I’m too angry to even comment rationally on this. For anyone who had any doubts that the Republican party only cares about rich, white men, go here and read on. I’d recommend doing it on an empty stomach because if you have even a modicum of decency, it will make you want to hurl.


Have I Read The Bible, Hell Yes! That’s Why I’m an Atheist!

A childhood friend on FB responded to my post, The Bible is the Literal Word of God; Except When Its Not. Here is what he said:

“have you read the Bible? or are you simply regurgitating ignorance from others? I have offered answers, yet I have not been taken up on this. Again, it is very irresponsible to propagate unsubstantiated opinions. Why this venom towards Christians and the Bible? If you wish to be an athiest be one, that is your right. Why the all out war on the belief of others. What is freethinking? Oh just freedom to think apart from responsibility and accountablity? Freedom from any form of religious thinking? Maybe free thinking should be folks who examine an issue and think for themselves. Not simply robots who cannot originate a though for themselves. Freethinking is a misnomer”

Yes, I’ve read the bible, cover to cover, at least twice, and many parts of it, the New Testament especially, many, many times over the years. It was this almost continual reading of the bible that made me see more and more contradictions that I just couldn’t rationalize away. Then I studied the history of the writing of the New Testament, how there were originally hundreds of gospels and competing camps of bishops supporting one version of the theology against the others. I learned about the political machinations that took place to arrive at the New Testament we have now. It was, totally and completely, cover to cover, created to fulfill political agendas of the most powerful bishops and the rulers who backed them.

Why do I have such venom toward the bible and the people who misuse it (I refuse to lump all Christians into one group as this would be irresponsible)? Ask Madeline Neumann, a 12-year-old girl whose parents, based on their religion, allowed her to die of diabetic ketoacidosis rather than save her life by allowing physicians to administer insulin and fluids. They thought prayer would save her. It didn’t. Ask the thousands of people who have been killed over the last 2000 years for their refusal to follow the prevailing version of Christianity. Ask the irresponsible ministers and political leaders who wish to brand homosexuals as immoral, second-class citizens. Ask the 156,000,000 women who’s reproductive organs are held hostage by a religiously motivated white, male, privileged class of cretins.

I wage an all out war on anything that conspires to take rights away from people. That includes holier-than-thou Christians, militant, closed minded Muslims, Zionistic Jews willing to steal and kill to get their land, white supremacists who wish to overthrow the U.S Government, wide-eyed, white, privileged Greenpeace and PETA people who would rater see millions starve and die of disease than allow GM foods and medicines tested on animals be developed that could save countless lives.

Christianity is my main focus because, almost without exception, all of the people in this country right now who would seek to take rights away from others self-identify as Christians and claim that their sense of morality comes from their religion. If things change and the largest group of privileged people in power become Muslims or Hindus or Wiccans, I’ll fight them just as loudly and forcefully.

I don’t claim to be able to tell people how to live their lives. As long as no one is being harmed, taken advantage of, or being forced either by law or by custom to kowtow to some group’s beliefs, then I say let people believe whatever they like. You can believe in God and Jesus, you can believe that Homosexuals will go to hell, but keep that belief within your churches and homes, don’t force it on others.

I don’t go door to door trying to get people not to believe in God. I don’t support any law that would outlaw any kind of religion or religious belief. I don’t lobby for my personal beliefs to be the law of the land, but don’t try to tell me that Christians aren’t doing that every day, in every town and state in the country. When the Christian majority (and yes, you are well over a 70% majority) tries to tell the rest of us what we can do and say and believe and think, then yes, I will fight for my rights and the rights of everyone else who are forced to listen to people tell us we are less American and less patriotic than they are because we don’t believe in their god. This country was founded on religious freedom (freedom for and from religion) and freedom of conscience, not on Christianity or any other religion. Yes, I will fight for that kicking and screaming, every fucking step of the way.

Comments on Atheism and Gender Equality

Here is an illuminating comment on my earlier post from a reader, Sas, and my reply:

  1. Thanks for this . I have been appalled by some men’s attitudes – I left Christianity hoping for an equal world and was horrified to see the same old crap in the atheist camp. ” girls are naturally less intelligent that’s why they go to church ” No you twat, church has free childcare and you don’t get touched up.Treat women right and they’ll join you.Also try to understand that liking men and sex doesn’t mean they will sleep with any man – ESP not the older ones who think we are gagging for a father figure…wpid-94fe68a35b9b4a2c0ba2445621a62470-2011-02-8-16-27.jpg Comment by Sas | February 8, 2011 | Edit | Reply
  2. Ps lots of men don’t like sex and will make you feel bad for asking for it. Strangely they lie about that to their male friends.wpid-6f2daef3a2c555a4bdb80036526e0f36-2011-02-8-16-27.jpg Comment by Sas | February 8, 2011 | Edit | Reply
  3. Sas, I agree with you completely. Men need to understand that just because a woman is sexually liberated doesn’t mean she will sleep with everyone, especially them. Yes, biology is powerful. Yes, males evolved to try to have sex with as many females as possible in order to pass on their genes. But to use this as an excuse to treat women solely as sexual objects is disingenuous and wrong. This only supports the theists’ contention that atheists are all amoral darwinists. We are moral creatures who have the benefit of intelligence and rational thought to rise above our evolutionary imperatives, especially when they interfere with our ability to responsibly interact with each other.wpid-402c429e71fcb15b380d58cd3ca72867-2011-02-8-16-27.jpg Comment by Jay Walker | February 8, 2011 | Edit | Reply

Sex Acts Shouldn’t be a Moral Issue

Sex is one of the most basic activities that we as humans engage in. Next to quest for water, food, and shelter, sex is the most compelling force that drives our actions and emotions. That may sound crass to some, but sexual desire takes many forms such as our longing for romance, companionship, affection, and love of other caring adults.

Here I define sex as responsible, consensual, non-coercive sexual and social relations between adults that takes place in private. This definition applies no matter if the adults involved be straight, gay, bi-sexual, transsexual, transgender, or polyamorous; monogamous or non-monogamous. No sexual act, as long as it is agreed to by all involved, is prohibited and all such sexual acts are considered morally neutral.

I say in the title of this entry that sex acts shouldn’t be a moral issue, but our sexual freedom is and should be. Just as access to shelter, water, and food are moral issues, in that no one can justly keep these things from us, so too is sexual freedom a moral issue. No one has the right to keep us from engaging in responsible, non-coercive and consensual sexual relationships with other adults, or dictate how those relationships must, or must not, be expressed.

There are many people who would try to deny the right of sexual freedom to others based strictly on their own, almost exclusively, religiously motivated beliefs. These people try to make a moral issue out of social and sexual relationships and activities that they have no compelling interest in. How are they harmed or affected by what transpires in petto between responsible and consenting adults? The reality, of course, is that they are not harmed in any way, and any effect the imagined sexual activities of others may have on them is their own issue to deal with, not a matter for public discussion and government interference.

I find it interesting that the same people who attempt to legislate sexual morality are often the same people who cry the loudest about the government interfering with their rights to own firearms, their access to health care, or trying to take away their precious social security and Medicare (where are government programs created by the federal government and which no one has an intrinsic right to).

These same people don’t want to be told by the government how to live their lives and yet they have no problems trying to get that same government to tell others what sexual acts they can and can’t engage in.

The right to practice sexual freedom, as I’ve defined it here, is an intrinsic right that no one except the parties involved have any compelling interest in or standing on. The kinds of relationships that responsible, consenting adults enter into, the sexual acts they engage in, and the various orientations and numbers of people involved in those relationships are sacrosanct as long as they are engaged in openly, honestly and without any coercion.

Followup On The Manhood Academy

My last post was about The Manhood Academy. My friend did a lot of research into the Manhood Academy’s history. They have , as of 2010, rebranded themselves as a Men’s Rights group. Before that, the sight was apparently locked down as of 2008, likely for their blatant promotion of hate and abuse toward women. Read her findings here.

The Misogynistic Manhood Academy – The Only Pussies They Will See Is When They Look In The Mirror

I’ve written recently about the Manhood Academy site, here and here. Besides the fact that they refuse to allow comments critical of their site, they have now resorted to personal attacks and threats against one of the commenters and my good friend. They have apparently tracked back to one of her accounts and lifted a few of her images -INCLUDING one of her infant son!! They posted these pictures in a personal attack in the comments section of their blog. Out of respect for her, I am not going to post a link to that.

Who are The Manhood Academy?

According to their web site, the Manhood Academy:

        Manhood Academy is the first worldwide male educational center specifically designed to train men in social competence.

They offer a free e-book entitled, The Principles of Social Competence. Here is are a few quotes from the free, online book:

Relationships give women the opportunity to depend on men (for protection, affection, stability, security, provision, etc.). They also give men the opportunity to depend on women (for sex, companionship, children, support, etc.).

Relationships give women the opportunity to depend on men (for protection, affection, stability, security, provision, etc.). They also give men the opportunity to depend on women (for sex, companionship, children, support, etc.).

Instead of forming healthy relationships with authoritative men, today’s women are ushered into a dysfunctional relationship with the State; police offer protection, courts offers social support, a welfare system provides food and shelter, the media provides approval, business careers provide an illusion of self-sufficiency, fertility clinics provide children, and prescription drugs provide instant pleasure. By usurping the function of men, the State undermines the potential for healthy relationships between men and women.

Ironically, the State’s own dysfunctional authority cannot meet the needs of women. While police and the judicial system work to deter crime, they can do nothing to teach women how to dress appropriately in public or prevent women from creating dangerous situations for themselves.

Giving women independent rights to childbirth will never solve the problem of overcrowded prisons created by single mothers. The state’s inability to exercise proper authority over women results in a thoroughly unsatisfying relationship.

There is more, much more, all in the same vein. It is nothing but a load of misogynistic hate thinly disguised as a self-help guide for men who want to be more successful with women. It does nothing but perpetuate the idea of male privilege that has sadly existed for thousands of years.

These are a bunch of emasculated men who, instead of looking to themselves for the causes of their feelings of inadequacy, have to blame women and the society that protects women’s rights.

The brief research I’ve done in looking through the leaders’ comments and those of their “students’ show utter contempt for women and for the men who support women. Their language is crass, sexist and juvenile. When a conversation between one of the “professors”, Professor Plumb and a student include the following line, “I’ll only jizz on her breasts”, you can be sure that this is site is nothing more than a place where a bunch of self-emasculated, misogynistic, hate-perpetuating jerks get together to commiserate how none of them can get laid. I wonder why that is!

Another Case of Male Privilege – Reproductive Rights

Why is it that people, mainly men, think they have the right to control what a woman does with her own body?
There is an artlce in The Telegraph discussing a private clinic in the U.K. which is offering walk-in, ten minute sterilization procedure for woman that leave no scars.  The clinic is marketing this procedure to woman who want to keep the procedure a secret, and there in lies the rub.

The article says:

Medical experts condemned the sales pitch being used, which they said was a “cynical” attempt to encourage secrecy in relationships.

Dr Allan Pacey, a fertility lecturer at the University of Sheffield said: “This seems really sad – it looks like a worrying and cynical attempt to trade on dishonesty and deceit.

“Of course women have to be able to control their fertility, but in a relationship people need to be able to have conversations about this kind of thing – taking a step like this behind a partner’s back is so dysfunctional, and if women are doing it just so they can sleep around, they are leaving their partner at all sorts of risks. Ethically, this is a huge can of worms.”

He said some women who chose to have the operation in secret because their culture or religion opposed the use of contraception, could end up suffering ill-consequences if they mysteriously stopped producing children.

Ann Furedi, chief executive of British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: “I do think this is pretty cynical. It’s really important when women are making a decision like this that it is very carefully considered – for most of them that means a conversation and coming to a shared view with their partner.

“I can understand why some women might not want to discuss this but I would be very cautious of promoting that as a specific benefit of any treatment.”


The point that everyone seems to be missing here is that they, the ones who are urging caution and/or outrage, are assuming that they actually have any kind of vested interest in what any woman does with her body.  It’s just assumed that it is OK to push themselves into this most private of medical and life decisions.  It is also assumed that they, and by proxy, society at large, have a vested interest in what happens in a relationship between two consenting adults.

It is this false sense of privilege that is the real outrage here.

I’m sure most of us would agree that it would be best that both partners in a relationship be honest with each other about something as important as their reproductive status and desires, but there is, and should be, no law against keeping these things private.  Even if one of the parties were to lie to the other, this is still a matter between the two of them and no one else.

Here is an interesting question I’d love to put to these people: Would you, or do you, apply the same standards that you would to women in this case to men who have vasectomies, which also leave little or no noticeable scaring?  I have a pretty good idea that the answer is no.

This is another example of male privilege that I’ve talked of time and time again.  Yes, it is true that one of the people who questioned the privacy issues in the article is a woman, but that doesn’t mean that she isn’t still influenced by the male privilege that permeates society.  She, like many woman, just accept the male privilege without question, not necessarily because they really believe in it, but more likely because that’s how they were brought up and they have never even considered that there is another way to look at it.
That’s the point of this and other posts I have written.

That is the point that other writers like Amanda Marcotte, Jen McCraight, and Rebecca Watson are trying to make.  Among consenting adults, only one person has any say in decisions about their reproductive capabilities, and that’s the person who will undergo a sterilization procedure. Period.  Full stop.

Only we have the right over our bodies.  Only we should decide health and reproductive matters for ourselves.  Unless there is harm or the immediate potential for harm, only we and our partners should decide what goes on between us.  These are fundamental human rights and it is up to us to stand up and defend them where ever and whenever we can.