Thursday, 31 May 2012

Secular Café: Moldy Jesus

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Moldy Jesus
May 31st 2012, 23:26

Yes, he's come to save the shower fungi and bacteria, too!

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...378&hpt=us_bn8

In Texas, where else?

What next, I wonder? Poison Ivy Jesus, displayed in a pattern of red pustules on someone's arm?

Or wait. I know.

BM Jesus.

But I for one do *not* want to see the pictures.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: "In God We Teach"

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
"In God We Teach"
May 31st 2012, 15:12

This is a documentary a friend of mine made. If you like it, please share/like/poke/fold/spindle/mutilate:

(Not loaded: wP6B4gpgyRI)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Wednesday, 30 May 2012

Secular Café: No charges on 'racist' King's Torah text

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
No charges on 'racist' King's Torah text
May 30th 2012, 11:45

Quote:

Israel's Attorney General has decided not to prosecute two rabbis who wrote a controversial religious text proposing circumstances in which it is permissible to kill non-Jews even if they pose no direct physical threat of violence.

Yehuda Weinstein said remarks in the text, known as the "King's Torah", were "deserving of condemnation and denunciation", but also added that an investigation had failed to produce enough evidence to justify an indictment for incitement.

Critics of the text, whose religious Zionist authors come from the notably hardline West Bank settlement of Yitzhar, argue it is racist and could be read as sanctioning the murder of Arabs.

According to advertisements denouncing the text, published last year by Brit Hoshech Legaresh, a broad organisation of Israeli Orthodox, Reform, Conservative and secular Jews, it suggested "every place the presence of a non-Jew endangers a Jewish life it is permitted to kill him even if he is one of the righteous among gentiles and bears no guilt for the situation that has been created." It also reportedly says killing children would be permissible if they are being raised with the objective of harming Jews, to prevent them growing up as enemies.

cont...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-7800937.html


My bold.

I'm wondering if these guys are completely rouge or representative of their local community in these views...

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Tuesday, 29 May 2012

Secular Café: American women forbidden divorce by religious law?

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
American women forbidden divorce by religious law?
May 29th 2012, 19:14

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012...+News+Daily%29

I must admit, I was wrong when I guessed which one....

Quote:

Under the laws of a certain religion, a woman cannot divorce her husband unless he agrees–no matter if there is adultery on his part, domestic violence, or any other problem with the marriage. The man has sole discretion.

If she chooses to remarry, she will be considered an adulteress, and become an outcast from her religious community.

Over 450 American women are "chained" under this law, forced to choose between their freedom from their husbands or their religion.

Surprise! It's not Islam.

Quote:

A woman has spoken out about how her Orthodox Jewish husband refuses to divorce her despite being separated for four years.

In keeping with strict religious beliefs, Rachel Balassiano, a 35-year-old from Brooklyn, New York, is fighting to convince her husband to give her a Jewish divorce which is known as a 'get'.

The mother of three, who has been separated from Maurice Balassiano, 50, for four years, is considered to be an 'agunot' women, a name given to those who are 'chained wives'.

According to traditional Judaism, husbands can withhold a 'get' from their wives for as long as they like as only men have the ability to end a religious marriage.

Mrs Belassiano is just one of hundreds of North American women who are considered 'agunot'.
Some of the men simply do not want a divorce. Others use it as a bargaining chip–to change the legally-binding divorce court's financial settlement, to avoid the placement of restraining orders, and more.

I wonder if this is among the "Judeo-Christian family values" that the Christian Right keeps fighting for in the U.S.

Is religion harmless? Does religion oppress women? What do you think?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Etan Patz Murderer Confessed to Catholics

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Etan Patz Murderer Confessed to Catholics
May 29th 2012, 17:51

Not sure where to put this so "Religion" it is. Evidently the fuckhead who allegedly killed Etan Patz confessed he had done so back in the '80s to his church group and none of them told the police:

Quote:

Decades before his confession to police, Hernandez revealed the killing to a Camden, New Jersey, prayer group in the 1980s but none 50 or so members who heard it ever spoke with police, according to reports in The New York Times and the New York Daily News.

The prayer group leader at St. Anthony of Padua, a Roman Catholic church, Tomas Rivera, 76, said he never turned over the information to authorities because Hernandez spoke to the group rather than to him one on one, the Times said.
Oh, well, if it was to the group and not "one on one" then I can understand.

:eek:

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Negligent mother gets 2.5 years in faith “healing” death of son

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Negligent mother gets 2.5 years in faith "healing" death of son
May 29th 2012, 16:36

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012...+News+Daily%29

Another life wasted due to religious idiocy...

Quote:

In 2009, Oklahoman Susan Grady chose prayer instead of medical treatment for her 9-year-old son's diabetes.

Prayer had its usual efficacy.

Grady was charged with, and convicted of, second-degree manslaughter for her reliance upon superstition instead of science-based medicine.
Quote:

A Tulsa County jury imposed a 2½-year prison sentence Friday night after convicting a woman of second-degree manslaughter in the diabetes-related death of her ailing son, whose treatment she believed relied upon spiritual means.Prosecutors alleged that Susan Grady acted with "culpable negligence" toward 9-year-old Aaron Grady between June 2 and June 5, 2009, by not seeking medical treatment for him.

In relying on prayer to heal her son, Grady, a member of the Church of the Firstborn, told police in 2009, "I didn't want to be weak in my faith and disappoint God."

Nigh has maintained that Grady's conduct was not unreasonable, based upon the teachings of her church.
Parents who sit idly by and allow their children to die, using as their excuse for inaction a desire not to anger their imaginary frenemy, are a danger to their children. Their superstitions should not be the legal basis for exemption from parental responsibility.

A simple solution? Remove children from the homes of parents who wish to rely upon faith "healing", and place them with foster families who, we hope, will take proper care of them until they are old enough to make their own health care choices.

Meanwhile, states like North Dakota are moving toward increasing the ability of so-called "parents" to abuse their children, through ballot measures like the "Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment". North Dakotans will vote on this nightmare on June 12th.

Read more about it at the link

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: "The Centre cannot hold"

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
"The Centre cannot hold"
May 29th 2012, 13:30

I've just come across this: haven't listened yet thought I probably will:


The covering abstract reads:
Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC World Service
Ireland's Catholic priests are on the warpath. They have left their pulpits in their hundreds and marched on Dublin to campaign for reform and modernisation from a church many of have served for decades, which now though has denounced them as traitors For Heart and Soul on the BBC World Service, Ruth McDonald examines how Ireland, once the most loyally Catholic of countries, has come to a point where its clergy are now at war with the Vatican, over celibacy, divorce and the role of women How will this revolution play out in a country still shaken by the scale of sexual abuse, cover ups by Bishops and an increasing secularisation?

Though I have always believed the beeb to be as neutral as is possible over most issues I have often felt them to be pro-RCC: that might well be my personal bias on the matter. But if I'm right then the programme should be interesting.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Christian Terrorism in Texas

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Christian Terrorism in Texas
May 29th 2012, 13:39

http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/05/ch...-in-texas.html

Interesting piece....

Quote:

If you were to commit a heinous crime, child rape for instance, it would make sense that you would face public outrage. People would be upset with you, and rightly so. Many people, upon learning of your crime, would have violent urges. They would imagine how badly they'd like to beat you, and some with poor judgment or low impulse control might even threaten your safety. Nobody would be surprised by such reactions.

Now let's look at a very different situation. In this one, you commit no crime at all. Instead, you complain about someone else violating the law. Specifically, you become aware of a violation of separation of church and state, and you file a complaint. That's it. But once again, you face public outrage. People are every bit as upset with you as what we described in the first case. Many experience the same sort of violent urges, and you receive death threats. You are fired, stalked, and repeatedly threatened. And you know what? Once again, nobody is surprised. Nobody.

This is precisely the situation in which many atheists in conservative parts of the U.S. find themselves. If you don't believe me, you aren't as informed about the aftermath of church-state complaints as you should be.

Texas Professor Fired, Threatened After Successful Church-State Complaint

Consider a recent case out of Texas. Sissy Bradford, an adjunct professor of criminology at Texas A&M University - San Antonio, was fired, threatened, and stalked after Americans United for Separation of Church and State took legal action prompted by her complaint and won. The subject of Bradford's 2011 complaint was a taxpayer-funded tower featuring four Christian crosses built at the campus entrance. Americans United had the crosses removed, and Bradford's ordeal began.

According to Americans United, Bradford was then "subjected to months of vicious backlash from cross defenders." She even sought police protection but says her requests were ignored. In a statement to police, Bradford said:

Quote:

I am being stalked & harassed & threatened by student(s) & community members because I am not a Christian. There exists a clear & prolonged pattern of unwanted communication, contact, threats, & invasion of privacy.
After the police refused to act, some Bradford's students began escorting her to her car and speaking out in her defense. And then they started receiving threats for their efforts.

The university dismissed her without explanation earlier this month. Granted, this is not terribly unusual for an adjunct professor. They do not receive the same consideration as full-time employees, but it sounds fishy given the timing and Bradford's expectation that she would be teaching in the Fall. My guess is that they decided she was simply too much trouble and that they would look bad if anything happened to her.

Christian Terrorism

Are any of us really surprised by what happened to Bradford? Again and again, we have seen what brave individuals must endure simply for standing up to violations of church-state separation. Damon Fowler, Jessica Ahlquist, Sissy Bradford, and many others remind us exactly why more of us need to speak out.

And what of the threats that inevitably come from some Christians whenever one of these complaints is successful? What are we to make of them? This, dear reader, is Christian terrorism. The Christians who make these threats are waging a campaign of terror to instill fear and keep us silent. Try as I might to avoid it, I feel that this conclusion is inescapable.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Monday, 28 May 2012

Secular Café: What on earth is happening in the Vatican.

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
What on earth is happening in the Vatican.
May 28th 2012, 17:30

Did the butler do it?

Was he alone?

Was the banker sacked because he wanted to clean things up, or because he wanted to make the system less transparent?

Does everyone in the Vatican hate Bertone?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but, as the link below says, everything seems to be spiralling out of control.

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-vat...211,full.story

Like Watergate in its day, I think and hope that there is a lot more to come out.

David

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: 8 ways Christian Fundamentalists make people convert - to agnosticism or atheism

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
8 ways Christian Fundamentalists make people convert - to agnosticism or atheism
May 28th 2012, 17:21

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/155...sm_or_atheism/

Quote:

If the Catholic bishops, their conservative Protestant allies, and other right-wing fundamentalists had the sole objective of decimating religious belief, they couldn't be doing a better job of it.
It's a good article, but perhaps under-estimates the innate conservatism of some people, and the reluctance to write of the investment of time and money people put into false beliefs.

But many people are deconverting, according to the polls.

David

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Sunday, 27 May 2012

Secular Café: Logic is pure

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Logic is pure
May 27th 2012, 16:17

Out of curiosity. Do you belief logic/reason is an independent entity that is impenetrable by outside influences?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Saturday, 26 May 2012

Secular Café: Pope's butler arrested for Vatican leaks

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Pope's butler arrested for Vatican leaks
May 27th 2012, 06:00

See this story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18219390

Quote:

Vatican magistrates have named 46-year-old Paolo Gabriele as the suspect in their investigation, saying he illegally took confidential documents.

A series of leaks, dubbed Vatileaks, has revealed alleged corruption, mismanagement and internal conflicts.

Last month, Pope Benedict XVI set up a special commission of cardinals to find the source of the confidential memos.

Mr Gabriele is the pope's personal butler and assistant and one of very few laymen to have access to the Pope's private apartments...

...The Vatican's judge, Piero Antonio Bonnet, has been instructed to examine the evidence of the case and to decide whether there is sufficient material to proceed to trial.

Mr Gabriele has nominated two lawyers capable of representing him at a Vatican tribunal, and has met with them.

He would, the Vatican has said, have "all the juridical guarantees foreseen by the criminal code of the State of Vatican City".
Herewith rant from (Wikipedia)Kevin Annett:

Quote:

It's a church! No, it's a state! Stop! You're both right!

Why We are Still in the Middle Ages: The Vatican Inquisition Strikes Back


By Kevin D. Annett


Paolo Gabriele is languishing in a secret church prison tonight in Vatican City after being arrested by church police for having some of the Pope's private papers in his possession.

The Pope's former butler and a father of three children is threatened with thirty years in a papal jail for having uncovered some of Joseph Ratzinger's dirty secrets.

Paolo might as well not be an Italian citizen, since his civil rights vanished once he crossed the Vatican. The law of the church supersedes that of any nation, it seems, since clearly the Pope can arrest and jail anyone he doesn't like.

It's quite abominable. How many corporations get to arrest and put on trial in their own private courts one of their employees who's found with internal company documents?

How often does the CEO of such a company get to shelter and exonerate child rapists in his firm, hide the crime from the police, and silence those who know about it all?

Does the company itself get to launder money, finance wars, conduct genocide and crimes against humanity, and depose governments, and never answer for these crimes?

The Vatican Incorporated is the one company in the world that can do all this. And what's more, they even get massive financial subsidies from taxpayers in over a hundred countries to do so!

That said, it's a sign of the degree of institutional rot and panic erupting in Rome these days that members of the papal inner circle are breaking ranks and squealing on their boss. Paolo's arrest follows hot on the heels of the forced resignation of the chief of the Vatican Bank, Gotti Tedeschi, who allegedly had blown the whistle on shady transactions by the bank.

It's small wonder the papacy is crushing a lone employee like Paolo so rapidly. Some of the documents held by the butler suggest that the Pope personally accepted bribes to award Vatican contracts to friends and supporters of his, and that he engineered a cover up of the whole thing, including by expelling Vatican City governor Archbishop Carlo Vigano last year when he asked the Pope to come clean.

One can't help but be reminded of the last days of Richard Nixon. But the former president cum gangster, at least, was legally accountable to the United States Congress. The Pope is answerable only to himself. He is, under his own laws, both "Master and God": church and state all rolled into one, all powerful ruler of humanity.

Roman Emperor Aurelian invented that title known as "Dominus et Deus" in the year 273 when he created a new religious cult of sun worship that evolved into state Christianity under a later Emperor, Constantine. For the first time, and ever since then, one ruler was designated as having absolute authority over everyone, and could therefore never be challenged.

Adolf Hitler was a pale imitation.

When Aurelian's god-emperor evolved into the papacy, Europe inherited a monster called Christendom that would cause more death and atrocity than any force in human history. Sadly, over the centuries governments have accommodated themselves to this monster since historically they arose in partnership with it, and derived their authority from papal sanction.

What Martin Luther called "the two swords" – church and state working in tandem – is still the governing principle that allows so-called "canon law" to supersede civil laws in most nations, with the result that men like Paolo Gabriele can simply disappear with the nod of a pope.

We really are still in the middle ages, in many ways: and we techno-serfs still blindly clamor for justice from institutions run from the top-down by men who consider themselves gods.

Joseph Ratzinger is an expert at making people disappear, having run the papal Inquisition – renamed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – for many years. But the very absoluteness of his power as Grand Inquisitor made Ratzinger many enemies, and the latter are gathering nowadays to help expose their adversary.

The details of Ratzinger accepting bribes, for instance, actually came from Vatican Secretary of State archives to which Paolo Gabriele could not have had access. Only senior Cardinals could have released such damning evidence.

This kind of power struggle in the papacy is nothing new, but since it is happening amidst efforts to criminally indict the Pope for concealing child rapists and obstructing justice, many of the Curia are worried that the institution will suffer permanent damage: a fact quite unacceptable to the money boys who stand behind the papal throne.

To quote a senior Italian state senator who spoke to me in Rome in the spring of 2010,
"The Vatican, the mafia, and the government, they're really all the same men, and they have one major concern: to hold on to their revenues. They are terrified that the ORI (Vatican Bank) will suffer from these scandals and will lose its credit standing with the banking cartels. They will never let that happen, even if the heads of popes have to roll in the dust."
So it's an interesting question: who is more powerful, ultimately – the "Master and God" himself, or his creditors? The image, or the finances?

For men like Paolo Gabriele, or any victim of priestly rape, the answer is perhaps moot. For whoever is in charge in Rome is like any self-governing dictator: one who cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, but simply overthrown.

I believe the world is finally waking up to that fact. The issue now is, how will we unite across faiths and borders to finally unseat the God Emperor and his vile kingdom?

Our network has given the Vatican until September 15 to undertake ten steps to relinquish its power and do justice to its victims. After that day, the church will have lost its right to operate in our communities. And the occupations that will strike Roman Catholic churches and facilities after that date will include the targeting of secret papal prisons where men of conscience like Paolo Gabriele are being held.

We will free Paolo, if he is not free by then.

When Jesus of Nazareth first spoke publicly, he announced that God had sent him to release the captives, give sight to the blind, and let all the oppressed go free. The papacy of his day killed him for it, and the Vatican cemented that murder in its subversion of his message.

But fortunately, you just can't keep a good man down.
But the enemies of truth will become like fine dust, the ruthless hordes like blown chaff. Suddenly, in an instant, the time of judgement will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire.
Isaiah 29:5-6


"The mistake you make, don't you see,is in thinking one can live in a corrupt society without being corrupt oneself. After all, what do you achieve by refusing to make money? You're trying to behave as though one could stand right outside our economic system. But one can't. One's got to change the system, or one changes nothing. One can't put things right a bit at a time, if you take my meaning."
― George Orwell, Keep the Aspidistra Flying


You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Will the internet kill religion?

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Will the internet kill religion?
May 26th 2012, 19:43

I doubt it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...gLnU_blog.html

Quote:

Last year, Christian apologist Josh McDowell made a remarkable claim about the Internet, stating that "the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism... the Internet has leveled the playing field [giving equal access to skeptics]."

He said that like it was a bad thing. ...

...Church used to be a one-way street. The pastor fed you information and that was that. The Internet upended that model and gave people the opportunity to talk back. Now, they can weigh their own arguments on matters of faith with that of people who disagree. Many Christians won't go actively searching for dissenting views, of course, but what about doubters? What about young Christians who aren't sure they accept what the church teaches them? They'll be able to come to their own conclusions and they won't necessarily be the same ones their parents and pastors want them to adopt.

This is why atheists love the Internet. We can tell Christians the emperor's not wearing any clothes. We can question the dogma they've simply accepted all their lives. We can expose religious frauds. We can explain the many unfortunate consequences of unquestioned belief. The Internet is blind faith's worst nightmare.

The genie's not going back in the bottle. Religious leaders should be very afraid.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Is It Time To Start Taxing Churches?

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Is It Time To Start Taxing Churches?
May 26th 2012, 13:22

http://www.care2.com/causes/is-it-ti...-churches.html

I think they should be taxed out of existence... :evil:

Quote:

As institutions of faith, churches are not forced to pay taxes like the citizens and (usually) corporations in the rest of the United States. The original argument was that, like charity, church profits and donations go to doing public good — feeding the poor, caring for the sick and other projects that help to build a better, stronger community, and that those advantages outweigh the tax revenue lost.

Churches have grown to take greater advantage of this exemption. The surge in "televangelism" allowed many corrupt pastors to house themselves and keep themselves in luxury without paying taxes by declaring them allowable living expenses. Megachurches began popping up, buying cheap land to build on and using subsidies and avoiding paying property taxes while still taking full advantage of the services other residents pay out for. Some have businesses on site — coffee shops, book stores, all tax exempt by funneling their "profits" back into the church. Others have taken their earnings both from their businesses and donations and used them to evangelize and increase their missions, supporting the church and recruiting new members.

All of this is legal. And despite the growing stretch of the definitions of non-profit, of charity, and living expenses, most Americans would agree that all of this should be allowed.

But the only firewall that was set up is now breaking down. Churches weren't supposed to get involved in political issues. No endorsing, no campaigning. It's a rule that many religious organizations have been tiptoeing to the line on for years. "Family values" religious organizations have sanctioned off 501c4s to allow them the ability to advocate for candidates and issues, with donations kept separately from their main group and taxed accordingly. Pastors and priests have allowed candidates to come in and give testimony during services while winking that they aren't endorsing a politician or party. And a growing number have actively endorsed despite the law against it, daring the government to come down on them.

Within the last few years, the "evangelical vote" has been a major driving force behind elections, and the United States Council of Catholic Bishops has actively become a political force, sending missives to their priests telling them to preach to the congregation about the evils of the Affordable Care Act, or convincing the Komen Race for the Cure Foundation to drop Planned Parenthood as a group they donate to — a move that would free up more funding to go to Catholic charities and hospitals to provide mammograms.

Apparently, even this hasn't been brazen enough. So now, one church is collecting donations explicitly to oppose a gay marriage ballot initiative in Maine. The Associated Press reports, "Scores of Maine churches will pass the collection plate a second time at Sunday services on Father's Day to kick off a fundraising campaign for the lead opposition group to November's ballot question asking voters to legalize same-sex marriages. Between 150 and 200 churches are expected to raise money for the Protect Marriage Maine political action committee, said Carroll Conley Jr., executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine evangelical organization and a member of the PAC. Conley is also trying to drum up support for the Maine campaign from religious leaders from around the country."

Again, totally legal, as long as they don't advocate for a specific candidate. The churches are following the letter of the law, but not the intent. Religious institutions now get all of the benefits of tax exempt status, but have become one of the most politically active groups in the nation.

Should churches continue to keep their tax exempt status while become key players in elections? Let us know what you think in the comments.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: RCC Is Willing To Let Poor People Starve In Protest Of Contraception Mandate

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
RCC Is Willing To Let Poor People Starve In Protest Of Contraception Mandate
May 26th 2012, 12:00

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/23/cardinal/

The RCC never seems to run out of ways to disgust....Dolan is a verminous scumbag....


Quote:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan has made it very clear that he doesn't like President Obama's contraception mandate. And apparently, he and the Catholic Church are prepared to let poor people starve to death if President Obama doesn't give in to their demands.

In an appearance on Martin Bashir on MSNBC on Tuesday, Dolan said that the Church would abandon Jesus' effort to help the sick and feed the poor in protest of the contraception mandate that only applies to insurance companies and not the Church itself.

"If these mandates kick in, we're going to find ourselves faced with a terribly difficult decision as to whether or not we can continue to operate," Dolan said. "As part of our religion — it's part of our faith that we feed the hungry, that we educate the kids, that we take care of the sick. We'd have to give it up, because we're unable to fit the description and the definition of a church given by — guess who — the federal government."


Bashir then pointed out that the Catholic Church had taken a staggering $2.9 billion from the federal government to pay for the charitable efforts the Church provides. "They don't seem to bristle at the hand of government when it comes to money, do they," Bashir commented.

But it was David Corn of Mother Jones who had the best observation about Dolan's threat. "It strikes me as just not very Christian, if I can say so, to get out there and say, 'We will not be providing services if you force us to do these things — or if there's a mandate," Corn stated. "Would Jesus take his fish and a loaf and go home?"

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Friday, 25 May 2012

Secular Café: Vatican Chief Exorcist claims girl missing since 1983 was kidnapped for Vatican sex parties

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Vatican Chief Exorcist claims girl missing since 1983 was kidnapped for Vatican sex parties
May 25th 2012, 23:33

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012...+News+Daily%29

Lots of unanswered questions, but the bones of someone else were found.

It seems to me that the RCC is the most depraved, foul organisation ever....

Quote:

Gabriel Amorth, the Vatican's chief exorcist–who famously claimed some months ago that Satan was at work in the Vatican–has now claimed that a girl missing since 1983 was kidnapped for "Vatican sex parties" and wound up in a dead mobster's tomb.
Quote:

The Catholic Church's leading exorcist priest has sensationally claimed a missing schoolgirl thought to be buried in a murdered gangster's tomb was kidnapped for Vatican sex parties.

Father Gabriel Amorth, 85, who has carried out 70,000 exorcisms, spoke out as investigators continued to examine mobster Enrico De Pedis's tomb in their hunt for Emanuela Orlandi.

Last week police and forensic experts broke into the grave after an anonymous phone call to a TV show said the truth about Emanuela's 1983 disappearance would be 'found there'. And although bones not belonging to the mobster were recovered they have not yet been positively identified as hers.

However Father Amorth, in an interview with La Stampa newspaper, said: 'This was a crime with a sexual motive.'It has already previously been stated by deceased monsignor Simeone Duca, an archivist at the Vatican, who was asked to recruit girls for parties with the help of the Vatican gendarmes.

'I believe Emanuela ended up in this circle. I have never believed in the international theory overseas kidnappers. I have motives to believe that this was just a case of sexual exploitation.

'It led to the murder and then the hiding of her body. Also involved are diplomatic staff from a foreign embassy to the Holy See.'
Questions: If Amorth had information about a rape and murder, why did he wait thirty years to share it?

Did he recently get information? If so, why not come forward openly instead of calling a TV show? After all, he's giving interviews now.

Is Amorth just a nut?

How long before Amorth finds himself missing?

Finally, if Amorth is proven correct, what will the Catholic church do about the matter? The usual, nothing?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: U.S. States That Prohibit Godless Americans From Holding Public Office

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
U.S. States That Prohibit Godless Americans From Holding Public Office
May 25th 2012, 20:19

http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/...ohibit-godless

And some deny that xian privilege exists......

Quote:

By Matthew Bulger

With election season upon us, and a near constant stream of public jabs and rebuttals between incumbents and their challengers, we should focus on something besides the Americans that are running for office. Instead, let's turn our attention to a rather peculiar set of state laws relating to elections and nonreligious Americans.

It's well known that there aren't many open atheists in Congress or in state government, and that atheists aren't held in high esteem by potential voters. Some question our dedication to what they view as a "Christian nation" while others feel that they can't relate to a candidate who doesn't share the same faith as they do.

Whatever the reason, public distrust isn't the only means by which atheists are discouraged for running from office. In fact, running for a spot in state legislatures as an atheist is outright illegal in some states. Obviously, these laws are trumped by the "No Religious Test Clause" of the United States Constitution, which is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina's constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected. This provision of the state constitution is similar to provisions in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The provisions follow:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

So, what do you think of these laws? Are they an affront to the secular nature of our local, state, and federal governments, or are they just antiquated but harmless relics from the past? Should there be an active effort to remove these anti-atheist provisions from the respective state constitutions, or should the nonreligious movement just let federal law trump these discriminatory provisions as conflicts arise?

I think that the legislatures of these states have a duty to eventually get around to removing these provisions and any other elements of their state constitutions that institutionalize discrimination. Now might not be the time due to the large number of pressing issues that plague this nation, but the change ought to eventually be made. Atheists, or any other religious minority for that matter, shouldn't have to go to court after winning an election just so that federal law is upheld and discrimination is rejected.

Matthew Bulger is the legislative and program assistant for the American Humanist Association.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Thursday, 24 May 2012

Secular Café: Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Should man rule over women for women's own good?
May 24th 2012, 22:21

Should man rule over women for women's own good?


Scriptures, and other myth's, say that God determined that men should rule over women. This gives form, --- in a demographic sense, ---- to our common and society, and says that our demographic pyramid should have a hierarchical shape and or form. This initiates tension and has God demonizing woman, as well as any notion of female equality with man.

His motive must be for the good of women. Somehow!
After all, sanctity of the family is one of the main points of morality.

God was arguably right for his time. Think in the barbaric way. Below the belt. Thank God that time is almost past. Women in our modern world do not need man's dubious ape like help. I hope you agree. Be honest now with yourself be you male or female.

Men have dominated women long enough I think. To give them equality would be justice.

What do you think?
What would real men do?
What would real women demand?
Do men and women have what it takes to be free?

Justice under law should be gender and age neutral, with limits, but with a good spirit of assuring equality. We do not administer that justice. We only give it lip service. Men are not walking their talk. Neither are women.

In Gods timocracy, a place of government in which love of honor is the ruling principle. All honors go to the Queen and her children. A king's first responsibility is to insure the veneration of his queen. Honor demands it. He accepts this burden and pleasure wisely. The Queen, as the Beta archetype is the life of the kingdom. The archetypal king's duty is to raise woman's position. That means that all men have the same duty. That of not denying women equality and elevating her.

Men. Be good kings. You are making good just men look bad. Step up.
God wills it.

Women. Be good queens and demand what is yours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wf...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iMBUoxLOmA


Regards
DL

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Secular Café: The Archbishop of York again

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
The Archbishop of York again
May 23rd 2012, 09:35

This man is beginning to get my goat! I don't actually disagree with most of what he says here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/92...n-Sentamu.html

But this bit is disingenuous, to say the least.

Quote:

For too long, he argues, discussion about end-of-life matters have been dominated by debates about euthanasia and the numbers of people travelling to the Dignitas assisted suicide centre in Switzerland.

"There is a danger, when someone articulates alternatives to 'assisted dying', that we can be seen as somehow uncaring or out of touch with the suffering of families," he says.
No, you pratt, it's not that anyone objects to alternatives, but we do think you're bloody arrogant and uncaring when you vote in the House of Lords against legalisation of assisted dying!

I think the fact that he keeps cropping up in the news like this is part of his undeclared but extended campaign to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions