Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum’s bogus statistics Glenn Kessler 02/22/2012
Santorum:“In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are enthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.”
— Former senator Rick Santorum, at the American Heartland Forum in Columbia, Missouri, Feb. 3, 2012
These were interesting remarks by one of the leading candidates for the GOP nomination. Though Santorum made this observation earlier in the month, a video of his comments only circulated on the web over the weekend and a number of readers asked whether he is correct. (His comments also spawned headlines in Holland, such as one that proclaimed: “Rick Santorum Thinks He Knows the Netherlands: Murder of the Elderly on a Grand Scale.”)
So we will check his statistics — 10 percent of all deaths in the Netherlands are from euthanasia and 50 percent of those die involuntarily — and also his claim that the elderly wear bracelets requesting that they not be euthanized.
(Full disclosure: The Fact Checker’s parents emigrated from Holland and I have direct, personal experience with the practice of euthanasia there. My father’s brother requested euthanasia when he was diagnosed with a terminal disease and after various remedies were ineffective. In the United States, he might have lived another two or three months, in great pain, and likely would have lapsed into a coma before death. But, after a conclusion by the Dutch medical establishment that he had no chance of survival, he arranged for his death at home with his family at his side. He even called me an hour before his death to say good-bye.)
We realize this is an emotional issue in the United States. But the simple facts, as Santorum described them, should be clear.
The Facts
In 2001, The Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia, more fact checker
H/T Maren, who incidentally, just happens to be Dutch.
This sounds quite plausible, and I suppose you could extend the threat, though not by Iran, to nuclear installations anywhere in the world.
Said he, looking five miles across the bay, to one such installation.
Behind the Deepening Crisis with Iran: The Real Story Versus the Cover Story By Mark H Gaffney February 21, 2012
Recently, President Obama imposed new sanctions on Iran which according to reports have been very effective, causing a sudden major devaluation of Iran's currency. The Iranians correctly understand that they are under attack, and have threatened to respond by closing the strait of Hormuz, through which a large percentage of oil from the Mideast flows to the global economy.
If the crisis deepens and Iran makes good on its threat to close Hormuz, there is little doubt that the US will intervene to reopen the strait. This will lead to a shooting war for which Iran will be blamed, even though the recent US sanctions were tantamount to overt aggression.
I believe the US will exploit the situation to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. But, even more importantly, the US will target Iran's conventional missiles. Indeed, I believe this is the real reason for US sanctions in the first place, and for the buildup of tensions in recent days. Despite public perceptions, and all the rhetoric about nukes, the present crisis has nothing to do with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. In my opinion, that is just a cover story.
The real issue is the fact that Iran has upgraded its medium range conventionally-armed missiles with GPS technology, making its missiles much more accurate. This means Iran can now target Israel's own nuclear, bio and chemical weapons stockpiles, located inside Israel, as well as the Dimona nuclear reactor.
In short, Iran has achieved a conventional deterrent to Israel. Therefor, statements by Iranian officials that Iran has no nuclear weapons program are in my view probably correct. Presently, Iran does not need nukes to deter Israel. It can do so with its GPS-guided medium range missiles. The Israelis are no doubt gnashing their teeth over this, because they now find themselves threatened by their own WMD stockpiles, and by their own nuclear reactors, especially Dimona, all of which have become targets.
A few direct hits by Iran could cause a toxic plume, killing thousands of Israelis. A worst case might signal the end of the Jewish state.
It is important to realize that Iran would never launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel because the Iranians know that the US/Israeli response would be devastating. However, if Iran comes under attack first, all bets are off. Iran will defend itself. A counter attack on Israel cannot be ruled out because Iranian leaders understand clearly (even if the American people do not) that the crisis has been manufactured, on Israel's behalf.
From the Israeli standpoint, the present Iranian deterrent (though conventional) is simply unacceptable. Israel's military strategists have always insisted on total freedom of movement. This is why Israel refused a US offer many years ago to sign a defense pact with the US. Such a treaty would have limited Israel's freedom of movement, and this was unacceptable. Israel's leaders preferred to remain independent. Israel has always insisted on the "freedom" to intimidate its neighbors, whenever and howsoever it chooses. Iran's conventional missiles now curtail that "freedom." Israeli officials probably worry, for example, that Iran's conventional missiles would limit its freedom to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, in a future conflict. Hezbollah is closely allied with Tehran.
I believe the present crisis has been manufactured to create the pretext for a US air campaign to take out Iran's conventional missile sites. The US will also target Iran's nuclear facilities, but the primary target will be Iran's conventional missiles. The US will be doing Israel's bidding. The Zionist tail will be wagging the servile US dog.
Obviously, you can't generate public support for such a bombing campaign, on Israel's behalf. Hence the cover story about nukes and the alleged Iranian threat to wipe Israel off the map, all of which is untrue but very effective propaganda nonetheless.
The problem for the US is that depriving Iran of its conventional deterrent will not be easy to accomplish. Indeed, it will be even more difficult than taking out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran's conventional missiles are probably dispersed widely. If they come under attack, the purpose of the air campaign will be transparently obvious to the Iranian leadership. Faced with the prospect of losing their deterrent, the Mullahs may well decide to fire their conventional missiles. If they do and manage some direct hits on Israel's nuclear-bio-and chemical weapons stockpiles, the ensuing disaster will prompt an Israeli response. Israel may even resort to the Samson Option, and attack Iran with nukes. Words cannot describe the horrific scale of such an outcome. Unfortunately, it is all too possible.
Early in the war, US naval forces in the Gulf will also come under attack. No mistake, Iran has enough anti-ship cruise missiles to pose a grave threat to the US naval presence in the Gulf. Thousands of US sailors are now in harm's way, and at risk.
We must rally to prevent such a war. Peace activists must now marshal every asset for peace that we possess. The American people need to know the truth. This is a phony crisis. Yet the danger is very real. Now is the time to speak out with all of our strength. Tomorrow could come too late. ICH
And it was that, disingenuous, dripping with hypocrisy, statement that caught my eye. And before you ask, the answer is no, I'm not getting a fixation with Icky Ricky Santorum. It was due to me following a visitor path back to its source that I ended up at Ricky's 2003 man on dog interview.
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship.
So there you have it, straight from the (Catholic) horse's mouth. There is no Paedophilia in the Catholic church, only basic homosexual relationships.
A statement I find quite hard to reconcile, with an institution that is synonymous with child abuse and boy buggery.
But there's nothing unequivocal about Ricky's views on the right to privacy. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. Whoa boy! the rights to limit individuals' wants and passions Now we are really getting into murky waters. And if any few words epitomise our Ricky, it has to be those.
I think Ricky has some very serious issues, don't you?
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
For 'AP' in the interview, read, Lara Jakes Jordan. Of her, more below.
Excerpt from Santorum interview 4/23/2003
An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).
AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?
SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible)% in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25%.
The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.
AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.
AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in. usatoday
Related: Poor little Ricky, nasty old Lara Jakes Jordan. Santorum is Right, where else but World Net Daily. Complete with Christian vitriol.
And what could be more fitting for a Santorum post than, Every Sperm is Sacred. Almost custom made as it were, for little Ricky.
I found this quite clever chart on my Ricky Santorum travels this morning.
- - - - -
Rick Santorum's American Jihad Linda Gibson 02/21/2012
Don't let the dorky sweater vest fool you. Beneath that benign-looking garment beats the heart of an extremist, a radical more akin to the Islamic fundamentalists of the Taliban and the ultra-orthodox Jews of Israel than to mainstream Americans. If Rick Santorum and his fundamentalist fans ran this country, we'd have a Bible-based theocracy thrust upon us, a dictatorship of the most divisive, judgmental and intolerant among us.
If you believe that contraception is immoral and any sex except conjugal attempts to procreate is sinful, he's your guy.
If you think "abortionists" (that inflammatory, demonizing term for doctors who perform a legal operation) ought to be punished, he's your guy.
If you think our Constitutional rights ought to be limited to conform with Biblical precepts, he's your guy.
Already, a state legislator in North Carolina (who said on taking office he'd pray for the Lord's guidance) has suggested public hangings for doctors who do abortions, lumping them in with such criminals as rapists and kidnappers.
Already, fundamentalists in state legislatures are trying to give legal personhood status to the unborn "from the moment of conception," however that would be determined. This would enable birth control, abortion and even in vitro fertilization to be criminalized.
Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum wants single mothers and parents of adopted children punished with higher taxes as a way to promote "traditional" families, which she defines as married heterosexual couples raising their own children.
All this far religious right wing activity is happening under Obama. Imagine the impetus of having a kindred spirit in the White House.
Fundamentalism worldwide us a political phenomenon and is inherently totalitarian. Its goal is to realign all aspects of a nation's society and government according to rigidly defined and strictly enforced religious principles. There's nothing democratic or broadly representative about it.
Rick Santorum has a right to his views and is entitled to run for President. Should he win, however, we'll see a holy war against the right to live without religious interference. buzzflash
Don't let the dorky sweater vest fool you. Beneath that benign-looking garment beats the heart of an extremist, a radical more akin to the Islamic fundamentalists of the Taliban and the ultra-orthodox Jews of Israel than to mainstream Americans. If Rick Santorum and his fundamentalist fans ran this country, we'd have a Bible-based theocracy thrust upon us, a dictatorship of the most divisive, judgmental and intolerant among us.
If you believe that contraception is immoral and any sex except conjugal attempts to procreate is sinful, he's your guy.
If you think "abortionists" (that inflammatory, demonizing term for doctors who perform a legal operation) ought to be punished, he's your guy.
If you think our Constitutional rights ought to be limited to conform with Biblical precepts, he's your guy.
Already, a state legislator in North Carolina (who said on taking office he'd pray for the Lord's guidance) has suggested public hangings for doctors who do abortions, lumping them in with such criminals as rapists and kidnappers.
Already, fundamentalists in state legislatures are trying to give legal personhood status to the unborn "from the moment of conception," however that would be determined. This would enable birth control, abortion and even in vitro fertilization to be criminalized.
Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum wants single mothers and parents of adopted children punished with higher taxes as a way to promote "traditional" families, which she defines as married heterosexual couples raising their own children.
All this far religious right wing activity is happening under Obama. Imagine the impetus of having a kindred spirit in the White House.
Fundamentalism worldwide us a political phenomenon and is inherently totalitarian. Its goal is to realign all aspects of a nation's society and government according to rigidly defined and strictly enforced religious principles. There's nothing democratic or broadly representative about it.
Rick Santorum has a right to his views and is entitled to run for President. Should he win, however, we'll see a holy war against the right to live without religious interference. buzzflash
I came across this one-liner earlier in the week, but I let the article pass. But now that ''Icky'' Ricky Santorum's idea of what sex should constitute, (lights out under the covers missionary position) has reached the notice of writer Ana Marie Cox at the Guardian, I just have to run with her article.
Birth control, Santorum argued, is "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be".
And what a one-liner it is. Like all those other creeps out there who take an unhealthy interest in other people's sex lives, it screams 'repression' at you, and quite possibly, if there is any truth in internet rumours, lots of repressed faggery to boot. Which would go a long way in explaining Ricky's, and creep's preoccupation with all things anal.
Sex, Rick Santorum and the conservative imagination
Most politicians, like most people, don't meddle in others' sex lives because that'd be creepy. Santorum is not like most people Ana Marie Cox 16 February 2012
. . . . . Which brings us to sex. Observing the debate (generously defined) over Obama's proposed policy – which, at this point, doesn't require religious institutions to pay for birth control, but apparently, the argument rages on! – one gets the sense that the men talking about the ideals of religious freedom, and supposed anti-religious bias, want to stick to that topic because to engage with the real-world facts about birth control would mean talking about, you know, down there. This is uncomfortable-making for politicians and voters alike.
Aside from Fox News anchors, politics is a weirdly desexualized sphere; in the public imagination, Mitt Romney's resemblance to a Ken doll probably extends further than his bland good looks. We would just as soon not think about politicians having sex. And we'd prefer that they not think about us having sex either.
Here is where I have to give Rick Santorum a perverse (indeed) sort of credit. Unlike a vast majority of those running for office, he is totally OK with going there, penis-in-various-holes-wise. I suspect that it's his apparent comfort with explicitly raising the idea of sex, as much as his out-of-kilter views on it, that rankles all but the most extreme social conservatives. To go from the hypothetical legalization of homosexual marriage to bestiality, you have to have at least given passing thought to the physical act of gay sex.
Santorum's more recent comments relating to birth control specifically betray a similar kink. Last October, he explained why he thinks contraception is "not OK" in terms far removed from the lofty constitutional arguments of the Issa panel. Birth control, Santorum argued, is "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be". To even have that opinion, Santorum has to have given thought to which sex acts are outside "how things are supposed to be". I dare say Rick Santorum has a richer fantasy life than most. Full story with Asprin video blah blah
Radioactive or Not, Tsunami Debris Could Seriously Impact US's, Canada's West Coasts by Jon Letman 20 February 2012
Pacific coastal communities prepare for possible impacts of marine debris from Japan's triple disaster.
In the age of constant crisis coverage, it is easy to forget that disasters don't just end once the cameras move on. On the contrary, they morph into new situations, sometimes improved, but often more complex and severe. In the case of Japan's earthquake-tsunami-nuclear catastrophe, part of that tripartite disaster floated out to sea as debris where it has been drifting for months to destinations unknown.
According to Japan's Ministry of Environment's Waste Management Division, the 9.0 magnitude temblor and tsunami generated some 25 million tons of debris in total, literally sucking the lives of thousands of people and their belongings out to sea. Since last March, the remains of destroyed buildings, vehicles, broken furniture, fishing boats, nets and miscellaneous flotsam has been adrift in the north Pacific vastness. But how much was pulled into the ocean and where it will end up, no one can really say for sure.
Scientists and experts in Canada and the United States and, in particular, the Hawaiian islands, recognizing the potential for a fourth leg to Japan's triple disaster, are trying to forecast a possible debris path as they prepare for what could be headed their way.
One scientist closely monitoring the situation is Dr. Nikolai Maximenko, a senior researcher at the University of Hawaii's International Pacific Research Center in Honolulu. Speaking at a conference on the Hawaiian island of Kauai in December, Maximenko said that one-third to one-quarter of the total debris may have been pulled out to sea by the tsunami. But what first appeared as dense, yellow floating masses of broken lumber was quickly overshadowed by a more immediate human and environmental disaster unfolding on land.
Maximenko and other scientists in Hawaii are using diagnostic computer models in an attempt to accurately predict the likely path of debris. In June 2011, sailors traveling between Yokohama and Alaska sighted suspected tsunami-generated detritus. They described navigating two days across a field of "unusual debris," including they said looked like "file cabinets, lumber, freezer chests and large pieces of Styrofoam."
In another significant sighting last September, the Russian sailing ship STS Pallada reported passing through debris some 400 miles west of Midway atoll while on its way from Hawaii to the Vladivostok. The Russian crew spotted an unoccupied Japanese fishing boat (later confirmed to be registered in Fukushima Prefecture) as well as televisions, bottles, boots, wash basins and doors.
But at the end of the day having read through the thing, the education of girls in Afghanistan is, from a Taliban point of view, only tolerated and is very conditional.
They, the Taliban, are always going to be a tad behind the times, about thirteen centuries by my reckoning.
The Swede Who Convinced Taliban To Allow Girls Schools Abubakar Siddique January 26, 2012
These days Anders Fange, 65, lectures on Afghanistan in his native Sweden. His main challenge is to convince skeptical audiences to shed preconceptions when they think about Afghanistan. He hones this point by drawing on nearly three decades of experience in that mountainous country.
Fange's public speaking engagements and private conversations are deeply engaging owing to his detailed knowledge of Afghanistan. Anecdotes from his long years there are more than a match for the dry academic comparisons that frequently dominate such events in the West.
Fange first went to Afghanistan as a young radio journalist in the early 1980s after Afghans began fighting against the Soviet occupation. He later moved to humanitarian relief work and even worked for the United Nations political mission in the country.
"Afghanistan always continues to surprise you. You always get new explanations for things," Fange says. "It's a complicated country in many ways -- that makes it difficult and it makes it exciting."
In 1984, Fange spent three months walking with the mujahedin through valleys, passes, and forests. They often stayed in village mosques. He witnessed their attacks against Soviet convoys and government garrisons.
"From those years, I took with me the thing that I have been saying since then: that the future of Afghanistan is not decided in Kabul," he says. "It is decided out in the valleys. It is decided in the rural areas."
He was fascinated by the Afghan culture -- in particular, the practice of hospitality. "It's most impolite to leave a guest alone. From my upbringing in Sweden, I was used to [having] my own room. But there, you could never be alone," he says of the days he spent in remote Afghan villages.
In the early 1990s, Fange joined the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA) and began living in Peshawar in western Pakistan.
In his role as an aid worker, he experienced Afghan suffering first-hand. But he was impressed by Afghan resilience.
"Their capacity for work, their capacity for being able to carrying through in very difficult circumstances -- I doubt that there is any other people on earth who had this kind of capacity," he says.
The Swedish Committee for Afghanistan became one of the largest aid groups at the height of Afghan civil war, when the Taliban militia swept through much of the country. Fange dealt with many Taliban officials.
"Most of the Taliban, even the ministers we dealt with in Kabul, had a pretty pragmatic view," he says. "Somehow it was understood that they needed this humanitarian assistance of which we were one of the providers."
One of the most sensitive issues he negotiated with the Taliban was rural schools where some 40,000 Afghan girls were educated. After long talks with Amir Khan Muttaqi, the regime's minister of education, the Taliban agreed to sign a protocol allowing the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan to work in the country.
"When we finalized these negotiations, he told me, 'We know you have these girls' schools. We know it, but don't tell us,' he said,'" Fange says as he recalls the conversation. "In other words, it was a very Afghan view that if it's not official, then a lot more is tolerated and allowed than what's in official life."
The schools, however, were not immune to Taliban interference. In the summer of 2001, Fange says, some local mullahs in remote rural districts attempted to close down a school. His answer to such a menace was to threaten the closure of all Swedish Committee for Afghanistan education, health care, and agriculture projects in the area.
"Without exception, they came back the day after or even the same day and said, 'OK, you can stick to the girls schools, but keep a low profile,'" he recalls of the often tricky negotiations with rural clerics. "During Taliban [rule] we never were actually forced really to close girls schools."
After 9/11, Fange became a leading member or the UN political mission in Afghanistan. But he was soon disappointed at what he regarded as political blunders made by Afghan leaders and the international community in rebuilding the country, including disenfranchising certain segments of the population while reenergizing and empowering some of the most notorious warlords.
"The West is obsessed with its own political system as a perfect political system," he says, adding that Western states have struggled for centuries to improve their democracies. "Then we throw it on Afghanistan and say, 'You have 10 years to fix this,'" he says. "Of course it doesn't work." rferl.org
Richard Dawkins in ‘single-celled ancestor’ shock Michael Marshall 20 February 2012
Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has been hit by fresh scandal today after it emerged his ancestors were single-celled organisms who metabolised sulphur.
New findings have shown that the outspoken atheist is the direct descendent of a primordial soup-dwelling thermophile – a particular variant of extremophile which clung to hydrothermic vents just 3.5 billion years ago.
Adam Lasher of the Telegraph said of the shock findings:
“This comes after I found out that someone in Dawkins’ family did something three hundred years ago which we now consider bad – so these latest revelations finally put paid to the belief that Dawkins comes from an infinite line of human beings with an exclusively 21st-century moral code.”
“That nobody has at any point ever held that belief is neither here nor there. All we really know is that this definitely proves that Dawkins is wrong about God”. Hypocrite
To many it appears clear hypocrisy that Professor Dawkins – who has spent much of his career talking up the benefits of being a multi-cellular organism – is directly related to a single-cell organism.
It’s not apparent at this time how Dawkin’s justifies this relationship, beyond the dozen or so books he’s written about the evolution of life.
Lasher continued, ”I always knew there was something about Dawkins I didn’t like, and now I know why.”
“How can he claim to be a human being with arms and lungs and stuff when his ancestor metabolised sulphur in an ancient, boiling-hot underwater vent?
“Plus, ‘extremophile’? Sounds a bit terroristy if you ask me.” newsthump.com
The only thing I can say about the writer, Michael Hanlon, is that he doesn't understand the situation on the ground at Fukushima, or, he understands it all too well.
The real victims of Fukushima (and TEPCO and the Japanese government) have yet to come.
Twenty thousand tsunami victims! you ain't seen nothing yet.
The world has forgotten the real victims of Fukushima
A natural disaster that cost the lives of thousands of people was ignored in favour of a nuclear 'disaster’ that never was, argues Michael Hanlon. By Michael Hanlon 21 Feb 2012
I watched the terrible events which took place in Japan on March 11 last year with an appalled fascination. The first truly epic natural disaster to be recorded and beamed into a billion homes in real time produced dreadful images which will be seared into my memory forever.
Most terrible of all, was the black wave, a tide of death which we saw apparently creeping over the landscape like a flood of treacle. Looking more closely, this feature of the tsunami was revealed to be an illusion. The sight of cars pushed this way and that away, doing
U–turns on the highways bisecting this workaday landscape of open fields, scrappy industrial estates and boatyards was the giveaway. These waves were sweeping away everything in their path and sluicing whole villages and towns into the Pacific This was no tide of treacle; it was a wall of destruction travelling at 40 or 50mph.
Hundreds, thousands of people were being killed before my eyes, some in the most horrible way. And on that first day, like all journalists, I began writing about the disaster much as I had written about the 2004 earthquake and tsunamis which had devastated the coasts of the Indian Ocean.
But then something odd happened. When it became clear the waves had struck a nuclear power plant, Fukushima Dai-ichi, 100 or so miles north of Tokyo, it was almost as if the great disaster we had witnessed had been erased from view. Suddenly, all the reports concentrated on the possibility of a reactor meltdown, the overheating fuel rods, and the design flaws in this ancient plant.
I too found the nuclear angle compelling. The forces of nature meet human hubris and the terror of the unchained atom. There was human drama, the whiff of cover-ups, institutional incompetence, heroism (the famous Fukushima 50), and pretty soon an international angle as “deadly clouds of radiation” formed (which turned out to be nothing of the sort).
Soon we journalists became versed in the terminology of nuclear disaster – sieverts and millisieverts, the difference between pressurised and boiling water reactors, the half-lives of various isotopes of caesium and iodine.
It was at this point, at around day three, that I realised that something had gone seriously wrong with the reporting of the biggest natural disaster to hit a major industrialised nation for a century. We had forgotten the real victims, the 20,000-and-counting Japanese people killed, in favour of a nuclear scare story.
Yesterday, together with the rationalist campaign group Sense About Science, I attempted to put the record straight at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver. We argued that not only was the global media’s reaction to the Tohoku earthquake skewed in favour of a nuclear “disaster” that never was, but that this reporting had profound economic and even environmental implications.
For example, weeks after the tsunamis struck, several nations including Germany, Italy and Switzerland announced that they were
re-examining their commitment to civil nuclear power. On March 15, the EU energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, announced that the imminent meltdown of No4 reactor threatened an “apocalypse”. Six weeks later, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a physicist by training who should have known better, announced the complete closure of the German nuclear power programme.
All this happened amid mounting hysteria – and an information void. It wasn’t until several weeks later that the first considered scientific reports emerged from Japan, notably the report by Britain’s nuclear regulator, Mike Weightman, which made it clear that although outdated, riddled with design flaws and struck by geological forces that went way beyond the design brief, the Fukushima plant had survived remarkably intact.
There are bitter ironies in all of this. The panic caused a minor evacuation of Tokyo, which almost certainly resulted in more road deaths than will ever be attributable to radiation leaks. At one point, governments in Europe, including ours, were offering to fly expats home from places where the radiation levels were lower than the natural background count in Aberdeen or Cornwall.
As Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University, says: “The reporting of Fukushima was guided by the Cold War reflex that matched radiation with fear and mortal danger. Reactors have been destroyed, but the radiation at Fukushima has caused no loss of life and is unlikely to do so, even in the next 50 years. The voices of science and common sense on which the future of mankind depends were drowned out and remain to be heard, even today. The result has been unnecessary suffering and great socio-economic damage.”
Sometimes the media gets it wrong and we all have to hold our hands up here. Twenty thousand-plus people perished in a real disaster, people about whom we in the West have heard very little.
For their part, policymakers should have waited until at least some science was in before cancelling programmes which, in the case of Germany, will lead to some 70 million metric tonnes annually of increased CO2 emissions, because the shortfall will almost certainly be met by coal-fired power. Nobody, to date, has died as a result of radiation leaks at Fukushima Dai-ichi. Zero – a number you will have read even less about than the 20,000 dead. Telegraph
Sarah Palin 'believed Queen was in charge of British forces in Iraq'
Sarah Palin believed that the Queen rather than the prime minister was responsible for the decision to keep British forces in Iraq, according to research done for a new film chronicling her brief political rise. By Raf Sanchez 20 Feb 2012
The former Alaska governor reportedly made the comment during the 2008 presidential campaign as aides to John McCain, the Republican candidate, scrambled to bring his surprise-pick running mate up to speed on foreign affairs.
Her confusion emerged during a coaching session with Steve Schmidt, a top McCain adviser, who asked Mrs Palin what she would do if Britain began to waver in its commitment to the Iraq war.
In one of the many rambling responses that steadily eroded her credibility during the campaign, Mrs Palin reportedly replied that she would "continue to have an open dialogue" with the Queen. blah blah
Afghan Schools Open, But Under The Taliban's Rules
Antonio Giustozzi and Claudio Franco Jan 5, 2012
Afghanistan's state-run schools are experiencing a renaissance, with some reopening for the first time in nearly a decade. Acid attacks on girls, murdered teachers, bombings of classrooms - these are on the decline.
But the reason for these openings is not because Nato and Afghan forces are winning the war for security. Rather, it's because the Afghan government, unable to bring security where needed, has begun to rely on secret agreements that give the Taliban greater say in the country's education.
The deals work like this: in exchange for not attacking students or teachers, Taliban commanders in the field - many with rigidly conservative views on women, Islam and western curriculum - dictate what is taught in the schools, and by whom. Schools are even employing teachers chosen specifically by the Taliban supporters.
Hundreds of schools have re-opened in this manner. Most are schools for boys, but a number of girl's schools have also started re-opening in the last several months. more
Previous: Responsible for close to 200 deaths so far this year, Boko Haram, whose name means "Non-Islamic Education is sacrilege" (Nigeria)
The Church Wins the Award For Intolerance By Matt Ridley 21 February 2012
Of course religion is central to our culture. It spent a thousand years stamping out rivals
For people who profess to be kind and tolerant, the defenders of Christianity can be remarkably unpleasant and intolerant. For all his frank and sometimes brusque bluster, I cannot think of anything that Richard Dawkins has said that is nearly as personally offensive as the insults that have been deluged upon his head in the past few days.
“Puffed-up, self-regarding, vain, prickly and militant,” snaps one commentator. Running a “Foundation for Enlightening People Stupider than Professor Richard Dawkins,” scoffs another. Descended from slave owners, smears a third, visiting the sins of a great-great-great-great-great- great-grandfather upon the son (who has made and given away far more money than he inherited).
In all the coverage of last week’s War of Dawkins Ear, there has been a consistent pattern of playing the man, not the ball: refusing to engage with his ideas but thinking only of how to find new ways to insult him. If this is Christian, frankly, you can keep it.
By contrast, where is the condemnation of Baroness Warsi’s extraordinary article last week claiming that “militant secularisation is ... deeply intolerant ... and demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes”, as if Dawkins had sent people to gas chambers? The closest things to a totalitarian society today (neo-religious North Korea apart) are theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, places where it is not much fun to be gay or atheist or have two X chromosomes. For the religious to lecture the secular on tolerance is rich. Lady Warsi went on: “When we look at the deep distrust between some communities today, there is no doubt that faith has a key role to play in bridging these divides.” Excuse me, there is a great deal of doubt about that. Tell a persecuted Christian in Iran, a divided community in Ulster or a victim of Osama bin Laden that there is no doubt that faith plays a key role in bridging divides.
Sure, there have been atheist dictators such as Stalin, just as there have been vegetarian ones such as Hitler, and Catholic ones such as Franco (enthusiastically supported by the Church). But our own free and tolerant society became so only as it managed to throw off religious dogmatism. Tudor and Cromwellian England were the very archetype of a totalitarian society. My ancestral relation Nicholas Ridley was burned slowly to death, screaming in pain, as a spectator sport merely because he believed that the body of Christ was figuratively, but not literally, present at the communion. That’s all in the distant past, insist the Dawkins bashers, and today the Church is all about forgiveness and community. Largely true and wholly welcome. No doubt good Anglican vicars are too embarrassed to read from the chapters of the Bible where God advocates gang rape, genocide and murder, preferring the nice bits. But if some of the Bible can be ignored, what is so special about the rest?
Above all, why is it necessary to insist on the truth of an arbitrary fairytale from a particular pastoral society in order to teach morality? Might it not actually hinder the spread of virtue to insist that the only reason you should be kind is because somebody says a supernatural entity told you to, two millennia ago? The Church and its rituals are central to all the things that are good about modern communities, say the religious. But that is because society tamed the Church, at least much as vice versa.
To say that religion is part of our culture, therefore we should cherish it, is a circular argument. The Church spent a thousand years intolerantly stamping out rival strands of culture, insisting that every ritual from birth to death be celebrated in its halls. So yes, it is part of my culture.
Last year I stood in wonder before the extraordinary 15th-century carved wooden altarpiece of St Mary’s Basilica in Cracow, fascinated by the story that each of the apostles is actually a portrait of a Cracow merchant. Such art, you will sometimes hear, would never have been created without religion. Bunk. The only way that Veit Stoss could do his brilliant portraiture was by dressing it up as yet another portrayal of 12 boring old Palestinians. Think how much more variety we eventually got from artists once they were not confined to doing saints.
Some years ago, a colleague snapped: “I don’t force my views on Dawkins, why should he force his on me?” I held my tongue, but what ran through my mind was a memory of being forced, yes forced, to attend church every day at my school, preached at from the pulpit without right of reply, and my delight when the school allowed daily attendance at a secular alternative instead.
Occasionally, after that, I still went to chapel rather than the secular version, because it was no longer compulsory. RDFRS
Sick: Young, Undercover Cops Flirted With Students to Trick Them Into Selling Pot By Tony Newman February 15, 2012
Working at the Drug Policy Alliance for the last twelve years I have read and heard countless stories of people having their lives ruined because of our country's cruel war on drugs. Last weekend, the nationally syndicated show This American Life highlighted a story that is so insane, you don't know whether to laugh or puke.
Last year in three high schools in Florida, several undercover police officers posed as students. The undercover cops went to classes, became Facebook friends and flirted with the other students. One 18-year-old honor student named Justin fell in love with an attractive 25-year-old undercover cop after spending weeks sharing stories about their lives, texting and flirting with each other.
One day she asked Justin if he smoked pot. Even though he didn't smoke marijuana, the love-struck teen promised to help find some for her. Every couple of days she would text him asking if he had the marijuana. Finally, Justin was able to get it to her. She tried to give him $25 for the marijuana and he said he didn't want the money -- he got it for her as a present.
A short while later, the police did a big sweep and arrest 31 students -- including Justin. Almost all were charged with selling a small amount of marijuana to the undercover cops. Now Justin has a felony hanging over his head.
This story is not unique to Florida and it reminds me of an 18-year-old Mitchell Lawrence, a young man from Great Barrington, Mass., who served two years in jail for selling a joint to an undercover cop. The officer befriended Lawrence and his friends and would hang out with them. One day the cop asked if Lawrence had any weed. Lawrence gave the cop a joint. The cop handed him $20. Lawrence hesitated, but the cop insisted on giving him the money. "Selling" the joint, because they were hanging out less than a 1000 feet from a school, and thus was considered a "drug free school zone," carried a mandatory minimum two-year sentence.
The drug war is sick. How much money was wasted by our law enforcement to get these few bags of marijuana "off the streets"? How do these cops look themselves in the mirror? Seducing 18-year-olds to fall in love or pretending to be friends and then tricking them into procuring small amounts of marijuana so they can charge them with felonies is beyond slimy and diametrically opposed to the officers' charge to "serve and protect."
We often hear that we need to fight the drug war to protect the kids. As these despicable examples show, more often the drug war is ruining young people's lives and doing more harm than good. Alternet
This is only a temporary clip and is destined to go down in place of the official trailer. No point in me giving it chapter and verse under those circumstances, mind you, I don't think I have to say a word really, the clip speaks for itself.
Phone and email records to be stored in new spy plan
Details of every phone call and text message, email traffic and websites visited online are to be stored in a series of vast databases under new Government anti-terror plans. By David Barrett 18 Feb 2012
Landline and mobile phone companies and broadband providers will be ordered to store the data for a year and make it available to the security services under the scheme.
The databases would not record the contents of calls, texts or emails but the numbers or email addresses of who they are sent and received by.
For the first time, the security services will have widespread access to information about who has been communicating with each other on social networking sites such as Facebook.
Direct messages between subscribers to websites such as Twitter would also be stored, as well as communications between players in online video games.
The Home Office is understood to have begun negotiations with internet companies in the last two months over the plan, which could be officially announced as early as May.
It is certain to cause controversy over civil liberties - but also raise concerns over the security of the records.
Access to such information would be highly prized by hackers and could be exploited to send spam email and texts. Details of which websites people visit could also be exploited for commercial gain.
The plan has been drawn up on the advice of MI5, the home security service, MI6, which operates abroad, and GCHQ, the Government’s “listening post” responsible for monitoring communications.
Rather than the Government holding the information centrally, companies including BT, Sky, Virgin Media, Vodafone and O2 would have to keep the records themselves.
Under the scheme the security services would be granted “real time” access to phone and internet records of people they want to put under surveillance, as well as the ability to reconstruct their movements through the information stored in the databases.
The system would track “who, when and where” of each message, allowing extremely close surveillance.
Mobile phone records of calls and texts show within yards where a call was made or a message was sent, while emails and internet browsing histories can be matched to a computer’s “IP address”, which can be used to locate where it was sent.
The scheme is a revised version of a plan drawn up by the Labour government which would have created a central database of all the information.
The idea of a central database was later dropped in favour of a scheme requiring communications providers to store the details at the taxpayers’ expense.
But the whole idea was cancelled amid severe criticisms of the number of public bodies which could access the data, which as well as the security services, included local councils and quangos, totalling 653 public sector organisations.
Labour shelved the project - known as the Intercept Modernisation Programme - in November 2009 after a consultation showed it had little public support.
Only one third of respondents backed the plan and half said they feared the scheme lacked safeguards and technical rigour to protect highly sensitive information.
At the same time the Conservatives criticised Labour’s “reckless” record on privacy.
A called Reversing the Rise of the Surveillance State by Dominic Grieve, then shadow home secretary and now Attorney General, published in 2009, said a Tory government would collect fewer personal details which would be held by “specific authorities on a need-to-know basis only”.
But the security services have now won a battle to have the scheme revived because of their concern over the ability of terrorists to avoid conventional surveillance through modern technology.
They can make use of phone tapping but their ability to monitor email traffic and text messages is limited.
They are known to have lobbied Theresa May, the Home Secretary, strongly for the scheme. Their move comes ahead of the London Olympics, which they fear will be a major target for terror attacks, and amid a climate of concern about terrorists’ use of the internet.
It has been highlighted by a number of attacks carried out after radicalisation took place through websites, including the stabbing by a young Muslim woman of an MP at his constituency surgery.
Sources said ministers are planning to allocate legislative time to the new spy programme, called the Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP), in the Queen’s Speech in May.
But last night privacy campaigners warned the scheme was too open to abuse and could be used for “fishing trips” by spies.
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, a civil liberties campaign organisation, said: “This would be a systematic effort to spy on all of our digital communications.
“The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats started their government with a big pledge to roll back the surveillance state.
“No state in history has been able to gather the level of information proposed - it’s a way of collecting everything about who we talk to just in case something turns up.”
There were also concerns about the ability of phone and internet companies to keep the information secure.
And the huge databases could also be used by internet service providers, particularly to work out which advertising to target at users.
Broadband firms including BT came up with a scheme almost three years ago to target advertising, but it did not get off the ground.
However, if companies were able to exploit the information they will be compelled to keep for the CCDP, they would be much more capable of delivering advertising to computers and even mobile phones based on users’ past behaviour.
Gus Hosein, of Privacy International, said: “This will be ripe for hacking. Every hacker, every malicious threat, every foreign government is going to want access to this.
“And if communications providers have a government mandate to start collecting this information they will be incredibly tempted to start monitoring this data themselves so they can compete with Google and Facebook.”
He added: “The internet companies will be told to store who you are friends with and interact with. While this may appear innocuous it requires the active interception of every single communication you make, and this has never been done in a democratic society.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public.
“We meet regularly with the communications industry to ensure that capability is maintained without interfering with the public’s right to privacy.
“As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will legislate as soon as Parliamentary time allows to ensure that the use of communications data is compatible with the Government’s approach to civil liberties.”
Andrew Kernahan of the Internet Service Providers’ Association said: “It is important that proposals to update Government’s capabilities to intercept and retain communications data in the new communications environment are proportionate, respect freedom of expression and the privacy of users, and are widely consulted upon in an open and transparent manner.” Telegraph
Be Careful If Big Brother Doesn’t ‘Like’ Your Post by Sam Rolley February 17, 2012
It is becoming increasingly likely that posting comments critical of the Federal government on your social networking site or blog will give law enforcement officials reason to believe that you are a terrorist.
A document released online by the FBI details a new plan to develop an app that will “rapidly assemble critical open source information and intelligence … to quickly vet, identify, and geo-locate breaking events, incidents and emerging threats.” In other words, the FBI wants to know where you are, who you are and how many of you there are if the agency determines that you may be a threat to Federal tyranny. The FBI’s new app will be similar to a recent Department of Homeland Security initiative of mining social networking sites for potential thoughtcriminals.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has been critical of the DHS social networking spy policy and launched a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Federal Agency in late December. Among the documents obtained by the suit were guidelines from DHS instructing outside contractors to monitor the Web for media reports and comments that “reflect adversely” on the agency or the Federal government. personalliberty
Santorum Nostalgic for Abortions "in the Shadows," Warns of Euthanasia Increase
Will you try a few comments?
Hahahaha this guy is hilarious, what a cunt - Esanukkie
In the Netherlands we do not only kill our elderly, we also eat them. It's our national dish. You will be surprised how good it tastes with some fetus dressing. - 260033
Yes he is right they are beaten to death with wooden shoes. Its awful here Stay away. - luuk 441
I barely escaped such a terrible fate myself only this afternoon. I walked into the Albert Heijn without wearing my 'don't clog me to death' wrist tag. - Ferdinand1989
Classified as a typical american ignorant biassed half brain dead idiot - snarf1946
Is this man out of his mind? Only half of them. All of them. In the Netherlands we hunt them down with our rifles which you can buy on every corner of every street here. Is he really a presedential candidate this man? Unbelievable - hurkonides
NETHERLANDS GREEN IS PEEOPLEE! ~ Heallun
The Ninth Commandment, Mr Santorum. - Elmarby
Classified as a typical american ignorant biassed half brain dead idiot - snarf1946
I`m dutch i'll euthanise this man for free - edwinkarim
"America's Next Top Moron" - r29316
"it's all true, they give these bracelets out at birth and if you lose it well, you're fucked" - fort0r
Now I know one shouldn't take the piss out of the afflicted, but don't you think that people with such levels of literacy might show a little reluctance in exhibiting the fact.
But what I find really scary, and it's not a new thing with me, it happens every time I come across stuff like this, is that most of these people have a right to, and probably do, own a gun.
Your a stupid ass and your religion is gay. Thats why god hates it and evne though he loves yu he hates ur gay and will kill you and all yoru followers. Your god is spaghetti, i ate spaghetti lasnt night. So, ha. Christian god is in teh sky, your is on a plate. Your guy doesnt even have brain let alone create things. Your stupid douchbag. This isnt a religion, its a belief. And you are standing in between you and gods yours love. I hope ur happy.
- Connor Fargus
- - -
I saw your site and it just amazes me how delusional you guys are, you are trying to create a delusion around the world. A sick joke gone wrong really, its really sad that you are so completely obsessed with brainwashing that you try to pass of a Italian cuisine for a deity of some sort. This whole religion is of hate and defies all logic, rational thought, and it shatters common sense completely. You’re lousy evidence doesn’t cut it either how can you say fire works and noodles are evidence for your delusion? and its not even slightly sane that you walk around like a bunch of pedophiles in those shabby suits of yours. I bet if a Scientologist and a mutated Christian extremist had sex, the offspring would be a Pastafarian.
-Pizbi
- - -
The government actually passed this BS as religion? You just did this so you can get tax cuts, your religion is based on christian hate because thats all i see you mocking on here, You might as well side with the church of satan who mocks their own belief, Just because youre too blind to be enlightened you have decided to scam all the atheists out there, in a way i have to side with you, because all of your followers are just as stupid as you are, nobody ever looks into history, philosophy or multiple religions before basing their faith, they always just side with hate and disbelief, when love is just the true meaning behind every religion, and science is formulated from the start of religion, it seems that your church and your followers will all go down the same stupid path, even if you are a teacher or a doctor you probably are a bad one at that, well except the church leader who is rolling in money from his t-shirts and probably initiation fees and getting tax cuts, what a smart way to scam atheist church goers, you might as well start the next jonestown massacre.
–Nick
- - -
You sicken me with the fact that you now have my best friend believing in your stupid, sick, blasphemous crap you call a religion! I can tell you what it really is, BLASPHEMOUS, MADE DURING A DRUG BINGE, IDOLATRY THAT WILL HAVE YOU BURNING IN HELL OR ON THE TABLE AFTER THE LAST WAR!!!! I am furious about the fact that there is a religion DEVOTED to SIN OF ALL THINGS! If you don’t change you and all your followers will be in a special place in hell just for IDOL WORSHIPPING, SIN LOVERS LIKE YOURSELF!!! You disgust me and I hope you see the truth before it’s too late.
Antipastifarian,
Chance
Answer to the above: I need more information on this “special place” in hell you refer to – will there be cake?
Interested,
-bobby
- - -
I should really have given this one below, pride of place, it's a cracker. But I shall carry on posting comments from the front page, only in reverse order.
You are a fraud. It’s obvious to me that you don’t give a shit about you’re so-called religion. I am not even that christian but this site makes me sick. you have no right to start a religion or should i say cult. People need to think for themselves they dont need to listen to your nonsense. I am not even that christian but at least they are trying to help people. What are you trying to do? make money and buy a pirate ship and fill it with strippers and beer? That is the most stupid thing I ever heard. I hope the government shuts you down and takes you’re money. You will never have a pirate ship they cost millions moron.
Suck it,
Mike
What exactly do you think you are going to prove? it’s just disrespectful to other human beings faiths and beliefs, and im sure u of all people should know u can’t put any sense into say a devout christian. Honestly, what your doing is the equivalant of making a rude, sarcastic joke to a child that doesn’t understand humor. u cant tell a christian thats been raised from birth to believe that there’s a magic man in the clouds that he’s wrong. you’ll just get what uve been getting, hate mail, and death threats. God is the equivalant of santa exept the child is never told he isn’t real until it’s to late. and u think your doing a good thing by making up this pastafarian crap to prove how absurd the idea of god is. what i don’t think u understand is that u cant argue with idiots about this stuff as most christians are dont know a thing about science.(I apoligize to all respectable christian scientists). as an athiest, im disgusted what youre doing. like making fun of christians being killed by somali’s, and u quoting, "apparently they thought there god could give them safe passage"(yes ive read ur website). really, did it ever, or does it ever occur to you that these people are actually human being’s with family’s and feeling’s, and just because they think the world was created differantly than u, u have to mock them… that’s kind of a dick move. your being no better than they are(religious people) by making fun of and disrespecting other people just ’cause they think differantly than u. oh wait u are religous, u worship a flying spaggetti monster. which means i have the right to ridicule u on how stupid your dumbfuck religion is(oh may the great pasta diety forgive me for my sin) and dont deny that u worship the all mighty pasta king, because your the leader of the church. with the true words of your religion written on a piece of paper. it’s ironic that u, by trying to prove how bad religion is. go about it by u yourself inbodying everything that is wrong with human beliefs. u are everything that is wrong with athiesm. u go around acting all superior and pompus, like u know better than everyone else and tell them why there wrong mockingly. the world would be a better place if u took all your "followers" (butt pirates) got on a pirate ship and ate spaggetti until you all died of overeating.have u ever heard the term live and let live? and i love it how u post all the hate mail u get on a your page to be ridiculed by your cronies( who by the way need to get of the internet and do something productive)yes we all the the bible huggars are gonna say dumb stuff because they’re uneducated. but that doesn’t mean u have to be immature and make fun of there faults so just lay off. even though this message sounds hostile just know i agree with what your’e trying to do (i think) educating people, i just wholly disagree with how u are going about it.
Well said Sir, though in the reading, there are many who disagree, but then they wouldn't they?
Just as easily as they disagree, do they so easily refuse to see the point. You can't argue that a Catholic apple is different (and better) from an Islamic pear, when you are both holding oranges.
We seem to have been here before quite recently, give me a moment; here you go.
Christians must choose between religion and obeying law, says equalities chief Trevor Phillips By John Bingham, and Tim Ross 17 Feb 2012
He declared that Christians who want to be exempt from equality legislation are like Muslims trying to impose sharia.
Religious rules should end “at the door of the temple” and give way to the “public law” laid down by Parliament, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said.
He argued that Roman Catholic adoption agencies and other faith groups providing public services must choose between their religion and obeying the law when their beliefs conflict with the will of the state.
Mr Phillips singled out the adoption agencies that fought a long legal battle to avoid being forced to accept homosexual couples under equality laws.
Last year, following a High Court case, the Charity Commission ruled against an exemption for Catholic Care, an adoption agency operating in Leeds.
Speaking at a debate in London on diverse societies, Mr Phillips backed the new laws, which led to the closure of all Catholic adoption agencies in England. “You can’t say because we decide we’re different then we need a different set of laws,” he said, in comments reported by The Tablet, the Catholic newspaper.
“To me there’s nothing different in principle with a Catholic adoption agency, or indeed Methodist adoption agency, saying the rules in our community are different and therefore the law shouldn’t apply to us. Why not then say sharia can be applied to different parts of the country? It doesn’t work.”
He added that religious groups should be free to follow their own rules within their own settings but not outside. “Once you start to provide public services that have to be run under public rules, for example child protection, then it has to go with public law,” he said.
“Institutions have to make a decision whether they want to do that or they don’t want to do that.”
Mr Phillips’s remarks were condemned as “inflammatory” and “ridiculous” by legal specialists and religious leaders.
Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, called on the authorities to respect the nation’s heritage as a democracy in which the Church of England is the established religion. He described the comparison with sharia as “ridiculous” and called on MPs to find ways of “accommodation” when new laws clash with religious beliefs.
“I have argued in the past that there can be only one law to which all should be accountable. But we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper as far as religion is concerned.
“We are a democracy in which Christianity is established in the Church of England and a nation profoundly influenced by this faith in its Catholic and Anglican heritage. We need lawmakers to respect this heritage and seek accommodation wherever a strongly held faith seems to clash with new legislation.”
Legal experts called on Mr Phillips to clarify his comments about sharia – Islamic law – which many associate with draconian punishments such as stoning adulterers to death.
Neil Addison, a barrister and director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said: “The EHRC is so obsessed with equality that it has lost sight of freedom. It would prefer people not to do good, rather than to do good on their own terms.” The comments were “inflammatory”, said Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre. “These comments are deeply illiberal. They are intolerant,” she said. “Trevor Phillips fails to understand the nature of faith and what inspires faith and what makes agencies like Catholic adoption agencies so selfless.”
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said that Mr Phillips appeared to be applying a “totalitarian view of society”.
“Trevor Phillips in the past has argued for respect for Christian conscience,” he said. “I am very surprised that here he seems to be saying that there should be a totalitarian kind of view in which a believer’s conscience should not be respected.”
While the basic principles of sharia contradict Western public law, the issue for Catholic adoption agencies was one of “respect for conscience”, he said. “They are two different issues.”
Mr Phillips’s remarks threatened to add to controversy over the role of religion in Britain.
Last week, a High Court judge ruled that it was unlawful for local councils to include Christian prayers in their formal meetings after a legal challenge by an atheist former councillor who objected.
The ruling immediately pitted the Government against the courts as ministers urged councils to defy the ban. Bideford council in Devon decided last night to appeal against the decision.
Baroness Warsi, the chairman of the Conservative Party, warned earlier this week that the forces of “militant secularism” reminiscent of “totalitarian regimes” were threatening traditional society. Then the Queen made a rare intervention in the debate, arguing that the Church had been “misunderstood” and was “under-appreciated”.
Mr Phillips has been outspoken in his defence of human rights law even when they conflict with religious beliefs.
He has accused some Christian groups of being more militant than Muslims.
During the debate, he praised both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches for their work in inner cities, particularly through faith schools, but accused some religious groups of growing intolerance.
“There is something rather odd that is happening amongst what I call the righteous brigade, that is people of good will and so on,” Mr Phillips said.
“And that is that if you don’t agree 100 per cent with them and excoriate people who have a different point of view actually somehow you are joining a bad bunch of people.”
Keith Porteous Wood, director of the National Secular Society, said Mr Phillips was “absolutely right”.
“If society has decided that it wants to ensure by law that every citizen of this country has equal rights, then there cannot be endless exemptions for religious bodies or anyone else,” he said.
“There is no such thing as partial equality, and every time an exemption is made, someone else’s rights are compromised.”
In 2008 Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, caused consternation when he claimed that it seemed “inevitable” that elements of Islamic law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into the British legal system. Telegraph
