for my own records a copy of a post I just put on the CBC's website, here in it's uncensored form:
STFU - strong words aren't they. This whole "child free" thing and being annoyed by children is something I have observed for some time.
If on facebook (FB) you or anyone are friends with someone with kids, if you think they're "oversharing" or if the letters or words associated with STFU pop into your mind, you don't deserve to be their friends or associated in any way with them.
Parents should not STFU. If you don't like being reminded about your lack-of-children state by a passive-aggressive attack on them via STFU-ing them, then de-friend.
Maybe it's a New York thing, but STFU isn't a particularly funny phrase. An attack on parenthood, even an attack *supposedly* couched in humor, is still an attack. Basically the STFU site is transmitting a message to all parents that they should not share the joys & pains of being a parent.
Parents shouldn't STFU. Just the opposite.
Y-E-S, to your question "Should those who don't want to see parental posts filter or unfriend instead of passing judgement?"
If your some childless leftie who's annoyed by parental updates, unfriend the people, instead of complaining about them. Or STFU. The site owner used the acronym first, and Jian fawningly interviewed them. But let's remember what those letters mean. Jarring, & shocking really. Not funny Jian.
The site: http://www.stfuparentsblog.com
and fb page: https://www.facebook.com/STFUParents
Crass, narcissistic, & mean spirited. A de facto "lack of life" cult - brought to you by the same cultural hole that bought us overpopulation hysteria, & ultra-lefties having no children as a result.
Related posts: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com
Jian & the CBC brought us this page, this info, about this crass woman and her pages. So funny. So cute. No, not really.
------------
Related post:
STFU, "STFU Parents"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/stfu-stfu-parents.html
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
response to: 'Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers' and questioning sex with 'boys' in gay culture
Story in "Q Salt Lake:"
Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers
"The owner of the pornographic site, MormonBoyz.com, says their site was under a denial of service attack late Sunday night and that the IP addresses of the servers being used to implement the attack were traced to being housed in a ZIP code that only contains the blocks of Temple Square, the LDS Church Office Building and the LDS Conference Center."Taking a step back, the verbiage reportedly used on the site in question is a bit disconcerting.
...as from
http://gaysaltlake.com/news/2013/08/05/porn-site-claims-attack-by-lds-church-servers
...as from the story, where they quote from the site MormonBoyz.com:
"These guys are every bit as sexual as other boys their age, but are also wonderfully innocent and wholesome. And actually, you might even say that because of their deprivation, these boys are pent up and starved for release, and that makes them even more sexual...”...Sounds like 11 or 12 year olds to me. What do you think?
The use of the term "boys" may be popular in homosexual culture & circles, but I wonder if it's really appropriate or useful - or telling? I have a homosexual nephew and have been to homosexual bars and parties. So I'm quite familiar with what goes on.
I have no special allegiance, and I don't particularly care about being "blacklisted" by fellow homosexuals since I'm not one. So, let me say that while it's a bit strange that they received a denial of service attack possibly from Mormon HQ, the use of the term "boys" is also strange. How about sexymormonmen, or mormonmen. But the use of the boy term tempts me to assume that sex with underage children is more associated with homosexual culture than some would otherwise like to admit.
Try to excommunicate me for saying so, but there is a crappy creepy underside to "gay culture" which is not politically correct (in "progressive" circles) to talk about.
For example, the man referenced in the following page was readily accepted back into the "gay community" after serving prison time for child rape (I was a first hand witness to this acceptance):
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695261750/Secret-shame-Predator-was-coach-Scout-chief.html?pg=all
The propensity for my own nephew to constantly post near naked pictures of himself in his underwear on facebook, while at the same time being supposedly "involved" or somewhat committed relationship to another man is telling, don't you think? And the use of the term "boy" this and "boy" that as homosexual men ogle other "men," or dare we say, "boys," in gay bars & parties is also telling.
Maybe there is biological exuberance in the human form of sexual expression known as homosexuality. But on the other hand just because something is "natural" doesn't mean we have to accept 100% of all that goes on. We don't. There's all sorts of human activities which we could be described as natural but which should nevertheless be curtailed. It's a balancing act and everyone draws the line somewhere. I would just like to suggest that people who engage or advocate for, explicitly, or implicitly, sex with underage children, deserved to be called out for what they are: child rapists & apologists for such.
Are Catholic priests who rape young boys "straight?" Doesn't sound like it to me, not according to the verbiage used by the owners of MormonBoyz.com, and not according to verbiage frequently used in gay bars and parties.
I know there's men who are rather highly genetically predisposed to be homosexual. Perhaps the shallow and childish nature of my own nephew was a misnomer? I imagine there are some "family values" homosexuals out there who don't spend 100% of their free time ogling "the boys" at bars & parties, and parading around in front of each other near naked on forums like facebook. Certainly there's slutty crazy straight people who're also selfish & largely a bunch of wastrels (particularly those who choose to not have kids & be "child free").
But again, one thing about straight sex is that it naturally leads to responsibility and growing up. Gay sex doesn't, and the results are sometimes a near permanent petty childhood state. I've observed this state first hand, and I believe it deserves to be commented on, particularly when convicted child rapists are not directly ostracized and confronted in the "gay community" when they get out of prison.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
response to: The Childfree Life - When Having It All Means Not HavingChildren, in Time Magazine
Recently the following article was published in Time magazine online in August, 2013:
The American birthrate is at a record low. What happens when having it all means not having children?
As an atheist I've heard some of my fellows complain about people who have too many kids. And my own sister has "chosen" to not have them. I think this is a memetic disease of the left. Here's my response, to atheists, and to anyone who "chooses" to not have children:
Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2011/11/atheism-having-kids-right-to-choose-to.html
Should Atheists be trying to have more children?
I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:
Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.
There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.
Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.
After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:
---quote begins
As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.
As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.
In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.
So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.
Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.
It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state
Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.
There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.
What we teach our children about science may save humanity.
There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.
We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.
Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.
---quote ends
So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.
Should Atheists be trying to have more children?
I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:
"...Having children consciously, in full awareness of the insanity of the leap you are taking is a revolutionary act. It can be compared to picking up a weapon and walking on to a battle field. Sure, there are far more idiots that are willing to become soldiers, but when an educated individual chooses to take a stand it is very different. One who chooses to fight in full understanding is not a soldier but rather a warrior..."Relative to overpopulation: There will be a natural curve limiting to exponential growth, and those limits will occur more on the uneducated ends of the curve, not so much in places where highly educated atheists tends to live. Science, technology, and education about both can help to save things.
"...Intelligence is a virtue but is it worthless without bravery. If you have brains and have a sense of what this world needs, then have children. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself old and infirm, surrounded by blithering morons."
Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.
There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.
Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.
After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:
---quote begins
As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.
As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.
In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.
So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.
Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.
It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state
Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.
There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.
What we teach our children about science may save humanity.
There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.
We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.
Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.
---quote ends
So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.
8-1-2013
Muslim Sex Slaves: Sex Neaks Out, even in the otherwise repressed Muslim brain, albeit in highly dysfunctional ways
The sex slave women can be "...naked from the waist up..." Ok, so not that I'm not already for all women being in such a state (naked from the waist up at all times - not a so-called "sex slave"), it's clear that lust finds it's way into the brains of the muftis in Mecca and into the woman in the following video. Too bad they're so fucked up that they cover themselves & their kin in bags. But sex sneaks out, albeit in incredibly dysfunctional ways. And because they're so repressed they engage in incredible acts of misdirected anger AKA 9/11.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
thoughts on being an atheist moderate: conservative on some issues, liberal on some, and moderate on more and more
Here's my current views:
Social moderate, economically moderate to liberal (depending on the issue). Would prefer single payer healthcare, but agree there's too many people on the dole. The alternatives to the state sponsored dole are worse though - the Church or the street. Not sure gay marriage and the gay agenda are all that helpful to humanity generally. Try to take a step back from all sides, left & right. Take a naturalistic approach. Avoid cults of personality. But 100% naturalism doesn't mean we have to accept all of what people do. Everyone draws the line somewhere.
Since religion is natural (ref. Daniel Dennett) that means we cannot dismiss every idea that comes from religion. I'm not an Ayn Rand fan, nor a corporation personhood fan.
European (French) style economic socialism (which encourages regulated capitalism) seems useful. Libertarianism seems to be a fundie religion in and of itself to me. But on the other hand America-haters like Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman have huge problems also.
The key is just taking a step back from all sides.
After having a kid I am developing more conservative views, especially with regard to social issues. The stuff people do when single is largely a waste of time, and often wrong headed. I don't agree with Bill Maher on the issue of children & think he's not only childish but foolish. But I am with him, Salman Rushdie, and Hitchens in being a "9/11 liberal" or maybe now more of a 9/11 moderate.
I don't believe everything is equal, and so for me "atheism plus" is really atheism triple minus. Atheists who jump right into ultra-feminism or ulta-leftism are really not doing justice to what science shows: we need to have open discussions and open debates. A crucible. Maybe, for example, science will show that two parent homes really *are* better than single parent ones. Maybe the liberal politically correct status quo *will* be challenged by honest science. Let's see. Don't be afraid to ask questions, even of the fanatic nuts on your own side.
Pinker did a good job of dispelling the noble savage myth. Anyone born in America is a "native American." And the term "aboriginal" is racist in and of itself. All humans came out of Africa not too long ago. All humans are descendants of about 10,000 individuals. So as to who's "original" or "native" where & when is largely an exercise in tribal-based revenge-seeking in-group morality which seeks to foist the sins of past humans onto humans alive today who had zero to do with what happened in the past.
Social moderate, economically moderate to liberal (depending on the issue). Would prefer single payer healthcare, but agree there's too many people on the dole. The alternatives to the state sponsored dole are worse though - the Church or the street. Not sure gay marriage and the gay agenda are all that helpful to humanity generally. Try to take a step back from all sides, left & right. Take a naturalistic approach. Avoid cults of personality. But 100% naturalism doesn't mean we have to accept all of what people do. Everyone draws the line somewhere.
Since religion is natural (ref. Daniel Dennett) that means we cannot dismiss every idea that comes from religion. I'm not an Ayn Rand fan, nor a corporation personhood fan.
European (French) style economic socialism (which encourages regulated capitalism) seems useful. Libertarianism seems to be a fundie religion in and of itself to me. But on the other hand America-haters like Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman have huge problems also.
The key is just taking a step back from all sides.
After having a kid I am developing more conservative views, especially with regard to social issues. The stuff people do when single is largely a waste of time, and often wrong headed. I don't agree with Bill Maher on the issue of children & think he's not only childish but foolish. But I am with him, Salman Rushdie, and Hitchens in being a "9/11 liberal" or maybe now more of a 9/11 moderate.
I don't believe everything is equal, and so for me "atheism plus" is really atheism triple minus. Atheists who jump right into ultra-feminism or ulta-leftism are really not doing justice to what science shows: we need to have open discussions and open debates. A crucible. Maybe, for example, science will show that two parent homes really *are* better than single parent ones. Maybe the liberal politically correct status quo *will* be challenged by honest science. Let's see. Don't be afraid to ask questions, even of the fanatic nuts on your own side.
Pinker did a good job of dispelling the noble savage myth. Anyone born in America is a "native American." And the term "aboriginal" is racist in and of itself. All humans came out of Africa not too long ago. All humans are descendants of about 10,000 individuals. So as to who's "original" or "native" where & when is largely an exercise in tribal-based revenge-seeking in-group morality which seeks to foist the sins of past humans onto humans alive today who had zero to do with what happened in the past.
To the Mormon wife whose husband is 'addicted to porn:' 12 *real* steps that will help!
To the Mormon wife whose husband is "addicted to porn:" 12 *real* steps that will help!
In response to: "Doug Robinson: One woman's crusade against the evils of porn" in the Deseret News. http://goo.gl/e0m9SL
The Mormon position on porn is basically this: Let us fit porn and human sexuality into our addiction paradigm so that we can exercise control over you.
The LDS 12 step program:
http://addictionrecovery.lds.org/bc/content/arp/content/manuals/ARPGuide_English_36764.pdf
Bullshit.
Here's 12 steps for you, if your husband is viewing too much porn in your view:
Step 1: Stop assuming that the act of viewing human sexuality online is, in an of itself, something bad.
Step 2: Stop threatening your man with divorce over the issue.
Step 3: Stop wearing your Mormon underwear at night, and especially during sex. Go nude, 100% nude, at night, in bed, with your man, and during sex. Period.
Step 4: Engage in oral sex, and encourage your man to do the same.
Step 5: Don't be afraid to touch your man's genitals at night in bed.
Step 6: Be sexual with your man, all the time. Give him cues during the day, and be affectionate at night.
Step 7: Find types of porn which are more a.) educational, b.) produced by amateurs, and c.) does not require payment, and d.) may be produced by regular people as opposed to "porn stars." Watch these videos with your husband, and see if what you're seeing can give you some ideas of fun things to try.
Step 8: Stop asking that your children confess to some Mormon bishop regarding masturbation.
Step 9: Set boundaries for leaders in your religion. Do not let them pry into your private life, and especially not into your sexual life or the sexual lives of your children who're coming of age.
Step 10: Stop teaching your children, your husband, and yourself to be afraid of sexual thoughts & feelings - of *lust* - of being *an animal*. We ARE animals. Get used to it. Live with it. Learn to love it.
Step 11: If your man is engaging in video sex chats with other women online, ask him to stop. Tell him you love him and want him to be happy. Tell him that you're ok with watching some types of porn online, but that video sex chats with other women go too far.
Step 12: Reject 12 step programs which assume you can "give something away" to some fanciful god. You're it baby. You're god. I'm god. He's god. She's god. Sex is god. Love is god. And the only immortality you will ever experience is through having children via sex. So, sex is good, and it's there for very good reason. It's there to be enjoyed, for good reason. The Internet has brought new opportunities and new challenges to what it means and is to be human. We all agree that we need to keep away from the thieves while embracing the good. The same goes with porn online. Get an ad blocker plugin for your web browser. Block your kids viewing as you feel appropriate. But, realize also that some value can be had from exposure to more full details about human sexuality, with less shame, fear, ultimatums, and threats. Move forward in love.
July 31, 2013
American Atheists: Censoring atheist thought, taking a step back from all ideologies, and questioning 100% acceptance of gay marriage
On the facebook page for American Atheists they don't allow links to other sites to be posted. Science and human progress generally requires having a free and open exchange of ideas. American Atheists' main focus seems to be acting as props on Fox News, suing people over 10 commandment monuments, promoting the ultra-left social agenda, and not much else. Is this "atheism plus," or atheism minus?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus
Maybe triple minus - more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnBGeoJsFOk
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ69BhfiC6g
Pedantic motto of American Atheists: "I'm an atheist and I fight for equality."
Just because a human activity is natural doesn't mean we should embrace it 100%.
Maybe homosexual married couples should be required to adopt. How about that?
Just because a person becomes an atheist after leaving a cult or an ultra-conservative religion, doesn't mean they automatically become an ultra-leftie.
Be careful of people who want to control you after you leave a religion. Atheist plus people want to control your speech, just as much as any ultra-leftie might.
Frantic censoring ultra-lefties: http://goo.gl/wQ5BkP
A secular case against gay marriage:
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/
I'm still somewhat undecided in general about gay marriage, but I'm not just 100% "for it" just automatically by default. The inherently non-reproductive nature of gay sex IS an issue, as are built in human nature that may feel some amount of concern over gay sex. That's natural too. Not everything is equal. Let's take a step back and not just jump wholeheartedly into the arms of the ultra-left. Maybe, just maybe, conservatives have something useful to contribute, even if at first glance their motives are motivated by "religion." Since, religion is a natural phenomenon, we cannot just fully dismiss out of hand every single thing they're concerned about.
A brain can be trained by genetics, socialization, and a combination of the two. During the following talk Warren Farrell talks about how in ancient societies homosexual sex which didn't include reproduction was discouraged: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4
An a fascinating article on the subject:
The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Population
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/
hmmm
I don't wish to see anyone harmed by the ideas people like past Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball, who equated masturbation and sex before marriage as sins akin to murder. That goes too far. And yet, even the happily free exmoron draws the line somewhere, between acceptable and unacceptable human behavior, regardless of the naturalistic status of that behavior. Of course it's all natural, and to some extent, so what. A better question may be: what do most people do, and what helps the species survive? Does this mean I advocate that gay couples separate? Not necessarily. But men who're in hetero relationships should not jump ship just because they find out they're gay. And already-gay couples maybe should adopt, or find other ways to have kids. And gay men, and rather self-centered straight no-children men & women, should find ways to not spend their whole lives in highly childish games chasing their own & other people's incredibly vain and shallow tails forever. Eventually we all have to grow up. Sex usually, even today, forces that upon hetero couples. It doesn't, automatically, do so for gay ones - and maybe that's the point.
I'm a social moderate, and an economic liberal.
Here's for an open discussion, and being free from censors.
June 30, 2013 afternoon
Friday, July 26, 2013
comments on: Super Cool Dad Defends Daughter's ‘Keep Jesus Out of My Vagina’ Poster
http://jezebel.com/super-cool-dad-defends-daughters-keep-jesus-out-of-my-817807752
Well, on face value I'm happy with the sign. But there are some deeper issues at hand also. The crazies who called her vulgar names acted inappropriately. The people who advocate for *no abortions* are largely motivated by, what is essentially in my view, conservative religion warping otherwise normal built in human morality. Their religion forces them to take their moral views to the extreme.
Religion is a natural phenomenon, and so religious views can be "natural." So, if it's possible to take a middle view on abortion, can we state that, yes, before viability, women should have a right to choose? Can we also say that abortion should be discouraged, but nevertheless available? Can we also say that post-viability it's ok to have it banned?
Everyone draws the line somewhere. Peter Singer and Margaret Sanger may well dray the line at, or even shortly after birth. I think their views are/were wacky and immoral, speaking as an atheist/humanist/naturalist & Enlightenment-advocate myself.
The zero-tolerance for abortion people who view all abortion as murder are also wrong.
It's also wrong to assume that all anti-abortion views just come from religion, and therefore can be dismissed out of hand.
So, I'm just saying there is a more middle & moderate & reasonable ground here which really isn't addressed by the media all that often.
Yes, in my view, a view I advocate for, women do have a right to choose before viability. Yes, abortion should be discouraged but available. Yes, we should value life.
Related post:
atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html
BBC is talking about it as well:
https://www.facebook.com/worldhaveyoursay
Music for the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, and everyone in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq
commentary (as above): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjSkx1zegcg
Don't Look Now (Your Mama Got Her Boobs out), by Rodney Carrington
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5tGBEYLHQc
Pussy Control by Prince
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mx825BR6yk
Relax by Frankie Goes to Hollywood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WZ33w3B8Hw
Elvis
One key reason the people in Pakistan are so upset is because they are sexually repressed. Here's for promoting American culture. Noam Chomsky (more) & Amy Goodman are idiots. 9/11 was the result of misdirected anger.
In Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of Iraq women are kept in bags. People cannot date. Men & women both are taught to be afraid of sexual thoughts. Hide the hair because it might activate the sexual part of your brain. Hide everything as much as possible of the female body, because you're afraid of having a sexual thought. That is evil - and it creates angry people. Angry men who have been abused. Freedom can come through *more* exposure to Western culture AKA boisterous rambunctious western music.
Korean kid, Sung-bong Choi, with opera singer voice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BewknNW2b8Y
Susan Boyle parody found:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Jbr3-Vomk
Addition good parodies found:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oU0ACZCs9U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8L64IEFrng
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Happy Birthday Utah, Pale Blue Dot, Hope for the future, instead of Kraussian nihilism
Happy Birthday Utah, Pale Blue Dot, Hope for the future, instead of Kraussian nihilism
Utah's birthday is not just for Mormons.
Thoughts on the pale blue dot and having hope for the future over Kraussian defeatist style de facto nihilism. Humans are a different type of animal. Space travel. Calculus. Knowing why we're really here, for the first time. Yes, a special type of star stuff indeed. A part of the universe who can understand itself for the first time.
Related talk given at my mother's funeral:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_blue_dot_%28disambiguation%29
July 24, 2013 - 7:47AM
Utah's birthday is not just for Mormons.
Thoughts on the pale blue dot and having hope for the future over Kraussian defeatist style de facto nihilism. Humans are a different type of animal. Space travel. Calculus. Knowing why we're really here, for the first time. Yes, a special type of star stuff indeed. A part of the universe who can understand itself for the first time.
Related talk given at my mother's funeral:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_blue_dot_%28disambiguation%29
July 24, 2013 - 7:47AM
Saturday, July 20, 2013
quotes I enjoy
"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it
everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of … every
saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote
of dust suspended in a sunbeam... There is perhaps no better
demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of
our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more
kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot,
the only home we've ever known." Carl Sagan, from "Pale Blue Dot."
“I'm suggesting we call sex something else, and it should include everything from kissing to sitting close together” "Where there is lasting love, there is a family." Shere Hite.
"…Most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors." Sam Harris
"Not a single one of the cells that compose you knows who you are, or cares...”
“If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine...
The earth has grown a nervous system, and it's us..." both by Daniel Dennett
"The mind is a neural computer..." "Sex and excretion are reminders that anyone's claim to round-the-clock dignity is tenuous. The so-called rational animal has a desperate drive to pair up and moan and writhe." - both by Steven Pinker
“I'm suggesting we call sex something else, and it should include everything from kissing to sitting close together” "Where there is lasting love, there is a family." Shere Hite.
"…Most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors." Sam Harris
"Not a single one of the cells that compose you knows who you are, or cares...”
“If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine...
The earth has grown a nervous system, and it's us..." both by Daniel Dennett
"The mind is a neural computer..." "Sex and excretion are reminders that anyone's claim to round-the-clock dignity is tenuous. The so-called rational animal has a desperate drive to pair up and moan and writhe." - both by Steven Pinker
Curtis White is the liar - The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers
Curtis White has written the following book:
The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers
Mr. White is a government employee working at Illinois State University. What department does Mr. White work for? The science department? The history department? No! The English Department! AND IT SHOWS.
I read Mr. White's lame excerpt from his amateurish book at Salon.com.
White seems to be a big advocate for the blank slate view of human nature, a view largely debunked by modern science. Also I'm sure White would be irritated by Sam Harris's book on morality but I doubt he's even checked out the book.
White seems to believe that the Exodus may have happened. Ok, what's the first f-ing thing you should do nowadays when writing a book? Check wikipedia!
White seems to be a huge fan of liberal religion. But one key thing he misses is this:
Liberal religion serves as an apologetic structure for a.) woo woo unfounded beliefs, b.) calls for "diversity" which deny, among other things, the barbarous nature of key religious leaders - leaders who some naive ultra-left liberals just love, and c.) a taboo against being critical of people's "deeply held views."
The KEY thing about White's book is this: IT'S F-ING LATE. The guy couldn't manage to publish this hanger-on parasite of a book while Hitchens was still alive, and while he could respond in person and in the flesh. But, there's plenty of us who very much appreciated and valued Hitchens' work, who remember his words and his style.
Curtis White is in my view a coward and a liar, and he's unworthy of his role as an "educator" at a public university.
Dinesh D'Souza claims that we shouldn't let biologists out of the lab. However, it's rather more accurate to say that we should keep idiot English professors OUT OF IT.
White's other "contributions:"
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/mag/contributor/107/
Liberals are still upset at Hitchens over Iraq, and it shows. They dig up every piece of poo they can and heave it onto the grave of an otherwise noble dead man, for profit and attention. Was it right to go into Iraq? Hitchens made the ONLY case I listened to, and it was, at the very least, an intellectually honest and honorable case. Examine Hitchens' work on Mother Teresa & Bill Clinton - two wonderpeople of the idiot-hippie ultra-liberal-left. Now today people like Reza Aslan has the left by the balls, as he pulls them around teaching them that Mohamed was a man of peace.
Science & history, as shared with us by people like Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, isn't metaphysics. When idiot White uses the term, it just shows he hasn't done his homework. But that's not surprising. When you're a creative writer you don't need to do much else other than pull crap out of your ass.
For those of us who were members of real religions, like Mormonism, and conservative Christianity or Islam, we remember what's it's like to be brain washed & lied to. People in light & fluffy religions have no idea what it's like, no idea whatsoever. Pompous intellectuals like White would just assume let people continue in their ignorance, because liberal religion does so many good things in their view. But one thing liberal religion does which is particularly bad is that it gives people permission to continue to believe in bullshit, and it maintains a taboo against being critical of bullshit beliefs.
Science IS about being willing to take a step back from all dogmas. And the "dogma" of claiming that the Exodus didn't happen (like White claims) IS NOT A DOGMA AT ALL. It is an apparent fact that there was no real Exodus.
Check wikipedia before you write a book Mr. White. And, next time you're going to shoot out a huge poop from your bum, at least have the decency to aim at a person who's still alive, and who can respond to your tripe.
Other reviews:
“Atheist” Curtis White attacks Hitchens, makes fool of himself
http://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/atheist-curtis-white-attacks-hitchens-makes-fool-of-himself/
Faith in the Unseen
Curtis White’s ‘Science Delusion’
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/books/review/curtis-whites-science-delusion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers
Mr. White is a government employee working at Illinois State University. What department does Mr. White work for? The science department? The history department? No! The English Department! AND IT SHOWS.
I read Mr. White's lame excerpt from his amateurish book at Salon.com.
White seems to be a big advocate for the blank slate view of human nature, a view largely debunked by modern science. Also I'm sure White would be irritated by Sam Harris's book on morality but I doubt he's even checked out the book.
White seems to believe that the Exodus may have happened. Ok, what's the first f-ing thing you should do nowadays when writing a book? Check wikipedia!
The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity
White seems to be a huge fan of liberal religion. But one key thing he misses is this:
Liberal religion serves as an apologetic structure for a.) woo woo unfounded beliefs, b.) calls for "diversity" which deny, among other things, the barbarous nature of key religious leaders - leaders who some naive ultra-left liberals just love, and c.) a taboo against being critical of people's "deeply held views."
The KEY thing about White's book is this: IT'S F-ING LATE. The guy couldn't manage to publish this hanger-on parasite of a book while Hitchens was still alive, and while he could respond in person and in the flesh. But, there's plenty of us who very much appreciated and valued Hitchens' work, who remember his words and his style.
Curtis White is in my view a coward and a liar, and he's unworthy of his role as an "educator" at a public university.
Dinesh D'Souza claims that we shouldn't let biologists out of the lab. However, it's rather more accurate to say that we should keep idiot English professors OUT OF IT.
White's other "contributions:"
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/mag/contributor/107/
Liberals are still upset at Hitchens over Iraq, and it shows. They dig up every piece of poo they can and heave it onto the grave of an otherwise noble dead man, for profit and attention. Was it right to go into Iraq? Hitchens made the ONLY case I listened to, and it was, at the very least, an intellectually honest and honorable case. Examine Hitchens' work on Mother Teresa & Bill Clinton - two wonderpeople of the idiot-hippie ultra-liberal-left. Now today people like Reza Aslan has the left by the balls, as he pulls them around teaching them that Mohamed was a man of peace.
Science & history, as shared with us by people like Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, isn't metaphysics. When idiot White uses the term, it just shows he hasn't done his homework. But that's not surprising. When you're a creative writer you don't need to do much else other than pull crap out of your ass.
For those of us who were members of real religions, like Mormonism, and conservative Christianity or Islam, we remember what's it's like to be brain washed & lied to. People in light & fluffy religions have no idea what it's like, no idea whatsoever. Pompous intellectuals like White would just assume let people continue in their ignorance, because liberal religion does so many good things in their view. But one thing liberal religion does which is particularly bad is that it gives people permission to continue to believe in bullshit, and it maintains a taboo against being critical of bullshit beliefs.
Science IS about being willing to take a step back from all dogmas. And the "dogma" of claiming that the Exodus didn't happen (like White claims) IS NOT A DOGMA AT ALL. It is an apparent fact that there was no real Exodus.
Check wikipedia before you write a book Mr. White. And, next time you're going to shoot out a huge poop from your bum, at least have the decency to aim at a person who's still alive, and who can respond to your tripe.
Other reviews:
“Atheist” Curtis White attacks Hitchens, makes fool of himself
http://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/atheist-curtis-white-attacks-hitchens-makes-fool-of-himself/
Faith in the Unseen
Curtis White’s ‘Science Delusion’
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/books/review/curtis-whites-science-delusion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Friday, July 19, 2013
Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife - and comments on the gay flag
Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife, get aids, die, and leave your family with no father. And just because you like vaginas as well as dicks that doesn't mean you should cheat on your husband, and then go off to live with your lesbo buddy.
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in cults of personality, nor in being drawn into the assumption that atheism necessarily leads to being socially ultra-left. Being an atheist for me means being willing to take a step back from all dogmas, not only from the right but also from the left.
Criticisms of flying the gay flag universally, as doing so may transmit the assumption that people in the flag-flying group universally agree with all aspects of the perceived "gay agenda."
On when bi or homosexual men cheat on their wives, get aids, die, and leave their families with no father. I believe we should be open to debate whether "middle children" should be encouraged to live a straight life - otherwise we are having unquestionable dogma points just like in a religion.
Just because a person is an atheist, a secular advocate, or an advocate for science & naturalism doesn't mean they embrace 100% of the ultra-left agenda.
Wives who're members of conservative religions should meet their apparently bisexual husbands half-way, by leaving their abusive conservative religions, and by not being upset about porn. And then the husbands should not cheat & go elsewhere.
July 19, 2013 - 7:44am
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Reza Aslan is the Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth; & more on Mormonism
Comments on Reza Aslan news book: Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
Also on the Mormon Church History Museum, & the Mormon Pioneer Trek program
July 18, 2013 - 7:40am
More info: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
Pages by a friend with more info on Mormonism & Islam: http://nowscape.com/
Related books:
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All
by David Fitzgerald
http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911
Aslan's book:
http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X/
Debate between Sam Harris & Aslan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKjcvZoxT9Q
Bart Ehrman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
Life of Brian film:
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman affair: Don't wear hoodies at night in gated communities Florida
Message from Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman affair: Don't wear gangsta uniforms (eg: hoodies) at night in Florida gated communities.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Exmormon Foundation: discriminating against children & their parents
Below are copies of post & replies in connection with a related post on here entitled Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apolegetics.
Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:
And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:
----quote beings
Howdy,
I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:
1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.
2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.
3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.
4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.
So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.
It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.
I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.
I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.
I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.
Real people who show up are the most important.
I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.
A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.
A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.
A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.
We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.
So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.
Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.
I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.
A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:
Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular advocacyReply received from the vice president of the Exmormon Foundation:
groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are passively so (by
inaction or just not thinking things through).
Related blog post: http://goo.gl/4f1L2
Jonathan
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:
>Jonathan -- if you will read carefully our position on children at the----end of quote
>Conference, I think you will find that it's pretty reasonable. Because we
>film and record the talks, and extraneous noise can seriously affect that
>filming, we cannot have toddlers and older children in the room. We all have
>experienced times at other events (including Sac. Mtg.!!) when the noise
>from children has compromised a speaker. The serving of alcohol is another
>reason. Nursing babies are allowed.
>
>Sue
And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:
----quote beings
Howdy,
I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:
1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.
2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.
3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.
4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.
So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.
It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.
I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.
I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.
I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.
Real people who show up are the most important.
I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.
A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.
A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.
A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.
We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.
So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.
Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.
I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.
A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Friday, July 12, 2013
challenging liberal dogma points - promoting naturalism. can a conservative be a naturalist? homophobia. islamophobia. gay marriage. children.
July 11 and 12, 2013 video commentaries:
challenging liberal dogma points - promoting naturalism
can a conservative be a naturalist? homophobia. islamophobia. gay marriage. children.
challenging liberal dogma points - promoting naturalism
can a conservative be a naturalist? homophobia. islamophobia. gay marriage. children.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
level of veiling; Neff's Canyon; atheists having children & atheist family values
level of veiling; Breasts documentary; Neff's Canyon; Bill Maher & having children (octomom); atheists should have more children; Let's value life; on Margaret Sanger again; "don't judge me!" - why not?; Unitarianism, Mormonism; family values - the left should embrace those words again as well. July 10, 2013
More on Margaret Sanger:
Margaret Sanger - as amoral as Peter Singer sadly
Bill Maher should have kids, before he makes one more comment about people who have them.
Atheist Family Values:
Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
on Daniel Pipes, Israel, Islam & democracy, the veil, group dynamics
on Daniel Pipes, Israel, and what happens in "democracies" when Islam is voted in.
When Islamists vote in a "democracy" they vote in sharia and literalist Islam (regular traditional Islam).
How much hair a woman gets to show in an Islamic country is an indication of how much freedom there is there. There is an inverse relationship between the level of veiling and the level of freedom in Islamic countries. So it IS all about the veil.
Human groups morph over time. Pet bird clubs. Atheist groups. Religion. Politics. Name any group on any topic and they will change, sprout, split, and morph over time. It's natural.
July 9, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)