The madness that is Muhammad strikes, and strikes again. It induces a rabid frenzy in its followers, and rains horror upon believer and non-believer alike:

Thousands mourn Karachi bomb dead

Thousands of mourners have attended funerals for those killed in a double bomb attack targeting Shia Muslims in the Pakistani city of Karachi.

The death toll from Friday’s bombings rose overnight to 33, with 165 injured.

A police official told AFP news agency more then 10,000 people had attended a funeral for 14 Muslim victims. Five Christians are to be buried later.

The attacks – the second at a hospital where victims of the first attack were being treated – targeted Shia pilgrims.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani appealed for calm amid fears of growing tensions between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Security was tightened in Karachi as the mourners gathered.

Security in a predominantly Muslim country where all sorts of crazies are running about ready to kill and die for their ridiculous beliefs must be a nightmare. And especially in Pakistan, a country primarily founded on Islam.

And by all accounts, Pakistan is among some of the worst offenders when it comes down to any kind of tolerance whatsoever:

An old blasphemy law, which was written in 1927 during during colonial days, banned insults directed against any religion. In 1986, dictator General Zia-Ul Haw modified the law to protect only Islam. The law require a life imprisonment or a life sentence for anyone who defiled the name of Muhammad or committed other blasphemy. In 1990, a religious court ruled that the penalty for crimes under the law (Section 295-C of the country’s Constitution) is execution. ₆ The law states: "Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by inputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the Holy prophet Mohammed…shall be punished with death and shall be liable to a fine." The law is being used in Pakistan to discriminate against religious minorities: largely Christians, and Ahmadis. Under the present law, a Muslim may blaspheme Christianity with impunity. But a Christian doing the same against Islam can theoretically be executed.

Small wonder that these uglinesses continue, considering that Pakistan was a country born in the blood of its people. The body count continues, and the texts of alleged ‘holy books’ continue to cut swathes through the populace to this day.

Religion – it brings out the best in people? When? Never. It’s gotta go.

Till the next post, then.

Pursuant to a thread at Pharyngula, a particular book was mentioned. So Googling it up, I found this wonderful bit of folderol:

By now you’ve probably heard about that infamous movie so many people are talking about called EXPELLED, starring Ben Stein. No? OK, so if you haven’t seen it yet, you should. This film played for a limited engagement in theatres across the USA in 2008 (but don’t go rushing out to buy the video until you’ve visited the offers from our partners at the "Order Online" tab above). If you missed the movie (or just want to read up on what others are saying about it) you can check out another movie trailer here, and read some reviews and commentary about it here.

‘Limited engagement’ actually translates to ‘invitation only’ across a limited amount of showings, and I’m sure we’re all up on this non-issue that Stein tried to stoke a non-fire in the intellectual underbrush.

So why am I even mentioning this movie? Because the book Slaughter of the Dissidents (SOD) picks up where the movie "Expelled" leaves off. If you thought Expelled was mind-blowing, then this book will educate you even further about this important issue of repression of freedom and discrimination currently playing in academia today, along with many case studies of expelled scientists and educators (some of the SOD case studies also focus on some of the "Expelles" introduced in the movie).

I thought it was mind-blowing that Stein imagined he even had a controversy, let alone a point.

"Expelled" has taken many Americans by surprise. Suddenly, a growing number of people are wondering: what is this discrimination against Darwin skeptics all about? What do you mean we kick people out of academia just for asking questions about evolution! Is this really true? And just how bad is it really.

Like all empty incendiary rhetoric, it’s really not all that bad. Nobody’s been ‘slaughtered’, either physically or metaphorically. It’s simply scare-mongering, is what it is.

Well, in a word, the treatment of Darwin skeptics in our culture (scientists, educators, and students) is very poor. Many of them endure incredible humilation and eventual loss of their jobs. But even worse, being a Darwin skeptic for many of these people is a complete career-ender. Of course, there are many who try to argue against such claims, as you can see by visiting sites like "Expelled Exposed." We plan to provide some rebuttals to those arguments at some point in the future. But for now… SOD will serve as a starting point.

You won’t believe some of the reasons many educators have lost their jobs, and how they often get blackballed from academia, or why some students failed to get an otherwise earned degree. This pernicious form of discrimination is not only widespread in the U.S. but is also nauseating to most Americans. SOD goes into great detail about how and why it occurs, and provides you with scores of actual case studies. As you read this book you’ll discover that one of the most precious things we own is at risk, right here in America. What is that?

In a word,

FREEDOM

The price you pay for going against the scientific consensus (and especially on a topic that has been proven up and down and sideways to Muskogee) is…well, ridicule is something you’ll have to endure, especially when you don the martyr’s cap and cry ‘poor me!’ when you propound twaddle.

Freedom to disagree about some aspects of evolution without losing your job or being denied an earned degree. Freedom to tell people you dare to question any aspect of evolution on scientific grounds – without referencing any religious text.

Either the author doesn’t understand the definition of ‘aspect’, which is:

1. appearance to the eye or mind; look: the physical aspect of the country, 2. nature; quality; character: the superficial aspect of the situation, 3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision. 4. part; feature; phase: That is the aspect of the problem that interests me most. 5. facial expression; countenance: He wore an aspect of gloom. Hers was an aspect of happy optimism. 6. bearing; air; mien: warlike in aspect. (6 will do for now), or he’s being deliberately misleading about the ‘any aspect’ phrasing. Either one wouldn’t be a surprise.

And also the freedom to let others know what you personally believe outside of science without having such an utterance turn into a rabid witch hunt.

That’s utter nonsense, otherwise notables such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins would be pilloried in accordance with this ‘logic’.

Do you know it has reached the point in America where, on this subject at least, if you are an educator and you opine that you have reservations about any aspect of evolution based on scientific evidence, you are often immediately labeled as "religious" (whether you really are or not), and you are (often) immediately determined to be ‘unfit’ to teach science or get a science degree?

Unmitigated crap. Maybe a biology degree, but this ‘any aspect’ accusation is ridiculous.

And speaking of religion, it looks like we live in an era where freedom OF religion has been twisted to mean freedom FROM religion. Some groups supporting this type of discrimination proclaim that "Freedom depends on free thinkers," unless, of course, you happen to be ‘religious’.

I don’t think I need to go any further with this. Of course, you can’t have freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion. This isn’t ‘discrimination’ – this is fact. It’s an equal playing field now – and this is the standard argument from martyrdom, except that we are all now familiar with the lies the Christians tell us, the lies they believe and will fight for, against all odds and evidence.

In addition, I might add that this execratory bit of work has an introduction by none other than “Dr.” D. James Kennedy. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular fuckwit, he was that same idiot who made the repugnant ‘documentary’ titled Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, which has been debunked and repudiated (but is still for sale!). Also, a hardcore theonomist.

One can only hope that this disorder we term religion will wilt away, that the human race can move onwards to greener pastures.

Till the next post, then.

Sneaky bastards! A video from ABC News explains the latest indirect fundie proselytizing tactics:
ABC News – Secret Jesus Bible Codes on U.S. Military Weapons

and this

Michigan defense contractor is putting Bible codes on their weapons which Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, says, “could give the Taliban and other enemy forces a propaganda tool: that American troops are Christian crusaders invading Muslim countries.”

WASHINGTON – Combat rifle sights used by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan carry references to Bible verses, stoking concerns about whether the inscriptions break a government rule that bars proselytizing by American troops.

Military officials said the citations don’t violate the ban and they won’t stop using the telescoping sights, which allow troops to pinpoint the enemy day or night.

The contractor that makes the equipment, Trijicon of Wixom, Mich., said the U.S. military has been a customer since 1995 and the company has never received any complaints about the Scripture citations.

Because not many know about it, you fucker!

“We don’t publicize this,” Tom Munson, Trijicon’s director of sales and marketing, said in an interview. “It’s not something we make a big deal out of. But when asked, we say, ‘Yes, it’s there.’”

Because if you did “make a big deal out of” it, many tax-paying citizens and secular organizations DO have a problem with it. And soldiers who know about it and disagree are afraid to speak up:

Weinstein said he has received complaints about the Scripture citations from active-duty and retired members of the military. He said he couldn’t identify them because they fear retaliation.

By now, unless you’ve been living in a cave, you are all aware that Haiti has been struck down by a powerful earthquake. And no doubt most of you know that religio-fucktard Pat Robertson (shown in the video above) has attributed the tragedy to a ‘deal made with the devil by Haitians to oust Napoleon’. I think everyone’s sick of this asshole, I know I am. Pat’s media career is fraught with some seriously stupid commentary, such as: we (the US) should send in assassins to cap Chavez, Katrina’s the result of dawg’s wrath, fighting the ERA, blaming 9/11 on everyone who wasn’t Christian, advising karateka not to ‘inhale demons’, claiming that Sharon’s stroke was divine intercession, claiming Islam isn’t a religion™, and claiming that the lawd sent him a vision of a terrorist attack in the US in 2007 (which of course didn’t happen, he just probably sucked down a bad milkshake or something).

Easy to discount him as a crazed loon? Well, tristero points out (and is frighteningly accurate) that Pat Robertson is not one to be discounted:

Dear Friends,
You can sneer all you want at Pat Robertson. You can condemn him all you want. And I’ll join right in. He deserves everything you care to say about him, and much, much more. He is a seriously disturbed man.
But you dismiss and ignore him at your peril. Remember: this man used to call up the fucking president of the United States. And he got through. And the president listened to him.
You ever had that kind of access to power? Got it now? Thought not. Me, neither. You got his hundreds of millions of dollars? Got millions of fans giving you hard-earned- bucks? Nope, I don’t have them either.
Sure, go ahead: Repeat the obvious: Of course, it’s a sad state of affairs when an ignorant, moral degenerate like Pat Robertson is so influential to the most powerful men – and yeah, it’s basically men – in the world.So what? Don’t ever forget he had that access, and still has access, to far more powerful men (and the occasional woman) than you can even imagine. So…

There oughta be a law.

This is perhaps the most persuasive argument for taxing churches:  churches can remain tax exempt, on the condition that they keep out of politics. That folks like Robertson, Dobson, or any of these other clowns can swing votes or call the president and perhaps influence our society, but are tax-free, is a sign of a broken system.

Till the next post, then.

Humanity’s penchant for denial is no exaggeration, as  Stardust’s recent post illustrates. But, as the old X-Files TV show’s motto said, “The truth is out there”, and I’m not talking about left field either.

A ten-year-old study from Harvard illustrates speciation in the E. Coli bacteria, for one example. Ten years later, another study on E. Coli not only verifies this, it lists the mutations as…beneficial. (Collective gasps are heard in the revival tent.)

And along a similar vein, it turns out that bacteria can actually influence speciation in wasps, by repairing damaged sperm. (Shouts of “Blasphemy!” can be heard from the audience.)

And an old hoary chestnut has been roasted on the fire – yes Virginia, there are indeed pre-Cambrian fossils of microbes.

And of course, there are 29+ evidences for ‘macroevolution’ – ranging in scope from morphological intermediates to cetacean atavisms (and human babies with tails). This also extends to vestigial molecular structures. The typical creationist response is that many of these items are predicated on scale, and they scramble desperately to muddy the waters when the evidence is presented.

One of the more amusing stupidities cited by the creationist, is this quote from the Origin of the Species:

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed.
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Darwin was no geologist: relatively little was known about the formation of fossils, how difficult it was to become one, what with scavengers, tectonic plate shifts, highly alkaline soils, erosion, weather, all the variables that prevent ‘insensibly fine gradations’.

And evidence abounds. From genetics to paleontology, from anatomy to geographical distribution, it seems incredible that anyone would raise a fuss about something so fundamentally obvious.

What do you call someone who rejects evidence in favor of warm fuzzy feelings and mythology? Supply a punchline, and discuss amongst yourselves.

Till the next post, then.

Here’s the trailer: [LINK]

What’s with California and all the religious nutters? Here is yet another story from today’s news:

A Tea Party Christmas

A Tea Party activist and substitute teacher, Merry Hyatt, is trying to get an initiative on next year’s California ballot to require schools to play Christmas music. “It’s our right to have freedom of worship,” Hyatt said. Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said he had “two words” for Hyatt’s proposal: “blatantly unconstitutional.” Is it wrong to have kids sing Christmas songs in school?

Stupid question, of course it’s wrong to try to force kids to sing religious songs in public school. It is in blatant violation of separation of church and state.

Christians can’t force their beliefs on others: “It’s not the government’s job to provide you a place to worship,” says Ed Brayton in Science Blogs. That’s what churches are for. It’s mind boggling that Tea Partiers, who say they favor limited government, would want the government to “force non-Christians to take part” in their religious festivities.

That’s right, Christians have no right to force their beliefs on others. And it is not the government’s job to turn our public schools into extended religious facilities.

Just wondering what you all think about this.

Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize

Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Obama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on war’s use and prevention. He crafted much of the address himself and the scholarly remarks — at about 4,000 words — were nearly twice as long as his inaugural address.

In them, Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that “I face the world as it is” and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States.

“A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms,” Obama said. “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history.”

The president laid out the circumstances where war is justified — in self-defense, to come to the aid of an invaded nation and on humanitarian grounds, such as when civilians are slaughtered by their own government or a civil war threatens to engulf an entire region.

“The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it,” he said.

His winning the peace prize while at the same time ordering more troops to Afghanistan has riled anti-war activists:

The president’s motorcade arrived at Oslo’s high-rise government complex for Obama’s meeting with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg as a few dozen anti-war protesters gathered behind wire fences nearby. Dressed in black hoods and waving banners, the demonstrators banged drums and chanted anti-war slogans. “The Afghan people are paying the price,” some shouted.

Greenpeace and anti-war activists planned larger demonstrations later that were expected to draw several thousand people. Protesters have plastered posters around the city, featuring an Obama campaign poster altered with skepticism to say, “Change?”

The debate at home over his Afghanistan decision also followed the president here. He told reporters that that the July 2011 date he set for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan to begin will not slip — but that the pace of the full drawdown will be gradual and conditions-based.

I don’t like to see more of our young men go to war. But at the same time we must not sit back and let terrorists build their forces and plot and plan to murder mass numbers of innocent people either. War is sometimes necessary for peace.