Of obsession with fiction and the reason behind it

I have been musing, as I often do, on the topic of people's obsession with religious fiction. Whenever you ask a feligious fanatic/fundamentalist and even more moderate believers to prove some part of their faith, the answer is often the same: "Because the bible/Al-Qur’ān/talmud says so and it is the inerrant word of allah/jehovah/god/etc". They take their preferred bit of fiction as fact whithout a moment of doubt in its veracity. Now consider for a moment how these people would react to someone publishing a book with the premise of the world being created by the Q continuum. I'm sure they would see it as pure fiction and nothing more. Why is it then that they don't see their respective holy books as the fiction they are? The reason that comes more easily to mind is indoctrination. I have mentioned before that I find the idea of religious "education" of children as a truly contemptible one, as it is forcing one's beliefs over someone else, worse even, someone else incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction and taking the dogma he or she is being fed, as truth. Furthermore, in the case of the bible (and I'm almost sure it applies to other holy books as well), the belief of its inerrancy is so deeply ingrained that those indoctrinated doublethink their way out of its obvious contradictions. The fact that dogma can supress reason in such a manner is utterly apalling. Not to mention the sheer power of indoctrination (Take a look at Richard Dawkins' Root of all Evil p.2 for a wider view on that one). The point here being the disservice religious education does to humanity in general, converting people into absolute irrationality. That's why I think that religious education should be illegal, just like drinking or smoking, for minors.

Come on, Eureka too?

So, I've been watching this fairly recent series named Eureka, about a town filled with the greatest scientific minds of the US, all in all a rather interesting series for a science and sci-fi nut like me. Season one and everything's lovely, season two and all's well until episode ten. Why, because the writers were utterly incapable of envisioning a town without a damned church, even if the town is filled with the greatest of American geniuses. Oh, and to top things off, the churchgoing was pretty slim until things strarted to go biblical-awry and then the bloody church is filled to capacity. Well done, sci-fi channel, thank you for reinforcing the stereotype of the false atheist, ready to turn believer at the flick of a match. The sad thing is that it has been a good series so far. Hopefully, they won't further wreck with it more religious nonsense.

Rêves doux.

Of theocrat hierarchs and their opinions

Bonsoir, mes chês lecteurs, comment allez vous? Today I bring you this. Apparently the pope not only dislikes the existence of other religions in the world, he criticizes "Secularist ideology", which according to him, denies any kind of "trascendent truth". I'm quite sure that his view of in ideal world is a global theocracy, ruled by none other than himself, who knows, maybe bring the inquisition back, for old times sake. It is fortunate that he is the head of state of a really tiny country, though it is unfortunate that so many people heed his ill-concieved words.
And on the note of ill-conceived words, have you heard of the 7 new capital sins? I find it most paradoxical (not to mention hypocritical) that they had the audacity to put among those "sins" one about becoming obscenely rich at the expense of others, since the Catholic church has been doing it for more than a thousand years, and continues to do so today.

Of government-assisted religious transgression

Bonsoir, mes chês lecteurs, aujourd'hui je suis furieux. Je suis furieux parce que le gouvernement de mon pays a décidé d'offrir quatre-vingt-dix Millions de Pesos (MXN) a l'eglise catholique. Quatre-vingt-dix millions! It is truly outrageous. This particular transgression comes from the state of Jalisco (which is notorious for the borderline and not-so-borderline religious fanaticism of most of its inhabitants). I'm sure you can understand my anger at this event. Oh, and to top things off, the ninety million are to be used to build a monument to catholic martyrs of the Cristero war, when their so called "martyrs" were the ones who started the war and committed the atrocities during the conflict (Further reading here). Mexico is by law a secular nation, and this is an open violation of said law (pdf). As it has come to be expected, the governor of Jalisco is a member of the National Action Party (PAN). The church constantly violates the Law of Religious Associations and Public Cult, one of the more recent incidents being their attempt to coerce congresspeople into not legalizing abortion here in the city by threatening them with excommunication (I'm sure that only scared the people from PAN).

Para cerrar, los que vivan en México y sean seres racionales, y los que no vivan en México y tengan un lugar especial en su corazón para este pais nuestro, no se queden callados ante este abuso. Ese dinero es de todos los contribuyentes y no es correcto que lo desperdicien, mucho menos regalándoselo a una asociación religiosa (notando particularmente que esta asociación, la iglesia católica, no necesita ese dinero para un monumento, porque estoy seguro que el retrete del papa cuesta mas que eso). Que sepa el ciudadano gobernador Emilio Gonzalez que no importa que maquille el asunto como que le está dando dinero a una Asociación Civil, no engaña a nadie.

If anyone requires a tranlation of anything I wrote, feel free to ask for it.

Rêves Doux, chês lecteurs.

Of religion and morality (or lack thereof)

Bonsoir, mes chês lecteurs! Comment ça va. I read an inspiring piece of news and decided to comment on it (link is further down), enjoy.

I've read time and again of christians labeling us atheists as immoral, citing the supposed need for religion in order to be a good citizen (which is utter bollocks, mind you). Funny how they abstain from commenting on one of their own endorsing acts which are widely seen not only as immoral, but also as atrocious. In case you are expecting an example, I have one right here:

Bush vetoed a law that would prohibit waterboarding interrogation in the CIA.

Now, you may be asking yourselves, what the bloody hell is waterboarding?

Wikipedia defines waterboarding as follows:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

You can read the complete Wikipedia entry here.

Just so you know, waterboarding was a technique used by the Spanish inquisition.

So, Bush wants the CIA to keep on performing "Autos de Fe" on suspected terrorists, how lovingly benevolent and humane of him...

Now, president Bush is a devout christian, he himself has stated that. Furthermore, he even stated that he, as a christian, did not believe atheists could be good citizens. Yet he wants to keep the CIA torturing people as they see fit. That says quite a bit about christian morality, don't you think, mes chers lecteurs?

Rêves doux.

Ever seen one of those little bibles in a hotel room?

They're place there by this group called "The Gideons".

Their chosen name is taken from a biblical character who supposedly was sycophantically obedient to "God" (and heard his commands directly). Among his great feats were destroying the altars of other religions.

So, these Gideons are a christian organization dedicated to spreading their belief all over the world, incluiding Mexico (I'll go into more detail of their operations here in my next post).

Now, they claim they used the Gideon story because

"Gideon was a man who was willing to do exactly what God wanted him to do, regardless of his own judgment as to the plans or results. Humility, faith, and obedience were his great elements of character. This is the standard that The Gideons International is trying to establish in all its members, each man to be ready to do God's will at any time, at any place, and in any way that the Holy Spirit leads."

Of course, since there is no direct connection to this "God" other than the pastors or the bible, they're pretty much looking for someone that will do anything as long as they cite the name "God" along with those orders.

I took the liberty of going through their FAQ and found these two quite outstanding (comments in yellow):

Is The Gideons International a denomination or a church?

No. The Gideons are an association that works with Protestant/evangelical churches. Our members come from many denominations, live all over the world, and share a desire to see the lost come to Christ.

To be read as: "a desire to impose our nonsensical beliefs over the whole damn world". They also happen to consider as "lost" anyone who doesn't share said belief. According to them no non-christian can be truly happy and successful in life. I'm quite certain I'm an example of the opposite, and I know quite a few others that fit into that description too.

What do Gideons believe?

The Gideons International is a diverse association in that our members come from many Protestant denominations with a common interest in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. All Gideons also hold certain core beliefs:

• The Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God.

This point should should be unsurprising, coming from the people who believe themselves to be at the center of the universe. Also, this "inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God" is self contradictory (take the gospels of Luke and Matthew as an example) and written by human beings. I wonder If part of evangelizing a "lost" person is teaching them to doublethink* their way around things like those.

• The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God.

And they devote themselves to follow the alleged teachings of someone who lived two thousand years ago, and believed himself to be the son of god. Medicine has long identified this particular type of psychosis. Its called schizophrenia, with some delusions of grandeur.

Members must also:

• Have received Jesus as their personal Savior.
• Endeavor to follow Him in their daily lives.
• Be members in good standing in their Protestant/evangelical churches.
• Have the recommendation of their pastors.

Apparently, these Gideons will not stop until they have managed to convert every last person on the world to christianity. While not quite as bloody as a jihad, the principle behind it is the same. the misguided belief that their belief is unequivocally superior, without proof to sustain such an assumption.

I will follow this post with more about the Gideons activities.

Rêves Doux

*Doublethink is the act of simultaneously and fervently holding two mutually contradictory beliefs. it was used in the novel 1984 by George Orwell

A glimpse of Mexican history, and the way the church has always attempted to hold their power over politics by any means possible

Bonsoir, mes ches lecteurs! (or the lack thereof, as surely no one reds this) Those of you familiar with Mexican history will have surely heard of the Cristero Wars, also known as the Cristiadas (for those of you that don’t speak Spanish, the term refers to the wars of those who support Christ).
The Cristero Wars were a series of open revolts against the Mexican government by people who opposed the anti-clerical laws established in the 1917 Constitution of Mexico (this is the current constitution of Mexico). The laws stated, in various articles that:

-Education must be secular (Part of article 3, still in effect).
-Monastic religious orders are outlawed (Article 5, modified since, this part has been derogated).
-Public worship outside church buildings is forbidden (Article 24, modified since, this part now reads: “Ordinarily, all religious acts will be practiced in temples, and those that extraordinarily are practiced outside temples must adhere to law.”).
-The right to own property is restricted for religious organizations (Article 27, modified since, this part has been derogated).
-Priests and religious leaders may not vote, may not wear their habits, and may not comment on any political situation (Article 130, modified since, it still holds many restrictions for members of the clergy, but was softened).

These laws, while active since 1917, were not stringently applied until 1924, when President Plutarco Elias Calles was elected.

Now, it is important to note that Church and State have been officially separated in Mexico since the 19th century. I take the precaution of making it known because a British friend told me he honestly believed that the Catholic Church continued to be the State religion to this day. He found it was not through recent events that I have previously discussed in my blog and will discuss further in this post.

Now, back to subject.

On July 14, 1926, catholic bishops openly called for a boycott on economic activities. This boycott collapsed by October 1926, as boycotters lacked economic support. In an open violation of Mexican sovereignty, Pope Pius XI ordered bishops to resist the government and to work in having the “offending” laws changed. The hostilities escalated, with armed uprisings backed by the Church in Durango and Guanajuato, which were forced to use guerilla warfare against federal forces. In the meantime, rebels in Guadalajara were slowly and quietly increasing their numbers. The rebellion started in Guadalajara on January 1 1927, and the region became a focal point in the conflict. The rebels were led by the head of the Mexican Association of Catholic Youth, Rene Capistran Garza.

The conflict became a war, with clergymen at the head of the rebels opposing the government. The local priests and bishops mostly endorsed the armed revolt and the Vatican had yet to openly endorse or condemn the rebellion.
It is important to know that, while there were a few summary executions carried out by the government, the secularists did not set fire to the train, killing 51 civilians on board; a rebel priest did. This irreparably damaged the public’s opinion on the rebellion.

The rebellion was waging a losing war and a peace process ensued (supported by the Vatican, no less). As Elias Calles’ term was nearing an end, the process was followed by President Elect Alvaro Obregon, but he was murdered two weeks after his election, by a Catholic rebel.

In the end, the government agreed to be more lenient in applying the anticlerical laws, thus ending the rebellion.

Fast-forward to 2007.

Some of you must surely have heard that there was trouble in Mexico City, because the local congress was deciding whether to modify the laws forbidding abortions.
In the end, despite heavy protest from the church and the ignorant fanatics, the reforms were approved. As you may know, Mexico’s religious majority is catholic. The pope called for civil resistance to these (much needed) reforms.

With this I know of at least two occasions in which the Vatican has openly attacked Mexican Sovereignty.

As I mentioned before, the pope during the time of the Cristero War, also called for civil resistance.

Some may say that is far from being an attack on Mexico’s sovereignty, but I disagree. To put this in perspective, if president Calderon were to openly call for Mexican immigrants in the US to resist the American government, the Mexican government would be righteously and deservedly condemned for violating the sovereignty of the US, and it would be acceptable to put a stop to such an intrusion. In return, the Vatican, through a head of state, has twice (that I know of) violated the rights of a country (to put it nicely). Why is this hypocritically tolerated? Because the pope is a religious leader? Not only is it tolerated but also permitted. They allow a country to force its moralistic view of the world and their prohibitions on other countries, under the pretext of religion.

It appears that religious leaders do not care who they trample in order to preserve their power.

One final thought on the Cristero War before I go to sleep. I understand the leniency in the enforcing of the anti-religious laws was necessary to prevent any further bloodshed, but certain laws were quite correct, and would still be so now. I once before mentioned that religious education should be forbidden, as it deprives a child from his right to choose his religion, leaving it in the hands of others.

Au revoir mes ches lecteurs! I promise not to let it be too long before my next post (even though no one reads this =P )

Rant! of the night

So, what's the thing with those bloody evangelists in the subway? Is it not annoying enough to have those thought-piercing yelling peddlers? Now we have people who yell about salvation coming through adoring a bearded man who perished two millenia ago. Cute. Let me tell you something, oh dear reader: I truly dislike religion. But people like this make me hate it. They have the right to believe whatever they want, I wouldn't dare deny them such a right. But why the hell do these half-witted imbeciles feel such an urgent need to push their idiotic beliefs on us. Do they see me in the metro system yapping on about why they should become atheists? No, they don't. Why? Because I have a functional brain and know how to respect other people's rights. I truly wanted to cast this idiot's bible out the subway's window, hoping that she would jump after it. Sometimes I lament having a good education. Anyhow, it's quite ironic that, given religion's past and present, both filled to the brim with censorship, now those worshippers abuse their freedom of speech.

In the meantime, I will leave you with a rant induced political statement for all of you to consider.

Religion should be prohibited for people under the age of 18. There is nothing quite so unethical as forcing a child to take your religion because of a whim disguised of righteousness.

I will rant about this later.

Mac apesta

Probablemente aquellos de ustedes que me leen saben que detesto mac. Claro, habra algun adorador de mac por ahi que me diga blaaah blaaah seguridad, blaaah blaaah facilidad de uso. Pues la verdad, es que mac APESTA. Es inflexible. Es caro. Es Incompatible. Es problematico. En pocas palabras, es para niños nice que no saben ni pito de computo pero a fuerza quieren una máquina porque esta "in", y siendo que las mac tienen fama de "chidas", es la eleccion obvia. Por si fuera poco, mac tiene una campaña comercial que pretende hacer ver a la pc como un laboradicto con serios problemas. Cierto, nadie hace virus para mac, pero mac no es ni remotamente inmune. Creen ustedes acaso que es un comentario prejuiciado? Lean ESTO entonces.

Ah, verdad? Que paso con esa gran sensacion de seguridad que tenian? Dejenme decirles algo, gente de mac, su I-life es una exageracion. Mi PC esta lista para trabajar, entretenerme y cualquier otra cosa, desde el momento en que le pongo WINDOWS! Porque en sus anuncios, representan a pc con un pobre hombre que ni siquiera sabe divertirse. Diganme algo, usuarios de mac, cuantos videojuegos de verdad hay para mac que no haya para pc? Que dicen? Ninguno? Que tal juegos para PC que no hay para mac? Wow, son muchas manos arriba. Que esperaban de una computadora que cobra una fortuna solo porque se ve bonita cuando por capacidad real deberia costar la mitad? Vamos, es como si a uno de ustedes le quisieran vender un jetta por el precio de un maldito ferrari solo porque tiene la firma de SteveJobs en el cofre y un lindo decorado en el techo.
Dicen que las mac son excelentes para diseño y cosas asi, pero:
A) Todos los efectos de star wars los hicieron en PC.
B) Mi dama, que es licenciada en diseño grafico, probo las mac y llego a la misma conclusion que yo: APESTAN.
Ignorenme a quellos de ustedes que solo quieran una maquina que "se vea linda". Ignorenme aquellos de ustedes que quieran una mac por snobs o porque de verdad adoran a mac.

El resto, por favor, no tiren su dinero en una "·$%& Mac!