In order to illustrate that, below are two pictures of the odious David Barker – aspirational federal member for bigotry and ignorance.

Someone feed that man

Casting calls for Star Wars 7

Barker has been disendorsed – and rightly so – by the Liberal party as a direct result of his bigoted comments about atheists and Muslims.

http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/revealed-liberal-candidate-david-barkers-anti-muslim-campaign/story-fn5taogy-1225896534232

The disgraceful Barker describes himself as a “man of strong Christian faith”, and, in a state of apparent psychotic delusion suggested that he was “going to win this seat… claim it as mine and when I get in I will give my votes all of them to God who is on the side of the Liberal Right”.

He then went on to accuse non-Christians of “worshipping a false god”, attacking Julia Gillard for being an “atheist” and his opponent Ed Husic, for being a  “strong Moslem”.

At the same time, he described federal Liberal leader, Tony Abbott as “God’s mouthpiece in politics” before going on to say “I don’t believe God would have called me to run in this seat if he didn’t expect me to win,”

Clearly this man is delusional, a clear case for atheism if I have ever seen one. Perhaps he isn’t to blame however, he looks like he is merely half a chromosome away from being burdened with Down Syndrome.

It is hard to take someone seriously when they mention an Invisible Sky Monkey at the best of times, but when someone then goes on to say things like:

“I vote for freedom of worship if the worship is of Jesus Christ or The Jewish God anyone else well they are worshipping a false god anyway so who cares.”

“Voting should only be voluntary for Liberal and National voters the rest can not bother since with every vote they bring the nation closer to the brink of disaster and closer to the hands of a (sic)muslim country.”

“Someone get me into parliament … and watch me go. They will see my talent as the voice of … God himself.”

… it is obvious that there is something not quite right in the rats nest of synapses that they call a “brain”.

To summarise what this clown has said:

• An Invisible Sky Monkey speaks to him
• His Invisible Sky Monkey is the only real Invisible Sky Monkey
• Freedom is ok, so long as it is the kind of freedom that he approves of
• Only people who subscribe to his extreme views should be allowed to vote

It is scary that such a warped, delusional and bigoted individual was ever endorsed by a major political party in the first place. I could understand those twisted clowns at Family First or the CDP running with such an ignorant candidate, even putting him up on a pedestal and plastering Australia with posters of his deluded visage – but the Liberals?

A cynic might suggest that this kind of bottom feeding, disgusting individual; is exactly the kind of person who appeals to the traditional “aspirational” Liberal heartland (those inherent racists who don’t make enough money to be a Liberal voter though have delusions of grandeur and hope to one day be able to afford a bottle, not a cask of wine) – though one must give kudos to the “muscular Catholic”, the “mad monk”, Tony Abbott for the swift punishment that he dished out to the detestable Barker.

He was disendorsed and Abbot said: he is “gone, he’s finished”. “Attacks on people based on their religion have no place in this election campaign,”

A reasonably brave move given that he is running against an atheist and risks alienating the Christian right… actually, what the fuck am I saying, the Christian right are rusted on conservative voters come hell or high water. Still, I have to give credit where it is due, and Abbott is either maturing as a leader and a human being during this campaign or has some very talented advisors grooming him 24×7.

At the heart of the issue though is something that the slug like Barker himself raised:

‘But I don’t know if we want at this stage in Australian politics a Muslim in the parliament and an atheist running the government.’

Of course, a fundamentalist Christian is in a much better position to tell us what we can and can’t do in both our public and private life, because the one true god speaks to him and is on his side.

Religion has no place in politics, be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Scientology or any other kind of paranormal whackiness. Politics should always be based on pragmatism, logic and reason – what is best for the people no matter what their creed.

Odious, bigoted, ignorant, detestable cretins like David Barker have no place in our political landscape (or in civilised society) and we, one and all, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, humanist, Hindu, Sikh, worshipper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster alike; should unite to ensure that these vile human beings are never afforded a position of power in our society.

Recently, a tweet caught my eye.

Posted by @mmaryannwright - it was a link to a story about two couples who were suing a hospital for failing to detect that their children were carrying the condition Trisomy 21

The allegation is that ante-natal testing was negligent and failed to detect the presence of the condition.

The parents claim that had they been made aware of the presence of the condition that they would have terminated their respective pregnancies.

The couples are suing for the depression, shock and anxiety that they have suffered as a result of having believed that they were to have a healthy child, free from defect; only to discover that they in fact were presented with a child with a chromosomal disorder.

They are also seeking compensation for the continuing costs of raising a child with such a disorder.

One of the children also suffers heart, kidney and thyroid problems and can’t walk.

The tweet that accompanied the link was:

These kind of people make me sick

That is her opinion, that is fine. I don’t know her personal circumstance, whether or not she has raised a disabled child or has a disabled sibling and as such, it would be wrong of me to form an opinion about her as a result of her tweet.

What struck me though was that in saying what she did – that they made her “sick”, she appeared to show absolutely no empathy for what the couples in question experienced.

To declare my hand (I am not going to say “pro choice” – such a misnomer) – I believe that people have the right to make an informed choice about matters which have the potential to impact their lives, adversely or otherwise.

I replied and the conversation want this way:

What I took issue with was the arrogance implicit in what this person was saying.

“These kind of people” make her “sick”.

No explanation as to why, just a judgement, no explanation as to whether or not she had walked a kilometre in their shoes, just a scathing character assessment that throughout the fragmented Twitter conversation, appeared to show a complete inability of this individual to empathise with four distressed human beings.

In her final comment to me; she said “I hope for your sake you’re trolling.”

The supreme arrogance of such a statement, along with this persons willingness to condemn people for being so terrible as to be desirous of having a choice; tells me a lot about her character, values and morals.

I will leave you to make your own assessment of this person – without knowing her personal circumstances, it would be wrong of me to perform an analysis of her character.

What I will say however is that nobody has the right to judge a fellow human being without knowing what that person has experienced, what their personal circumstances are.

Unfortunately a driving force behind the judgement of the actions of others is religion.

To suggest that abortion is wrong, that same sex relationships are abhorrent, that an unmarried woman is unfit to be the leader of a nation, that women are inferior to men – these are the constructs of religion.

Interestingly, and I am not suggesting that the person who tweeted the original tweet is religious, not for one moment – but the religious who condemn things such as abortion, homosexuality and the like forget that in their sacred text, it says:

Leviticus 21:

16 Then the Lord said to Moses,
17 “Give the following instructions to Aaron: In all future generations, none of your descendants who has any defect will qualify to offer food to his God.
18 No one who has a defect qualifies, whether he is blind, lame, disfigured, deformed,
19 or has a broken foot or arm,
20 or is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or has a defective eye, or skin sores or scabs, or damaged testicles.
21 No descendant of Aaron who has a defect may approach the altar to present special gifts to the Lord. Since he has a defect, he may not approach the altar to offer food to his God.
22 However, he may eat from the food offered to God, including the holy offerings and the most holy offerings.
23 Yet because of his physical defect, he may not enter the room behind the inner curtain or approach the altar, for this would defile my holy places. I am the Lord who makes them holy.”

For mine, this is the “sacred book” of the Christians vigorously promoting abortion.

Of course they had to get the “testicles” in there didn’t they? Jesus Christ – why are they all so obsessed with sex?!

As such, no true Christian can condemn abortion for “theraputic” reasons if they wish to claim that they honour the word of their god.

UPDATE

After I posted this, the tweets from the individual in question were (read from bottom up) somewhat amusing. I didn’t bite back and was quite nice to her, providing my email address should she wish to discuss the matter and offering her an unfettered, unedited right of reply on this page.

To date, she hasn’t accepted.

Defamation?

I was inspired to write this little rant after having read this hilarious piece by “Pastor” Daniel Nalliah:

Religious nutter claims Australia is doomed because we have an atheist PM

Two screws loose and a microphone

Now you would be forgiven for thinking that the above link is a pisstake, but unfortunately; it isn’t.

Strangely though, I find myself appreciating the unprecedented audience that the Internet in its current form gives the religious nutters.

They, better than any atheist – Dawkins and Hitchens included – provide a potent deterrent to those wavering in their “faith” or those considering absconding from reason.

They also do a better job of parodying religious belief than the likes of the wonderful people over at Landover Baptist

The fellow who wrote the article on that site is also the fellow who claimed that his god murdered people in  bushfires throughout Australia. The reason? Because he was angry with homosexuals.

This fraud then goes on to say:

“Then we stretched our hands over federal parliament and prayed for ungodly leaders in parliament to be removed and righteousness to be restored”

“Many Christian Leaders believed that Kevin Rudd was God’s man for the hour and promoted him as many Christians voted for Labor in that election.   Unfortunately, due to a lack of spiritual discernment by much of the Church , Kevin Rudd was elected as PM.  He was not God’s choice, but the people’s choice.  God gave the people what they asked for”

Yes with a maybe, no with a but.

Preach to me, preach to me now - 1902 GODHATESFAGS

This kind of rubbish, the “it is god’s will” or the “he is omniscient but gives us choice” type argument is not only illogical, but it makes it impossible to have a reasoned, logical conversation with anyone of religious belief.

Those of us who have engaged in debate or discussion with fundamentalists know that it can be frustrating – and is, indeed, ultimately a waste of one’s time.

It isn’t just the fundamentalists though, that it is pointless attempting to discuss “faith” rationally with.

Faith, by its very nature, is incompatible with reason.

Why? For many reasons, but one of them is:

Because there is always a caveat.

In the case of Nalliah, his twisted caveat invokes free choice in the face of omniscience.

He is loathe to admit that when he and his deluded friends talk to their imaginary friend, nothing more than a reinforcement of their own delusions is achieved – yet who is he to question the whims and fancy of this all knowing, all wise sky pixie?

Instead of admitting that he is delusional, or that he is – point blank wrong – it is so much easier to invoke the tired old cliché of “god works in mysterious ways”, or “he is testing his people”.

Put simply:

• - Nalliah and his deluded flock prayed that the godless heathens would be removed from power
• - The most pious and piously arrogant Prime Minister we have ever had assumed office
• - Said PM, Kevin Rudd – conducted pressers from his church every Sunday morning
• - Said overtly pious PM was replaced by, gods forbid, an atheist (and a woman – let not that significance go unnoticed)
• - Ergo, Kevin Rudd was a tool of Satan and has been replaced by a heathen who will lead all Australians toward a fiery pit unless they vote for the fundamentalist Catholic Tony “The Mad Monk” Abbott

This is his god’s plan.

Nalliah is obviously missing several vital synapses in the rats nest that he indulgently calls a brain, but how is he any different than the “moderate” believers who cherry pick from the bible citing such inanities as “well, it is an anecdote, a message on how to live your life”.

No.

You either take the bible chapter and verse or you don’t take it at all.

At least fruitcakes like Nalliah and his flock have the courage of their insane convictions and completely ignore modern science, wisdom, proof, evidence and logic in favour of the superstitions of ignorant shepherds of aeons past.

The worst kind of believer is he or she who decides instead to attempt to flirt with modern knowledge yet tentatively clutches at the straws of ancient ignorance through a disheartening fear of their own mortality.

If you think that that is harsh, ask a “moderate” Christian if they believe in the story of Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, if they subscribe to everything mentioned in Leviticus.

I would be willing to bet my left testicle that they present to you a caveat.

The “moderate” Christians will look you in the eye and tell you that their god didn’t answer their prayer for a child dying of leukaemia because it was “his will”, yet will happily turn around and claim that their prayer for rain or the success of a friends child at a job interview was granted.

Doesn’t sound like the will of an omnipotent being to me.

Of course we know better than to stone homosexuals and adulterers to death in this day and age (do we?), though yes, this man called Jesus died and rose again, turned water into wine and raised a man from the dead…

Yes, of course, and bushfires, earthquakes, tsunamis and the like can’t be explained by science – they are of course a sign from a sky pixie unhappy with same sex attraction, abortion or an atheist Prime Minister.

I prefer direct evidence, logic and reason.

It is interesting to note though, that in the past 48 hours, there seems to have been a pattern of what appears to be a deliberate attempt to silence critical opposition to reason.

Firstly there was the sustained and continuing DDoS attack on the atheist convention website http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/.

Due to the technical nature of what has happened here, with the attacks moving to the IP after the domain name was null routed and then the new IP being subsequently attacked, one could make the assertion that this was a targetted attack on logic, reason and freedom of thought by those who feared it in some way.

There is an article in The Age on the attack on the atheist convention website.

Today, we have seen the twitter trending topic “no god” suddenly disappear and be replaced with “know god”.

The “no god” topic, started by a theist http://www.examiner.com/x-8776-Boston-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m10d20-No-God-war-raging-on-Twitter seemed to backfire when rationalists, humanists, secularists, atheists and free thinkers decided to have a bit of fun.

Religious types became somewhat outraged by this, though in their outrage, assisted the topic in trending by repeating the phrase and adding the #nogod hashtag.

A war waged, with the theists becoming increasingly upset and leading many people to speculate that twitter had censored the “no god” topic due to pressure by religious organisations for fear that they may offend them.

As we know, one is not supposed to question “faith”, it just isn’t polite to suggest that a grown adult has conversations with themselves inside their own mind (unless of course they have a certificate).

Perhaps it wasn’t due to pressure by the theists, perhaps it was just due to “operational reasons” and the amount of fail whales that began to appear as the topic trended, but both of the aforementioned events raise an interesting point:

Why do religious types feel so threatened by people advocating logic and reason and daring to question their unsubstantiated “faith”?

The DDoS attack on the atheist convention website is clearly the work of persons or groups who are offended or outraged by the thought of a viewpoint that differs to their own and, instead of engaging in robust debate in a supposedly free society, they seek to silence any opposition to their view.

Perhaps they have gnawing self doubts and are terrified that and exposure to critical thinking, reason and logic will disrupt their blissful ignorance or perhaps they are just conforming to the theistic stereotype that makes a wonderful argument for the “slippery slope” that leads to such wonderful things as theocracy.

The outpouring of outrage by theists when “no god” was trending is another example of this. Instead of engaging critically, there was, to paraphrase the Nazarene; “much wailing and gnashing of teeth”.

Typical of the “very christian” sentiment espoused is this lovely piece:

“@PrttyBella All #nogod supporters shouldve been ABORTED & im against it but ima have 2 do an exception #GOODISGOOD!!!!!!!!!! ( #No God )”

One does wonder why a group, so convinced by their beliefs and “faith” that some of them are willing to die for it (and all of them are content to abdicate reason) would need to behave in such a manner that seeks to silence their opposition, rather than one that seeks to prove their postulations.

One possible reason could be that they know that their position is untenable, and, like a petulant child that covers its ears and screams out “lalalalalalalala” when faced with a request that they wish to ignore; have chosen to create white noise and interference instead.

It is sad that human nature has yet to evolve to the point whereby we can all engage critically and without fear; and that some people use the technology that science has bequeathed us with to engage in modern day crusades.

An evaluation of the trending topics in this debate can be seen here:

http://religionlulz.blogspot.com/2009/10/twitter-censorship.html

Footnote: It seems as if the “Know god” trending topic has now been given the ability to search for either “no god” or “know god” from twitter’s website:

http://twitter.com/search?q=”Know+God”+OR+”no+god”

The topic name as represented on the site however has been changed from “no god” to “know god”

Conspiracy theories aside, that seems somewhat suspicious.

I thought that I would try something different, I was going to do my whole rant via video, however after realising just how bad my webcam was (and the fact that I am not really a compelling onscreen presence) I decided to let my fingers to the talking for the rest of the rant.

Racism?

This whole shit storm came about as a result of a “blackface” sketch on an appalling Australian television “variety” show that someone thought it might be a good idea to rekindle.

“Hey Hey it’s Saturday“  was a boorish, low grade Australian “comedy” show that ran for 27 years after debuting in 1971.

It was buried in 1999 and should never have been exhumed.

They had a segment on it called “Red faces” in which, viewers would perform skits in an attempt to win prizes of little to no value and generally greatly embarass themselves in doing so.

That said, it was the original precursor to the “Got Talent” shows that now disgrace the airwaves.

Anyway, enough about the history.

Last night, there was a skit on “Red faces” that involved mockery of the Jackson Five with a number of “blackfaced” performers and one “whitefaced” performer.

An American fellow by the name of Harry Connick Junior was one of the judges on this segment and took umbrage at this performance, claiming that it wouldn’t have been aired in the US and that the skit made black Americans look like buffoons.

Some American writers went into overdrive, such as this uneducated shock columnist who advocated violence against the amatuer performers.

She suggested that people who painted their faces black and wore wigs were [sic] “the dumbest things I’ve seen” yet her column suggests that such a performance be rewarded with physical violence… hmmm…

Personally, I thought that the skit was sub par and not in the slightest bit funny -- but not for the supposedly racist overtones.

It appears that Americans are the only people outraged over this pathetic attempt at comedy, yet are they not the supposed creators and guardians of “free speech”?

Political correctness has gone too far, and without apologies to my American friends -- as they are exclusively “free thinkers” -- I have to point the finger of blame for this; squarely at America.

Why is it ok for an African American to refer to a white person as a “honky” or a “cracker” yet somehow outrageously offensive for someone impersonating a black person to don a wig and some facial paint?

There was absolutely no mockery or black people, no stereotyping, no racial slurs, no suggestion of racism whatsoever by the (and it must be pointed out) multi-racial performers. What seems to have caused this outrage is the fact that they painted their faces black.

Personally, I find it grossly offensive that your country has had a history of slavery, oppression of minorities, treating black people as second class citizens -- sending them to the back of the bus, treating them like sub humans long before it happened in South Africa…

… but I take umbrage at you forcing your guilt onto us.

We didn’t force you to forcibly raid Africa, kidnap Africans and then enslave them, so don’t fucking foist your guilt upon us for the history you chose to create for yourselves.

This is hypocrisy at its worst -- even alongside that of organised religion.

It is essentially saying:

“You are free to speak and do as you wish, so long as it doesn’t make reference to our historical shame”

Wake the fuck up. Whilst we in Australia have been guilty of treating our indigenous population terribly, we would never be so arrogant as to foist our domestic shame upon you.

Australia is not America, nor does it share the same culture, guilt or shame for what has happened in your history.

Free speech is free speech, always; not just when you agree with it.

Speaking of hypocrites…

Harry Connick -- hypocrite?

Oh, as a post script -- the performer playing Michael Jackson, adorned with “whiteface” makeup was an Indian.

Where is the outrage from Caucasians?