Religion

United Nations Names Iran to Commission on the Status of Women

|

This is just a mistranslation! The Quran only says to beat them lightly.

Because women always suffer the most in earthquakes, the United Nations has named the grrrl-powered Islamic Republic of Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women. The UN made the move after Iran withdrew its equally comic bid to join the UN Human Rights Council last week.

The UN made the move with little fanfare. Needless to say, liberal commenters in the west are too preoccupied with picking on the pope and making sure Comedy Central employees stay safe to take much interest. Thus it's left to the conservative media to spotlight Iran's record of government rape, stoning and whipping of wayward doxies. Here's Fox News:

The U.S. currently holds one of the 45 seats on the body, a position set to expire in 2012. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. did not return requests for comment on whether it actively opposed elevating Iran to the women's commission.

Iran's election comes just a week after one of its senior clerics declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes, a statement that created an international uproar — but little affected their bid to become an international arbiter of women's rights.

"Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," said the respected cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi.

Quranic fact: when you hang a woman you only need half as much rope.

National Review's Jay Nordlinger says by this point the joke has become pretty mainstream:

That is what the U.N. is for: the Kafkaesque. But the news about Iran is slightly hard for me to take just at the moment. I have been at the Oslo Freedom Forum, listening to, among others, Marina Nemat. She is one of the countless girls and women who have been seized by the regime, thrown into Evin Prison — one of the darkest places on earth — tortured, raped, and otherwise battered. The regime has been doing this right from the beginning. Right from about 1980. And it is going on now. Rape, in particular, has been a constant tool of the regime: a tool of punishment and control. Why do we know Marina Nemat's name, of all the girls and women who have been through this? Once escaped to the West, she wrote a book, Prisoner of Tehran: One Woman's Story of Survival Inside an Iranian Prison. It is a harrowing, mind-scrambling story…

We are reminded once more of the truth that Solzhenitsyn uttered many years ago: The U.N. is not the united nations but the united governments or regimes. And that body at large is no better than the governments or regimes that compose it. And, though the world has gone far in democratization, there are still many regimes that are as savage as can be imagined. And they sit on such panels as human- and women's-rights commissions. You know? Understandable — but still, as I said, hard to swallow.

Here is Marina Nemat's book

You can almost see the hair on this whore.

.

If their sisters in the west are remaining silent, however, women in Iran are not. Radio Free Europe reports on a protest by an Iranian women's group:

The letter refers to Iranian laws that gender-equality groups say discriminate against women. These include statutes relating to such matters as divorce, child custody, education, and the ability to choose a husband.

Women have been "arrested, beaten, and imprisoned for peacefully seeking change of such laws," the letter says. "The Iranian government will certainly use [CSW membership] to curtail the progress and advancement of women."

Radio Farda spoke to Shadi Sadr, a women's rights activist and one of the letter's signatories. Sadr explained that for years the UN has asked Iran to sign the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Iran, however, has refused to do so.

"Under such conditions, Iran's attempt to join such an institution [as the CSW] is doomed to fail," Sadr said.

Here's the relevant passage from the UN's press release:

Next, the Council elected 11 new members to fill an equal number of vacancies on the Commission on the Status of Women for four-year terms beginning at the first meeting of the Commission's fifty-sixth session in 2011 and expiring at the close of its fifty-ninth session in 2015.  The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Zimbabwe were elected from the Group of African States; Iran and Thailand were elected from the Group of Asian States; Estonia and Georgia were elected from the Group of Eastern European States; Jamaica was elected from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States; and Belgium, Netherlands and Spain were elected from the Group of Western European and Other States.

At least she's not wearing makeup like a slut.

While western feminists are declining to make the feminist case against Iran's participation in the commission, I'd like to raise a Quranic objection. The commission's website says it is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women." That position is in direct violation of the Holy Quran, which was handed down by Charles Nelson Reilly Himself to the Prophet Muhummunah (PBUH). The holy book makes clear that one woman is equal to half a man in inheritance, in legal testimony, in financial matters, and even in capital murder cases. How can a self-declared Islamic Republic support an equality that goes against a holy book filled with commandments like this:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.

To learn more about women, read Surah 4 in all its sisterly glory. I understand that all religions, in their all-too-slow surrender to enlightenment, have to deny, cover up, or otherwise disappear important sections of their retarded holy books.  But Iran has forefronted its devotion to the literal foundations of its rapist religion. So it's Iran, not the UN, that needs to recognize its choice. You can have liberal, rational modernity or you can try to bend the world government to your religious psychosis. But you can't do both.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

389 responses to “United Nations Names Iran to Commission on the Status of Women

  1. Suntanned women to be arrested under Islamic dress code

    Iran has warned suntanned women and girls who looked like “walking mannequins” will be arrested as part of a new drive to enforce the Islamic dress code.

    1. I don’t get why folks are so scared of these Muslim freaks. Just show a nudie pic to them and apparently they’ll lose all control and start frantically masturbating on it.

      1. Peace through porn. I believe countries that outlaw porn are more abusive toward their own women.

        1. There is something to that. But it is deeper than that. Countries that outlaw porn usually do so because they have really crazy views of women and sexuality. Societies that systematically mistreat women, tend to be worse in a lot of ways.

          1. I’m not saying one causes the other, but that there is a correlation between freedom of sexual expression and the status women enjoy in a society.

            There’s also the issue of censorship: a country that outlaws porn most likely outlaws many other forms of free speech. Added to that, religious repression as a way to exert control over an individual’s thoughts and behaviors.

            I believe extremists, particularly of the current Islamic stripe, suffer from self-loathing and repression. And the more say, the 9/11 hijackers got laid, had a beer, and fucking behaved like reasonable people, the less likely they would have willingly joined their particular death cult.

            Give the fundies porn. Lots of it, airdropped in to the hinterlands of Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.

            1. Does ETC include upstate South Carolina?

              1. Haha, I don’t know. Are there nutbag death cultists in upstate SC? I’m from NY, and people like that tend to be found only on public access TV.

            2. That was my solution. Drop massive amounts of Snickers and porn.

              Boobs, not bombs!

          2. Porn is not outlawed in Iran, it is in fact famously one of the biggest consumers of pornography.
            Sex clubs were recently outlawed in Iceland, which has amongst the best record of equality for women.
            They were made illegal because in these times of economic crisis, women should not become compelled to sell themselves for money it was felt.
            Porn, crime and selling people go together.
            I am not saying that it should be banned BTW, just fixing your ‘facts’.
            The majority of sex workers do what they do from sheer poverty and would rather be doing anything else. Banning sectors of the sex industry kicks out the creeps who prey on misery.

        2. Man, that is the best bumper sticker phrase I have ever seen!
          Peace through porn
          equality through ejaculation
          and so on…

          1. Concordance through Cumming

          2. Concordance through Cumming

          3. New World Orgasm.

            Unfortunately, the ‘repression of religion’ argument seems to be fairly successful in protecting some of the scumbags stateside. Revolution Muslim has turned the word Mohammed into profanity, and the Catholic Church is being allowed to aid and abet pedophiles. (Which, being a felony, should qualify the Church as a criminal organization) I’m all for tolerance, but religious tolerance is being taken a bit too far.

        3. If only Charles Manson and his followers had been less uptight, more willing to have sex and use drugs . . .

        4. Fortunately, the western nations only outlaw CHILD pornography.

      2. Nudie Picture lol it seems that a womans hair is to much for them sick bastards

      3. Nudie Picture lol it seems that a womans hair is to much for them sick bastards

        1. Are you afflicted? these are serious issues, not facebook comments. Nudie pictures, really?

      4. Nudie Picture lol it seems that a womans hair is to much for them sick bastards

    2. I m Iranian and I know what it means, for you it might be funny, but you cant imagine how dareful iranain women are and what a risk they take to come out fashionable… if they get arrested they can face any charges…
      They are not obssessed to put make up but this is a way of showing their Opposition, Viva Iran and Viva Iranians

    1. It is. The UN has accomplished nothing since the Korean War. It is a menace that does nothing but give cover to despots and killers. We need to walk away from it and defund it.

      1. Sympathetic, but no. We need to stay in there so we can muddle things. That is, assuming we had a government (and a large swath of the population) that wasn’t begging to be the UN’s pet.

        But I say keep your enemies very close. Though it doesn’t preclude us from setting up an Anglospheric Council including the UK, Canada, OZ, NZ, us and India.

    2. Oh Crap! I’m agreeing with both Xeones and John.

      The singularity is at hand.

      Really, we should just quit. They can send us a quarterly newsletter from their new headquarters (if they can find any country willing to put up with the lazy corrupt diplomats).

      I promise to read it.

      1. I’m afraid that you agree with me, too.

        1. Life’s a bitch and then you die.

    3. I think the entire planet would be much better off if the more liberal, sane countries (relatively speaking) told the bad-boy countries, “No, you can’t be on Human Rights Commissions when you’re all fucked up.”

      This is one of the big problems for allowing false equivalencies to take root.

      1. It’s like when you’re trying to get your kickball/beer drinking team together and you ask some cool people to join. But a couple of tools hear about it as well. You need to not be a nice person then, and have the ovaries to say no.

  2. Is anyone else turned on by these photos?

    1. Very poor attempt at humor.

      1. Too soon?

      2. I liked it.

        1. Thanks. I’ll be here all millennium.

    2. Not unless they’re of pre-teens. Hey, we do have something in common!

    3. I was going to say the same thing. That first one is mega hot.

      1. Per pic #3: What the hell was Paris Hilton doing in Iran?

  3. I understand that all religions, in their all-too-slow surrender to enlightenment, have to deny, cover up, or otherwise disappear important sections of their retarded holy books.

    No comment; I just figured this was well worth repeating.

    1. Yes, always good to be reminded what charming people atheists are. Note, all holy books are “retarded”. That would include the Vegas, the Tao, all of Buddhists teachings, the New Testament, the Old Testament, and so forth. All of them are just “retarded”.

      You just can’t get that level of discourse unless you are around atheists.

      1. Make that Vedas. Damn typing.

        1. Not that the Vega wasn’t a retarded car.

        2. Oh, John, you just had to go there. Would have been far better had you simply STFU. However,

          So, John, before you start hammering on rationalists, how does it feel to be a financial supporter of, and apologist for, a child-rape-enabling international criminal conspiracy? Serious question, John…

          Any idea how much you’ve contributed, and how much of that went to pay settlements, hush money, etc?

          Anything you’ve done to offset the damage?

          1. since I am not a Catholic, not a cent. Take it up with the pope not me.

            1. My bad. Thought I remembered that you were catholic.

              1. $1,000 a year.

                1. + send groceries to food pantry every week.

          2. And further, who ever said atheists are always rationalists? Atheists believe in all sorts of hokum. Nearly everyone, atheist or theist, is irrational in some manner. It is called being human.

            1. So happy that my comment @12:45 sunk in just a little.

            2. Of course no human is completely rational at all times. This is the “background noise” of irrationality as part of human nature. The diff is that believers, in addition to the normal human irrationality, choose to believe an texts and philosophical systems that are increasingly falsifiable. Rationalists have begun the path of freeing ourselves from patent nonsense, believers not so much.

              1. Correct. Getting loaded an hour before an important sales meeting is irrational. Believing in the Resurrection is retarded.

              2. I call BS.

                Have you ever said you ‘loved’ someone?

                So many atheists believe in love when they have no evidence for it.

            3. Hokum is a valid religion and I am deeply offended that you associate it with Atheism!!

            4. Why just atheists, John? Do you have no consideration for the deists and agnostics?

              1. Well, I’m Agnostic-going-on-atheist, but I have great respect for many people of faith from the Dali Lama to my now departed Gideon Grandfather (you know, the folks that puit Bibles in hotel rooms). SO we arn’t ALL intolerant jerks 🙂

                1. Agnosticism is atheism lite. Either you believe god exists or you believe he doesn’t. If you’re “not sure” about the existence of god that counts as not believing in my book.

                2. Just a quick comment, this always bugs me. I am aware of the corruption in common usage, but being agnostic means that you believe a god is unknowable. It makes no claims on the status of your belief in a god. There are many agnostics who believe in a god’s existence. Rather, the term I believe you’re looking for would be weak atheist or negative atheist.

          3. “So, John, before you start hammering on rationalists, how does it feel to be a financial supporter of, and apologist for, a child-rape-enabling international criminal conspiracy?”

            a reference to the UN?
            http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/…..index.html

      2. Pointing out that atheists are humans and are therefore subject to the same errors in reasoning as theists does not counter the fact that “holy books” were and are written for primitives.

        1. The entire cannon of religious philosophy and thought are just for “primitives”. I honestly couldn’t parody atheists any better.

          Seriously, does being an atheist require you to be a philistine?

          1. The best-known “holy” books are canned philosophies. They were intended to be disseminated orally by “holy” men to an illiterate population. They contain many valid principles and many harmful ones, but their insistence on the supremacy of faith over reason is their fatal error, especially in an age when so many people are literate and educated. That’s why the Bible and Koran, today, appeal mostly to primitives.

            1. Just don’t forget that there are rational people who can believe in both God and science. Quite a high number of them, too!

              1. Which shows that human brains are really good at compartmentalizing thought.

              2. There’s quite a bit of difference in believing in God and believing that the Bible or Koran are the word of God. Quite a bit of difference.

                1. Yes indeed. People forget that holy books like the Bible are the interpretation of the receiver’s view of the word of God. In the Bible’s case, it only includes four of the twelve apostles’ narratives, the gospel of Thomas was deliberately eliminated. Perhaps because it was seen as contrary to the philosophy being touted as the one and only Christian word of God.

                  Is there any truth to the observation that God has no religion?

          2. No, but being a Catholic requires you to be a cannibal vampire.

            Bada bing

          3. Yeah, the problem with that “they were all priminitives” argument is that they weren’t all primitives, as shown by the secular literature written at the same time. Very early Greek lit holds up a whole lot better than the Old Testament, and stuff written at the same time as the New Testament is incomparably better. Ditto for the Vedas, the iChing, etc. with respect to their own national literatures. The Quran came out of a thriving literary culture in pagan Mecca that may or may not have been more intelligent reading. (We’ll never know because it was all destroyed for being un-Islamic, just as the bulk of Greek and Roman lit was lost for being un-Christian.) Hell’s bells, when the Book of Mormon was written the works of Byron, Jane Austen, Washington Irving and Stendahl were either still new or still coming out.

            The problem is not antiquity. It is specific to religious literature, which aims to answer rather than question, control rather than liberate, prohibit rather than allow, tell rather than show, command rather than persuade.

            And I’m not an atheist. I have no idea whether there’s a goddess. But that doesn’t mean I have to pretend your holy book (whatever it may be) has merit when it obviously does not. If you don’t like hearing that, tough luck. Console yourself by knowing that you and I will die long before religion does.

            1. “And I’m not an atheist. I have no idea whether there’s a goddess.

              Oh Tim, let me tell you, there is a goddess. Her name is Candice Swanpoel and I saw her strutting around – I mean, ahem, making earthquakes as they say – in my girlfriend’s Victoria Secret catalog last night.

              Hallelujah!

              1. Thank You for the wonderful google image search. Very nice indeed.

                1. Anytime.

              2. Candice Swanpoel

                I’ll be in my bunk once I pick up my jaw from off the floor.

              3. Oh Tim, let me tell you, there is a goddess. Her name is Candice Swanpoel and I saw her strutting around

                Tell that girl’s boyfriend to take her out and get her a damned steak, for goddess’ sake.

            2. Tim,

              You are just ignorant buffoon. Forget my religion. You are talking about any religion. Have you ever read any Eastern Religions? Have you ever the Talmud? If you have and can say what you did, you are an idiot. You are just a philistine and not a serious person. If you don’t like being called what you are, tough shit.

              I am not offended Tim. I am just disappointed in you.

              1. I think Tim is being very specific in his criticisms though he leaves the door wide open by just saying “religion”. You can’t praise Greek literature for being enlightened when its all about their mysticism and predating Islam lies a long tradition of the Zoroastrin faith, being more secular or not from Islam not withstanding, heavily influenced their writing.

                I think the better argument would be that Monotheism and its subsequent blinders towards alternate explanation of existence is something that should be criticised more that just the seeking of truth (which in a broadest sense describes religion/philosphy/science together)

                1. You can’t praise Greek literature for being enlightened when its all about their mysticism and predating Islam lies a long tradition of the Zoroastrin faith, being more secular or not from Islam not withstanding, heavily influenced their writing.

                  I’d say the plays of Sophocles, which predate the New Testament and may be concurrent with the writing of some parts of the Old, stand up as literature you can still get something out of even if they are soaked in superstition. The Iliad and Odyssey are even older than that. And the Greeks also wrote a lot of math and philosophy stuff, or so I’m told. And much of Latin literature (which has been getting unfairly badmouthed for 2,000 years) is also prior to or concurrent with the New Testament. Again, much of that is non-religious and some of it is pretty clearly irreligious, or at least unpious.

                  1. Im not sure the Iliad and Odyssey count as secular literature.

              2. The Talmud tells you not to eat pork because it’s, like, unclean. And that women are unclean after they menstruate. Eastern religions teach about reincarnation, like you’re going to come back as a gecko.

              3. OMGWTFBBQ “PHILISTINE” :O *GASP*

                How erudite of you! Your witty insult has changed my view and I now totally agree with your review of ancient literature!!1

            3. the problem with that “they were all priminitives” argument is that they weren’t all primitives, as shown by the secular literature written at the same time

              Good point, but the mysticism of the holy books didn’t influence educated contemporaries (who could write) nearly as much and in the same way as the illiterate majority, who could (and did, with gruesome regularity) torture and kill their intellectual betters at the drop of a hat.

              1. Early Christians were generally the middle class and educated. And yes, shockingly enough a religion that claimed everyone’s equality before God appealed to people.

              2. The concept of religion as an intellectual monopoly that must stamp out competitors really arises with monotheism.

                When you think about it, that makes sense, polytheism by its nature admits to many gods. When you look around the ancient world you see all kinds of tolerance for religious faiths, not because they were more enlightened, its just the way peeps thought about god(s) back in the day.

                Monotheism by its nature claims one being, one mythos, as divine, inversely everything else must be wrong, or at best very un-divine. This almost invites political alignment because any regime of any kind makes essentially the same claim. But before the advent of widespread monotheism, pogroms on intellectuals and such were exceedingly rare.

            4. Singularity makes us immortal in under 20yrs, Timmeh, ergo, you, my Irish-Lebanese friend, have to deal with me for e-ternity.

            5. Singularity makes us immortal in under 20yrs, Timmeh, ergo, you, my Irish-Lebanese friend, have to deal with me for e-ternity.

            6. “It is specific to religious literature, which aims to answer rather than question, control rather than liberate, prohibit rather than allow, tell rather than show, command rather than persuade.”

              Tim that is the dumbest thing anyone has ever written on a comment board for Hit and Run. That is below Tony and Lefitti and Juanita. That is just profoundly wrong. You don’t think the New Testament aims to persuade? Why do you think it is mostly written in parable and metaphor? And if you think that the either the old Testament or the New Testament doesn’t contain any seeking and is clear and just commands, you are either really smart or profoundly stupid. I am guessing the latter.

              1. that is the dumbest thing anyone has ever written on a comment board for Hit and Run

                “Ever”? It isn’t even the dumbest thing written in the last five minutes.

              2. Yes, Jesus and his masterful rhetorical techniques of “you will burn” or “cut off your limbs” or “drown this man with a millstone” or “natural sexual thoughts are a sin”.

            7. It is specific to religious literature, which aims to answer rather than question, control rather than liberate, prohibit rather than allow, tell rather than show, command rather than persuade

              Are you reading the same Gospels I read? Whether you buy into his divinity or not, you have to admit that Jesus was questioning the authorities of his time, liberating people from the mosaic law hard-ons like the Pharisees, persuading people with parables, etc.

              1. Are you reading the same Gospels I read?

                I agree that Jesus is a cool guy, though not as cool as Peter Parker. But using the old page-thickness test on my bible, I get one part gospels (stories with lecturing — ratio varies by book); one part letters of Paul (nothing but lecturing); a quarter part Acts (all stories: my favorite part of the NT); a third of a part Revelation (moonbat craziness with neither instructional nor literary interest). So the balance is still in favor of lecturing.

                You know what nobody ever mentions about the New Testament? How many satanic possessions it has. You can’t really appreciate this unless you read it (not recommended) or hang out with modern evangelical demon-hunters (highly recommended). I once heard a born-again caster-out of demons point out that when he started reading La Biblia he was impressed by how many demons there were in it. And damn if he wasn’t right! Every five minutes Jesus is casting demons out of somebody or into something or both. I am not making fun when I say that it’s not clear you can be a believing Christian if you don’t believe that demonic possession is a common occurrence.

                So peace, John! It’s not me talking. It’s Azriel. Or maybe Gargamel.

                1. There are a lot of them. Of course people in first century Palestine believed in such things. So it is not surprising that they would interpret events in such a like.

                  It is funny that read the New Testament and all you notice is the possessions. It is the most profoundly strange religious text ever written. Characters go in and out for no apparent reason. Stories are left unfinished. It is virtually impossible to get through. It is nothing like any other text I have ever read. One thing is for sure. It wasn’t made up as some grand plot to create a new religion as the more ignorant atheists claim. No one would make a religious text that reads like that. It would read like the Iliad or Genesis for that matter. It would be consistent and tell a completely novelized story. The New Testament does none of that, which to me makes it a fascinating document.

                  And all you see are the demons?

                  1. There are a lot of them. Of course people in first century Palestine believed in such things.

                    Why did you have to bring Yassir Arafat into this, John?

                2. I think there is more curing of leprosy than casting out of demons (although, its close) and yet I dont believe leprosy to be a common occurrence.

              2. No, he is not reading anything.

            8. Jane Austen

              I really dont think that proves the point you were trying to make.

            9. Tim it’s a bit of unfair cherry picking to compare classical Greece, one of the most amazing explosions of human thought anywhere, to any other particular writing scene. Also the Greeks were not secular. Also the Greek authors had a huge advantage in that the stories you are reading were *not* written by a committee.

            10. You really don’t think holy books have no merit?

              Nearly all of them talk about the ‘golden rule’.

              That alone has a lot more merit than nearly all other literature.

              1. JB, are you saying no literature besides holy books demonstrate the golden rule? At least great literature that does so has interesting characters and plot lines without telling me I’m unclean for dumb shit.

          4. “Retarded” my not be the most accurate term for The Bible as a text. It’s a misogynistic, episodic mishmash tale of one group’s repeated attempts to use violence and social conditioning to gain control over another, and while the groups (or individuals) battling for power change, the plot basically repeats itself ad nauseum…and the hero’s a bastard. In other words, Justification for Tyrants, 101.

            Most of the primarily philosophical (athiest) sacred texts like the Upanishads or the Tao te Ching do not discuss beating women, taking over power by force, or ruling anything.

            1. Actually, the Bible isn’t misogynistic. You obviously haven’t read it.

              1. 1 Timothy 2:12, ignoramus.

                1. A verse or two here and there versus several books about heroic women. On the whole, the Bible isn’t misogynistic.

          5. Seriously, does being an atheist require you to be a philistine?

            Couldn’t have said that any better.

      3. Both the Old and New Testament make it quite plain that God has an unhealthy obsession with the shape of my genitalia; since I have an Innie, God doesn’t like me as much as those with an Outie.

        And, of course, slaves in the Old South who tried to escape to the north violated the New Testament dictum that slaves obey their masters. John, do you believe slaves who try to escape their masters violate the laws of God? St. Paul certainly thought so.

        1. so because they contain sections you object to, the entire thing is “just retarded”. And because the Old and New Testament contain things that you object to, all religious texts go out with them.

          You are some kind of free thinker there Jennifer.

          1. I’ll repeat the question I posted further down: I’d sincerely like to know how you decide which parts of the Bible are the divinely inspired word of God, and which parts need to be ignored? I’m going to guess you do not support the death penalty for those who work on the sabbath, nor do you think parents have the right — let alone the holy obligation — to kill their disobedient children. Yet the Bible commands you do both.

            1. The death penalty for those who work on the Sabbath is in the old testament. Since I am not a radical Orthadox Jew, it is not a problem.

              1. The New Testament orders slaves to obey their masters. What’s your take on that, John?

                1. It got it wrong. So what? That doesn’t mean it didn’t get a lot of it right. Or that Tim’s statement was in any way justified.

                  You don’t believe in the Bible. That is your choice. But, if you walk around hating it and dismissing it, you are missing out on a lot of wisdom. I am not a Hindu, but the Baga Vad Gita is a great piece of writing with a lot of wisdom in it. So are some of the Quranic commentaries (I have never been able to get the Quaran at all). Same with the Talmid.

                  You don’t have to believe in the religion to get some of the wisdom from it. Walking like you do saying that all religious thought is “retarded” just makes you look like an uneducated buffoon. It really does.

                  1. “It got it wrong?” Are you sure? For a mere human to say the Word of God is wrong takes some serious chutzpah. So how do you determine which words of God are right, and which are wrong? For all you know you’ve got it ass-backwards, and the “slaves obey your masters” part is right while the “love-n-forgiveness” bit was all a giant typo. How do you know?

                    1. That is right I don’t know. For all you know you are wrong to think there is no God. That is why it is so hard to be human. You are like 30 years old. Are you just figuring out that the really big questions about life are hard? Are you so profoundly ignorant of religion that you think that to be a believer is to think that the literal interpretation of the bible is the only interpretation and never doubt? Seriously? Did you got to school?

                    2. Jennifer vs. John, a classic war of wrods.

                    3. Spare the wrod spoil the chili.

                      Or something like that.

                      I think it’s in Duderriomy

                    4. John, at least you admit you don’t know. But then why do you argue so vociferously against the idea that you might not be right? Especially since, by your own admission, you discount the Old Testament and a lot of the New Testament … and as for the parts of the Bible that got it “right” by your view — well, things like “Don’t steal” and “don’t murder” can be found in pretty much every religious text, and secular morality guides as well. So what good things does the Bible offer that I can’t just as easily find in my own state’s legal statutes? Connecticut won’t let me bear false witness against my neighbor either.

                    5. There is nothing that says things like “don’t steal” have to be that way. In some societies stealing from other tribe is considered a duty. And there is more to the New Testament than don’t steal and don’t lie. There is love your enemies. There is turn the other cheek. There are any number of parables about life and how to live it. Those things you will not find in the Connecticut law. Read the Acts sometime. It is an amazing story of people doing some really profound things. Only dipshits like Tim don’t think there is any value there.

                    6. Read the Acts sometime. It is an amazing story of people doing some really profound things.

                      Chapter 5 was profound indeed. Remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira? Like all other early Christians, they were supposed to sell all their property and donate it to the commune in which they lived, but when they tried to keep some of their private property for themselves God struck them dead on the spot, kinda like how Stalin handled the recalcitrant kulaks 2,000 years later.

                      The New Testament God does not approve of selfish libertarian notions like private property, John. He’s more of a Commie.

                    7. Ananias lied about what he had. He joined and agreed to do it and then lied and held some back. The point of the story is give all of yourself, don’t lie and hold some things back. It isn’t about Stalinism.

                    8. Not to be snarky, but I’ve always wondered about that. After 9/11 I didn’t see too many xians running around loving on al qaeda and demanding the US turn the other cheek. It seemed more of a “love your enemy…unless he’s dangerous, then kill him” thing. I find it hard to believe Jesus was only referring to loving enemies that *aren’t* dangerous.
                      Heck, you don’t need to love those folks, just ignore them.

                    9. Lots of them did. And the ones who didn’t, myself included failed to live up to the ideal. We should love our enemies. But we do have a right to defend ourselves.

                  2. So it sounds like you agree with Tim’s point–that Christians choose to defy or ignore parts of the Bible that would hinder (or “retard”) them from behaving in a modern, enlightened way?

                2. Slaves in that culture were more akin to indentured servants. They were not the plantation slaves that you are thinking of.

                3. Have you actually read Philemon?

                  The message to slave owners is just as clear. Maybe even more so.

              2. The death penalty for those who work on the Sabbath is in the old testament. Since I am not a radical Orthadox Jew, it is not a problem.

                Since when does the Old Testament not apply to Christians? In particular the Pentateuch, from which the most of the crazy stuff comes? You can’t name a single Christian sect of any size that throws out the Pentateuch. Even people who were willing to wipe out whole towns over the question of whether the Book of Sirach was canonical agreed with each other on the centrality of Mosaic law. This sounds like cafeteria Christianity you’re peddling.

                1. Since about 2,000 years ago. It is a new covenant. People believe in it, but it is not the law any more. The law was renewed in the New Testament. It is not an eye for an eye anymore Tim. Christ rewrote and reinterpreted the law. Yeah, Christians don’t reject it as not from God. But they don’t recognize it as the ultimate law anymore either.

                  And as far as “cafeteria” snark. Sorry I think for myself and don’t fit into your preconceived irrational bigotry.

                  1. Since the Old Testament rules are no longer valid, does that mean the ten commandments no longer apply?

                  2. So why don’t you guys let off of the whole “Leviticus = no gay marriage” bullshit?

                    Especially since it’s not about marriage at all. It just says “kill the gays!”

                    1. Some extremely ignorant atheists on here.

                      Usually they aren’t nearly this obtuse.

          2. Sheesh, John. You rail all day long about the Muslim threat, but nobody can touch your precious Baby Jesus?

            1. Jesus is in the Quran too. When Mohammed goes on his night journey with Gabriel, he gets to go to heaven, meet the Big Man and see the Seven Levels of Heaven. I think Jesus is number five or so. I remember Abraham is number one, Moses is number two…can’t think of the others but its a rogue’s gallery of the Old Testament.

              The best part is when the author tries to quantify how big God is by saying it would take – if I remember correctly – a swallow a hundred days of flight just to traverse Allah’s earlobe (honest, you can’t make this shit up). You could tell the author was trying to think bigger-than-big, but of course what poor schmuck back in 600 AD-ish could contemplate distances on the order of light-years? Oh yeah, Archimedes did that kind of thinking (The Sand Reckoner is my favorite book from antiquity, read it!). I think we can all agree though that Muhammad was no Archimedes.

              Anyways, every time I read that part I want to ask myself: Was Gabriel talking about a European swallow or an African swallow!?

              1. I think we can all agree though that Muhammad was no Archimedes.

                I doubt any of the big religious dudes were anywhere near Archimedes. The Bible uses 3 as an estimate for pi. Your average 10th grader can at least get to 3.14.

                1. To one significant digit, pi is 3. Not an estimate, that is exact*.

                  *for the engineering definition of exact. Using 3.14 when you only have one significant digit in your other measurements is horribly wrong.

                  1. Well, in the Biblical context, to be exact to one significant digit, they would have said 31 cubits around rather than 30 cubits.

                    1. 31 is two significant digits.

                2. You haven’t been reading much on the state of public education lately hve you?

        2. Both the Old and New Testament make it quite plain that God has an unhealthy obsession with the shape of my genitalia

          God ain’t the only one, Jennifer. Ah-ooooh!

        3. You couldn’t escape me Jennifer.Once again, thank you for your vote.

      4. Not all holy books are entirely retarded, but they all have retarded parts and you know it. I’m not on a crusade against religion, but I am interested and all of the religions I have looked into do indeed have some retarded bits in their foundational texts. Sorry.

        1. Mustard doesn’t grow on trees.

      5. That would include the Vegas, the Tao, all of Buddhists teachings, the New Testament, the Old Testament, and so forth.

        I bolded only the texts you mentioned that I’ve read. Here’s a resource for your further study of the Good Book.
        Cruelty and Violence in the Bible

        It’s a long read with links to the King James version of the Bible. Deuteronomy is a fun place to start.

        Get back to me regarding the omnibenevolence of Yahweh after you’ve finished.

        1. Oops! Screwed up the link.

          Here it is, hopefully correct.
          Cruelty and Violence in the Bible

        2. Well. I am not a Jew. And while the Old Testament contains lots of violence, it also contains what became the basis of our legal system, and pretty much Western civilization. Plato’s Republic would be a pretty awful place to live. But only a retard would call it retarded.

          And if Christians are responsible for the violence in the old Testament or the various acts of violence committed by believers throughout history, then Atheists are responsible for atheistic fascism and communism.

          1. What about the New Testament dictate that slaves obey their masters? Those slaves who managed to escape to Canada back in the day — is God going to punish them for their disobedience?

            1. Apologies for posting this twice, but slaves in that society were indentured servants, not plantation. That admonition would not apply to the Old South, as it was clearly specific to that time and place in the context of the text.

            2. See fucking above. And read Philemon.

            3. Those slaves who managed to escape to Canada back in the day — is God going to punish them for their disobedience?

              Well duh! They’re in Canada weren’t they?

          2. You may have noticed that the old testament is considered the divinely inspired word of God by most Christian sects. Probably yours is among them.

            The link also has New Testament items to ponder over. Revelations is a blast.

            1. See my post below. I don’t believe in the literal truth of the bible. It is amazing how ignorant you people are. You honestly seem to think that every Christian is some kind of literal interpreting fundamentalist.

              1. If you aren’t willing to believe the literal truth of the bible. What is the point of following any of it? It’s either the Word of God or it’s fiction.

                1. No. That is a completely false choice. We are free beings. And we are fallen beings away from God. God either can take away our free will and thus pretty much destroy us as individuals or he can let us have free will and do all sorts of stupid and horrible things. And one of those things, is not understanding his message to us. It is perfectly consistent to think that the Bible, since it was written by humans, is an imperfect human expression of the word of God.

                  1. As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t believe in the literal Bible and have your own personal interpretation of God, you’re pretty much a dangerous, free-thinking individual standing just an inch away from atheists on the spectrum of unbelief.

                    It’s only in our relatively modern, liberal way of thinking about religion that someone as free-thinking as yourself can legitimately call himself religious.

              2. That’s not it, John. The problem is that many Christians are literalists when it suits their purposes to be so and metaphorists when that suits them better.

                Which, again, wouldn’t be any concern to atheists if they weren’t using it as a basis for laws and policy.

                1. What are the basis for our laws if not our preferences? What are atheists using for the basis of our laws? The divine book of rationalism? You want porn to be legal because you like it that way. Well good for you. I agree with you. Others don’t think so. And if there justification is the bible or some bullshit feminist study on violence, it really doesn’t make a difference. You are offended by Christians using the bible to determine their preference for law. Well, I am offended by liberals wanting to use what I consider junk science for law or worse utilitarians using their idea of the “common good” as the law. That is called political discourse. One side is nor more or less threatening than the other.

                  You only get your underwear in a wad about Christians because you don’t like them, not because they are any different than any other political group.

                  1. What are atheists using for the basis of our laws?

                    The absolute right of self-ownership. Any law that’s not about protecting that is bullshit. Do you really think that it’s the “don’t hurt people and don’t steal their stuff” portions of any religious text is what atheists object to being made in laws?

                    Any law the violations self-ownership is pure bullshit, no matter what source it comes from.

                    1. The absolute right of the self. Sugar Free. No one but the individual and the self. That is your preference. Good for you. But some people don’t look at it that way. Why should they listen to you? And who says they owe you shit or respect for your self?

                      That is just your preference. It has no more force than any one else’s preference. You act like “because I say so” is somehow any more or less persuasive than “this book says so” or “God says so”. It is not.

                    2. Your deliberate ignorance is as bad as joe’s. If you don’t believe in the right of self-ownership, then what the fuck are you doing on this board?

                      I don’t belong to you, your God or anyone else. I am no one’s slave.

                    3. I didn’t say I didn’t believe it. I am just saying I don’t see how it is any different than any other preference. You are so concerned about people basing laws on the Bible. But basing laws on the rational fashion of the time or whatever utopian ideals are running around.

                      My point is that the “bible” is not more or less threat than Ayn Rand or Marx or anything else.

                    4. My point is that the “bible” is not more or less threat than Ayn Rand or Marx or anything else.

                      So then on what basis is it any more entitled to deference? People say Ayn Rand’s stupid all the time. If literal truth doesn’t matter you can say Star Trek or the plays of Shakespeare or the Harry Potter Books are better guides to life than the bible. You can make the case that any of those are retarded in exactly the way I used the word: tending to impede development. Saying that about the Harry Potter books is the only thing Harold Bloom said that anybody will remember when he croaks.

                      So what is it that makes the bible immune to disdain in a way that Ulysses or Curious George as read by Werner Herzog is not?

                    5. I don’t think it is entitled to “deference” if by that you mean that no one can judge it. You are entitled to judge it. I judge it to. I just judge it to and think you are completely wrong in your judgment.

                      You act like I am objecting to the concept of judgment of criticism. No Tim, I am objecting to your careless and stupid criticism.

                    6. SugarFree, if we were at a bar, I’d buy you a drink.

                    7. The lack of comprehension of John’s points is illuminating.

                      Methinks many folks on here are quite ignorant of Christianity.

          3. John, I don’t think anyone is saying that all Christians are bad or stupid because of what some have done or what it says in the Bible. Just that the Bible has some nasty parts that no decent person should obey or take as truth. And you have agreed that that is the case, I think. Some people use the word “retarded” to refer to books with that quality. You may not use that word that way. But that is the whole point.

          4. “Plato’s Republic would be awful”

            so why would only a retard call it a retarded idea? In the sense that the word ‘retard’ is being used here (bad, terrible etc.) I think it fits in quite nicely with “awful”

      6. I like the funny part where John complains about atheists painting with an overly broad brush and condemning the bible as “retarded,” by painting with an overly broad brush and characterizing all atheists as irrational and incapable of engaging in intelligent discourse.

        1. I don’t think all atheists are like that. Just many of the ones on Reason. Anyone who says that all religious texts are “retarded” is a buffoon.

      7. Yes, John, they are all retarded. Unbunch your panties.

        1. OK, I guess I should clarify. Religious books are a mix of philosophy and superstition. Every last bit the superstition is retarded, and if the philosophy part makes some logical sense, then it’s not retarded. So, basically, all the parts of religious books that don’t say “Don’t steal and don’t murder, fuckfaces,” are retarded.

        2. …And I see SugarFree made my point better than me downthread. Fuckin’ Christ.

      8. Yes, and yet the statement is entirely true. Think how much shit even hardcore, literal Christian fundamentalists simply ignore in the Bible because it befits a morally and technologically primitive society.

    2. Yes, even in Buddhism, men are able to attain a state of Nothingness, while women can only attain Half Nothingness.

      1. I thought it was more like 74% of nothingness.

        1. After 50 years, women are only attaining 74% of nothing that a man makes!

      2. You don’t know how right you are.

    3. Seriously? As a Christian libertarian I do my best to respect others’ lack of belief and I’m sympathetic to the hostility many atheists feel towards religion. I’m also more than willing to laugh at myself and rarely take exception to anti-religious sentiments expressed on these boards. But is it too much to ask for a sliver–a modicum–of respect such that you refrain from calling others’ sacred texts “retarded”? I’m not asking you to go to church, or allow my kids to pray in public school, or to pretend to respect the religion itself. I’m just saying that, simply out of respect for the percentage of Reason subscribers/readers who are of faith, maybe you could refrain from using the word “retarded” to describe something central to our beliefs.

      1. Respect? Hey that is just not how we roll.

        1. “Respect? Hey that is just not how we troll.”

          FTFY

      2. But is it too much to ask for a sliver–a modicum–of respect such that you refrain from calling others’ sacred texts “retarded”?

        Yes.

        1. Going to backtrack on that. No modicum of respect for “sacred” texts that mandate pre-modern, falsifiable beliefs, but “retarded” is offensive and inappropriate.

          1. How the heck are you going to falsify “God created the heavens and the earth?” What is possibly falsifiable about “Jesus is the son of God?” Or “God commanded them to go forth and multiply?” The central tenants of the major religions are not in any way scientific or falsifiable.

            I challenge you: Design an experiment to show that adultery is not a sin in the eyes of the Lord. Show me a real experimental design with good controls that can show that adultery is not in fact a sin in the eyes of the Lord.

            It can’t be done, because it isn’t a statement of a scientific nature. There is no way to prove or disprove the statement.

            1. Not all biblical passages are falsifiable, but most of the non-falsifiable statements are trivial or irrelevant to any greater discussion. “So-and-so begat such-and-such” is a prime example. Non-falsifiable, and who cares, anyway?

              Biblical accounts of origins, both universal and human, have been pretty much throughly falsified in the minds of rationalists, and even many believers. Funny how it’s the big stuff that’s been thoroughly falsified, eh?

              Uh, anything involving “sin in the eyes of the Lord” is not falsifiable because you can’t prove that there even is a god, let alone what he/she/it/they like or don’t like. Up to believers in invisible beings to prove to the rest of us that those alleged beings exist, or just suck it up when we laugh at you.

              1. Funny how quick some are willing to bag on “literalists” (of which I am not one) but at the same time take the world in front of them on such a literal level, without any thought to the things that go unseen to our limited and fallible human perception.

        2. Stupid atheists = cunts.

          Many atheists and their sacred beliefs are full of shit.

          See that’s me putting part of Christianity in action…I’m treating you how you want to be treated.

      3. “Retarded” is a useful word, and in this case a funny and accurate one, if you believe words have meanings. Look up the definition of “retarded.” It’s wholly appropriate in this context.

        1. Not being politically correct, but feel it’s off-message to insult the mentally disabled, and more importantly their vocal and able supporters.

          1. Well, he didn’t say mentally retarded, though we all know that’s what he meant, so we could technically apply the literal meaning of retarded or say retarding holy books as they have been used to slow the advancement of society.

            1. Why not both? It’s funnier that way.

      4. Sincere question: how do you decide which parts of the Bible are the divinely inspired word of God, and which parts need to be ignored? I’m going to guess you do not support the death penalty for those who work on the sabbath, nor do you think parents have the right — let alone the holy obligation — to kill their disobedient children. Yet the Bible commands you do both.

        Calling such dictates “retarded” is more diplomatic than “sadistic” or “psychopathic.”

        1. Sincere answer: I’m not sure. I think many atheists (and perhaps some Christians) think that faith is binary–you either believe or you don’t–but it’s not. I question lots of things about my beliefs and on a given day I’m not sure where I stand. I think anybody with a functioning brain would have to feel the same way, and I personally believe that because God gave us free-thinking brains he has to expect such doubt and uncertainty. Anyway, my point on the use of the word “retarded” is this: if you feel that religion is bad and that one exposed to science, logic and skepticism will eventually realize that religion is a lie, then I would think you would want to keep exposing religious people to logic and skepticism. However, when you use words like “retarded” all you’re doing is making people like me defensive and less receptive to your ideas. Much like evangelicals who go around telling non-believers that they’ll burn in hell, it just seems counter-productive to me.

          1. God gave us free-thinking brains

            You’re a creationist?

        2. I will give you an answer to that. We are human. We are never going to understand or fully comprehend God. Just like we are not going to fully comprehend the universe. We can predict nature and live in it. But we are never going to totally get it.

          In that way, God can’t just come down and reveal himself to the world in one fell swoop. We wouldn’t get it. We wouldn’t understand it. Also, God is limited to the understanding of the people he is talking to. When he spoke to the Jews, he was speaking to a bunch of goat herders in 2000BC Sinai. Do you think they would have understood a discourse on the big bang and evolution? Would that have gotten the message across? Would they have listened? No. So, instead we get Genesis. And God didn’t write the Bible. People did. So the document is not perfect. It contains all sorts of things which were added by people at the time and were the result of people trying to understand the inspiration that was given to them. So, no it is not all literally true. And yes God has his own purposes and sometimes doesn’t tell us the entire truth at one time.

          I am not a biblical literalist Jennifer. I don’t know why you insist on me defending a system of beliefs that I don’t adhere to.

          1. Do you think they would have understood a discourse on the big bang and evolution?

            That’s straining, John, even for you.

            They wouldn’t have to have understood; that’s the nature of revealed truth, after all: “God says it; I believe it; that settles it.”

            And wouldn’t god with its superhuman powers have been able to magic its slaves/pets/whatever into believing what it wanted? I mean, if you can create an entire frickin universe, and can’t come up with an effective presentation?

            Also, notice how John switches from biblical literalism to reletivism when it suits him…Lame.

            1. God could have absolutely made people believe. But to do so would take away their free will.

              And so what if some things are literally true while others are not? Who said life or nature owes you a black and white answer?

              1. Who said life or nature owes you a black and white answer?

                Uh…Ayn Rand?

                1. I am the real “.”
                  You are an impostor.

          2. “God has his own purposes…”

            I’ve never liked this little rhetorical get out of jail free card.

          3. “God has his own purposes…”

            I’ve never like this little rhetorical get out of jail free card.

          4. We are never going to understand or fully comprehend God.

            You know that this means you’re agnostic, right?

          5. I find it so ironic how those of a religious persuasion seem so much more nuanced on the issues presented here. Kinda fights that whole “dogmatic” stereotype quite well. The people of faith appear far more willing to entertain doubts to their beliefs than those without faith.

            1. Those ‘without’ faith have it as well.

              They just place their faith in other things.

        3. sincere answer: you skip to the end of the book and read up on the “new covenant” part.

        4. religion is comparable to living in great wealth or incredible poverty. You can never understand the implications, without the experiences.

      5. As a Christian libertarian

        It’s the second part of your idea-set that generate respect for your beliefs in me, not the first. The vast majority of all people who have a religious belief system don’t have the first clue about liberty and the difficult calculus involved in letting other people live how they see fit side of the equation.

        1. I know lots of libertarian theists. I respect them and their right to freely practice their religion, if not the religion itself.

          1. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known are theists. It’s their little blind spot, a relic of their childhood. They don’t go to church and they never proselytize and the subject almost never comes up. Their faith is a little security blanket tucked away in a remote corner of their minds. I don’t respect this little bit of irrationality, and they know I don’t, but it’s so minor as to be almost nonexistent. Then again, they aren’t using this irrational vestige as a justification to kill and torture women, which I believe was the original topic of this thread.

            1. I don’t respect your irrationality when you say you ‘love’ someone.

              You and your irrational ideas are a joke.

        2. It’s the second part of your idea-set that generate respect for your beliefs in me, not the first. The vast majority of all people who have a religious belief system don’t have the first clue about liberty and the difficult calculus involved in letting other people live how they see fit side of the equation.

          I would argue that this trait is inherent in humans, and religion, like many philosophies, is merely a tool used to rationalize the subjugation of their fellow men.

          I would fathom that most statists in power and their useful idiots in academia are not adherents to any religion.

      6. I agree that Tim was too glib in calling religious texts “retarded.” Every religious book I have read has contained some sound wisdom (I haven’t gotten around to the Quran yet, so this statement is open to revision).

        The problem is people who interpret literally what is clearly meant to be metaphor and fable. Even worse are the people who use those metaphors as the foundation for social institutions which they manipulate to oppress and denounce the lesserthans of the world.

        When people continue to follow dietary guidelines set 3,000 years before refrigeration and continue to denounce wimmin as evil because some ancient sexist was the only one in the village who knew how to read and write, it’s not the books that are retarded.

        1. I understand exactly where you’re coming from and I seriously have no problems with people criticizing my beliefs. I think I hit on what I’m trying to get at when I responded to Jennifer above: atheists calling sacred texts retarded is analogous to evangelicals telling non-believers that they’ll burn in hell: it’s counter-productive in that it simply drives away those who disagree with you.

          1. I agree with you totally on this point. The books–and the religions they generate–are not retarded* in toto.

            The argument should be about the portions of the books that explicitly allow or even encourage lowered standards of the right of self-ownership for any group.

            1. I agree with you. Parts of the bible are wrong.

              1. So then how’s it holy? I’m not trying to be a dick here, this is just something I’ve never understood. I was raised a heathen, so I don’t understand religion at all.

                If the bible has parts of it that are wrong, it must not be the word of God, and then it’s just another book that you need to read critically. Right? So how’s it any more valuable than, say, something by Kant or Hume?

                Furthermore, you wouldn’t be offended by someone saying A Critique of Pure Reason or the I Ching is retarded. You might think he’s a dumbass for dismissing it so blithely, but I doubt you would be offended. So why does it bother you when Tim says holy books are retarded? They’re just books.

                1. …That was to John. Fuck you, maximum nesting depth.

                2. I wasn’t offended. I think Tim is an idiot. But I am not offended. It is his right to think what he wants.

                  As far as why believe and why don’t, it is faith and by its nature to some degree irrational. But, rationalism is wildly overrated in my opinion. But to give you my rational reason for being a Christian as opposed to a Buddhist or a Taoist or an atheist, that is always a long and evolving story because my views and my doubts are always changing. To give you my entire defense of Christianity would take up the entire thread and bore the hell out of everyone. But, I think some very strange and unexplainable things happened in 1st Century Palestine. I will leave it at that.

                  1. To give you my entire defense of Christianity would take up the entire thread and bore the hell out of everyone.

                    Too late. But don’t let that stop you.

                    1. And yet, you were so “bored” that you read it all.

                3. “So then how’s it holy?”

                  Jesus Christmas!

                  It’s divinely inspired. Few people claim God came down and got out his notepad and wrote down the words in the Bible. Fallible people wrote the words in the Bible…did they get the words from voices in their heads or stories they were told over the years?

                  Who knows? Though one area you might want to look into are the relationships between Old Testament figures and stories and New Testament figures and stories. Many New Testament elements reflect Old Testament elements in a new way.

                  The Old Testament element contained a promise and the New Testament element was the fulfillment of that element transformed.

              2. Parts of the bible are wrong.

                Backslider!

        2. some ancient sexist was the only one in the village who knew how to read and write,

          You do know that much of the Old Testament, certainly the Pentatuch, was memorized and passed down orally for several hundred years before it was ever written down?

      7. Nobody, not atheists, not christians, not mohammedans, not even scientologists deserve respect for their wacky beliefs.

        This bullshit multi-culturalism, first espoused by liberals has nested in modern christianity. The idea that just because someone does or believes something different than you, it should be respected. Every believer, or non-believer, should have to deal with some poop flung their way. If you sign up for a group inevitably another group is not going to agree with you.

        Also, should we respect these dirty savages and their murderous quaran(koran,coran caran,crayon? I wouldn’t even shit on their book as not to dirty my poo.

        1. One of the things I enjoyed about my half-hearted Baptist upbringing: The baptists knew everybody else was going to hell and weren’t afraid to say it.

          1. Baptists got nothin’ on Lutherans in that department.

        2. The Quran doesn’t kill people.

          People kill people.

          1. Yes Hugh, I understand that but occasionally symbolism is very important. Take Iran’s appointment to this commission, it probably gives them no more power than before, but the symbolism of it is important. Now they will probably use this appointment to justify or cover up their brutality.

            Also, it is important to remember that throughout history people have held these texts to be more important than any human, then used the texts for oppression and justification for oppression. Same with marxists and their little red books.

            1. And Catcher in the Rye inspired Mark Chapman to murder John Lennon. Is it therefore a murderous text?

              1. I am truly sorry Hugh, it has been awhile since I had read The Catcher in the Rye, so I seem to forget the page where it instructs you to kill pop-stars.

                Seriously, I would define a murderous text as one that instructs you to murder certain people, and a lot of readers think this is a good idea, and do so.

                1. One can only hope that page where it instructs people to murder pop-stars makes a comeback. The world could use less of Lady Gaga.

        3. How about treating individual believers on the basis of their own individual merit and individual intellectual vitality? Isn’t that ultimately what libertarianism is about? I am an individual, I don’t wish to be, nor do I deserve to be, lumped in and judged by associations with coreligionists, people of similar ethnic backgrounds, or even my own family. I am me, and if you have something to say about MY belief system, keep it strictly limited to MY interpretations of whatever holy texts I base my worldview off of.

  4. Thats pretty messed up dude, Those Iranians are nothing but animals. Very barbaric indeed.

    Lou
    http://www.anon-vpn.se.tc

  5. Standing up to any actually existing patriarchy is a reactionary holdover from the blessedly bygone days of The Patriarchy (the one that looks like Dad), Mr. Confederataugh.

  6. She seduced me with her one eye!

    Some words of wisdom on religion.

  7. An excellent rant, Cavanaugh. Too bad your very valid points about the shit milkshake created by the hideous blending of religion and government will be lost in a tide of “ZOMG TEH ISLAMOFASCISM” and the crocodile tears that will be shed for the poor women of Iran in order to justify profligate military spending.

    1. So the people who are unwilling to spend so much as a dime or lift a finger to do anything about what is happening in Iran are the ones who are really concerned? But the people who think, “wow maybe people who are willing to do such things ought not to have nuclear weapons and are a threat to others” are the ones shedding crocodile tears?

      I am sorry but I am not buying into the idea that only those unwilling to do anything are the ones who care.

      1. And I’m not buying that those looking to stomp all over Tehran are doing it, even a teensy weensy bit, for the womenz.

        1. So everyone who disagrees with you or sees a different prescription to a set of problems is always doing so in bad faith? And further, no one is advocating stomping all over Tehran. But, do you think them having nuclear weapons is a good idea? If it is not a concern, why don’t we just give them to them. We hear all the time how MAD works. Let’s give them some nukes, let MAD work. And then also know that they will be less likely to attack us because we gave them nukes. How about that? Why wouldn’t it work?

          1. So.. you don’t think they should have Nuclear Weapons and you don’t think we’ll be stomping all over Tehran to stop them getting nukes.

            How do you expect we’ll do the stopping without the stomping? Diplomacy? bwahahahaha!

            Personally I think lifting embargoes and increasing trade would do it. Embargoes don’t hurt governments–they just impoverish the population. Rich populations are more likely to be able to change their own governments and improve their rights.

            In a country as backward as Iran you won’t get a western democracy through revolution because the philosophy needed for it to work has not penetrated the populace. Instead we need to empower the people of Iran by ignoring it’s leaders.

            Are Iranian nukes scary? Yes. but the only way to stop them for good is to let the people find their own way to enlightenment.

            1. Maybe you are right. I would rather not have a war than have one. I doubt trade would stop them. But who knows. The point is that the people who do think force is the only option don’t think so because of some great desire to just kill Iranians.

            2. Maybe you are right. I would rather not have a war than have one. I doubt trade would stop them. But who knows. The point is that the people who do think force is the only option don’t think so because of some great desire to just kill Iranians.

        2. You’re right, they’ll bring up treatment of women for propaganda value after we start a war

        3. As long as you’re okay with people not buying that people with principled isolationism and antiwar views have them, even a teensy weensy bit, for the foreigners. And people not buying that people who oppose minimum wage laws do say, even a tiny bit, for the poor people who will lose jobs.

          Attacking motives gets old, not matter who does it.

        4. As bad as things are for women in Iran, I don’t think dropping bombs on them is the way to improve their status.

          1. Depends. Things were pretty bad for the Jews in Germany. It think they were pretty happy to have bombs dropped on them.

            1. Do you honestly belive that the status of women in Afghanistan is going to be any better after the west leaves than it was before the invasion and occupation?

              1. I don’t know. It is better now for us having been there. I don’t have the “they are all just animals and everything we do will fail” view of the world you do.

                1. Women’s rights aren’t any better now then they were when the Taliban was in power. They aren’t allowed to work or leave their homes without male escorts. Here is a great example of the discrimination they face everyday.

                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..ights-rape

                2. I’m skeptical. If you put people under pressure, some will oppress whomever is weaker. When the pressure is unloaded, is it likely that they will then relent?

              2. It certainly is possible. Women were better off in pre-soviet-invasion Afghanistan then they were under the Taliban.

                While a post-invasion Afghanistan will not look like California, it will most likely not be a place where the govenrment requires finger amputation to punish the crime of polishing one’s nails.

              3. Maybe. How’s that for a definitive statement!? Definitely couldn’t be much worse than under the Taliban.

              4. I doubt if it can get much worse.

                I realize this is anecdotal, but from what I read, a majority of Afghanis want to educate their daughters. The taliban is against this.

                If we can defeat the Taliban and the Afghans are able to educate their women, then yes, the status of women will have improved in Afghanistan. Not much by our standards, but since they are starting at near zero, by their standards, their status will improve a great deal.

            2. Not so much, John. But thanks for thinking of us. Schmuck.

              1. Clearly standing aside and letting Hitler put people in ovens was for the Jews own good.

                1. I wonder who long until the rosy hued glasses of history remembers WWII as “The War to Free the Jews”….

                  1. I wonder how dumb you have to be to think that anything in this thread said that World War II was for the Jews. Jews certainly were better off for the war having been fought. And that is the point.

                    People have gotten so stupid on these threads, you can’t even argue with them anymore.

                    1. Jews certainly were better off for the war having been fought.

                      Actually, the death camps started AFTER the war began. So technically, you can make the argument that if we just gave Hitler everything he wanted in the beginning, millions of Jews may have only been deported or segregated as second class citizens in ghettos.

                    2. I, for one, resented being a star-shaped cookie in Eichmann’s Easy-Bake Oven.

                    3. That would be Polish Jew.

                    4. You could make that argument, if you don’t know anything.

                    5. You could make that argument, if you don’t know anything.

                      who knows anything? I’m merely suggesting that your comparison is as pointless.

                      A)many women choose to be Muslim.
                      B)the Jews had fuck all to do with us entering WWII (Hitler declared war on us).
                      C)The Jew’s that were still alive in Nazi controlled Europe were too busy hiding, fighting in Partisan groups, or trying to make themselves useful enough not to be gassed to even notice the bombing.
                      D) we didn’t bomb the camps.

                    6. Man, no one said the US entered the war because of the Holocaust. No one suggested that except you. John’s just saying that regardless of motive or whether anyone even gave a shit about the Jews at all, Germany’s defeat in WWII was a good thing for the Jews there.

              2. No one cared what we thought.

                1. And they want to run us out of town.

        5. If it means bombing it, no. If it means invading it, maybe. I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but the womenz there are smokin’ hot. Maybe we could take some home as souvenirs.

    2. Don’t forget the endless sniveling and whining about how poor Christianity gets picked on! You’ll be able to choke on it, just from John’s contribution alone.

      Your religion must be pretty pathetic if it can’t take some nasty things said about it by the incredibly small atheist community, John.

      1. It takes it really well. Epi. Atheists must be pretty pathetic if they can’t stand to have someone call them out. How is defending yourself not “taking it”.

        1. Defending? You call “wah wah wah you can’t call our book retarded” defending?

          Do you know how tiresome you are? Do you have any comprehension how much of a reaction-bot you are?

          1. Then shut the fuck up and get off the thread. And this isn’t even about Christianity. It is about whether any religious book has any value. Tim said “holy books” are retarded. And I called bullshit because it is. You can be an atheist and still see the value and wisdom of religious thought.

            You only went on your “John just whines” kick because you are ignorant and think everything revolves around your hatred of Christianity.

            1. UR IGNURUNT

              That’s your response? Glad to know that your discussion skills are at the level of your rational thought processes, i.e. those of a a 5th grader.

              Go pray to your voices in the sky, John, and shut the fuck up.

              1. Let me put it slower for you Epi. This thread has nothing to do with Christianity. It has to do with value of religious texts in generally. That is what Tim said. He never said anything about Christianity in particular. And I didn’t call him out as a defense of Christianity. I called him out as a defense of religious thought.

                Your comments about Christianity are just bizarre and have nothing to do with the topic.

        2. Atheists must be pretty pathetic if they can’t stand to have someone call them out

          Which fallacy of logic is that? I forget.

      2. If the religion is so pathetic, why do the atheists here feel the need to criticize and ridicule it every time something even tangentially related to it comes up?

        1. Things that are pathetic need to be ridiculed so that people who don’t readily recognize ‘pathetic’ can clearly identify it.

          1. Isn’t that what the government says a lot? We need to make decisions for people who can’t do it themselves?

        2. It’s what we do.

  8. What is the penance for laughing at the ALT tags?

  9. Oh, the irony.
    Seriously, the UN is made up of fucktards.

    1. Well, since it is made up by the governments of countries like yours and mine, that kinds goes without saying.

      1. And to think, our government is one of the lesser evils in that Godforsaken body…

        (oooohhhh nooooeeees, i used the term Godforsaken, Epi is going to smite me for tangential references to something remotely related to Christian thought)

  10. makes me sick, but what’s with the lib. bashing. “Needless to say, liberal commenters in the west are too preoccupied with picking on the pope and making sure Comedy Central employees stay safe to take much interest”. The left has always stood for the rights of woman around the World.

    1. The left has always stood for the rights of woman around the World.

      By …. ?

      1. The left only stands for the rights of white women. To tell men of color that they should treat their women better, would be racist!

    2. “The left has always stood for the rights of woman around the World”

      Bullshit. Plain and simple.

      The left has consistently refused to oppose rights violations (beyond sotto voce lip service) of all sorts in anti-American dictatorships around the world. I have watched this since the Hungarian uprising in 1956.

      1. Those people were just bourgeois counter-revolutionaries.

        1. Hazel, I know you are snarking, but I heard many of my leftist aquaintances seriously say exactly that in my university days.

          1. What have they done for the women ravaged by the income tax?

    3. The left has always stood for the rights

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  11. I’m shocked still nothing on Femefisting about this. They do have the UN’s new anti-rape PSA so that must stand for something

    1. Most feminists don’t actually care about women’s abuses in other countries. They’re more interested in discussing the Male Gaze and how every white man is a rapist.

      1. At least I’m not alone.

      2. It’s a great filter for dating:

        Would you call yourself a feminist?

        So many wrong ways to answer that question.

  12. I am such a troublemaker!
    Bwa-haa-haaaa!

    1. Hey, Mohammed… could I get you to pose for a picture? There’s this Internet event coming up, see…

      1. Sure! With the turban and sword or without?

    2. If creating an image of Mohammed buys you denogginization, what does putting words into his mouth warrant?

      1. Degenetaliaization?

  13. The left has always stood for the rights of woman around the World.

    Some of the left. Ask your “liberal” friends if they would support a businesswomen’s right to open a brothel in their neighborhood.

    Or a prostitute’s right to work in it.

  14. I propose the U.N. do its job and send in Dutch peace keepers who can help oversee which women the Iranian fundamentalists choose to scourge…

  15. The irony would be lost on these people. They don’t see their membership on the CSW as a chance for the fox to guard the hen house. They really think their treatment of women does the best by women, and that it is everyone else who is abusing women by not guarding them that way. Much like the Animal Liberation Front thinks re animals.

  16. Hey Tim, do you have sourcing on the photos? That top one is particularly disturbing.

  17. Thank you- nice post…

  18. Keep in mind, Jesus wasn’t even that good of a jew, going against the elders like he did.

  19. If the UN had been around in the 30s they would have put Nazi Germany on the commission on Anti-Semitism. They have no shame.

    1. No, it’s not that. They just want to allow other points of view, considering that they all profess to want to take good care of women. See, the Nazis never claimed to be doing good by Jews, only to find them a bother. Possibly had there been a UN with a commission on pest control, they would’ve installed representatives for the control of pesty Jews.

      1. I forget – when was the League of Nations disbanded? Before or after the rise of the Nazis?

        1. Are you sure it doesn’t still exist? A group of people who don’t acknowledge their jobs don’t exist any more, and pretend to continue working?

  20. To be fair to “retarded” sacred texts, you have to acknowledge the same chicken-and-egg question of cause and effect on brutality towards women as with pornography. In other words, Thomas Paine got the cause-and-effect relationship wrong when he said, “Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.” The truth is that men who were cruel to begin with invoke the name of a cruel God to justify what they wanted to do anyway.

    1. When I see women being oppressed in a society (like Saudi Arabia for instance) I really see a bunch of sexually insecure men lashing out.

      That nutty earthquake-imam in Iran is a good example. He doesn’t think scantily clad women are by nature dangerous (Rosie O’Donnell in lingerie at feeding time would give one pause for their tectonic safety, though I’m sure that’s not what he’s talking about), he’s just telling us in a round-about-way that he doesn’t trust himself to be a good Muslim, or even a good man, around the likes of Grace Kelly in a bikini (a cleansing antidote to the Rosie thoughts above).

      It really comes out too. Back in Iraq, always the best way to get some Fez out of the rubble (when you know they’re hiding) was to get on the PA horn and talk about their little dicks, or how they poked each other in the butt…not making this up, honest. They’d come a-running out, all juiced up with that stupid affronting-my-macho, right into a Ma Deuce. It was like taking candy from babies with that trick.

      1. Rosie O’Donnell in lingerie at feeding time

        Thank you for that image. I don’t think I will have lunch now.

    2. I vaguely remember reading a quote that went something like this: Without religion, good men would still do good and evil men still do evil, but religion convinces good men to do evil.

      1. To be fair, it also convinces some men to do good, but often for the wrong reasons.

      2. Voltaire said something like, “People who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities.”

        1. Truth.

          Although I would tend to put it more in terms of “people who believe in absolutes”.

          I am a “strong” athiest. (= I believe there is no god.) However, I have enough self doubt that I wouldn’t push even the most zealous believer in front of a train if they were not threatening me. [OTOH, I might ‘forget’ to warn them that a train was coming….]

          1. That is a good point. And the subsequent history of the French Revolution proves that it is not just absurdities that drive people to commit atrocities. Good and wonderful thinks like fraternity, liberty and equality can as well.

            1. I’d say the idea of remaking French society into a utopia by killing the aristocracy was pretty absurd, John.

              1. As Twain pointed out in Connecticut Yankee, the French Aristos who went to the block paid for the sins of their ancestors at a rate of about one drop of blood for every thousand gallons shed in the past.

                I am not excusing the excesses of the Reign of Terror; I am merely saying that the sans culottes had reasons for their spite.

                1. That’s funny. I just finished reading that.

              2. Only in hindsight. Considering the horrific repression and poverty in pre-Revolution France, I probably would have thought beheading France was a terrific idea. It’s for sure that the aristocracy got all they deserved. The pity is that the bastards didn’t know when to stop.

          2. Resolved: People who call themselves “athiests” (sic) probably haven’t read enough about the matter to have drawn a reliable conclusion.

            Discuss.

            1. If it’s resolved, why would we discuss it? You ackbwards it again.

            2. Produce your magic hairy thunderer. Then we will discuss him.

              (Yes, I made a common spelling error. Tough shiite.)

      3. Jen, that’s from Steven Weinberg.

      4. Good people do bad things all the time. We just can’t help ourselves. The French Revolution, Communism and its twin sister Fascism got lots of good men to do lots of evil. I think you are pretty weak ground if you think that it takes religion to get people to commit evil.

        1. I thought the golden rule is the high law and the last word. Everything else is just stumbling to reach the higher law.

    3. Yeah, the easy part is demonizing the history of religion for many of mankinds worst atrosities. However, there’s really no way of knowing whether an alternative history would have been any better or whether or not some other supernatural (or other) rationalizations wouldn’t have been used to control with many of the same or even worse atrocities occuring. Does such speculation even have any value?

      1. Yes, it does have value in that if it was religion, it’s good to remember to keep it out of the public arena.

      2. No. What does have value, though, is destroying the legitimacy of religious thought that says it’s OK to murder someone who drew a picture of Mohammed. Fuck that shit and fuck Mohammed.

        1. I would fuck Mohammed but he only fucks little boys and goats and I am neither.

      3. No.

        I don’t believe Genghis Khan, Ceasar, Alexander, or Napoleon cited any particular religous justification for the atrocities they committed.

        However, as Warty points out, pretending it is righteous to do so is particularly obnoxious, whether we are talking about Srebenica, the Infal, the Mullahs or Wounded Knee.

        1. I have one iron-clad belief…if God wants someone dead, He can do it Himself.

    4. The cruelty and philosophical or religious justification for the cruelty coevolve. You can’t really say one comes before the other.

  21. I wish I knew of some more Arabic-language anti-Islamic black metal bands, but this is all I know. Enjoy.

  22. It is specific to religious literature, which aims to answer rather than question, control rather than liberate, prohibit rather than allow, tell rather than show, command rather than persuade

    It’s not specific to religious literature. I’d say that describes 90% or better of the laws coming out of congress and the various state houses.

  23. To the extent that religious writing is prescriptive, it had better be able to reconcile against a baseline of values, say human decency and liberty just to set the bar low.

    Adherents of any religion who resist those baselines in favor of a childish fantasy of cosmic father appeasement have no place in modern society. If you could push a button and get rid of them, you should.

    1. As long as you agree to push that button for any person who supports an income tax, a progressive income tax, collective bargaining, hate speech laws, compulsory public education, immunity for any public sector actors, estate taxes, gift taxes, the IRS, DEA, FCC, democracy, the admission of hearsay evidence to be used against a criminal defendant unless the criminal defendant is a public sector actor, flags, uniforms of any minion of Caesar and most of all, LINCOLN.

  24. I’m not enough of an authority to judge whether William Shakespeare wrote or edited the KJ bible. Whether you believe the stories in it, or not, at least they’re stories. They have a beginning, a middle, and an end. It’s readable. I recently attempted to read the Book of Mormon. It’s horrible dreck. I only read about half of the first book, and gave up. It was just an endless litany of walking around in the desert, carrying stuff back and forth from town to camp, occasionally wacking someone, not that he wanted to, but God told him he had to. This wouldn’t get a passing grade in a Freshman comp class. The people who read and believe this book, also believe you should do so without resorting to drugs or alcohol. I have so far been unable to reconcile these two facts. I kept thinking it had to get better, and it never did. If I live long enough, I might eventually forget how bad it is and give it another chance, but I might not.

  25. [tap tap]
    Is this thing on? Hello?
    I thought this was about me and my hatred of thinking women?
    Try to focus, people.

    1. Your goo is powerful indeed. Instead of attacking you, it has turned the Christians and atheists against each other. I feel this is, like, an analogy of the whole West, or something.

    2. Is impersonating the prophet considered “rendering a likeness”?

      Isn’t this punishable by death?

      1. No. But it’s punishable by 2-5 in a Fed prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

    3. Mr. Mohammad, Will you autograph my photo of you?

  26. WTF…are freaking kidding me…
    are these people insane…

    1. Uh, one of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

  27. WTF…are freaking kidding me…
    are these people insane…

  28. WTF…are freaking kidding me…
    are these people insane…

  29. Pretty stupid dig at Comedy Central–Facts, Reason, use Facts. Fact: Comedy Central sent a correspondent to Iran BEFORE the election and interviewed leaders of the Green Movement. How many other people in the news media have done that?
    The left consistently opposed the genocidal rights abuses in Latin America throughout the 1970 and 80s. The right supported these governments. It’s a shame when a good arguement can’t be supported by facts. It’s so much more fun to rip liberals than actually know facts.

    1. The left consistently opposed the genocidal rights abuses in Latin America

      Care to comment on the abuses in the USSR or Cambodia going on at the time?

      I thought not. The “left” opposed those government because the right supported them…nothing more! Those Latin American governments were black on the left sides of their faces (damn them!), and that just won’t do.

      1. Addendum to TAO’s comment:

        The left has been consistently silent, and continues to be so, on the human rights abuses of the Castro and now the Chavez regimes, and endlessly sycophantic in their praises of both.

        The right, of course, found peace with Pinochet and Stroessner (sp?).

        Libertarians find all of them equally pernicious.

        1. To their credit, the right divides itself between those who had lukewarm support for Pinochet, citing his anti-Communism and pragmatic economic policies, and those who preferred open and democratic elections, such as Milton Friedman. For the right, I’d say that the better points of comparison would be Chiang Kai-shek and Hamid Karzai.

    2. Did they do the same with the Maoist penchant to degrade women, Stalinist quashing of womens’ concerns, or the many, many abuses endemic in other, socialist countries? I think not. And methinks that you forget that, historically, liberals have found little to critique about Indian/Ethnic movements in Peru, Bolivia, and other countries, which have actually favored even more repressive policies vis a vis women than the reigning Hispanic governments.

  30. “Western feminists are refusing” where is the evidence of this assertion? Evidence, not accusations.

  31. Any religion that doesn’t like its women to show a little cleavage should be cast out.

  32. Here we go again, Americunts stirring up the pot on Iran again. There should be an international law that American’s are not allowed to say anything about Iran. And keep their noses out of other countries business.

    1. There should be an international law that American’s are not allowed to say anything about Iran. And keep their noses out of other countries business.

      International laws are, by definition, getting into other countries business.

    2. The UN and its committees are all about being in other countries business. I guess the USA should tell the UN to go elsewhere?

      Does it really make sense to have Iran on a committee for advancing women’s rights?

  33. Wow. Just got done with the Jesus and Bible thread.
    The Bible is NOT the word of God.
    It is a set of writings compiled by early Christians that document the political and moral leanings of its writers at the time.
    It is, JOHN and JENNIFER, a search for God. For a universe that makes sense.
    Quit the sniping.
    — Presbyterian Jamie

    1. Wow, you read all of that? You know you’ll never get that time back.

    2. This ^

      1. Threaded fail.
        What Presby Jaime said.

        And i did read a lot of it.

        Short version:
        John has taken Pascal’s wager with the ‘odds’. Not quite sure about Jennifer, but there is a blog ’bout it over on Feral (no, haven’t read it *shrugs*).

  34. As stupid as this is it’s not the first time they have sat on this committee. Plus it’s the UN since when did anyone start giving a fuck about what the UN says?

  35. Despite the fact that I, too, will not be getting my time back that I spent reading all of this, there were some gems that I think made it time well spent.

  36. This is evil,,no doubt. But we here in America need to first clean up our own house before we attempt dictating to others how to live.

    Many are decieved in this world. But it still dosen’t negate the fact that evil is evil. Abortion is one of the greatest evils todate, killing some 3800 to 4000 preborn children daily in this country alone. Harsh punishments for women that violate the strict dress codes of Iran pales in comparison,,(In my humble opinion).

    1. Wrong rally.

  37. I don’t have time to read 300+ comments tonight, so pardon me if someone’s already said this…

    The UN is obviously broken, and they could be fixed by adding two words to their charter: No dictators. You either have a democratically-elected government, or you pack your bags and go home.

    And I’m not saying that nations wouldn’t be allowed to have a dictator, but that they’d forfeit their membership in the civilized world if they did. No access to peacekeeping forces, no humanitarian aid (let the dictator pay for it himself out of his own bloated pocket…and it’s always bloated, ever notice that?). With any luck, being shunned from polite company might encourage the citizens of such nations to overthrow their dictators once and for all.

    I’m sorry, but the world has come too far over the past several centuries for any nation to invest all its power in a single man. And if one still chooses to do that, the response from the rest of the world should be a fully-extended middle finger.

  38. So…what have we learned today?

  39. Maybe instead of bombing them we should drop porn.

    1. …and Snickers.

  40. Without discussing my own religion, allow me to say one or two things in defense of Judaism – especially the traditional version which got taught by the rabbis and codified in the Talmud. I’m no expert, but those who *are* experts tell us that the Talmudists used various interpretive methods to make Judaism, in practice, a lot less bloodthirsty than a strict reading the Hebrew Scriptures would seem to allow.

    The most pertinent example is the whole list of capital crimes in Old Testament law. The Talmudists made it virtually impossible to convict anyone of these crimes, making these laws basically a standard of holiness which could not be enforced by the executioner. If there were to be capital crimes, the king would have to adopt them by enacting, in effect, an *extra-Biblical* law, under the equivalent of temporary emergency powers, rather than invoking the bloodthirsty Bible passages that keep getting quoted in the discussion above.

    Those with greater knowledge of traditional Judaism may feel free to contradict me.

    1. Credit where credit is due. We can complain about our aid to Israel (among others), mock the ‘crazy’ of the old testament, but between Golda M to women in teh IDF, ‘modern’ Judaism is pretty benign to cosmotarians.
      With Islam we sort of can look to Turkey and maybe Dubai (the Vegas of the ME)?

      1. And when I say ‘bloodthirsty passages,’ I mean ‘passages attacked by certain people as being bloodthirsty.’

  41. As perhaps the only resident occultist on H&R, I just want to say that my “holy books” aren’t retarded. They’re challenging. Try Book 4 sometime.

    1. Or Blur’s Song #2
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOup3LVQJG8
      Muuuch simpler

  42. They don’t need “Porn” you peach fuzz, pimply-faced imbeciles!
    Porn has just done “wonders” for western women and teen girls, and the way men view them right?
    Quit masturbating and read a book!
    THE EVIL ISLAMIC DICTATORSHIP OF IRAN NEED TO BE TOPPLED, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!

  43. Shia have changed alot to the extent that many Sunni clerics dont consider them muslims. so everyone, if you are talking about iran, do not mention islam.(.full stop)

  44. I m Iranian and I know what it means..
    You cnat imagine how miserable they make life for Iranains and specially the Women, Iranian Women are so dareful to come out fashionable and they take a big risk, if they get arrested they can face any charges
    They are not obssessed to put makeup but this is a way to show their opposision

  45. If I remember currently the Holy Bible has equally heinous things to say about the status of women. Not to let Iran off the hook by a long-shot. But any criticism of the Koran by westerners for it’s reactionary content can’t occur without an equally scathing criticism of our own “holy” books.

    1. Any religion is bonkers somehow, its more of a “feature” than a “bug” in religions.

      I like to think of Islam’s seeming backwardness in the context of history. Islam today is about 1400 years old. Christianity was some dark, dark shit when it was “only” 1400 years old, and that’s where Islam is now. Christianity in the West I might add did not evolve, but was forced to evolve and adapt in a world increasingly seeing its offerings as irrelevant. That’s the biggest reason Christianity – from Catholicism to the Mormon Church – has moderated itself so much in the West, not because its better but because its had to. When the institutions of Islam have to intellectually compete instead of disperse goons to maintain the monopoly, Islam will evolve too, warts and all, just like Christianity did.

      But ’till then Islam sux.

  46. I don’t know about the women but I’m kinda’ stuck on the pic of Scott Brown, IYKWIMAITTYD.

    OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012?
    (the terrorist-Uighur-ACORN-media choice)
    -It’s never too early to campaign-

  47. Thanks for the comments.. they were definitely an interesting read.

  48. The title of this section “hit and run” hahaha.

  49. You know what it’s time for? Secret missions to Mars….terraform that planet so the good people can get away safely from this awful world.

  50. Dear Tim,

    Thanks so much for your extensive examination of this travesty that has been perptrated on the world by the UN, its member states, and of course the Islamic regime. We’d love to have you join us on Facebook, where 1200+ of us have declared this Commission illegitimate, and are working to have the Islamic regime removed from the Commission:
    We declare UN Commission on the Status of Women illegitimate

  51. International Laws need a new thing. The entire world should collide forces and stand in line for our stoning and punishment by death. There of course would be no one left to earth, but the willingness of procession is the freedom. Willing to die also. We are God’s and we should not fear what man can do, if the heart and soul are with Him. Jesus, spoke to his mother after brutal scrutiny, “Behold mother,I do a new thing.” He died for the sins of the world to give us freedom/love in Him…

  52. What you had mentioned is quite reasonable! Beautifully written article sir.
    —————————————————————————
    nfl premier jerseys
    Dallas Cowboys premier jerseys

  53. hello
    i am iman i go to the university
    but i cant speak inglish very good.
    iran is very very good country
    i love iran.it is very green and happy.
    there are proplems in world countris
    but iran has good boy&girls; we are relaxe.
    we are freind and i love you
    what about you?
    go to google and reserch
    “????? ?????” and “????? ?????”
    but you just reserch “war of iran”
    this is bad.
    what are you doing?
    iran is best and your country is best
    then we are best.

  54. these are lie !

  55. when i was young, i always want to own a youth nfl jerseys. But my father told me,”my kids, you are too young to waering it. Unless you are 18 year old, i will not buy that for you”. Finally, that’s becoming a pity in my mind even if i am grown up. Now, as the dad of two children, i cannot made my kids disappointed just like their grandfather made me upset. Last sunday, when i go through some website online, I occasionally found this great website, professionally providing nfl youth jerseys for some years. That’s made me so excited. The price is so affordable, at the first time, i got some specious, “in such low price, could i got a high quality jersey?” or”thes jerseys are just for one time wearing?”. No matter what, the prices is reall attractive. Then, I decided to have try. The result is made me absolutely satisfied. “Great nfl youth jerseys I have to say. “Also great service and fast delivery”. Everything is beyond my excpection.

  56. The Cheap chanel handbags are one of the modern products designed in a new way in the collection of handbags

  57. Murong Yun did not want to have too much common ground with him, so he will not own more of the above any economic exchange, put on a Ku Gualian said: “You got it wrong, I am poorer than you. This concert will kill people, ah! Since we are Xiongdi Huo, so I will not tell lies, cheap nike air max I have to carry a lot of bank debt was purchased two VIP tickets for first class and I was east of the city credit card all banks are Banqi of a month, I have been shattering, very painful ah! ”
    Lu helicopter was very surprised and said: “I listen to you but the wealthy out of legend Oh!”
    Murong Yun was pretending to smile: “I did the second generation is nike air max cheap negative, but the negative is negative, the negative words only. As long as you are willing to join the ranks of the negative second generation now, these banks lowered the threshold for credit card , but still pay back the money when you die you have to, I have troubled dead. ”
    “Would not it? I think you are beautiful fiancee is not only one long and very understanding.” Lu said helicopter doubt.”You never heard of a woman is like a car, the more beautiful the woman, the higher the maintenance costs it?” Murong Yun was shaking his head and said: “look and feel really enjoyed the above, take out is also very face, but heart pain only you know. car to

  58. Although it is not brand name,wholesale lingerie can be very sexy. Most companies offer a variety of lingerie including bridal lingerie, chemise, thongs, bras, garters, corsets, panties, and others. Wholesale lingerie companies generally provide products for resale businesses. Some companies will not sell to you unless you give them proof that you have a business.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.