I admit, I haven't had enough drive in me to keep this up. It's a serious flaw in my character. Yet I sit here wondering whether or not the United States of America will elect a fascist billionaire as its next president. I am of course talking about Donald Trump. What started out as a hilarious joke is now terrifyingly close to being a reality. I used the word fascist to describe Donald Trump and I know that one should not throw around such words. If such words are overused, they lose their meaning and when real fascists show up, the label means nothing. Yet I am sitting here and I am perfectly comfortable calling Donald Trump a fascist. Why do I do this? The answer is simple: Because if the boot fits, you must wear it.
I will be using Dr. Lawrence Britt's fourteen defining characteristics of fascism and showing just how many of those boxes are checked by Donald Trump.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Donald Trump's campaign slogan is "Make America Great Again." Now I agree that a mere slogan is not enough to tick this box, so I also bring up his proclamation that "We (America) will have so much winning, you may get bored with winning." Still not enough? How about his continuing proclaimations that "We'll take our country back." I could go on, but I'd be here all night and we're only at #1. 1/1
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Well here's another one that's easy to prove. Donald Trump is someone who supports the use of torture, saying in one RNC debate that he would "bring back waterboarding and bring back a lot worse than waterboarding." Clearly Donald Trump doesn't know that the Eight Amendment to the US Constitution forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishments. Donald Trump has also called for the American military to target the families of suspected terrorists which is a war crime. On a lesser note, he also wants stricter regulations regarding the press to prevent them from being mean to him. 2/2
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people who have lots of problems... They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists and some I assume are good people." - Donald Trump.
That quote was in his campaign announcement speech. He says that the Mexican government is rounding up Mexican drug dealers, criminals and rapists and sending them to America, and in this group of drug dealers, criminals and rapists, some good people are hiding amongst them. It's not only Mexicans that Trump has identified as enemies. He called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States. I think we can safely say Trump is 3/3 so far.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Donald Trump wants the US Military to start flexing its muscles again. He has claimed that "There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am" which sounds like he's trying to say he'll make the military stronger. He also wants to appoint a "proper general" to "hit (ISIL) so hard your head would spin." This is not the first time he advocated such strategies as he promised to "Bomb the shit out of 'em" referring to ISIL. 4/4
5. Rampant Sexism
Donald Trump is a sexist. In other news the Pope is Catholic. Just like with item #1 I could go on for a long time with this one so I'll simply stick to three of his targets. During the early stages of the campaign, Donald Trump had to wonder about Carly Fiorina. Specifically how anyone could vote for someone with her face.
"Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?" - Donald Trump
What about the time he got upset when Fox News' Megyn Kelly asked him some hard question. Donald Trump said "You could see she had blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Yes, she had to be menstrual, not just doing her damn job. If this still isn't enough, do a google of "Donald Trump Rosie O'Donnell" and you will see a veritable smorgasbord of mysoginistic comments. 5/5
6. Controlled Mass Media
Fortunately Donald Trump is not yet in a position to control the media like a fascist would, but he has shown signs of intent. News organisations like The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Buzzfeed and Politico, all of whom aren't kind to him aren't allowed at his rallies. He also wants to loosen defamation laws which the Associated Press reported as being at odds with "widely held conceptions of constitutional law." This is what Donald Trump wants to do and he doesn't have the power of the presidency yet. It's not a stretch to imagine he'd want to do more once he has it. 6/6
7. Obsession with National Security
Donald Trump doesn't have many concrete policy proposals, but one he does have is he plans to build a wall along the US-Mexican border (which he will make Mexico pay for). The purpose of this wall is to keep out the Mexican drug dealers, criminals and rapists. He wants to prevent Muslims from coming to America because he wants to keep out terrorists. He even doesn't want the US to take in Syrian refugees fearing that they could be "the ultimate Trojan horse." 7/7
8. Religon and Government are Intertwined
Donald Trump in his infinite modesty said the his book "The Art of the Deal" is only the second best book ever written. He said the best book is the Bible saying "You can't beat the Bible" and "Nobody loves the Bible more than me." Now I don't believe for a moment that he actually thinks that, but he's pandering to Evangelical Christians. In his speeches he invokes God, like when he claimed he would be "the best jobs president God ever created." He also says that people will be saying "Merry Christmas" during the holiday season, showing that he buys into the myth that is the War on Christmas. While I would make a far more believable Christian than Donald Trump, it is clear that Trump will use Christianity to his own advantage. 8/8
9. Corporate Power is Protected
For a start Donald Trump wants to lower the Corporate Tax rate to 15% and he wants to repeal the estate tax. These are two proposals that would greatly benefit corporate types like Trump himself. His plans would give tax cuts to the rich and, according to the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center "boost the after-tax incomes of the wealthiest households by an average of more than $1.3 million a year". It's really not surprising that Trump wants to protect the interests of those like himself. 9/9
10. Labor Power is Surpressed
I am unable to find much about Donald Trump's policies regarding Labor. So I will grant him the benefit of the doubt. 9/10
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Again, I am unable to pin him down on this one so he gets a pass. 9/11
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
This one is easy to nail him to. He advocates violence towards protesters at his rallies, he wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants en masse (because they're drug dealers, criminals and rapists), he supports the use of torture as I mentioned earlier, he supports the use of capital punishment, I could go on, but I've already been here awhile and I've still got two more to do. 10/12
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Donald Trump is a crony capitalist. Here is an article from the New York Times outlining his practices better than I could http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/opinion/campaign-stops/donald-trump-crony-capitalist.html?_r=0
Here's another one from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-d-barris/donald-trump-crony-capita_b_8949138.html
Thanks for the assist. 11/13
14. Fraudulent Elections
Well since he's not in power, I can't really say he checks this box. 11/14
So Donald Trump his 11 of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism. I think that is justification enough to call him what he is. Donald Trump is a fascist.
Tuesday, 17 May 2016
Tuesday, 16 June 2015
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:
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?
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
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?
Saturday, 9 May 2015
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...
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...
Wednesday, 11 February 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, 3 February 2015
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.
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.
Friday, 23 January 2015
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.
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.
Sunday, 18 January 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)