Osama bin Laden was killed and buried at sea, according to US authorities. Bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of thousands. Most notably, he was the mastermind behind the twin towers attack that killed thousands of innocent civilians. He is a mass murderer and should go down in history as one of the most evil men that ever lived.

Yet, I hear cries of anger from some Muslims about the manner in which he was buried. They claim that out of respect for the man's religion we should have offered him a more proper Muslim burial, presumably one that has his shattered skull pointing towards Mecca. They claim that the manner in which he was disposed of is shameful and meant to humiliate Muslims.

Where is their shame in what this man did? Why are they not disavowing him as a disgrace to the Muslim religion? Can a man who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent people be looked upon as a shining example to other Muslims? Apparently so, because they are silent about his atrocities and instead focus on the fact that he was a Muslim, which appears to trump all other attributes a person may have. If you are a Muslim, it seems, you have a license to kill - in the name of Allah, of course.

The Muslim world should disavow people like bin Laden if they truly believe theirs is a "religion of peace". The fact that they are more worried about his method of burial shows that they look upon him as a Muslim first, and as a murderer second.

This is what religious fundamentalism breeds - a willful blindness to barbarity and wickedness.

The Moral Landscape: Q & A with Sam Harris

1. Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions?

Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world—and there clearly are—then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.

2. Are you saying that science can answer such questions?

Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors—ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.

3. But can’t moral claims be in conflict? Aren’t there many situations in which one person’s happiness means another’s suffering?

There are some circumstances like this, and we call these contests “zero-sum.” Generally speaking, however, the most important moral occasions are not like this. If we could eliminate war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse, etc.—these changes would be good, on balance, for everyone. There are surely neurobiological, psychological, and sociological reasons why this is so—which is to say that science could potentially tell us exactly why a phenomenon like child abuse diminishes human well-being.

But we don’t have to wait for science to do this. We already have very good reasons to believe that mistreating children is bad for everyone. I think it is important for us to admit that this is not a claim about our personal preferences, or merely something our culture has conditioned us to believe. It is a claim about the architecture of our minds and the social architecture of our world. Moral truths of this kind must find their place in any scientific understanding of human experience.

4. What if some people simply have different notions about what is truly important in life? How could science tell us that the actions of the Taliban are in fact immoral, when the Taliban think they are behaving morally?

As I discuss in my book, there may be different ways for people to thrive, but there are clearly many more ways for them not to thrive. The Taliban are a perfect example of a group of people who are struggling to build a society that is obviously less good than many of the other societies on offer. Afghan women have a 12% literacy rate and a life expectancy of 44 years. Afghanistan has nearly the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the world. It also has one of the highest birthrates. Consequently, it is one of the best places on earth to watch women and infants die. And Afghanistan’s GDP is currently lower than the world’s average was in the year 1820. It is safe to say that the optimal response to this dire situation—that is to say, the most moral response—is not to throw battery acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning to read. This may seem like common sense to us—and it is—but I am saying that it is also, at bottom, a claim about biology, psychology, sociology, and economics. It is not, therefore, unscientific to say that the Taliban are wrong about morality. In fact, we must say this, the moment we admit that we know anything at all about human well-being.

The lectures of Col. R. G. Ingersoll

......

The instant we admit that a book is too sacred to be doubted, or even reasoned about, we are mental serfs.

.....

An Honest God is the Noblest Work of Man. Each nation has created a god, and the god has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved, and he was invariably found on the side of those in power. Every god was intensely patriotic, and detested all nations but his own. All these gods demanded praise, flattery and worship. Most of them were pleased with sacrifice, and the smell of innocent blood has ever been considered a divine perfume.

.....

For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown and to misery hereafter. The few have said, "Think!" The many have said, "Believe!"

Read more at Robert G. Ingersoll's 44 Complete Lectures.

Also available as audio books at LibriVox.
......

Tweet

Missionaries Of Hate

Anti-Gay Ugandan Pastor Martin Ssempa Shows Gay Porn Videos In Church

Click here to watch Vanguard's documentary
"Missionaries Of Hate", Pt.1.

Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor, has shown hardcore pornography to a crowd gathered in a Kampala church in an effort to stir anti-homosexual sentiment, AFP reports.

"The major argument homosexuals have is that what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is nobody's business, but do you know what they do in their bedrooms?," he told the crowd of 300, which included children.

Ssempa's actions came after Ugandan lawmakers tabled a bill that would enforce various punishments, including death penalties, for homosexual practices.

While popular in Uganda, the bill provoked international outrage, with President Barack Obama calling it "odious"

While showing graphic pornographic pictures to the crowd, Ssempa described the images. "This one is eating another man's anus," he said of one, before going into more graphic descriptions.

"Is this what Obama wants to bring to Africa?" he asked the crowd.

Nthateng Mhlambiso, a representative of the African gay rights group Behind the Mask, criticized the pastor's tactics. "Showing pornography in church in the presence of minors is twisted homophobic propaganda, where homosexuality is equated to pedophilia and pornography," he told the BBC.

However Ssempa has remained unrepentant, claiming he will take the pornography to the parliament.

Click here to watch Vanguard's documentary 
"Missionaries Of Hate", Pt.1.

To Sum It Up...

Christianity is the belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your Master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

There will NEVER be peace in the world until God and Allah go the same way as Apollo and Zeus - nothing more than interesting beliefs of ignorant people.

-Unknown

Bring the Pope to Justice

By Christopher Hitchens



Detain or subpoena the pope for questioning in the child-rape scandal? You must be joking! All right then, try the only alternative formulation: declare the pope to be above and beyond all local and international laws, and immune when it comes to his personal and institutional responsibility for sheltering criminals. The joke there would be on us.

The case for bringing the head of the Catholic hierarchy within the orbit of law is easily enough made. All it involves is the ability to look at a naked emperor and ask the question "Why?" Mentally remove his papal vestments and imagine him in a suit, and Joseph Ratzinger becomes just a Bavarian bureaucrat who has failed in the only task he was ever set—that of damage control. The question started small. In 2002, I happened to be on Hardball With Chris Matthews, discussing what the then attorney general of Massachusetts, Thomas Reilly, had termed a massive cover-up by the church of crimes against children by more than a thousand priests. I asked, why is the man who is prima facie responsible, Cardinal Bernard Law, not being questioned by the forces of law and order? Why is the church allowed to be judge in its own case and enabled in effect to run private courts where gross and evil offenders end up being "forgiven"? This point must have hung in the air a bit, and perhaps lodged in Cardinal Law's own mind, because in December of that year he left Boston just hours before state troopers arrived with a subpoena seeking his grand-jury testimony. Where did he go? To Rome, where he later voted in the election of Pope Benedict XVI and now presides over the beautiful church of Santa Maria Maggiore, as well as several Vatican subcommittees.

Uncircumcised too, by the looks of it!

Oh, the Catholics are up in arms about a depiction of their Lord and Saviour that appears to show him with a huge penis. From Towleroad:

The controversial crucifix has caused a deep divide among members of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church, where it hangs above the main altar. 'There are a couple people who have left the parish,' said the Rev. Philip Seeton, the church’s pastor. 'There are people in the parish who don’t like it and have stayed.' Critics of the crucifix take issue with what appears to be a large penis covering Jesus’ abdominal area. Seeton said the portion of the crucifix in question is meant to be Jesus’ abdomen 'showing distension' — not a penis. Seeton said, 'I’ve had people who have vocally said that that’s what they see there. I’ve had people who have been just as vocal who said that’s not what they’re seeing there.' Janet Jaime, a local iconography artist who designed the crucifix, had no comment.

I don't know... I think it looks kind of cute.