Hello Archie McPhee Shopper,
Bag O' Plagues
If you're a fan of the Old Testament, you'll be familiar with the
ten plagues of Egypt. Well, it's the time of year when we remember God's
wrath with the Archie McPhee Bag O' Passover Plagues! From locusts to
boils to diseased livestock, this sack contains an object to represent
each one of the top ten plagues on God's hit parade. It's not really
Passover until somebody opens a Bag O' Plagues.
Shop McPhee!
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
It's Time For Plagues!
I got this in my junk mail this afternoon:
Support Nudity on the Web!
The idea is from an article over at Boing Boing.
What happens when the blogosphere uses so much tasteful nudity that the web is unusable for SmartFilter users? What happens when SmartFilter blocks so much content that the web is crippled for its users?
Friday, February 24, 2006
Christianity: The Religion of Moral Relativism
Sorry for my absense lately: I have succumbed to something not unlike seasonal affective disorder--if it's real. I don't know. But it's been so dark and gloomy around here, and I've been craving some photosynthesis in my life. If I can't get into some woods, or at least a flower and garden show, I'll go crazy. That's what you get for moving from the Pacific Northwest to the frozen tundra.
So here is a recording of The Way of the Master Radio, with guest Reggie Finley, The Infidelguy. Listen at your own risk.
First of all, let me sayTodd Friel is an absolute, raving lunatic. I don't even have to tell you if you listen. But something struck me almost at the beginning of the show. At the heart of this brand of christianity, and I dare say, all christianity, is Moral Fucking Relativism.
If you don't already know, I'll say it briefly. Moral relativism is retarded.
If there are any mentally disabled people reading this, I apologize for comparing you to this concept. It's not you.
Take a number of individuals that for some reason define themselves or others (through no fault of their own, sometimes) as a "group." Maybe they live within certain imaginary boundaries. Maybe they like the same amateur pop singer on tv. Makes no difference to me. There is a general consensus to most people that a majority of members of this "group" feel that little girls should be mutilated at 9 years old and/or killed in the event of a family feud (there again, some of the individuals are placed in a group through no fault of their own. But I digress). Therefore, some retards think, mutilating and murdering little girls is "their culture," so you can't judge it; it's moral "to them." So you say. There are also several individuals, imagined to be the minority, that rightly declare this to be evil and disgusting and so on. We don't include the little girls because they have no choice in the matter and don't count. They can't even make the decision that what's happening to them is bad or good because they are completely enslaved. Moving along, the imagined minority is therefore immoral, and "counter-culture."
Remember that term? Moral relativists can't call themselves counter-culture anymore, unless they want to be immoral. I suppose that's possible. You better go along with it, just to be safe. I suppose you can "enter a group" of people called "counter-culture," but then you're not counter-culture anymore, because you're not counter to that culture. Unless you make a concerted effort to dissent from the counter-culture group. But then you're not counter to the culture you countered in the first place. Perhaps it makes more sense to remember you're an individual, and stop basing your morality on majority consensus of a socially constructed imaginary entity called "group."
So how does christianity fall into this nonsense? (How doesn't it?)
The simple answer is that if you believe in this religion, all morality is subject to the will (or whim) of God. here can be no morality that is objective, or based on reality.
The longer, and more entertaining argument is one made by many fundamentalists (and moderates) to justfy torture (I mean, Hell):
I added that last part because it was funny.
It is true that governments apply this sort of thinking to the law. Punishment is applied based upon the power of the victim. Juries punish based upon the perceived morality of the victim. Make the punishment fit the crime, right? Is this right? We should judge crimes based upon the popularity of the victim? If someone sues, his reward is based upon his likeability factor? A rapist should be punished based upon the sexual habits of the victim? What if she does everything right, but smokes? If we are really going to apply this law, let's do it right. Lets put the victims on trial. If you agree with this, then christianity should be all the more comfortable concept for you.
If we want to present a coherent argument to anyone; if we want to be correct, we must remember: if it is moral, it must apply to everyone in the same way, regardless of their power, their popularity, or their morality (sense the paradox). Otherwise, you're just hitting your head against a brick wall.
So here is a recording of The Way of the Master Radio, with guest Reggie Finley, The Infidelguy. Listen at your own risk.
First of all, let me sayTodd Friel is an absolute, raving lunatic. I don't even have to tell you if you listen. But something struck me almost at the beginning of the show. At the heart of this brand of christianity, and I dare say, all christianity, is Moral Fucking Relativism.
If you don't already know, I'll say it briefly. Moral relativism is retarded.
If there are any mentally disabled people reading this, I apologize for comparing you to this concept. It's not you.
Take a number of individuals that for some reason define themselves or others (through no fault of their own, sometimes) as a "group." Maybe they live within certain imaginary boundaries. Maybe they like the same amateur pop singer on tv. Makes no difference to me. There is a general consensus to most people that a majority of members of this "group" feel that little girls should be mutilated at 9 years old and/or killed in the event of a family feud (there again, some of the individuals are placed in a group through no fault of their own. But I digress). Therefore, some retards think, mutilating and murdering little girls is "their culture," so you can't judge it; it's moral "to them." So you say. There are also several individuals, imagined to be the minority, that rightly declare this to be evil and disgusting and so on. We don't include the little girls because they have no choice in the matter and don't count. They can't even make the decision that what's happening to them is bad or good because they are completely enslaved. Moving along, the imagined minority is therefore immoral, and "counter-culture."
Remember that term? Moral relativists can't call themselves counter-culture anymore, unless they want to be immoral. I suppose that's possible. You better go along with it, just to be safe. I suppose you can "enter a group" of people called "counter-culture," but then you're not counter-culture anymore, because you're not counter to that culture. Unless you make a concerted effort to dissent from the counter-culture group. But then you're not counter to the culture you countered in the first place. Perhaps it makes more sense to remember you're an individual, and stop basing your morality on majority consensus of a socially constructed imaginary entity called "group."
So how does christianity fall into this nonsense? (How doesn't it?)
The simple answer is that if you believe in this religion, all morality is subject to the will (or whim) of God. here can be no morality that is objective, or based on reality.
The longer, and more entertaining argument is one made by many fundamentalists (and moderates) to justfy torture (I mean, Hell):
Todd: You see, if I squash a bug...just, just stomp on a cockroach, it's no big deal. The police aren't gonna come and arrest me. Now, if I kill a bum on the street, I'm gonna get into a lot of trouble.But if I assassinate a head of state, I am in serious trouble. Why is that? Same crime, but it's against whom it is committed; the offense becomes more serious. You can think that lusting is no big deal; telling a lie years ago is no big deal, but because it is against a holy, righteous, infinite creator-god, your offense is infinitely sinful, and deserving of the highest punishment.
Reggie: Oo, it sounds like God has some sensitivity issues.
Todd: Yes, He does. It's called Holiness, righteousness.
I added that last part because it was funny.
It is true that governments apply this sort of thinking to the law. Punishment is applied based upon the power of the victim. Juries punish based upon the perceived morality of the victim. Make the punishment fit the crime, right? Is this right? We should judge crimes based upon the popularity of the victim? If someone sues, his reward is based upon his likeability factor? A rapist should be punished based upon the sexual habits of the victim? What if she does everything right, but smokes? If we are really going to apply this law, let's do it right. Lets put the victims on trial. If you agree with this, then christianity should be all the more comfortable concept for you.
If we want to present a coherent argument to anyone; if we want to be correct, we must remember: if it is moral, it must apply to everyone in the same way, regardless of their power, their popularity, or their morality (sense the paradox). Otherwise, you're just hitting your head against a brick wall.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Freedom of the press, or Freedom Period?
Here is a great new article from The Stranger:
And there was a counterpoint:
Is this person serious? apparently, those who criticize wacko violent fundamentalism, even in extremely mild ways, "deserve what they get!"
From what I understand here, fundie Muslims cannot oppress us (especially people like me, people who have vaginas, who might want to,wear shorts, or show their faces in public), so therefore they are oppressed. We should understand their rage at their inability to insinuate their immoral and false religion/theocrasy on us, as an oppressed minority, so we should be sensitive and not criticize them. At least, in their neighborhood.
This is no longer about a couple of bad cartoons. This started well before the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Feel compassion all you want for young men who are not allowed to stone me to death, but don't feel sorry for them. Otherwise, why aren't we feeling the same compassion for the racists who cannot yell Nigger in a black neighborhood? This, the internet, my blog, is not a fundamentalist theocratic neighborhood, and I will freely criticize religion. This is also not a moral relativist neighborhood, and I'm not going to pretend that it's moral to be a racist, or a fundy, or a violent protector of an evil system.
And the neighborhood that stops allowing free criticism of oppressive systems has fallen. And thery sure as hell won't be allowing point-counterpoint, or free weekly alternative newspapers.
All the Rage
Islamic Fundamentalists Don't Just Have a Problem with Cartoons, They Have a Problem with Freedom
It began last September.
Danish author Kaare Bluitgen couldn’t find an illustrator for his biography of Muhammad. Fundamentalist Muslims frown on depictions of the prophet and—in one of many European cases of self-censorship since the November 2004 murder of Dutch filmmaker and Islam critic Theo van Gogh—artists feared a reaction.
And there was a counterpoint:
If I, a well-dressed white guy, were to walk into certain black neighborhoods carrying offensive depictions of blacks and jokingly calling people niggers, I would almost certainly be hit, or worse. And the feeling of most Americans (and myself), would probably be that I deserved what I got for being so insensitive. It would not matter if I had only been joking, or if I had been trying to make some high-minded point about race being a social construct. The fact that I had trampled on the understandable sensitivities of black Americans in order to make a provocative statement would be seen as poor judgment, at best.
Is this person serious? apparently, those who criticize wacko violent fundamentalism, even in extremely mild ways, "deserve what they get!"
From what I understand here, fundie Muslims cannot oppress us (especially people like me, people who have vaginas, who might want to,wear shorts, or show their faces in public), so therefore they are oppressed. We should understand their rage at their inability to insinuate their immoral and false religion/theocrasy on us, as an oppressed minority, so we should be sensitive and not criticize them. At least, in their neighborhood.
This is no longer about a couple of bad cartoons. This started well before the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Feel compassion all you want for young men who are not allowed to stone me to death, but don't feel sorry for them. Otherwise, why aren't we feeling the same compassion for the racists who cannot yell Nigger in a black neighborhood? This, the internet, my blog, is not a fundamentalist theocratic neighborhood, and I will freely criticize religion. This is also not a moral relativist neighborhood, and I'm not going to pretend that it's moral to be a racist, or a fundy, or a violent protector of an evil system.
And the neighborhood that stops allowing free criticism of oppressive systems has fallen. And thery sure as hell won't be allowing point-counterpoint, or free weekly alternative newspapers.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
More Cartoon Thoughts: Cultural Slavery
"You can't print something that offends a whole nation." That is not true. "Nations" cannot get offended. They do not exist--the word is a description of a group of individuals that are subject to the laws of a government through no fault of their own. As individuals, we have a choice how to respond to stuff that offends us. We should not let ourselves respond dishonestly or unnaturally because of a tribe we belong to (by choice or by force). We should not think "what would my group think?" when making moral choices. That would not be a choice--that is slavery.
I noticed that the UN, Bill Clinton and several other high-ups have made appeasing--and dishonest--statements in this enslaved sort of way. "We share your outrage over these offensive images," etc. "We." Officially, this group pretends to think this in order to aid a system of oppression, when the truth, that the images are not offensive at all , must be stifled. The cartoons are clearly making the only moral statements in this whole fiasco.
If this cartoonist is killed or injured, the governments that lied to appease terrorists will be complicit, and the people of their nations will be poorer for it.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Maybe it's Time Normal Bob Smith Made a Muhammad Dressup
Taken from Religion News Blog:
Danish lawyer shot as fury of Muslims sweeps world
The Scotsman, UK
A Danish lawyer was shot and several Muslim demonstrators died as protests against the publication of cartoons showing the Prophet Muhammad continued around the world yesterday.
The lawyer was wounded in an incident in a Moscow cafe by a man from the Muslim Caucasus region of southern Russia.
Meanwhile, the prime minister of Chechnya announced that Danish humanitarian organisations would be expelled.
Danish troops also came under fire in southern Iraq. Shots were fired at a patrol as it helped children who had been hit by a car near Qurnah. None of the soldiers was injured.
The worst trouble yesterday came in Afghanistan, where hundreds of demonstrators clashed with police and soldiers. Four people were killed and at least 19 wounded, officials said.
The worst violence was outside Bagram, the main US base in Afghanistan, although the US has not been involved in the controversy over the publication of the cartoons. Afghan police fired on some 2,000 protesters as they tried to break into the heavily guarded facility.
Kabir Ahmed, the local government chief, said two of the demonstrators were killed and five wounded, while eight police were hurt. The protesters threw stones at the base and smashed a guard post.
Some of those in the crowd then shot at the base with assault rifles, prompting the police to return fire, he said.
In Tehran, a crowd of about 200 people pelted the Austrian embassy with fire-bombs and stones, and Palestinian demonstrators hurled stones at EU offices in Gaza and pulled down the EU flag. Protesters in four Indonesian cities demanded that Denmark apologise. Police fired warning shots to disperse 300 hardline Muslims protesting outside the Danish consulate in Indonesia's second city, Surabaya.
In France, police evacuated offices of a newspaper which had published the cartoons after it received a bomb threat.What Muslims Should Be Outraged Over:
Lebanon apologised to Denmark for the burning of its consulate during a weekend protest, and some Lebanese politicians accused Syria of using the furore to stir sectarian tension.
The prime ministers of Turkey and Spain made a joint plea for respect and calm. But Muslims in the Gulf Arab region intensified their boycott of Danish goods.
Iran said it was cutting all trade ties with Denmark.
Danish flags, however, remain in demand. An enterprising shopkeeper in Gaza, Ahmed Abu Dayya, said he had ordered 100 Danish and Norwegian flags when he heard that the cartoons were being reprinted.
"I knew there would be a demand for the flags because of the angry reaction of people over the offence to the Prophet Muhammad," he said.
Angry Muslims have been setting the flags ablaze or tearing them to pieces.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Question For Believers: Noah's Ark
Dear Believers:
What was the use of the worldwide flood, if it happened, or if it's a metaphorical lesson? How did it all work out for God?
Second Part: How does its outcome bode for the Apocalypse and New Jerusalem?
What was the use of the worldwide flood, if it happened, or if it's a metaphorical lesson? How did it all work out for God?
Second Part: How does its outcome bode for the Apocalypse and New Jerusalem?
Sunday, February 05, 2006
You Can't Just Go Around OFFENDING People!
I heard a Muslim woman saying that "free speech has its limits. You just can't print something that offends a whole nation of people."
First of all, lets dispense with theis "nation" bull. No such thing. There are people. SO, how many individuals is it ok to offend before you have to censor? I want a real number here.]
Nothing is above criticism. Especially not figureheads of religion. Those are exactly the things that should be criticized: after all, people are pretending to base their lives and all their decisions on them. We don't want that basis to be a lie, do we? If your belief system cannot stand strong while being criticized, if you have to use violence to force people to never criticize it, then your system is crap and must be thrown out in the trash--a cartoon is nothing..
It's time to show everyone Muhammad's "face." Lets pull that mask off.
Friday, February 03, 2006
The HORROR!
...the horror...
Use the mouse to experience this abomination: but only at your own risk. I recommend just swiping it over his forehead a few times. If this truly is relevant to Christianity, then the religion is worse than I thought.
Use the mouse to experience this abomination: but only at your own risk. I recommend just swiping it over his forehead a few times. If this truly is relevant to Christianity, then the religion is worse than I thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)