Thursday, June 26, 2008
I first saw this guy from his debate with Hitchens. There's little to say about it other than Hitchens demolished him. Boteach didn't even try to fight, it seemed, and neither did he try to slither away in the way that Theologians like Dr. Alister McGrath do.
And then I saw this whole "storm in a teapot" as Dawkins put it. It seems that Boteach and Professor Dawkins have a wee bit of history, going back a couple of years when Boteach was living at Oxford.
Well, Boteach accused Dawkins of comparing him to Hitler, to which Dawkins' reply can be see in the above link. Dawkins says that he did not mean that Boteach thinks like Hitler.
On Boteach's web page, I saw this.
Clearly he doesn't understand much about homosexuality, but after all the drivel he comes to the final paragraph where he makes an open display of his hypocrisy:
While banning gay marriage is indeed discriminatory, so are the bans against polygamy and polyandry, which seem equally unfair. After all, a man who is married and has a mistress whom he only meets for sex has done nothing illegal (and in some countries has even proven his virility.) But if he suddenly desires to take responsibility for the woman and commit to her in marriage, he is thrown into jail. This is, of course, absurd because by doing so we reward causal sex and punish commitment. Still, amid the absurdity of the logic, nearly all agree that polygamy must remain strictly illegal so as to protect the single, time-honored definition of marriage: one man to woman. Period.So he admits that all these bans are discriminatory, and still says it should be banned to protect the "single, time-honored definition of marriage: one man to woman". Is this dingbat for real? Your fucked-up religious values have no meaning in other people's lives, asshole!
Gay marriage does have a history, if you bother to look at history before the advent of the Judaeo-Christian religions, and other cultures poisoned by the Abrahamic faiths.
Well, it seems now that Dawkins was mistaken when he said Boteach didn't think like Hitler. Well, Mr. Boteach, when it comes to the matter of homosexuality, it seems that you and Hitler are indeed like minded.
Posted by pinkunicorn at 8:32 AM
Sunday, June 22, 2008
No, but they all support homophobia.
You cannot support the bible without supporting homophobia. Why not?
There is no one singular way to interpret the bible. If there were, then there would be a logical description of how to correctly interpret the bible and everyone would follow this one true interpretation. But this is not the case. The faith of the believer plays a part in its interpretation. Therefore, once you give any validation to one faith-based-interpretation, you have to give validity to all of them. You cannot select it à la carte.
It's a bit like donating money to the Republican campaign. The Republicans pander to the homophobia of the people, and you cannot give money to the campaign and say you don't support homophobia.
Which is why all-forms of religion need to be eradicated, fundamentalist or moderate. Religion - Abrahamic ones in particular, is not the single cause of homophobia, but it is the main cause. Eradication of religion may not eradicate homophobia completely, but certainly eradicating homophobia could never be done if religion is not eradicated. In this sense, one could wonder if it is a possible goal at all, but whether possible or not, it is certainly worth trying, at least for every LGBT person. We ourselves might not get much out of it, but do it for the future generations.
Posted by pinkunicorn at 12:47 PM
The doctrine of eternal damnation is one of the most wickedest teachings ever imagined by humans. If Jesus did indeed exist - which is debatable - then this deranged, lunatic, preacher seems to have thought it fun to create this idea and scare the "hell" out of people. The Old Testament, reeking with violence, cruelty, barbarism and intolerance as it is, soaked with blood as it is, gives humans final peace after death. But no, gentle Jesus meek and mild wanted to get a kick out of damning people to eternity, it seems. Not even the dying moment of a person would now be peaceful.
After all, what justice is there when someone is sent to eternal damnation? If I were God, even the most appalling mass-murderer would not be sent to eternity in hell - nobody would, in fact. What can be achieved from it? Nothing useful. I want people who have done wrong to understand what they've done and genuinely be remorseful for it, not to watch them roast for the sheer pleasure of it. Is it not unjust to give a punishment that lasts infinitely for a crime committed in a finite time? Doesn't this make God ( or is it Jesus, if it is his invention? ) infinitely wicked and unjust?
A particularly vile thing among many Christians is that it teaches this doctrine to children. Is it not extremely immoral to tell something like this to children? To tell them that some people are going to be thrown into a lake for fire and are going to burn, screaming for eternity? And what happens when the child realizes that there are many loved ones around her that are going to burn in hell forever? Imagine the damage this kind of thing does to the delicate mind of a child.
Another group that has suffered from this is gay people. After the initial attempts to change one's sexuality, and failing to do so, to the Christian who realizes that he is gay and that he is unable to change this, the road to hell is pretty much secured in his mind. You can find plenty of messages on forums, with the same basic message - "I can't help being attracted to men but I don't wanna go to hell - Please help me". What evil! To prevent someone from falling in love, to snatch away a unique and magnificent experience such as love from someone - I would say it is the unforgivable blasphemy against a human - and Christianity is certainly guilty of this.
Posted by pinkunicorn at 12:22 PM
Why is it that some creationists miserably try to disprove evolution? They don't seem to get that disproving evolution doesn't automatically prove Intelligent Design ( ID ).
If I have a sealed container in front of me which is known to contain ice cream, and if I proved that the ice cream in it was not Vanilla flavored, does it automatically mean it's Chocolate? It could be Strawberry flavored, too.
Then again, since they shoot themselves in the foot every time they try to disprove evolution, may be it's better to let them have a go at it. At least they might learn a bit about evolution that way, possibly from a credible source instead of silly evangelical websites. But their attempt to disprove evolution and then say "Ha! Since evolution doesn't work, ID must be true!" shows how weak their logic is.
But of course, people are so gullible. When ID and Evolution are the only picks that are visible on the table, any questioning of Evolution, no matter how ridiculous, will make the believers gravitate towards ID. The very notion that ID and Evolution are debatable is a step-up for these idiots. Yeah, right - just like "Sex Theory of Reproduction" and "Stork Theory of Reproduction" are debatable.
Some of the proponents of creationism, particularly the more educated ones, probably know that this is completely a sham. Many believers seem to have this delusion that lying is ok, as long as you're doing it to save peoples' souls, and make the world a more "moral" place. After all, "Darwinism" makes the society immoral right?
Posted by pinkunicorn at 11:15 AM
Tomorrow is June 23rd, the birthday of Alan Turing.
In 1954 the British mathematician Alan Turing, a candidate along with John von Neumann for the title of father of the computer, committed suicide after being convicted of the criminal offence of homosexual behaviour in private. Admittedly Turing was not buried alive under a wall pushed over by a tank. He was offered a choice between two years in prison (you can imagine how the other prisoners would have treated him) and a course of hormone injections which could be said to amount to chemical castration, and would have caused him to grow breasts. His final, private choice was an apple that he had injected with cyanide.
As the pivotal intellect in the breaking of the German Enigma codes, Turing arguably made a greater contribution to defeating the Nazis than Eisenhower or Churchill. Thanks to Turing and his 'Ultra' colleagues at Bletchley Park, Allied generals in the field were consistently, over long periods of the war, privy to detailed German plans before the German generals had time to implement them. After the war, when Turing's role was no longer top secret, he should have been knighted and feted as a saviour of his nation. Instead, this gentle, stammering, eccentric genius was destroyed, for a 'crime', committed in private, which harmed nobody. Once again, the unmistakable trademark of the faith-based moralizer is to care passionately about what other people do (or even think) in private.
- The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins
23 June 1912 – 7 June 1954
Posted by pinkunicorn at 10:56 AM