Homophobic Daniel Strikes Again

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

When Praying for Miracles Becomes a Dangerous Game of Life and Death

From time to time, atheists are often reminded, often quite incessantly, about the benefits of prayer and why we atheists should not abandon religion wholesale. In addition, religious folks are quite quick to inform nonbelievers about the perceived frivolity of atheism, that if death comes a-knocking we atheists will start getting scared shitless and go to our kneels and beg for a whole bagful of miracles.

This kind of asinine arguments are quite baseless, especially since there isn't any god to answer your prayers to start with. But generally, prayers are harmless, the ones which border on little else but a bit of a intellectual masturbation: Prayer to win soccer matches, prayer to screw that hot brunette next door, and so on and so forth.

That said, not all prayers are harmless, and some of them can be essentially harmful and deadly, especially when it comes to emergency situations. For example, when the house is on fire, the last thing you want to do is go down on your knees and start praying to some imaginary sky deity who, if he exists, wouldn't have started a fire in the first place and then begin a game of dice to decide whether your body deserves to be barbecued to a fried crisp or save you later for midnight supper.

In a life-and-death situation, every second counts for something, sometimes everything: In the few seconds it takes for you to pray for your incompetent sky deity, a window of opportunity for escape may be lost for good. And if you think that your sky daddy can save your ass from a burning bush then woe to you, I will say.

In sum, prayer doesn't work, and if you'd face a emergency whereby you need to take urgent action to save someone else's life or yours, please, for fuck's sake, do not stop for a wing and a prayer!

Pilot who paused to pray in emergency gets 10 years

A Tunisian pilot who paused to pray instead of taking emergency measures before crash-landing his plane, killing 16 people, has been sentenced to 10 years in jail by an Italian court along with his co-pilot.

The 2005 crash at sea off Sicily left survivors swimming for their lives, some clinging to a piece of the fuselage that remained floating after the ATR turbo-prop aircraft splintered upon impact.

A fuel-gauge malfunction was partly to blame but prosecutors also said the pilot succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures and then opting to crash-land the plane instead trying to reach a nearby airport.

Another five employees of Tuninter, a subsidiary of Tunisair, were sentenced to between eight and nine years in jail by the court, in a verdict handed down yesterday.

The seven accused, who were not in court, will not spend time in jail until the appeals process has been exhausted.

Prayer Can Be Dangerous



"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish."

Gay Bashing Inc: Singapore Christian Bashes Gays

In many Western countries, laws prohibiting anal sex between men (or even men with women) have been repealed, primarily because there is no legal basis for enforcing a religiously-slanted ruling on what is essentially consensual sex between two consenting adults in the privacy of their homes, and also because it is practically impossible to apply such Taliban-style laws against honest, law-abiding citizens in secular countries.

Unfortunately, Singapore, as an ex-British colony, still clings on to the vestiges of her colonial past: We inherited British law wholesale, and the anti-gay law which the old Elizabethan British laws enshrined (apparently the Brits no longer have such silly laws which require police to pry into the privacy of citizens' homes) are still held in high esteem by the Singapore courts.

Section 377A

Section 377A ("Outrages on decency") states that:

"Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years."

Unfortunately, an online appeal to repeal this obsolete law failed to materialize, primarily because there was another counter-campaign, dominated mainly by Christians, to support this dinosaur from the colonial age. To understand the rationale behind such unabashed support for what is essentially a law based on discrimination and bigotry, the best way is to read into what these Christians really have to say. And boy, is it shocking.

Allow me to introduce a Singaporean Christian, Daniel: He introduces himself as a "reformed Christian". According to Daniel's take on homosexuals, gays, it seems, are sinister plotters out to destroy the moral fabric of society, and they are apt to seize upon the gullible impressions of ordinary folks to morph us all into homosexuals. Sounds horrifying, but, like all things Christian, this is primarily a religiously-manufactured manure, as I shall attempt to debunk.

Below are some points which I would like to elucidate: Be warned, this is heinous stuff. My comments in black, Daniel in red.

Homosexual Bigots???

1. "We don't Hate Gays, We Just Hate the Gayness!!!"

"Let's put it this way. Homosexuals are not the problem. They are still humans and deserve to be treated as such. They are not second-class citizens to be ill-treated as a scapegoat, or to be used as anyone's punching bag. What we are against is homosexualITY, and the bigoted homosexual agenda. Bashing homosexuals for fun is wrong, although the homosexual activists sure do enjoy bashing us. But we are not to stoop to their depraved standard. Even if we can 'get away with it', anyone who bashes gays for sport is wrong. Homosexuals are to be treated with compassion, in the same manner as we should treat mentally ill people. They are to be pitied and helped to get out of their depraved state."

First and foremost, Daniel "enlightens" us with regards to his stance: He claims that he doesn't hate gays per se, but he hates the "gayness" of these gays. And like most homophobic idiots, he proceeds with the condescending tone of a master, as if he is talking to his inferior: Gays, to him and his fellow homophobs, are "mentally-ill", a subject of pity and derision.

Of course, the more enlightened folks amongst us will realize that general psychiatry no longer regards homosexuality with mental illness.

According to American Psychological Association:

"Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. "

Psychology, indeed, has moved on since the pre-Alan Turing years, when the ill-fated scientist was hounded and persecuted to the point when he had no other choice other than biting on a cyanide-laced apple. It would be ludicrous, of course, for our Christian brethren to be enamored with the lives of gays: What is one dead gay compared to the deaths of fertilized embryos???

2. The Gay Conspiracy???

"Homosexual activists of course are a different issue altogether. These people are the ones who create more homosexuals out of impressionable young minds, and who glory in their shame. These people are to be treated as criminals, in fact worse than criminals, for leading people astray. In the same way as those who brainwash people to commit suicide bombings are to be punished more severely than those who acually attempt to do so (since those who successfully did so are dead by then), homosexual activists are to be punished most severely for their wicked acts. Justice must be meted out against the perpetuators of this outrage. Since they are already sold out to the extent of desiring to corrupt others (Rom. 1:32), they are not to be treated with kids' gloves, otherwise we are telling others that it is ok to do the same thing. Yet, at the same time, we are to offer them a choice to repent of their sins, and forgiveness IF they sincerely do so."

Ah, the gay conspiracy theory. Like most conspiracy theories, such as the one on 911 being perpetuated by the White House, irrational people seize upon certain non-sequitor traits and piece together a fuzzy picture, and then proceed to sell their bullshit to the masses.

According to Daniel, gay advocates are miscreants with a hidden agenda: The real deal, it seems, is to convert everyone's sexual habits into a gay-oriented taste.

As a straight person, and one who has had numerous encounters and discussions with gays, one thing I have gleaned from them is this golden axiom: Straight people are no more liable to change their sexual orientations than gays.

While there is considerable debate with regards to the real reasons behind one's sexual tastes (Scientists have more or less determined that genes do have a considerable impact, while religious folks disagree), the unbridled truth is that most guys will be enamored with female breasts and others will become fixated with the prick of some male hunk next door. The idea that gays will plan and execute a gay agenda based on conversion is preposterous and childish: Such a campaign will face a head-long collision before it even takes off.

Like the anti-slavery campaigners that has preceded gay campaigners, gay advocates are not looking at enforcing a gay lifestyle on the general community. All they are asking for is to be treated equally, not to be treated like some slum-ghetto jerk or a lower caste of human beings destined to be trampled upon when it comes to living a normal, citizen's life. Homosexuals ask for the right to be treated fairly, the right to civil practices such as marriages, and the end of bigotry and intolerance towards gays. How is that for shoving "gayness" down the throats of every other boy, girl or child???

But Daniel doesn't stop here. He advocates that "justice be meted out against gay advocates". I wonder, if he is seriously clamoring for the death penalty to be meted out against these fornicating advocators! Or better still, whip their asses to a bloody pulp (I feel ashamed to say that our legal courts permit caning for certain crimes. It is kind of like the most medieval punishment you can ever imagine......)!!!

3. "Persecution Mode"

Like most Christian campaigns I have witnessed over the years, when Christians face opposition because of their support for outmoded, archaic, medieval beliefs, they will retreat into their shells, "persecution mode": It invokes sympathy for their religious cause, regardless whether their cause is legitimate and rational in the first place.

With regards to the gay issue, Daniel, like most right-wing nuts, follows this modus operandi, and executes it to perfection: Instead of being the bigoted and intolerant bastard, he suddenly morphs himself and those of his cause into docile, pliable (and perfectly delectable and tasty) sheep!!!!

"As for the pagan West, we would probably soon see the active persecution of faithful Christians in these once Christianized nations. Dr. James R. White has written a very good article whereby he shows this to be the case, and exhort us to prepare ourselves for it. Because we are Christ's, we will be hated by the world, and the world will persecute us (well, at least those who are faithful). In fact, shouldn't we have learned already that 'all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted' (2 Tim. 3:12)? While we still have the liberty to do so, let us therefore do the works of God, before we will be hunted down by the 'tolerant' and 'loving' secularists out there in their secular Inquisition."

Standard operating procedure from a very typical Christian. Lest one forgets, the original Inquisitions was inspired by the very guys who are accusing us secularists of plotting. Not very original, eh?

I always react with as much incredulity and skepticism as possible when Christians claim to be "persecuted" at every turn: With the exception of the Middle East, which prohibits apostasy from Islam and hence prohibits any Muslim from converting into Christianity, Christianity is pretty much revered, in fact I would add, given too much undue relevance to the point of grovelling. Pastors and their churches and "ministries" are given more financial shroud than secular businesses, since they don't pay taxes, and laws are in place in most secular countries that guarantees the right to freedom of speech and with it, the freedom to belief.

In fact, these Christians are given so much room and freedom that they are allowed to bash gays and other folks who are not aligned with their beliefs and not invoking the kind of vitriol that is incurred when a cartoonist draws a caricature of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. What kind of a persecution picture are these folks painting exactly?

Gay Bashing, a-la Christian Style

It is quite painfully obvious to enlightened folks that Christians love to drum up massive support with the predictable aplomb one would expect when they do not have reason and apathy on their side. They utilize their special privileges in media, government and other political outlets to propagate their profound hatred and gift-wrap it in Christianity's clout so that it all seems so sanctified and pious.

But alas, we secular folks know that religious piety is bullshit, and when it is invoked to illicit public sympathy for an obnoxious cause, the bullshit can be detected from miles away.

Unfortunately, most Singaporeans are of the conservative variety, and they do buy into this "gays are evil" propaganda incited by religious folks like Daniel. Unless my countrymen can start waking up and smell the coffee I think we as a nation are no more than third world citizens living in a hollow first world country.

Gays and Lesbians: Just Your Ordinary Joe and Jane Next Door


"Gay and lesbian people fall in love. We settle down. We commit our lives to one another. We raise our children. We protect them. We try to be good citizens."
-California Sen. Sheila Kuehl

Why Secular Humanism Works

Religious-Centred World Views: No Universal Suffrage Allowed?

One of my chief grouses with regards to morals and ethical codes is that, for some convoluted reason, religion has always owned an automatic pass and claim moral high ground, despite the fact that in many cases, religion should not be given sole autonomy in many social issues we face today.

Take free speech, for example. Advocates of free speech understand that free speech is a form of universal suffrage simply because it is free - no one should stop you from speaking your mind, regardless of whom you are criticizing. That also means other folks are also free to criticize you based on your comments, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, religion makes it a point that you can criticize anyone, man, woman or gay, or any corporation, but not religion. Religion is taboo; it gets a "Get Out of Jail" card so much so that if a Pope lies that condoms will aggravate the AIDS pandemic in Africa, they get away with out nary a whimper from the media and generally escape public outrage because it is generally socially unacceptable to criticize the "infallibility" of the Pope! Draw some funny cartoons of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, and watch as mayhem and maelstrom breaks out in almost every Muslim-dominated city on the planet. If the pious Muslims have their way, pretty soon blasphemy will be officially deemed illegal under UN law. Say goodbye to your rights..........

Religious morality and concepts are conjured and manufactured not with the welfare of the average Joe on the street in mind: They are rigid, segmented forms of philosophy and in some cases, tyranny that enforces rules and regulations based on the sensitivities and whimsical behavior of imagined deities. As such, when Religion sets it store in society's consciousness, it cares little for the fates of the people it seeks to dominate: The Pope doesn't really give two hoots about the life of a pregnant 9-yr old child who is heavily pregnant with twins thanks to the monster of a stepfather who rapes her, neither does he give a shit about the rape. The Pope tells Catholics that abortion is wrong because a imagined sky deity mandates it.

Furthermore, religious-centre worldviews do not fuss over the lives of folks in this existence: They are more concerned with the afterlife: If you die, you are supposed to be judged by whichever deity that you pray to, and if you are deemed "virtuous" you might get to spend eternity in a utopia known as heaven. The opposite of which, an eternal abyss of suffering awaits.

Secular Humanism: Man's Welfare Comes First



Secular Humanism deals with how we, as homo sapiens, interact with our fellow human beings and the world around us: Rather than indulge in the business of satisfying the mojos of imagined deities (Most of which are designed as nothing more than bigots and mass murderers), secular humanism deals with rationalism, truth and the welfare of man.

From the Council of Secular Humanism:

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

• A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
• Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
• A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
• A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
• A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
• A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
• A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Secular Humanism: Humanity Is for Man, Not Deities

While religious folks often lampoon criticisms at secular humanists because we lack a deity to account for in our lives, the problem with religion-centered worldviews is that using God as a platform to solve society's ills is the fastest way to fail.

From ill-fated bans on alcohol to the abstinence-only religious education classes, religion has failed to implement good, viable policies on our behalf because they are not designed with humans in mind in the first place.

After all, Gods do not live our lifes. We do.

Dialogue Between Sperm Cell A and Sperm Cell B

(Note: This is a very cheesy play lamenting on the final moments of two doomed sperm cells in their master's testicles. If you have a pro-life stance and do sincerely care about the dignity and sanctity of human cellular lifeforms, give this post a miss.)

"Swim, Sperm, Swim!!!"

All too often, religious folks love to equate genuine human life forms at a cellular level; fertilized embryos, instead of being simply cells with little or no significance, are deemed babies which demand the right and privilege to be accorded the same treatment as their adult counterparts.

Going along this train of thought, the following play will focus on the lives of two very ordinary sperm cells. Because sperm cells come at less than a dime a dozen, and for the purposes of identification, I shall dub both sperm cells with their assigned codes: SC-1 and SC-2. SC-1 and SC-2 are fast friends, having been manufactured in the testicles of the human host some 24 hours ago.

At this moment, the adult human host is engaging in an act of sexual play; sexual chemicals and signals have been sent to the testicles, hence priming the sperm cells ready for action. Millions of sperm cells are currently jostling for position in the human host's testicles, including SC-1 and SC-2.......

SC-1 (Excitedly): Holy shit, SC-2, the amazing race is about to begin!!! Aren't you excited, oh my good friend?

SC-2 (Struggling to free himself from the jostling competitors): Well, SC-1, I am so god-damned excited. In fact, I am so excited that I feel before I ever get a glimpse of that all-illuminating embryo, I'd be squashed and gutted with all my DNA spewed all over. Why can't they just make fertilization any easier for us????

SC-1 (Brushes aside nearby sperm cells easily): Well, SC-2, I did tell you to bulk up and work out, didn't I? Look at my tail..... (Thrashes his large, swanky tail).......so fine, so muscular, and my genes.....such fine, perfect genes....I am determined and very certain that I, and I alone, will fight these morons, fight them all, and earn the right to fuse with my beloved embryo and live on for eternity!

SC-2 (Laughs sarcastically): Somehow, our compatriots all share similar aspirations.......dare you bet against millions of us?

SC-1: The strong shall prevail, and I am the strongest of them all!!!!

SC-2: Good for you, SC-1. I sure love your confidence, but as for myself, I will stick with just staying alive for as long as possible, so forgive me for not sharing your eternal optimism. And if you do achieve your goal, try not to forget me, and the millions who have struggled and failed for the cause.......

SC-1: Yes, my brother, I will never forget you......look! The gates have opened!!!! Let's go!!!!

(Finally, the human host achieves orgasm; his prick is stiffened and hard as a steel rod, orgasm kicks in, and the semen, full of virile, swimming sperm cells numbering in the millions, thrash wildly and jostle against each other, vying for the one and only ray of hope that guarantees that only one of them will pass on their genes........

But alas, it is all but a sham. The human host is merely engaging in an act of self-play. The first sperm cells in the lead find no vagina, and worst, no embryo. What greets them is a piece of soft, white tissue, which the human host uses to dispose off the sticky fluid.

And SC-1, the leader of the pack, was the first to realize this. As he lays on the tissue paper, dazed and dying, he begins to think and dream about the what ifs....if only he was part of the ejaculation team 72 hours earlier, if only he was born earlier......ifs.......so many ifs.

But alas. This spells the end of SC-1 and SC-2, along with the millions of compatriots who will join them in an unceremonious and ignominious death.)

THE END

Against the Death Penalty

Amongst the worst kinds of punishments meted out against prisoners since antiquity, the death penalty, or capital punishment, is perhaps singularly the most barbaric form of punishment; it deprives the condemned individual of life, and in many countries which still exercises this arcane punishment, the death penalty is sometimes justified by judicial systems to punish criminals of violent crimes.

EXECUTION METHODS

There are a number of ways whereby a death row inmate can be put to sleep: Electrocution used to be practiced in many states in the US, but due to its sometimes messy nature (in blotched killings, parts of the face, or even eyeballs, can melt off due to the high voltage induced in the inmate's body.....yikes) , it is not a very popular execution method. Other more commonly used methods include death by firing squad (Communist China), hanging (Singapore) and lethal injection.

The Guillotine: A Fast and Efficient Way to Severe a Head from its Body (Shivers)

Go way back to the 17th and 18th century, and there is the guillotine (Named after Dr Guillotine), a crude device used to lob off the heads of condemned individuals. It was very popular during the French Revolution, and as a decapitation device it was thought to bring very little pain to the condemned. And who can forget those funky Romans, who would try condemned criminals in the circuses with the lions smacking their lips in sheer delight.


ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY

Quite inevitably, proponents of the death penalty have put up credible arguments to defend this age-old punishment.

Most would agree, however, that the death penalty be restricted to violent crimes, mostly pertaining to murder where the crime is severe and the loss irretrievable, or crimes pertaining to treason.

A summary of pro-death penalty arguments, followed by counter-arguments, as follows:

1. "An Eye for An Eye"

For:

Certain criminals who have committed irreversible crimes, such as rape and murder, ought to be executed by the state. The logic, it seems, stem from the biblical quote of "an eye for an eye". This, in the eyes of death penalty proponents, will discourage and deter would-be offenders from committing acts of murder.

Against:

The purpose and logic of secular law is not to facilitate a tit-for-tat; a-la mafia style executions, against criminals. The purpose of punishment is to rehabilitate the criminal, not to send them to an early grave.

To punish a crime with another crime, in the form of state execution, just cannot be justified, even if they seem to "even the odds", according to pro-death penalty supporters. It is the basest and most archaic of reasoning; two wrongs don't make a right.

Besides, the death penalty cannot deter crimes of passion; if a would-be killer is hell-bent on murdering someone based on pure, unadulterated hatred, the last thing that will hinder his deviant plans is the death penalty.

2. Eliminating Society's Evil

For:

Extreme criminals, such as serial killers, are a real menace to society, and ought to be gotten rid of for good.

Those who have not shown signs of remorse, and have blatantly and constantly flouted the law to commit heinous crimes should be executed.

Against:

The problem with this kind of argument is that, the death penalty, unlike imprisonment, is an irreversible act: Once you execute a prisoner, he or she cannot be reanimated back to life.

Hence, to determine who or who should not be executed is something that becomes a really dicey affair, since the legal system, with its judicial process and jurors and prosecution officers, have to determine accurately as to whether the accused is guilty of his crimes. Any mistakes incurred during the judicial process may lead to the execution of an innocent man or woman.

The judicial system in every country is not perfect: A prosecutor hell-bent on winning a case may, for example, suppress evidence in favor of the accused. Or the witness in the witness stand may be lying, or better yet, a mistaken identity because of circumstances that may have led to the witness mistaking the accused for a crime he or she does not commit. In sum, things can go awfully wrong, and while incarceration in prisons does allow the accused time to acquit himself, a death sentence may mean that the accused in question may very well have a short time frame to exonerate himself from a crime he or she may not have committed.

3. COST-SAVING

For:

Spending millions, or billions (depending on where you live) of taxpayer's money to feed and maintain crooks isn't a long term solution. We need to cull some of them so as to keep the country's fiscal year at an absolute minimum.

Against:

Criminals are not cows, chickens or poultry. Prisons and other reformatory services must understand their role as counseling and rehabilitation institutions, not abattoirs to butcher and kill criminals.

There surely are better methods of keeping fiscal costs at a minimum: Feed inmates cheaper food, for example. This is not even a valid reason for the death penalty.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF DEATH PENALTY: A WRONGFUL JUDGEMENT MAY LEAD TO IRREVERSIBLE TRAGEDY

While it is a point of contention for both sides of the death penalty debate as to whether certain criminal acts deserve the retribution of death, one thing is for sure: A wronged execution can never be reversed.

Unlike any other sentence, say, a life sentence, the accused, if wrongfully accused for a crime he or she has not committed, still has enough time in his hands to make as many appeals as he can, while a man on death parole has a limited time to make his case, before he is summarily executed. In countries such as China, there may be no grounds of appeal provided by the courts.

An example of a wrongful judgment that very nearly caused the death of an innocent man:

DNA Testing Exonerates New York Man Who Might Have Been Executed

After spending more than a decade in jail for a crime he did not commit, Douglas Arthur Warney has been exonerated and will be freed from prison in New York based on DNA evidence. Police maintained that Warney had confessed to the crime. Warney is a poorly educated man with a history of delusions and suffering from an advanced case of AIDS. He originally faced the death penalty for the 1996 stabbing murder in Rochester, but was ultimately convicted of second-degree homicide and sentenced to 25 years in jail. Prosecutors tried to block recent DNA tests that revealed that blood found at the crime scene could not have come from Warney. The test concluded that the blood belonged to another man, Eldred L. Johnson, Jr., who has since confessed to being the sole killer in the crime and is in prison for a different killing and three other stabbings.

Though no forensic evidence linked Warney to the crime, prosecutors used his false confession - which defense attorneys say was based on facts fed to him by a homicide detective - to overcome weaknesses in the case. During Warney's trial, prosecutors said that blood found at the crime that did not match the victim or Warney could have belonged to an accomplice, but that Warney was the killer based on his detailed confession. Despite providing details regarding the crime, Warney's confession was also filled with inconsistencies. According to trial testimony, Mr. Warney told the detective he had driven to the victim's house in his brother's car, although the brother had not owned the car for six years before the murder; he said he disposed of his bloody clothes after the murder in a garbage can, but none were found in a search of the can, which had been buried in snow from the day of the crime; he also said he had an accomplice, naming a relative who, it turned out, was in a secure rehabilitation center.

Warney joins a long list of people who have falsely confessed to crimes they did not commit. "The cops created a false confession by feeding nonpublic details to Doug. Their conduct was criminal, plain and simple," notes Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, one of the attorneys representing Warney. Based on the results of DNA testing and Johnson's confession to the crime, prosecutors have agreed that the charges against Warney, who is now in a wheelchair, should be dismissed. (New York Times, May 16, 2006)

Along with Warney, 123 Americans have had their death sentences revoked.

To throw the gauntlet at pro-death advocates: How do you justify the execution of just one innocent man, in the face of perhaps the deaths of numerous criminals who "deserve" their state-sanctioned deaths?

No one wants to put an innocent person in jail, much less execute one. In order to err on the safe side, the law must justify its rulings with humane, reversible punishments. An eye for an eye is simply not a good reason to execute someone.

OTHER FACTS:

1. At least 3,797 people were executed in 25 countries in 2004, according to a report released today by Amnesty International.

2. China easily operates the most stringent capital punishment regime, with an estimated 3,400 executions.

3. Iran executed at least 159, Vietnam at least 64, and 59 prisoners were put to death in the US.

4. Singapore has the highest number of executions per capita (Approx. 70 in a population of 4 million).^ (From: Amnesty International." The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions)

No Perfect Judicial System

-Since I was a law student, I have been against the death penalty. It does not deter. It is severely discriminatory against minorities, especially since they’re given no competent legal counsel defense in many cases. It’s a system that has to be perfect. You cannot execute one innocent person. No system is perfect. And to top it off, for those of you who are interested in the economics it, it costs more to pursue a capital case toward execution than it does to have full life imprisonment without parole.

RALPH NADER, Meet the Press interview, Jun. 25, 2000

Three Cheers for Obama Again: Reinstating Stem Cell Research Without the Handcuffs

"Look! Its a Baby!!!!"

Pro-life: A cheesy colloquial term hogged by religious folks who clamor for the humane treatment of "unborn" babies, or in this case, fertilized embryos, plus a whole lot of emotional package to go along with it.

Curiously, most of us, it seems, will want to be "pro-life" in the practical sense of the word: No one wants to be caught dead slapping a monkey, or killing a pet rabbit, well, I mean, as long as the stomach isn't growling all that much, and we don't really need to feed extended families who incidentally also have growling stomachs just like ours.

Yup, pro-life and pro-choice are two synonymous words dealing with compassion. While it is true that many of us still consider poultry and livestock farming ethical ( We still love our bacon!), nonetheless humans are apt to be pro-life and pro-choice when it comes to sentient human beings, and sometimes, this crazy obsession with human life goes way beyond the pale.

Stem Cell Research: A Baby-Killing Enterprise????

Misplaced Priorities.........

For the past eight years, stem cell research has languished in the United States, thanks in no small part to the Bush Administration's stupid and inept curbs on federal tax funding for stem cell research, particularly for research that deals with "unborn babies", i.e fertilized human embryos which have been artificially inseminated for the purposes of research.

While the Bush Administration did reserve special treatment for embryos, I do wonder, however, if Bush himself ever reserved such sentiments for adult humans, such as, say, the folks he regularly tortured in Guantanamo and other CIA facilities set up for just such a nefarious purpose??? Or the American soldiers who had been consigned to fight in a seemingly never-ending war in Iraqi?

These embryos, which are hardly visible unless they are viewed under the microscope, are highly regarded as potential homo sapiens based on one incredulous single notion that life begins at conception: The unbridled truth is that if we need to take the ethics of human life to the extremities of singular cellular organisms then one could also surmise that the process of masturbation kills of millions of potential babies in the form of sperm cells! Well, going by such astronomical figures, if a male stud jerks off, on average, 5 times a week, that number could very well amount to billions of murders in a single fucking year.! Heck, he'd be a worst mass murderer than all the tyrants that have ever existed (assuming, of course, these tyrants never masturbate!). And damn the women too, for shedding off their eggs once a month! Bloody murder is on the cards!

And thank goodness, then, that President Obama has the good sense and initiative to overturn these silly, presumptuous curbs on stem cell research, and as usual, the religious rights groups are howling and moaning about murder and infanticide. Jebus Fucking Christ!

Obama Overturns Bush Policy On Stem Cells

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama signed an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research.

Obama's move overturns an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

Obama also signed a presidential memorandum establishing greater independence for federal science policies and programs.

"In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama said at the White House.

"In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

Researchers highly value embryonic stem cells because of their potential to turn into any organ or tissue cell in the body. Stem cells have this ability for a short time. A few days before the embryo would implant in the uterus, it starts to develop into specific cells that will turn into skin or eyes or other parts of a developing fetus.

Conservative leaders echoed Bush's rationale in their criticism of Obama's decision.

"Advancements in science and research have moved faster than the debates among politicians in Washington, D.C., and breakthroughs announced in recent years confirm the full potential of stem cell research can be realized without the destruction of living human embryos," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Sunday.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Minus Religious Regulations

Because of their ability to regenerate into organs, embryonic stem cells have a very good potential for development and treatment of many debilitating diseases, and obviously more work is required to realize its full potential.

With the Bush-era laws out of the way, albeit for perhaps a brief couple of years, scientists can finally carry on with their jobs without the nosey religious morons poking their noses into the scientific realm, where they obviously do not belong.

Furthermore, it is very unethical and downright cruel to ignore the plight of millions of folks who are stricken by some form of genetic disease, such as Alzheimer's and muscular atrophy. These folks are wasting away because medical science currently does not have the ability to eliminate these horrendous diseases. Their fates and their pain are very, very real, and if you think that the imagined plight of cellular embryos should take precedence over the pain of full-fledged adults then you need to take a trip down to a hospice which takes care of these patients (I have seen it first-hand, and believe me, it will rip your heart out, albeit not literally) and witness the suffering for yourself, firsthand.

After all, fertilized embryos are no more human babies than an omelet is a chicken drumstick, even if they are both equally palatable and delicious.

Stem Cell Research: A Beacon of Hope Against Genetic Diseases



-"These new rules will now make it possible for scientists to move forward. Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases."

Former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, Who Lost Her Husband, President Ronald Reagan, To Alzheimer's Disease

No Abortion For 9-Yr Old Victim - But The Pope Welcomes Holocaust Denier!

Abortion is usually a very contentious issue, especially for the fervent religious rights groups who think, rather illogically of course, that a fertilized embryo or a fetus is the moral equivalent of a full-fledged human being, completely endowed with rights pertaining usually to real adults and children.

This lunar lunacy to alleviate the status of fetuses gets worst when the fetus itself is deemed more valuable to the religious lunatics than the lives of women: According to the Vatican, women are not supposed to have abortions even if their very lives are threatened by their pregnancies.

& it gets worst: The doctors and the mother who helped a 9 yr old girl to abort were actually excommunicated for what is perceived to be an act of murder!!!!

Read on and puke:

Vatican Backs Abortion Row Bishop

A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication in Brazil of the mother and doctors of a young girl who had an abortion with their help.

The nine-year-old had conceived twins after alleged abuse by her stepfather.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told Italian paper La Stampa that the twins "had the right to live" and attacks on Brazil's Catholic Church were unfair.

It comes a day after Brazil's president criticised the Brazilian archbishop who excommunicated the people involved.

Brazil only permits abortions in cases of rape or health risks to the mother.

Doctors said the girl's case met both these conditions, but the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said the law of God was above any human law.

He said the excommunication would apply to the child's mother and the doctors, but not to the girl because of her age.

'Sad case'

Cardinal Re, who heads the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for Bishops and the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, told La Stampa that the archbishop had been right to excommunicate the mother and doctors.

"It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said.

"Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified."

The abortion was carried out on Wednesday.

Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, himself a Catholic, said on Friday that he regretted what he described as the cleric's deeply conservative attitude.

"The doctors did what had to be done: save the life of a girl of nine years old," he said.

The girl, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, was allegedly sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather, possibly since she was six.

Breathtaking Stupidity & Misogyny

The Vatican's stand in this case can only be classified as a dash of stupidity coupled with a whole lot of misogyny: A raped child being forced to bear twins when she's barely 9 is so cruel and horrifying that I can't even fathom why the church is actually punishing the doctors for assisting in the abortion!!!!!

Clearly, this is a case of misplaced priorities: The life of a child is deemed less valuable than the twins she harbors. And why didn't the erstwhile priest condemn the actions of the rapist? Maybe it is because the fucking catholic priests are committing similar, insidious crimes on altar boys??? If that is true, congratulations I say. Fucking altar boys doesn't make them pregnant.

Whenever I read stories of such breath-taking inanity, I am bound to let loose a stream of vulgarities and blasphemy at the Catholic Church: Those old fucks in the Vatican have their brains screwed up so badly, they can't tell the difference between fetuses and adult humans anymore. But there again......they never could in the first place.

Thank goodness then that we don't live in the Dark Ages; otherwise, the good doctors and the brave mother would have suffered a whole lot worst than a mere excommunication. And if I were the doctor I'd say good riddance to the Vatican.

Holocaust Deniers Welcomed by the Church

While the Vatican is trigger happy when it comes to administering excommunications to abortion doctors, they are quite happy to welcome Holocaust Deniers back to the fold!!!!



Pope Outrages Jews Over Holocaust Denier

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Jewish officials in Israel and abroad are outraged that Pope Benedict XVI has decided to lift the excommunication of a British bishop who denies that Jews were killed in Nazi gas chambers.

The pope's decree, issued Saturday, brings back into the Catholic Church's fold Bishop Richard Williamson and three other bishops who belong to the Society of Saint Pius X.

The liaison for Vatican-Jewish relations -- Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity -- said he was not consulted.

"It was a pope decision" he told CNN in a phone interview. "I have my opinions about it, but I do not wish to comment on a decision made by the pope."

The Society of Saint Pius X was founded by Archbishop Lefebrve, who rebelled against the Vatican's modernizing reforms in the 1960s, and who consecrated the men in unsanctioned ceremonies. As a result, Pope John Paul II excommunicated the four in 1988.

Within the Catholic Church, many Vatican analysts suggests that in an attempt to heal one rift with ultra-conservative church members, the pope is risking creating a wider gap with those more liberal groups that have fully embraced the changes and reforms.

The church's decision to lift the excommunication comes a few days after a Swedish television aired an interview with Williamson in which the 68-year-old claimed the Nazis did not use gas chambers.

"I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against -- is hugely against -- 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler," he said in the interview, which appeared on various Web sites since its broadcast.

"I believe there were no gas chambers," he added.

He added: "I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them by gas chambers."

It seems to me that not only is the Church misogynistic, it is hell bent on being antisemitic as well.

Sure........no Jews were ever gassed. They were shipped off to utopia lands to enjoy themselves in absolute bliss........what concentration camps??? Hitler shipped them all off to holiday camps instead!!!!

Catholic Church: Purveyors of Bullshit

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage Catholics to be excommunicated. The Vatican, being a self-professed bastion of morals, clearly is a faulty moral compass. They have no inane sense of moral values, and are apt to support people who are purveyors of lies, myths and all manner of bullshit.

If you want to be a good person, the last place you will need to go to is a Catholic Church, especially so if you have to be the altar boy.

A Disease of The Mind


-"I do think the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the mind which has a particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus... Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out."

-Richard Dawkins (Interviewed in: Sceptic vol 3, no 4, 1995)