And here is the longer version – a better one, in my never-humble-opinion:
Recent Comments
RSS feed
Pat Condell: December is “Hatred and Violence in the Koran” Awareness Month!
December 1, 2012 — xanthippaA Year in Jail for Not Believing in God? How Kentucky is Persecuting Atheists
November 24, 2012 — xanthippaMany of my Christian friends seem completely blind to the very real-life persecution many atheists in our society face from, yes, Christians…
It’s as if a sectarian ‘see-no-intolerance-committed-by-my-co-religionists’ exists within every single religion – which is yet another reason why this world will never get better until all organized religions (with their dogmatization of faith and dividing the world into ‘us vs. them’ along sectarian lines) are a thing of the past!
From Alter.net:
‘In Kentucky, a homeland security law requires the state’s citizens to acknowledge the security provided by the Almighty God–or risk 12 months in prison.
…
The law and its sponsor, state representative Tom Riner, have been the subject of controversy since the law first surfaced in 2006, yet the Kentucky state Supreme Court has refused to review its constitutionality, despite clearly violating the First Amendment’s separation of church and state.
…
“The church-state divide is not a line I see,” Riner told The New York Times shortly after the law was first challenged in court. “What I do see is an attempt to separate America from its history of perceiving itself as a nation under God.”’
According to the article, Riner is a Democratic State representative. Hey, aren’t the Democrats in the US be the less religious of the two parties?
So much forfreedom from religion inthe USA!!!
Generation Identitaire occupies the roof of a French Mosque
October 20, 2012 — xanthippaLast week, I had posted a video in which a French group calling itself Generation Identitaire introduced itself.
Today, they occupied the roof of a mosque (which has ‘fiery’ imams who frequently preach hate and violence) in France…
This is going to get interesting…
Because, you know, sometimes, words have two meanings….
October 10, 2012 — xanthippaIt drives me crazy when people engage in an honest discussion with me and, quite a while later on, we figure out that we are using the same words but intending different meanings for them!
It is impossible to have a meaningful exchange of ideas if we cannot define common labels to apply to those ideas.
This seems pretty basic and clear, but unless we are disciplined enough to define all terms prior to any debate or discussion, chances are we will fall into this trap.
And yes, of course, there are ‘weasels’ out there who intentionally twist words during the discussion in order to score cheap points.
And yes, of course, there are specific ‘weasel words’ some people use to intentionally obfuscate points and fudge discussions for whatever reasons they have.
But that is not what I am talking about.
I mean honest people, meaning to have honest discussions with each other, but not getting through to each other because the labels we use do not apply to the same ideas or principles – or apply to them in a different kind of a sense.
For example, the concept of what constitutes ‘murder’ is not universally understood the way we, in The West, define it: the unnecessary killing of another human being during peacetime.
For example, the Yanomamo people of South America considered ‘murder’ to be the killing of any living being which was ‘of their village’. So, the killing of a chicken or a dog that lived in one’s village was ‘murder’, but killing a human being who was not a member of their village was ‘killing’, but certainly not ‘murder’.
Now, the Yanomamo are matrilinear but patriarchal and so young boys go to live with their mother’s brother’s family – usually in a different village than into which they were born. When such a child first arrives into the village, they are in great danger: if the rest of the community does not accept them as ‘members of the village’ – for whatever reason – they will be killed (only click this link if you are willing to see this most vile and despicable practice!)
Brutal, but true…
Similarly, in ancient Rome, it was not ‘murder’ for a father to kill his children or cause them to be raised as slaves in unrelated families…
I suspect this Roman tradition is either the reflection of or the source of many cultural traditions where the father has absolute power over his family and it is not considered ‘murder’ for a parent to kill their offspring.
This is certainly the case under Sharia – Islamic law – which specifically states that a parent who kills their offspring is not guilty of murder.
This is important when we want to discuss the horrible, despicable practice of ‘honour killings’… it is not so much that all ‘honour killings’ are Islamic, but rather that the Islamic ‘honour killings’ are part of this tradition which is definitely seen as far back as Ancient Rome.
In most ‘traditions’, this is a cultural phenomenon only. It is something that can be altered through laws and education and, eventually, cultural change. And, while this practice had been widespread at one time, it has been greatly reduced through these means among Sikh, Hindu and Christians groups that once practiced it openly.
In Islam, because it has been codified into Sharia and because most Muslims recognize Sharia as superior to man-made laws, it is much more challenging to combat this practice.
It is a bit tricky, but, please, let me explain…
As many of us have been shouting as loudly and clearly as possible, it is Muslims themselves who are the greatest victims of Sharia.
Because, under Sharia, anyone who is an observant Muslim is obligated to kill anyone they see as ‘apostates’: those who have turned away from ‘true Islam’. So, if a child is seen as having left the true path of Islam, it is both obligatory to kill them as ‘apostates’ and it is not punishable, if it is a parent killing their offspring.
But, it goes further than that…
Under Sharia, it is not considered ‘murder’ to kill a non-Muslim – any time and under any circumstances. ‘Murder’ is only the ‘unlawful’ (under Sharia) killing of a Muslim: and it is lawful to kill a Muslim if he or she murders a Muslim, OR commits adultery, OR turns away from ‘true Islam’.
Just like Christianity, Islam demands that their religionists must ‘love’ god more than they love any family member, it is not difficult to see how what we, in The West, term ‘honour killings’ are believed (rightly or wrongly) to be not just permitted, but downright obligatory under Sharia.
Of course, there are some Islamic scholars (especially of the Shia schools) who believe that it is they, not the family, who should administer the ‘honour killing’. But this is more of a dispute over power, not substance…
Please, keep the above in mind as you watch the following video, which supplies the relevant quotes from Sharia to support the above statements:
This is just a ‘natural’ defense against the Bangladeshi Budhist’s imperialist politics around the world…
October 4, 2012 — xanthippa
An urgent message from ‘One Law for All’ about child marriage in the UK
September 18, 2012 — xanthippaThis is the email I received from One Law for All, whose urgent message needs to be seen by as many people as possible (please, spread the word!):
Dear Friend,
We are writing to you today to ask for your urgent and immediate support.
As you may have seen in the papers recently, there is growing evidence that young children – some as young at 5 years old – are being “married” to older men in Sharia courts across Britain. This is increasingly being sanctioned by the Islamists who run Britain’s network of Sharia courts, and there is evidence that this practice is growing.
Recent Investigations
A recent undercover investigation by the Sunday Times found imams in Britain willing to “marry” young girls, provided this was carried out in secret. The imams had been approached by an undercover reporter posing as a father who said he wanted his 12 year old daughter married, to prevent her from being tempted in to a “western lifestyle”.
Imam Mohammed Kassamali, of the Husaini Islamic Centre in Peterborough, sanctioned the marriage, but stressed the need for total secrecy. He stated: “I would love the girl to go to her husband’s houses (sic) as soon as possible, the younger the better. Under sharia (Islamic law) there is no problem. It is said she should see her first sign of puberty at the house of her husband. The problem is that we cannot explain such things (the marriage) if the girl went tomorrow (to the authorities).”
Abdul Haque, who officiates at weddings at the Shoreditch mosque, east London agreed to carry out the formalities of the wedding. However, he told the reporter that he should “tell people it is an engagement but it will be a marriage”. He added: “In Islam, once the girl reaches puberty the father has the right, the parents have the right, but under the laws of this country if the girl complains and says her marriage has been arranged and she wasn’t of marriageable age, then the person who performed the marriage will be jailed as well as the mother and father”.
Earlier this year, it was also reported that at least 30 girls, some as young as 9, were “married” in sharia courts in one London borough alone.
Clearly, child “marriages” are an abomination; they are nothing short of religiously-sanctioned child rape and paedophilia.
Sharia proponents deceptively say that forced marriages are unacceptable under Sharia and that both bride and groom must choose to marry as if that is the issue at hand. Islamists have gotten away with years of misogyny against Muslim women under cover of “choice” and are now using similar language with regards children. Nonetheless, child welfare must take precedence irrespective of religious beliefs. This is something we must urgently remind the Government of. Sharia courts are a scandal and must be stopped.
Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill
One important way to tackle this matter is to galvanise support for the Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill introduced to the House of Lords last year by crossbench peer, Baroness Caroline Cox. The Bill is due for a second reading in October.
The Government has so far declined to support Cox’s Bill. They do not believe there is a parallel legal system in operation. They also insist that everyone has full right of access to the British courts. This is simply not the case. There are many with little or no English language skills, trapped by community pressure, who believe Sharia courts operate as real courts and who regard their decisions as legally binding. The idea that they can easily instruct a high street solicitor to help them access their full rights under UK law is far from reality.
The Government must be pressured into taking immediate action, including by supporting Cox’s Bill, and shutting down Sharia and religious courts. If child welfare takes precedence then the Government is duty-bound to take action.
Sign our new petition in support of Baroness Cox’s Bill; tell the Government that enough is enough! Please sign it now.
Help Us
Baroness Cox has said in the past that her Bill was inspired by One Law for All. To donate to our important work, please either send a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal. We need regular support and also for supporters to commit to giving at least £5-10 a month via direct debit. You can find out more about how to join the 100 Club here.
If you shop online, please do so via the Easy Fundraising’s website. It won’t cost you anything extra but can help raise much needed funds for One Law for All.
We look forward to your immediate intervention in this matter.
Best wishes,
Maryam Namazie and Anne Marie Waters
Spokespersons
One Law for All
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: 
+44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
www.onelawforall.org.uk
On the topic of freedom of speech…and ‘scapegoating’
September 17, 2012 — xanthippa
Many people think that it is a reasonable limitation on the freedom of free speech to prohibit someone from yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre – provided, that is, that there is no fire.
That little caveat – provided that there is no fire – is often forgotten by those who wold consider this to be a reasonable limitation of free speech. This, indeed, is not surprising – failure to recognize real warnings of danger and simply treating unpopular statements equally, whether they are true or not, is symptomatic of the individuals who most loudly profess that this limitation on the freedom of speech is somehow ‘reasonable’.
According to these people, giving a warning of a real ad present peril (like, say, a fire in a crowded theatre) is worse than letting everyone sit complacently until they burn to death.
I must admit, there was a time when I was persuaded that if there indeed were no fire, then shouting a warning of it ought not happen. OK, I still think that it ought not happen – but not because there are laws against it.
To explain my change of mind, I have to digress a little bit to some examples on utilitarian morality from philosophy. Not that I am particularly versed in philosophy – my ideas are mostly self-reasoned, but a little education has made me widen the scope of my reasoning.
There is that classical moral dilema question: if you see an uncontrollable train going down some tracks where it will hit six people, but there is a lever you can pull that will divert that train onto another set of tracks, where it will only kill one person, should you pull the lever?
Most ‘utilitarians’ will say that yes, you should, because one death is less tragic than 6 deaths.
I don’t think this is anywhere near as clear cut.
If the train stays on its original track, you (presuming the uncontrollable-ness of the train is not your fault to start off with) are not responsible for the deaths of those 6 people.
If, however, you do pull the lever, you will be the direct cause of the death of that 1 person.
People are not cogs, interchangeable for each other. We are individuals. And, if you pull that lever, you will indeed be guilty of causing the death of that individual. What is more, since you have had time to consider it, that constitutes premeditation. You would therefore be commiting murder.
This means that the question itself is improperly formulated.
Rather, it ought to ask if you could pull that lever and save the 6 people – but in the process murder 1 person, with all the legal consequences this carries, should you still pull that lever?
Because that is the real question: is saving the lives of 6 people worth murdering someone – and, perhaps, spending the rest of your life in prison as a result! After all, real actions have real consequences…
Similarly, the person who shouts ‘FIRE!” in a crowded theatre has not actually killed anyone.
It is the people who act before checking whether their actions are based on fact or not, and those who put their lives above others by trampling them to death to save themselves, who are guilty of, well, the trampling. Not the person who – rightly or wrongly – shouts ‘Fire!’
It is always the tramplers who are the ones guilty of the trampling.
But, because there are many of them, and our moral compass has for too long been corrupted by the profoundly immoral Judeo-Christian doctrine of ‘scapegoating’, of ‘vicarious redemption’, that we are willing to put the blame of the many ‘tramplers’ onto the one who may not, indeed, have done any ‘trampling’ at all!
It is precisely this predisposition we have of shifting the blame for the actions of the individuals who actually carry them out onto a scapegoat who is said to have ’caused’ their bad or immoral behaviour that is going to be the downfall of our society!
It is precisely this scapegoating which is at the heart of political correctness and the erosion of the freedoms which we ought to be able to exercise unfettered.
How have we improved our lot if we have liberated ourselves from Christian religious dogmas, if we permit its worst shackles to still imprison our morality, albeit under the new name of ‘political correctnes’?
So, now, I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this point:
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 