to bring in a similar law in the U.S. have been opposed by free speech activists, civil libertarians and Fundementalist Christians. The first two groups argue on constitutional grounds that freedom of speech should be absolute. The third don't want anyone stopping them from hating who they want to and encouraging others to do likewise.

I have some sympathy for the arguments put forward by the first two groups, but the third group, well, they should be proud of what they've accomplished so far on the ground.

It may be that by pointing out the role of churches in promoting violence I am promulgating hatred against religious people, but I think I can safely fall back on the defence provided for in the Canadian Hate crimes act that everything I'm saying is true. What was done can be proved and a direct link can be show between misdeeds by individuals and the speech of religious organizations.

Let me be clear--I don't think that all religious people are bloodthirsty radical zealots, but there are, as in any mass movement, a few who go to extremes. My complaint is that by lobbying for the right to keep promoting hatred against groups based religious opinion, the more mainstream organizations provide cover, encouragement and legitimacy to the extremists.

Right now the Catholic church and the Fundemantalist Born-Again churches agree that abortionist are evil and that God hates homosexuals. The Pope recently reminded Catholics of the longstanding Church doctrine that Roman Catholicism is the only legitimate form of Christianity and that the rest of the so-called Christian churches are just a bunch of misguided heathens. Would it be a major stretch to imagine the Catholic church lapsing back into its old practices of encouraging violent anti-Semitism, or for the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints to go back to preaching that those of African heritage are inferior? Both positions would be protected under Canada's hate crime laws under the exception for "religious opinion".

Organized religion does a lot of good in Western society in terms of charitable works. Churches provide a supportive community for their members and exert a form of social control over their members. So do motorcycle gangs, though their aims and methods may differ somewhat. It is time that churches were treated like any other organization. They should not be excused from paying taxes, nor excused for spreading hate.

Get your smite on
Biblical video games, because you know you wanna see Jesus kick Satan's ass and if you get one more request for one more meeting at the office you're gonna stick your head in the paper-shredder

How the other half "thinks"
A must read post on a dangerous religious fruitcake over at Recursivity: Kirk Durston: Apologist for Genocide
Mr. Durston says that genocide is ohkey-dokey as long as the little voice in his head he presumes to be god says it's all right. I expect Charlie Manson said the same thing.
(via Canadian Cynic)

The devil made him do it

A male comedian dressed up like a woman saying "the devil made me do it" in a comedy routine is funny.

A fundamentalist Christian teenage mother using it to defend her teenage would-be preacher's attempt to roast their toddler alive-- ehhh, not so much.

More progressive parenting in Jebusland:

Woman blames devil, not husband for burning daughter in microwave
May 20, 2007, 12:45PM

© 2007 The Associated Press

GALVESTON, Texas — A woman blames the devil and not her husband for severely burning their infant daughter after the 2-month-old was put in a microwave, a Houston television station reported.

Eva Marie Mauldin said Satan compelled her 19-year-old husband, Joshua Royce Mauldin, to microwave their daughter May 10 because the devil disapproved of Joshua's efforts to become a preacher.

"Satan saw my husband as a threat. Satan attacked him because he saw (Joshua) as a threat," Eva Mauldin told Houston television station KHOU-TV.

A Galveston County grand jury indicted Joshua Mauldin last week on child injury charges after hearing evidence that he placed his daughter in a motel microwave for 10 to 20 seconds.
The infant, Ana Marie, remains hospitalized. She suffered burns on the left side of her face and to her left hand, police said.

Eva Marie Mauldin, the girl's 20-year-old mother, told the television station that her husband is "not the monster people are making him out to be."

Ding Dong


I've been trying very hard all day to take the high road and not to gloat, cheer or pile-on. It should always be a sad occasion when someone dies, but in the case of Jerry Falwell I'll make an exception. I'll also admit to having cracked a smile when they hung Saddam and when I heard Nixon and Reagan had finally croaked. Evil crap-sacks, each and every one. The ad is from Hustler --Jerry famously sued them and lost. He is the bastard who got the burgeoning fundementalist Christian movement tied in with the Republican party with his Moral Majority (all together now: "it was neither") movement starting in 1979. He got St. Ronnie of Raygun elected, he got Bush senior elected, he had a lot to do with getting Clinton impeached by the House of Representatives (though not as much as Clinton did, let's be fair). Without him there would be no politically active fundementalist movement -- no Ralph Reed, no James Dobson, probably no abortion clinic bombers either. He blamed 9/11 on homosexuals, the ACLU, abortion-providers and People for the American Way. He was a hate-spewing homophobic, racist, sexist bigot and if there is a hell, he is smoking a turd in it right now. And I for one, am glad.
That's right blogging Tories, CNN and conservatard everywhere, my name is Rev.Paperboy and I'm an angry, intolerant, godless, anti-Christian, liberal blogger. SFW?

Looking it up
Hey all you aspiring journalists out there, this week's Time magazine has a lesson for you in how not to report a story. I don't usually read Time or pay much attention to Joe Klein and this is a great example of why. It has been covered elsewhere, but I just happened to see the offending article this morning at work and figured I would add my two cents worth.

Klein's profile of Akansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and his religious faith quotes the Gov. as saying: "I'm a 'grace' Christian, not a 'law' Christian. The Second Commandment -- do unto others -- is the basic tenet of my faith."

One small problem, the Second Commandment, the one off the top ten list that Charleton Heston, I mean Moses brought down the mountain, has to do with not worshipping false idols. "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You" is the golden rule, it isn't part of the Ten Commandments.

Conservative apologists, after they get finished ranting about heathen pinkos hating Huckabee for daring to be a born again Christian and accusing the godless libruls of playing "gotcha" with the holy word of God, usually insist that what Huckabee was referring to was a passage in the New Testament's Gospel of Matthew

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” –Matthew 22:36-40

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" is not the same as the golden rule, so we can see that this defence is basically bullshit. Huckabee just doesn't have that firm a grasp on his biblical references.

My purpose here is not to suggest that Huckabee isn't a good Christian or that Christians who don't know their bible shouldn't be president or that he thinks the original Ten Commandments only apply to Jews or anything like that. Admittendly, I would prefer the leader of the free world be a little less superstitious than the present White House occupant, who thinks that God chose him to be president and that his close personal buddy Jesus talks to him, but I don't think being religious should disqualify you from holding public office. In fact, I don't really care about Huckabee and I doubt he will be the Republican nominee -- he talks too much about helping the poor and not enough about smiting evildoer (like someone else who can to a bad end) to get elected president.

My purpose is to point out what a useless hack Joe Klein is.

When an interview subject makes such a blatant factual error as misattributing a pithy quote, a reporter can either correct or question the interviewee on the spot if they catch the error - or they can point out the error to the interviewee prior to publication when they go back to the office and look up the reference and give them a chance to retract or modify their statement. If you really want to play gotcha, you can just report what they said and point out the error in print, but that is fairly lame unless the interviewee has a history of talking crap and pretending to he doesn't know what he's talking about.

If you are Joe Klein and you don't bother fact-checking things that politicians say to you, you could just build your whole story around the botched reference, using the egregious error to coin a catchy new term that will catch on as a buzzword with the ignorant right and title the article "The Second Commandment Republicans" --- Then you'd be a useless hack worthy of TIME.

And you just know they voted Republican
Some people really never get past the mental age of three and still think the universe revolves around them. Follow the link and scroll way down to read about people who think the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun, or that it moves at all is based on Jewish Kabbalistic propaganda and responsible for the French Revolution and Communism. No, really.

Vigilantes by any other name still stink

Given what has been going on in Arizona, I don't think it is a huge jump to think this could be the work of fellow travelers of the Minutemen. Gee, a bunch of bigots start spouting hate, prompting a bunch of other bigots to start waving guns around and another bunch of bigots start shooting people. What were the freakin' odds? The last line of the article in the second link is telling -- human smugglers shooting people out in the desert are unlikely to be wearing something as dramatic as berets. Anything that theatrical sounds to me like a bunch of uber-patriot military fetishists turned vigilante. Doubtless the freepers can explain to us how it was all the fault of the vicitims for seeking a better life in the first place instead of staying where they were and working for some mega-corporation's dirty little branch plant for a dollar a day.

In other news from Stupidville, 25 percent of Americans think Jesus will return this year. And that is according to an Associated Press poll, not a survey of members of the 700 club. If you are an American reading this, just remember that one of the next three people you meet is likely to think the rapture is going to occur in the next 10 months. So don't lend them any money.

Simple solutions to complex problems: school board edition
Problem: Born-again Christian teacher recorded by student preaching to class, telling them Noah had dinosaurs on the ark, that evolution is wrong and that anyone who isn't a Christian is going to hell, specifically singling out a Muslim student.
Solution: Ban recording in classes

Vocal minorities

While doing some quick research on the religious make-up of India to fact-check a story our paper was running, I was surprised to find that Christians, comprising 2.3 percent of the population, outnumber Sikhs (1.9 percent) Buddhists (0.8 percent) and Jains (0.4 percent) in India. The second largest group is Muslims (13.4 percent) with the dominant Hindu faith comprising 80.5 percent of the population (all figures are for 2001).

Casting about on the web for a similar set of figures for Canada, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the second largest "religious" grouping in Canada is atheist/agnostic/no religion.
Looking at the census data it is clear that not only is Canada becoming less Christian-dominated in terms of overall demographics, but that the bible-thumping literalist fundementalist Christian denominations are shrinking faster than the more liberal Christian faiths like the United Church.

We are still mostly Christian, with the Roman Catholic Church predominant at 43 percent of the population as a whole (cough Quebec cough) but the reality based community is number two with a bullet, doubling to about 16 percent of the population since 1981. The evangelical, apostolic and born-again churches have also doubled their following --- and here's the real kicker --- to a whopping 2.5 percent. That's right, in contrast to the U.S. where this group is growing at an alarming rate, there just aren't that many of them in Canada - 780,000 in 2001. So even if you include the other conservative leaning Christian faiths - the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Baptists (and Canadian Baptists are to Southern Baptists as Peewee hockey stars are to Wayne Gretzky) the numbers of the faithful still don't come close to the number of people who ticked the "none of the above" box for religion on the 2001 census. Suck on that you Focus on the Family, queer-hating, home-skoolin', what-about-the-children-for-God's-sake-what-about-the-children, Rapture-awaiting, book-banning, pulpit-pounding thickhead true believers.

Now would someone please explain to me why this tiny group of very vocal Christian cultist seem to have Stephen Harper's nutsack in a death-grip? Surely if you want to court the largest voting blocs in the country your priorities are the French Catholics, followed by the WASAA's (White Anglo-Saxon atheists and agnostics) and Christian liberals in the United Church.

So why do the Fundamentalists wield so much power in Ottawa and other centers of government.? Why do they have their own TV channels and carry so much weight with school boards and local governments? Why don't we pay them so much heed and the large chunk of the population that has no strong interest in religion so little? Is it because atheists tend to be lone wolves politically, running the full political spectrum from neofascist right-wing libertarian traditionalists to commie pinko anarchists to live-and-let-live libertarian liberals, while fundamentalist congregations tend to be flocks of voting sheep?

Follow the link for a whole bunch of interesting facts and figures about how Canada does religion.

The top ten:

Roman Catholic 12.8 million 43.2% of the population

No religion 4.8 million 16.2%

United Church 2.8 million 9.6%

Anglican 2.0 million 6.9%

Other Christian, 780 thousand 2.6%
Apostolic,
Born-again,
Evangelical

Baptist 729 thousand 2.5%

Lutheran 607 thousand 2.0%

Muslim 580 thousand 2.0%

Other Protestant 549 thousand 1.9%

Presbyterian 410 thousand 1.4%

For the record, Jews, Sikhs and Buddhists each comprised about 1 percent of the population.
All figures from the 2001 census, as compiled by Religious Tolerance.org, who have it all laid out in a nice chart at the link above.

Another interesting tidbit:"About 37% of people in the Yukon, 35% in British Columbia, and 23% in Alberta reported no religion. This compares to 6% in Quebec, and fewer than 2% in Newfoundland & Labrador."

I can understand how spending winters in the Yukon might convince you that there is no God, but 23 percent of people Alberta, usually portrayed as Canada's Bible belt, rejecting organized religion was a bit of a shock.