Thoughts on the Birther Movement

I just simply had to write this article. Great news everyone, Donald Trump is running for president! Have I gone completely right-wing in thinking this is good news? No, I'm still a lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead communist (well done if you got the reference). This is great news because Donald Trump is crazy! He'll certainly be entertaining, and he almost certainly won't win. I imagine the first thing he'll do is get back to being a birther. If you follow American politics, you should be familiar with that term. For those of you who aren't, I shall explain.

Cast your mind back to 2011. Donald Trump was the leading voice of the birther movement. Birthers are people who believe that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya (where his father was born). These conspiracy theories had been floating around since 2008, but during the 2012 campaign, they resurfaced. Why does it matter where President Obama was born? Well Article Two of the United States Constitution outlines who can and cannot be president. There are three requirements.

"By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice-President must be:

• Natural born citizens
• At least 35 years old
• Inhabitants of the United States for at least fourteen years

Added to these requirements are the Twelfth Amendment, which states that the Vice-President must meet all requirements to be President and Twenty-second Amendments to the Constitution which prevents a President from being elected more than twice.

Birthers claim that because Barack Obama was born in Kenya, he is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be president. There are two major problems with this claim. First, Barack Obama was not born in Kenya. Second, the constitution is rather vague on what constitutes a natural born citizen.

So why am I bringing this up? Well as I said Donald Trump is running for President and one of his fellow candidates is Senator Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is a Republican (like Donald Trump) and batshit insane (like Donald Trump). So why does a birther need to be riding Ted Cruz? Well the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya is a conspiracy theory. It is however an undisputed fact that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Senator Cruz says that because he has an American mother, he is a natural born citizen and thus eligible. Well that's all well and good, President Obama's American mother did not protect him from these Birther claims, so why should Ted Cruz have it any differently. Mr. Trump, you know your duty. You're just a concerned American citizen who wants to make sure the constitution is being upheld. I mean, what's the difference between Ted Cruz and Barack Obama? It surely can't be... No, that problem has been solved in America... right?

Thoughts on the Election

So I'm writing again after a long hiatus. In case you didn't know, the United Kingdom had a general election two days ago. I decided that I should write a piece about the winners and losers of this election because I am quite interested in politics and this is my home country. I'll be doing this country by country. I am defining a winner as any party that came away with more seats than they did at the last election in 2010

I'll start with the biggest of the four countries, England. England has 533 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. The biggest winners were the Conservative and Unionist Party (Often called the Conservative Party or simply the Tories). The Tories, one of the two biggest parties in the UK, are a centre-right party favouring free market capitalism with some eurosceptic elements. They came away with 21 more English seats than in 2010, bringing their total of English seats to 319. The Labour Party were also winners in England. Labour, the main rivals of the Tories, are a centre-left party favouring social democracy and closer ties with the European Union. They added 15 English seats bringing their total to 206. It pains me to say it, but another winner was the United Kingdom Independence Party or UKIP. UKIP are a right-wing party who are deeply eurosceptic and who favour tougher controls on immigration. Thankfully they only gained 1 seat, giving them a total of 1 (To make it better, their leader Nigel Farage who I've spoken of previously did not win his seat). With the two major parties winning (and UKIP), that must mean that there were losers. Just one party can be described as losers in Britain. They are the Liberal Democrats or the Lib-Dems. The Lib-Dems are a centrist party favouring social liberalism. They got hammered by the voters losing 37 of their 43 seats in England, leaving them a total of 6. It seems going into a coalition with the Conservatives was a bad idea. That leaves one English seat unaccounted for. It went to the Green Party of England and Wales. They are a left-wing party favouring eco-socialism. They retained the seat they won in 2010.

Moving on now to Scotland. Scotland has 59 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. There was only one winning party in Scotland. It was the Scottish National Party or the SNP. In 2010, they had 6 seats. Now they have 56 seats. The SNP are a centre-left to left-wing party who above all else want Scotland to be independent. The popularity of the SNP has soared since the referendum on Scottish independence which they lost. It was more bad news for the Lib-Dems as they lost 10 of their 11 Scottish seats, but the biggest losers in Scotland were the Labour Party. Historically Scotland has been a Labour stronghold. This election though saw them lose 40 of their 41 seats. Imagine if the Democrats in America lost the Northeastern states. That's the best comparison I can think of. The Tories managed to keep hold of their Scottish seat.

Wales is the third largest country having 40 seats in the House of Commons. All in all there wasn't much change in Wales. The Tories did manage to pick up 3 seats in Wales giving them 11 seats. Labour lost a seat bringing them down to 25 and the Lib-Dems lost 2 seats leaving them with just the one seat. Wales' other seats are held by Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales. Plaid Cymru are the Welsh equivalent of the SNP, a centre-left to left wing party who above all else want Wales to be independent. The difference is Plaid Cymru aren't anywhere near as popular in Wales as the SNP are in Scotland. The Welsh simply don't care much when it comes to independence.

Finally there are the 18 seats from Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is unique in that the major British parties aren't major in Northern Ireland. That being said though, just like Wales, there wasn't much change in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there are five major parties. Going from left to right, we start with Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin are left-wing, Catholic, hardline republicans who want Northern Ireland to join the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin are unique in that their Members of Parliament do not take their seats because they do not recognise the jurisdiction the House of Commons has over Northern Ireland and they refuse to swear loyalty to the British crown. Sinn Féin lost one of their seats leaving them with 4 seats. Next up is the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP). The SDLP are a republican party, but they are not hardline republicans like Sinn Féin. The SDLP have an alliance with the Labour Party and share similar policies. They kept hold of their 3 seats. In the centre we have the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (APNI). The APNI do not take sides when it comes to the political status of Northen Ireland. They have an alliance with the Liberal Democrats and like the Liberal Democrats they lost. They had 1 seat, now they have none. Moving onto the right we have the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). They are basically the anti-SDLP. The UUP used to have an alliance with the Conservatives in Britain, but that didn't work out. Despite this they were winners taking 2 seats in Parliament having had none. Finally we have the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). These guys are the anti-Sinn Féin. They are right-wing, Protestant and hardline unionists. Unfortunately for Sinn Féin the DUP are also the largest party in Northern Ireland taking 8 seats. That leaves one seat unaccounted for which was taken by an independent candidate.

So overall the winners were the Conservative Party, the SNP, UKIP and the UUP. Losers were Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Sinn Féin and the APNI. Now we have five years of a Conservative majority government. Yay...

Thoughts on Shame

Today I am ashamed. I woke up to some terrible news. Three Muslim students were killed in North Carolina by a gunman who by all appearances was motivated by his militant atheism. In a way, I shouldn't be surprised by what has happened, every group be they Atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews or whoever have radicals who cannot be reasoned with. Yet we all think our group is special and that the killer must've been motivated by something else. Well I am merciless when religious extremists commit atrocities, so speaking as an anti-thestic atheist who wants to see religion defeated, I am disgusted, appalled and ashamed by what has happened.

I never thought I'd see the day when an atheist-extremist would make the news with such an attack. All Craig Stephen Hicks has succeeded in doing is tarnishing the reputation of atheists everywhere. He has made himself a poster boy for people like Pat Robertson who want to label all atheists as immoral godless thugs. I wish I could say that Hicks is not a true atheist, that he in no way represents us, but that would simply be false. I could say that this is just one isolated incident and that this sort of attack is rare, but I can't say that with certainty. Even if this is a one-off incident, one is too many times. Hicks has only set our cause back with his stupid, barbaric and shameful act.

I want to see religion defeated. I want to live in a world where we don't credit successes and failures to the will of a supreme being. I want to live in a world where bills aren't prevented from becoming laws on the grounds of flimsy ancient beliefs. I want to live in a world where the gods of the Bible, the Koran and all other holy books are treated like myths like Thor, Zeus or Ra. The way to do that is to educate people and encourage skepticism. We must question claims made by priests, rabbis and imams just like we'd question the claims of those who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Atheists tend to be atheists because we are skeptical people. We tend to be the people who believe scientific theories because they have the evidence. Hicks instead decided to kill Muslims. This in addition to being abhorrent is counter-productive because now Muslims will take solace in their faith. This attack only drives them closer to their religion.

Craig Stephen Hicks is one man, but his actions will affect all atheists. We must minimize the damage he has done by condemming his actions loudly and repeatedly. Richard Dawkins (who Hicks actually looked up to) asked "How could any decent person NOT condemn the vile murder of three young US Muslims in Chapel Hill". Richard Dawkins knows that he will come under scrutiny as Hicks was a fan. The difference between Hicks and Richard Dawkins is that Richard Dawkins is not a vile man, but a good example of how atheists should fight religion.

I am angry and ashamed right now so I know I am not being rational, but right now I must say it s a pity that there isn't a hell for Hicks to go to.

Thoughts on Hate

I have a massive amount of respect for Stephen Fry. He is absolutely hilarious for one thing, whether he's doing A Bit of Fry and Laurie, portraying Lord/General Melchett in Blackadder or hosting the BBC comedy quiz show QI. He's also very intelligent. He has a degree in English literature from Cambridge University and is an exceptional debater. One thing I really like about Stephen Fry is that he, like myself is opposed to organised religion. He recently was interviewed by an Irish broadcaster, who asked him what he would say if he came face to face with God. You can see his response here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo. Well an American pastor thinks this interview proves that there is no such thing as an atheists. Stephen Fry clearly hates God, so he clearly believes in God. Well this post is me debunking this faulty logic. Just to make things clear, I will be referring to the God of the bible as that is the one Stephen Fry was being asked about.

First of all Stephen Fry does not speak for all atheists, he speaks for Stephen Fry. Atheism is not a religion, we don't have priests, rabbis, imams, monks, gurus or anything like that. People like Stephen Fry and to a greater extent Richard Dawkins are often called "Atheist leaders" but this is actually inaccurate. Richard Dawkins doesn't give speeches on atheism, such a speech would be absurdly short. He gives speeches on evolution, secularism, humanism and he'll mention his atheism, but it's never the sole focus. An atheist sermon would go something like this: "There is no evidence to prove that a god exists. Alright, same time next week."

Stephen Fry hates God so he must believe in God. No, this is also wrong. I hate God, I think he's an immoral thug who holds humans to a standard he can't meet himself. I hate God in the same way I hate Lord Voldemort. He's the bad guy in a work of fiction who I want the hero to beat (although I've yet to figure out who the bible's hero is). I also find that Lord Voldemort has as much evidence to prove his existence as God does. I imagine that said American pastor has never read the Harry Potter books due to the witchcraft contained within so I'll use a different character. I hate God in the same way I hate Hamlet's uncle Claudius.

The stupidest thing about this pastor's statement however is the the simplest of them all. Stephen Fry is responding to a hypothetical question, so in this scenario Stephen Fry is only pretending that God exists. It's amazing how the simplest facts escape the unobservant. The only reason I am writing about this whole topic is because Keith Thompson (the pastor) is unable to distinguish a hypothetical scenario from reality.

I urge you all to watch the video of Stephen Fry. He hits the nail on the head and does so in a way that leaves little room for rebuttal.

Thoughts on a Dead Man

I've written a lot on the subject of hypocrisy and I wanted to change tone for this post. However the big news of today has pushed me into another post about hypocrisy. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia died today. As usual the death of a head of state was met with condolences for the king's family and praise for the deceased king himself. I cannot bring myself to keep quiet about it so here is my take on this. Any world leader who praises the dead King Abdullah has lost the right to lecture the world on human rights. King Abdullah was a human-rights abusing, radical Islamist tryant. Yet this doesn't seem to bother world leaders.

Turn the clocks back about two years and another world leader died. This was the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez. Here is what the American President Barack Obama had to say:

"At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez's passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and it's interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government. As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to polices that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights."

That last sentence is really what sticks in my head. Here's what President Obama had to say about King Abdullah:

"It is with deep respect that I express my personal condolences and the sympathies of the American people to the family of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz and to the people of Saudi Arabia.

King Abdullah's life spanned from before the birth of modern Saudi Arabia through it's emergence as a critical force within the global economy and a leader among Arab and Islamic nations. He took bold steps in advancing the Arab peace initiative, an endeavor that will outlive him as an enduring contribution to the search for peace in the region. At home, King Abdullah's vision was dedicated to the education of of his people and to the greater engagement with the world.

As our countries worked together to confront many challenges, I always valued King Abdullah's perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship. As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions. One of those convictions was his steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the U.S.-Saudi relationship as a force for stability and security in the Middle East and beyond. The closeness and strength of the partnership between our two countries is part of King Abdullah's legacy.

May God grant him peace."

That's quite the statement. Now I understand that U.S.-Saudi relations are much better than U.S.-Venezuelan relations. I don't know how good a leader Hugo Chavez was for Venezuela (I've heard many things from how great a guy he was to how he ran Venezuela into the ground). What really gets me is that last sentence in the statement about Hugo Chavez.

"As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, The United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights."

Like I said, I don't know much about Hugo Chavez's record, but what I do know is that he was democratically elected in elections described as legitimate the OAS and the Carter Center. As a King, Abdullah was not elected. It's also worth pointing out that Saudi Arabia is one of six countries in the world that is an absolute monarchy meaning that the King's word is law. That's hardly democratic. In my last post, I mentioned Raif Badawi who is being flogged for insulting Islam. So Saudi Arabia does not have freedom of speech which is another one of those democratic principles. Saudi Arabia follows Sharia law strictly and that includes the death penalty for apostasy, so Saudi Arabia doesn't have freedom of religion. Not allowing people to say what they want or convert from Islam is also completely against human rights. Not to mention that Saudi Arabia still flogs people, beheads them and stones them to death. Has President Obama forgotten that his country "remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles... and respect for human rights"?

The United States are currently bombing Islamic State (or ISIS, ISIL or whatever they are calling themselves these days). Islamic State is a terrorist group that currently kills people for blasphemy and homosexuality. They will stone you to death if you commit adultery while married (if you're not married, you'll only get 100 lashes). They'll also cut off your hand if you steal something. Our allies, Saudi Arabia (remember that King Abdullah was an absolute monarch so his word was law) have a justice system that kills people for blasphemy and homosexuality. They will stone you to death if you commit adultery while married (if you're not married, you'll only get 100 lashes). They'll also cut off your hand if you steal something. So radical Islam is bad when IS do it, but when Saudi Arabia do the exact same things, we're fine with that.

It's not just the American president. The British Prime Minister has praised the dead king, The British royal family has as well. The Secretary-General of the UN, the Prime Minister of Israel and many other middle eastern leaders have all praised this man.

I'll leave you with this thought. Of all the sons of the founder of Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz, Abdullah was the Liberal reformer. His successor, King Salman is apparently more conservative.

Thoughts on Freedom of Speech

In the wake of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, people have been falling over themselves to defend the right of free speech. Despite this it appears all speech is free, but some speech is more free than others. It raises an interesting question of where the line should be drawn. Some people might be supportive of the right of some to say something that others would rather was illegal to say. I can only throw in my two cents and hope that none of you think what I'm saying should be illegal.

I'll start in France where the attacks occurred. After the attacks there were marches in Paris led by world leaders including President Francois Hollande. Yet only three days later, the controversial French comedian Dieudonne M'bala M'bala was arrested for publicly supporting terrorism in a facebook post. The post in question said "As far as I am concerned, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly." mixing the popular proclaimation "Je suis Charlie" (I am Charlie) with the name of one of the men who carried out the attacks. Dieudonne claimed he meant that he support freedom of speech, hence Charlie, but people treated him like Coulibaly. Dieudonne's explanation may be perfectly legitimate, or it may be a load of bullshit. Is it not however hypocritical of France to arrest someone for something they said after marching in support of freedom of speech? I've never seen any of Dieudonne's routines, so I don't know how bad they are, but surely they shouldn't be banned. If his material is as bad as people say it is, he won't get much attention from people and his audience will be filled with people nobody would rather associate with.

Je suis Raif Badawi. Before I say who Raif Badawi is, I'd like to point out that the Saudi ambassador to France was present at the march in Paris. Raif Badawi is a Saudi blogger who is currently serving a sentence for insulting Islam. He has to pay a fine of one million riyals (£175,714.29 or €230,303.73 or CHF 229,086.19). He has to spend ten years in prison. He has to receive 1000 lashes. He receives 50 lashes every Friday in front of the Jeddah mosque in front of whatever crowd gathers (and crowds do gather). This one really hits home with me because a recent post I made might just have caused me to lose a friend because he believed I was insulting Islam. It made me realize I would've lost more than a friend were I in Saudi Arabia. I might have lost my head as well. Raif has received 50 of his 1000 lashes and the Saudi government has decided to review his case. Saudi Arabia marching for freedom of speech is about as ironic as North Korea marching for demilitarization. Je suis Raif Badawi.

The Pope gave his two cents about freedom of speech. I like Pope Francis. If every religious person was like Pope Francis, I would not be an anti-theist. So it really disappointed me to learn that he like many other religious people in the world is part of what Salman Rushdie would call the "but" crowd. Those who don't condone the killings BUT... Like the man who may or may not still be my friend, Pope Francis portions some of the blame to the victims. He stated that we should avoid blasphemy because of how seriously people take their religion. I would simply say that if Pope Francis doesn't want to have religious beliefs ridiculed, then he shouldn't have ridiculous religious beliefs.

Here in the western world we have certain values we cherish. One of the biggest one is freedom of speech. Whether we want to blaspheme, insult a religion or make poorly worded statements regarding how people see us should not matter. So I am going to say a few things here and now that in other places I would not be allowed to say. Fuck the king of Saudi Arabia for ruling over a country where people are publicly flogged. Fuck anyone who thinks that I have to abide by the rules of their religion. Most of all fuck anybody who tries to tell me or anyone else what they can or cannot say.

Thoughts on Atheism

I haven't made a post in awhile and that's not good. I really need to keep this up. Anyway today I was called "a diehard atheist". The person who called me this clearly has no idea what atheism is because she put those two words together. Well atheists don't have great reputations, so I'm going to shed some light on what atheism is, what atheists believe and other things people need correcting on. Please also note that I'm talking about atheism here, not anti-theism, not the theory of evolution, but atheism.

So what is atheism? Many people would say atheism is the belief that there is no god. These people are wrong. You can see this from the word atheism. Split it up into its root word and the prefix: a-theism. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix 'a' means without. So atheism is without the belief in a god or gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. While at first this may seem like simply a rewording, but there's actually a big difference in the two statements. Atheists do not have belief. We do not believe there are no gods, rather we see no evidence that proves the existence of gods. I'm going to enlist the help of Richard Dawkins to help illustrate my point. In his book "The God Delusion" he outlines the spectrum of theistic probability. You simply find the statement on the spectrum that best applies to your views on the existence of God.

1. Strong theist. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung "I do not believe, I know."

2. De facto theist. Very high probability, but short of 100 percent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 percent, but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 percent. "God's existence and non-existence are entirely equiprobable."

5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 percent, but not very low. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to be skeptical."

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of 0 percent. "I don't know for certain, but I think God is very improbable and live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. 0 percent probability of God. "I know there is no god with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

The definition of atheism covers anyone who rates themselves from 4-7 on that scale. While those who identify as 4s would not call themselves atheists, they lack belief in a god. They themselves would identify as agnostics. What if I told you that atheism and agnosticism weren't mutually exclusive? Well as it turns out, they aren't. Agnosticism refers who anyone who isn't 100% sure so anyone who rates themselves from 2-6 falls under the definition of agnosticism. I rate myself as a 6. There is no evidence that proves that any gods exist, so I was always going to be on the atheistic side, but as theists love to point out there is no evidence that there is no god, which leaves me just shy of rating myself a 7.

I was called "a diehard atheist". A quick google search turned up this definition of diehard: a person who strongly opposes change or who continues to support something in spite of opposition. Change has nothing to do with atheism, it's merely the lack of a belief. So she was calling me a person who continues to support atheism in spite of opposition. I doubt she'll ever read this, but I want to point something out. If you look at the spectrum again, how many theists would classify themselves as 1s? I imagine that number would be seven digits long at minimum. How many atheists would rate themselves as 7s? Not nearly as many. Not me, not Richard Dawkins because atheists tend to be atheists because they looked at the evidence or more accurately lack of evidence. If tomorrow proof was found of the existence of a god, then I would change my mind. I'd be embarrassed for the way I've banged the drum for atheism and appalled at the way he's fucked things up down here (I sure as hell wouldn't worship him), but I would change my mind.

I'll leave you with the words of Isaac Asimov who sums up my position perfectly. "I don't have the evidence to prove that God does not exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

Thoughts on Hurt Feelings

No doubt you've all heard about what happened today in Paris. People who worked for Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine were shot and killed by Islamists after they published cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad unflatteringly. Well you all know my views on religion and not long after I ranted at the largest religion in the world, I need to have a go at the second largest. Islam is a religion that is covered in blood, just like Christianity. The big difference is that Christianity has certainly toned itself down in recent times. The same cannot be said of Islam.

While the shooters were killing their victims, they were shouting "We have avenged the prophet Muhammad" and "God is great". Well let's take these one by one. They apparently avenged Muhammad. The only way that could possibly be true is if these French cartoonists went back in time to the 8th June 632 and killed Muhammad themselves. Since time travel has not yet been invented, I feel confident in saying that this is not the case. They instead made cartoons mocking Muhammad and for some reason this means they deserve to die. For someone who is supposed to be perfect, the prophet Muhammad is a sensitive one isn't he? Surely someone so great would be able to suck it up. God is also great apparently. No, if he demands that cartoonists be put to death for insulting his favourite human, he's an evil fucker.

Here's what really makes me sick. This is not the first time Muslims have killed people over a damn cartoon. In 2005 a Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten published similar cartoons also depicting Muhammad unflatteringly. Were the cartoons offensive? Yes, they were. Did Danes deserve to die because of the publication? No, of course not. These cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo are probably offensive to Muslims, but that doesn't justify murder. How many atheists kill cartoonists because of the way they depict Richard Dawkins? How many Christians kill cartoonists because of the way Jesus may be depicted? I could go on and on asking these questions, but my point is, it's Muslims who seem to think that cartoons can justify murder.

It's not just cartoons either. A Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh (whose's great-grandfather was Vincent van Gogh's brother) directed a short film called "Submission" in 2004. "Submission" is a short film about how women are mistreated in Islam and how such mistreatment is justified by the Quran. That same year, he was killed. Authors too aren't safe. British-Indian author Salman Rushdie wrote a book in 1988 called "The Satanic Verses" which was critical of Islam. The then Supreme Leader of Iran Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for his death. Mr. Rushdie even today receives a Valentine's Day card from Iran informing him that they still want him dead. Anyone who dares insult Islam receives death threats from these people.

We live in enlightened times and we have certain ideals that we hold dear. One of which is freedom of speech. Anyone has the right to say anything they want to. If I want to say that blasphemy is a victimless crime, than I can say that. If you want to say that I am full of shit and I should just shut up and die, then you can say that. Sure it may hurt my feelings, but because I'm all grown-up I think I'll be able to get over it without going to your house and killing your family.

Thoughts on Discrimination

You've probably heard about Leelah Alcorn. The name might be unfamiliar, but the fact that she recently committed suicide is something you probably noticed. Leelah was 17 years old and despite being born male, felt like a woman in a man's body since she was 4. She killed herself because her Christian parents were too stubborn to believe that this was more than a phase and told her that she would never truly be a girl. Apparently God doesn't make mistakes. Today I read Leelah's suicide note. It saddened and angered me simultaneously. It saddened me because her story is a tragic one, and it angered me because it didn't have to be.

I am an anti-theist. I've said that many times both out loud and on this blog. When I tell people I'm anti-theist I'm often asked why I feel so strongly against religion. Leelah Alcorn is why. She is one of many LGBT people who have been driven to suicide by the real mental illness that is religion. I'm well aware that many Christians would feel as outraged as I am over this situation, but there's far too many who don't. When you call a book that calls homosexuality an abomination, yet sanctions slavery, the good book, you are deluded. The moderates aren't loud enough and their timid condemnations of the homophobic are pathetic.

I will also clarify that it's not only me blaming Christianity for Leelah Alcorn's death. Leelah blamed Christianity herself. In her note she wrote "My mom started taking me to therapists, but would only take me to christian therapists (who were all very biased) so I never actually got the therapy I need to cure me of my depression. I only got more Christians telling me that I was selfish and wrong and that I should look to God for help." What if Leelah was taken to a proper therapist and not one the parents paid to spout the bullshit produced by the damn bible? How many deaths can be attributed to that fucking book? 

What if the damn bible was never written? There's an episode of Family Guy where Stewie and Brian visit different universes and the first one they visit is one where Christianity never existed. The consequence of this is that humanity is a thousand years more advanced due to the fact that the dark ages of scientific repression and christian dominance never occurred. Think what else would never have occurred. The Crusades would never have happened nor would the Spanish Inquisition have happened. The paedophilia carried out by the Catholic Church wouldn't have happened or have been covered up. Most of all, think how many homophobes use Christianity to justify their homophobia? While I'm not saying that homophobia would be eradicated, I'm saying it wouldn't be anywhere near as big a problem as it is today.

Leelah's parents say God doesn't make mistakes. Well if they're happy worshipping the petty, unjust, unforgiving, controlling, vindictive, blood-thirsty, ethnic cleansing, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, malevolent bully that is their god, who am I to say they can't? They just have to live with their daughter's blood on their hands.

Thoughts on 2015

So 2014 is done and now we're into 2015. Well I promised I would be positive and I'm going to keep that promise by pointing out many things I personally am and things that you all should be looking forward to. Consider these tips that if followed will bring you happiness, entertainment and material to talk about next time there's an awkward silence you need to break. This is me at my generous best, and you can thank me later.

I love movies! Movies can be exciting, creepy, fun, thrilling and sometimes all four! If you're anything like me then you love superhero films! Marvel have you covered on that score with Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man. Fox are also giving us something new with The Fantastic Four. Maybe you prefer science fiction films with dinosaurs in which case, Jurassic World will satisfy your prehistoric needs. If you like the long time ago feel of Jurassic World, but you want to go to a galaxy far, far away then the wait is finally over for Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Maybe you prefer a different franchise entirely in which case there's Terminator: Genisys. Shall we move away from sci-fi? Try watching some action films like Mission: Impossible 5, London Has Fallen or Hitman: Agent 47 or Taken 3 (Liam Neeson will be killing people in those scenes). They're also remaking the classic action film Point Break Hell forget about them as Daniel Craig is James Bond again in Spectre (and if you know anything about the James Bond universe, you should be excited by this title and the fact that Christoph Waltz is in it). Maybe you like comedy instead. Ted 2 is coming out (I know comedy sequels usually disappoint, but I'm being positive here!) so is Minions! Wow, I've gone on quite a bit about movies. I'll leave it there, but rest assured, there's so much more out there!

I love TV Shows! I know, my life is boring you say, well I say it fucking well isn't! Not with a fifth season of Game of Thrones coming up! Here's a fact Game of Thrones fans may be interested in: Hafthor Bjornsson who played Ser Gregor "The Mountain" Clegane came 2nd in this year's World's Strongest Man, losing by half a point to a big and scary Lithuanian. If I'm not engrossed in the Game of Thrones drama, I'll be chilled to the core with the third season of Hannibal as Mads Mikkelsen gives his own take on the world's most polite and vile serial killer. If that doesn't appeal to you, try the political thriller House of Cards where Kevin Spacey gives a brilliant performance as the most evil politician ever (and that's saying something). I also like the Marvel Cinematic Universe so I welcome the arrival of Marvel's Agent Carter and Marvel's A.K.A. Jessica Jones. This goes without mentioning other TV Shows that need to finish the second halves of their seasons in 2015. Gotham Arrow and The Flash if you like DC's universe or Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. if you prefer Marvel's are both returning. There's The Walking Dead if you like a British actor pretending to be from Georgia while shooting zombies is also coming back.

I love Sport! Well not today after Chelsea fucking embarrassed themselves today, but normally I do. So what have we got in sports this year? Well there's Super Bowl XLIX. I love the Super Bowl because if nothing else it's an excuse to stay up until 5 in the morning (and I like American Football). Maybe you don't like American Football and you prefer Rugby. Well as well as the RBS Six Nations, this year also has the Rugby World Cup! It's been four years since England were poxed out by the bloody French and dammit we want to win this one! I also love Formula One (Lewis Hamilton!) and this year we will have the longest season ever with 21 races. There's also Fernando Alonso's return to McLaren, Sebastian Vettel's move to Ferrari and the reunion of McLaren and Honda (F1 historians will know what I mean). There are also seasons to finish in football, basketball and in whatever other sports you may follow.

I'm getting myself too excited, I think I'll stop here. I'll end by saying this. There are plenty of reasons to be excited for 2015!