Critic thought

When I talk about religion some people ask what damage it does?

Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is jihadists suicide bombers (or worse, non-suicide terrorist, at least the suicide ones kill themselves too) or christian fundamentalists denying medical care to their own children because it goes against god's will.

Then they specify that they were talking about the more discreet believers. You know them, the ones who don't read their holy books, wouldn't believe what is written on them but couldn't care less anyway. Those are the ones attending their services without thinking about what they mean and whose behavior is hardly influenced in any way by the religion they say they follow.

Actually, they are not far from behaving as atheists, except for a few things.

First thing is they waste their time attending those services.

Second thing is they keep teaching their children that religion, in the best case making them the same kind of person they are. In the worst case, they're easing those children way into damaging others because of their religious beliefs. Any way you look at it, any believer is more easily converted into a religious extremist than an atheist is.

Third, and this damages their children even if they never go farthest than their parents went, even the discreet kind of believer is used to discards any fact in conflict with their beliefs, and that is a custom easily extended to fields different from the religious one. Usually politics, economy and society opinions are the first ones being fixed thanks to that disregarding of anything conflicting with the opinions they hold, but they often don't stop at that.

That third damage is the more dangerous, because it's more subtle but more easily taught, and a necessary condition to advance from normal believer into hardcore believer. That third problem can be summarized as having the ability to turn their critic thought off, except it's not under their control.

The critic thought is what makes us react when something is incoherent or inconsistent, what makes us realize when somebody is trying to manipulate us, because they are usually incoherent with other things they say or do, or because they're incoherent with what reality is.

So, that lack of critic thought is what lets other people take advantage of us, and teaching our children that normal, standard religious way, no matter what particular religion, is making more difficult to them to develop that critical thought, so necessary in our lives

That's one subtle way the "normal" believers of every religion burden and damage everyone (else and themselves).

Respect other people's beliefs

Too many times people say things like this when what they really mean is "respect my beliefs", and especially often when it's about religious beliefs. I know a lot of people feel their religion as a part of who they are, not only something they do. A lot of them even have good memories related in some ways with their religion.

Most times those beliefs are what they were told since little children who believed whatever their parents told them, but there is time enough for that part.

The point of this post is specifically that beliefs are not something to be respected. None. But why?

Let's start with some easy ones. Think about the times you've said or been said that "you have to respect other people's beliefs" line and now think about beliefs you or they would never agree with. Like black people being inferior to white people, or women being inferior to men, or women being property, or Nazism.

If you are in a group believing the above, think about the belief that all people should be equal before the law, regardless of race or gender. Now it's easier to see that at least some beliefs don't deserve respect, right?

Now think about the occasions of that respect-beliefs sentence and realize most happen when someone openly disagrees or challenge them, often emphasizing whatever bad things it has brought in the past. That's related but a bit out of today's point. This paragraph's idea is to realize that any challenge to some beliefs is considered disrespectful by believers, so what that sentence usually mean is "you shouldn't challenge other people's beliefs"

I guess that taboo is precisely because religion or similarly held beliefs are considered a part of the believer's identity, at least by the believer, and we are supposed to respect who other people is.

First of all, no belief should be considered part of anybody's identity especially by that somebody. A belief is, by definition, something we think is true or probable, but that we can't prove, and usually something we can find arguments against. That means a choice even when usually it's not an intellectual choice but an emotional one, and as a choice is susceptible to change. That is why we shouldn't held somebody's belief as their identity.

Once we've taken that out of the way, let's focus on the evidence part. Nothing that can't be proved with enough logic should remain unchallenged. Nothing at all. If among the reasons to belief something is that it's nice to believe it, that is reason enough to doubt that belief and challenge it as soon and as hard as possible. At the very least, we should acknowledge, to ourselves if not to anyone else, that it's an opinion and that we are not trying to make other people see the truth but to convince them of our own opinion.

That is not going to prevent violence: the opinion that those things should be mine, yours or theirs have historically being argued violently. Opinions like some people are not other people's property has been violently defended, mostly by the ones being considered property. And of course the opposite opinion has been so by the aspirants to owners.

So, opinions are not to be part of what a person is, opinions are not truth, and opinions don't prevent violence in their sake. Now, what else?

Opinions should be challenged. Opinions must be challenged. First of all, by their owners and defenders, then by everyone else. No opinion deserves special treatment. No belief deserves not to be challenged, debated, argued. And, above all, opinions about how a particular god wants you to act. That's religions, the beliefs most usually getting the "respect my beliefs".

No, you don't have to respect anybody's beliefs. You should challenge every belief.

Christian LGBT

Just as I can't understand Christian women, I can't understand Christian LGBT either.

I have been told by some Christians that, actually, the Bible does not say anything wrong about homosexuality, but maybe they misunderstood me and thought I was talking only about lesbianism. Bible does not care much about women's sexual preferences, probably because it doesn't care too much about women's sexuality in general - as long as they're caste.

Anyway, on with the "Bible says nothing about gays" thing.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

I think it's pretty clear, isn't it? By the way, have you realized that it's written as if addressed to men, not men and women? Almost like the speaker - supposedly, God Himself - didn't care who women lie with.

I have seen people saying that Leviticus is "about classifying things" and that this verse is not about sex. Well, actually this whole chapter is about sex. I invite everyone to go and see it. Leviticus is God telling rules to Moses, and this chapter starts defining what's incest - unless you want to be literal and think it's about seeing people naked. And just after the gay part, it forbids to lie and defile yourselves with beasts...

Maybe this one is clearer:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Death. Just like that.

What could we expect, if cross dressing is also an abomination

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5

Just like in Christian Women we would like to believe this is all the Old Testament and that the New one is far more liberal.

What happened with women about the old/new testament lack of differences happens with LGBT too. Let's start with what the apostle Paul says to Timothy

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1 Timothy 9-10

"The law is made for the sinners, such as those who defile themselves with mankind." The apostle Paul also writes letters to the church of Corinth:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Corinthians 6:9

In the letter to Romans, he complains that

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:27

I love when I see a verse I don't know where to start with. On one hand we got that "men burned in their lust one toward another", and just before, the "leaving the natural use of the woman", as if the natural use is to satisfy men's lust.
In the next verses Paul goes on a rant

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:28-32

The last verse is specially funny: knowing that to God, that kind of people is worthy of dead, not only they do, but they like it.

So, I hope it was brief enough what reasons have the Bible for LGBT not to be Christian. Please, to all LGBT people and all who respect them: do you see why you shouldn't claim to be Christian?

Christian women

In general, when I see otherwise intelligent people declare themselves christians I just could not understand if not with the child-indoctrinating and cognitive dissonance thing. However, it is more strange when the person in question is from a few particular groups. Today I would like to focus on the "womens" group, about half the world population, and I am going to focus only in the "serve the man" thing included in the bible, from old to new testament, and then in Judaism and Islam too. Today I am not going to even bother about the poligamy, rape and those other Christian pearls. And to the people saying those are frowned upon in the Bible I ask them to come back when I adress that topic. To the ones saying "that were different times" I say as always, that Ill stop relating it to your alleged beliefs the day bibles don't include those bits.

But on for today's topic.

Probably the first hint is this: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16

By the way, that's part of women's punishment due to original sin.

Of course, the Old Testament is always a bit old, when considering gender equality (or race equality, or a lot of other equalities, to that matter), so maybe we should point to a few New Testament bits - the kindest half of Bible -

The Pauline epistles are thirteen New Testament books attributed to Paul, the apostle. That is, one of the persons that, as Christians, you should believe received Christ's teachings as directly as possible.
In particular, the first letter to the Corinthians includes this nice bit:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

This is a couple lines after saying that, since he (Paul) was follower of Christ, you should be followers of Paul, but back to topic, this is quite mild, right? It's not as hard as in Genesis and ruling, is it? In his letter to the Ephesians, he elaborates and generalizes the "Christ head of man, man head of women" thing

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:22-24

Now here is present the Genesis' idea of wife serve husband, submissive and all. And just to avoid giving the impression it's a temporal rant, he says again:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18

As we'll see below, Paul has a nice record of gender in-equality fighting, but then again, he only was one of the twelve favorites of Christ, but not the favorite, as Peter was. Speaking of which...

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 1 Peter 3:1

So, Peter's too. Now that it's being shown this is a bit of a general feeling in bible, I would like to point to why there's not too many women preaching and why, Bible in hand, there shouldn't be any:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 34-35

That's it, women are not allowed to even speak in church, and they can only learn - about religion, I guess - from their own husbands, not any man. I've seen this bit downplayed, interpreting that Paul wasn't saying this himself, but quoting a previous letter from the Corinthians, but then he wrote this to Timothy:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:11-14

In the first two verses, he just repeats that women must learn in silence and servitude, and that a woman shouldn't teach or command a man. By itself, it could be outrageous, but that's why I copied the other two verses, in which the "logic" behind the silence command is based: Adam was first, Eve was after him. That kind of "reasoning" makes this bit laughable, doesn't it? And, by the way, the author blames the whole original sin in Eve. He don't think Adam should have gone Where that fruit came from? The Forbidden Tree? And you expect me to eat too?

Not to be able to learn anything but from men should be hard, that's why I guessed he was speaking only about religion. It seems I understood correctly, because in the letter to Titus he allows women to teach. Not over a man, of course - that would be having authority over him - but they can teach younger women:

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:3-5

As I said before, I guess it requires a lot of simple-mindedness to start believing this things and resistance to learning to keep believing them, for any person, but when considering women? I don't understand how can a woman declare herself a Christian, considering these few Bible bits, declare that she is equal to other persons, and still don't get the incoherence of that thought.

So, women, I hope you see you shouldn't claim to be Christian.

Unless you like to be considered servants, of course.

Faith healers

This entry's birth is due to stories like this.
A dozen kids's death in four years is not big deal, what makes it a big deal for me is that

• They were avoidable deaths
• They weren't avoided not because their parents couldn't get/pay the treatments but because they didn't want them
• They're not being charged with child neglect or murder because their faith tells them to let those children die

More precisely, what their faith tells them is that, if prayer is not, by itself, enough to cure the child, the child's death and suffering is God's will and, thus, good.
The first thing that I think about saying is "Your son. Your daughter.", but that wouldn't make sense because if you feel as horrified as I do towards this, you treat your children more responsibly that this kind of parents. What I'm going to say is "Imagine it's your nephew, and that you sister lets him die. And then you have to put up a smile and tell her she did right letting him die."

The linked article says that actually most states has some kind of exemption to damage to children. Half a dozen of them have no religious exemption to crimes against children. Six from fifty? The rest go from "you can go to jail, but we can't save your children from your care" to "If it's by your religion, you can do to your children as you want"

The point I keep waiting for anyone to make is that children are their parents' responsibility, not their property. The freedom of religion of the parents is that they can let themselves die, but to allow them to decide whether their children receive proper medical care is to acknowledge children are property.
For a country so proud of Lincoln's anti-slavery (thought there's something to be said about that, too), children are still considered property by having laws as these.

And now, let's widen the scenery, shall we?

Is this too soon to remember that Islam allows marriage as soon as the bride has her first period? She has to give her consent, even when saying nothing is considered consent.
I don't see too many activist saying that is right for parents to punish her 12-year-old daughter (for disobedience) because she doesn't want to be wed - and deflowered - just yet, but exemptions like the ones allowing a couple to let their children die just set right that kind of girl-selling.

I'd like to bring attention to another point: please, look at that map of USA and look for the black states - the ones which exempts criminal and civil penalties from negligent homicide, manslaughter and capital murder: Idaho, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Religious exemption from capital murder. To emphasize what that kind of laws allow, I'd like to point out that, in these states it's legal (you're criminally and civilly exempt), if you're Jewish or Christian:

• To kill a gay men just because he's gay (Leviticus)
• To kill Woody Allen and/or Soon-Yin (Leviticus again, she was his son's sister, and since he had sex with her mother, she's his daughter)
• To kill anyone who contradicts your beliefs (Leviticus attacks again, blasphemy) This one's specially ironic because A can kill B for contradicting A, and then B's brother can kill A because A contradicted B and his brother.
• To enslave anyone that doesn't share your faith (Leviticus is a gold mine of this sh*t)

And this is just a handful of (nowadays considered) bad things that some people can get away with by claiming "freedom of religion". Now that I've cleared a few things about Bible, I think I can give a couple more about Islam, because, by those "freedom of religion" laws:

• If I were a Muslim and I met an ex-Muslim, I can kill him (4:89)
• Suicide attacks are legal (4:74) Remember the Twin Towers?

What is really ironic about all this "freedom of religion" stuff is that, if the government can't enforce their laws against religious people, then the most violent religions' followers are free - by the government - to kill everyone, until there's only one sect left. Kind like Iran.

I think I've let this burn enough, for now, at least. If you read this you can think that, yeah, all those things should be allowed because there's a religion who let them be. If you thought it wasn't a big deal, maybe now you can help bring some sense on other people by pointing out what is not being said and, just maybe, some day, country's laws will not be bent to forgive people just because.