Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Women are Invaluable, Religion is Worthless

When the sovereignty of a human being and the sovereignty of an ideology come into conflict, which one should yield?

The ideology.

Ideologies are only worthy of our adherence to the amount that they secure our freedom, happiness, and understanding of the world. Ideologies are concepts and frameworks that are meant to serve us.

Humans are not meant to serve ideologies.

So when an ideology comes into conflict with a human's freedom, happiness, self-determination, etc. It is the ideology that must be re-evaluated, or even discarded.

Such is the case with religion, and in particular Abrahamic religion.

In fact, Abrahamic religion has been undergoing quite a bit of re-evaluation over the years. And even some parts of it are being outright discarded because it keeps coming into conflict with the freedom and happiness of human beings.

Some old-timers and die-hards will fight for their ideology, and will try to subjugate other humans to keep their ideology intact, but in the long run, the ideology eventually loses. And Abrahamic religion is losing.

Abrahamic religion has had it out for women since its inception. Women have been tortured, murdered, enslaved, and completely dehumanized for over a millennia thanks to Abrahamic faith. All this has occurred because of the fact that females have a slightly different set of body parts than males.

In recent past posts, I have given numerous examples, quotes, and articles of the pervasiveness of anti-woman values found both in Abrahamic ideology, and in the minds of its adherents. And today I bring to you some quotes from Religioustolerance.org.

Religioustolerance.org has a few pages that contain some choice quotes and links regarding the re-evaluation and discarding of certain anti-women components of Abrahamic faith. These are some of the most anti-human and downright evil portions of Abrahamic faith, and are some of the most damning examples of the worthlessness of religion itself:

"It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property." Rev. Jill. Nelson, pastor of the Sunshine Cathedral Metropolitan Community Church, commenting on Leviticus 20:13

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1

"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33.

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend: "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546): "If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."

Reformation Fellowship of the East Valley, Mesa, AZ (circa 1995): "In the beginning God made man male and female. He made Adam first, and then made Eve from Adam's rib. This order of creation subordinates wives to their husbands in marriage, and women to men in the church. As an act of submission to their Creator women are commanded to submit to their husbands and to male leadership in the church. Women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in any formal capacity in the church."

Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue: "...make dads the godly leaders [of the family] with the women in submission, raising kids for the glory of God."

Its almost lunchtime, and I just about lost my appetite cutting and pasting that filth! But now compare those above quotes to this next one, from an anonymous writer of a "Why Women Need Freedom From Religion" pamphlet:

"The various Christian churches fought tooth and nail against the advancement of women, opposing everything from women's right to speak in public, to the use of anesthesia in childbirth...and woman's suffrage. Today the most organized and formidable opponent of women's social, economic and sexual rights remains organized religion. Religionists defeated the Equal Rights Amendment. Religious fanatics and bullies are currently engaged in an outright war of terrorism and harassment against women who have abortions and the medical staff which serves them."

Humanity needs women. Humanity is women. But humanity needs not religion. Humanity is not religion.

Kill the worthless religion. Stand in solidarity with our invaluable women.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

The Pope Finally Says Something True

The Pope recently declared that modern western culture is against religion. Looks like he finally got the wire. Unfortunately, he had to do lots of projecting:

Verona, Italy- Modern Western culture is unable to dialogue with religion and cannot answer fundamental questions about the meaning of life, Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday.

He has it exactly backwards. In reality, it is ancient religion that cannot answer fundamental questions about the meaning of life and is unable to dialogue with modern culture. But I doubt he would ever figure that one out.

He continued to bitch:

Benedict said the West was witnessing "a new wave of Enlightenment and secularism, in which only that which can be tested and calculated is considered rationally valid, and in which individual freedom is erected as a fundamental value to which everything else is subordinated.

"In this way, God is excluded from culture and public life", he said.

Benedict laments it, while modern western society celebrates it. Well it looks like this party isn't for you, Popey. Go home. But wait, he has one more projection to throw:

"It is not difficult to see how this type of culture represents a radical and profound separation not only from Christianity but more generally from the religious and moral traditions of humanity," he said.

This statement should say, "...from the religious, immoral traditions of humanity." Because only a fact-based, Godless moral framework can be considered "moral."

The Pope doesn't realize that morality cannot be based on God's rules. That is because he's been brainwashing himself with crappy books his whole life.

Oh well. This most recent whining from the Pope is a good thing, to be sure. Popes have been bitching about secularization of western society for a while now, and Benedict is merely carrying the torch of lamentations while he watches his pews, and more importantly, his donations, wither away uncontrollably. It gets even worse when he looks at the youth component of his faithful: every year since 2003 or so, the Catholic Church's "World Youth Day" breaks a new record for smallest attendance yet.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Doris Tracey is Confused About Death

Sean Prophet from BlackSun Journal wrote a post recently about the untimely death of Brianna Wilkins, a pretty 17 year old girl who, through the help of a very crappy book, became so obsessed with the moment of "now" that she forgot to think ahead far enough to eat food or drink water.

But this post isn't about her. It's about a lady named Doris Tracey who popped into the comments section and made some very unusual statements regarding Brianna, God, and death in general. I replied to her, and she replied back. I'm going to reproduce the comments here for all of your reading enjoyment. Doris will be quoted (indented), and my responses will be in normal text. In some instances I am directly quoting her in my response, and those quotes will be in italics:


I love your beautiful heartfelt message about Briannas tragic death and another wake-up call. Her soul was obviously not very happy here and was trying to find her way back to god in the only way she was taught how. May the Holy Spirit comfort her and her family in this hr of great tribulation!



You said:

"May the Holy Spirit comfort her..."

But you seem to be misunderstanding the facts of the situation. This poor woman is DEAD. Which means that there is no more "her."

The very phrase "afterlife" is a contradiction.

If this woman still existed, than there would be no tragedy to lament, would there? The only reason this situation is so sad is because this woman has died, and prematurely so. She no longer exists.

What part of the word "death" don’t you understand?

Hi Aaron,

Are you dead in Christ or alive? Evil is live spelled backwards.Death has always been an illusion and cannot exhist where life is. Death is a lie and its appearance has no power. Many people are dead in Christ until quickened by the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit is pure electrical energy and without that pure energy you are a mechanical robot or the living dead. Some souls will choose to remain dead and will lose their identity, God forbid. Choose life not death. If we ultimately die in the end there would be no reason for us to go on at all.


Hi Doris,

Thank you for the reply.

You said:

"Are you dead in Christ or alive?"

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. I am not dead or alive in anyone, except for me. I guess you could say that I am "alive in Aaron." As far as Christ goes, there is lots of evidence suggesting that he never existed. But if he did exist, he is most certainly dead now. By the way Doris, how does a person be dead OR alive "in" someone?

"Evil is live spelled backwards."

It certainly is. And racecar is racecar spelled backwards. But I’m not here to play scrabble; I’m here to talk about the meaning of life and death. Trying to equate being alive with the concept of evil through spelling games is somewhat silly considering the seriousness of Brianna Wilkins untimely demise.

"Death has always been an illusion and cannot exhist where life is."

I agree that death and life are mutually exclusive. But you said here that death is an illusion. Are you seriously claiming that Brianna Wilkins is not dead?!?! Care to support that assertion?

"Death is a lie and its appearance has no power."

Death is a word used to describe the concept of no longer being alive. So in a way it is a negative statement. But death is not a lie as far as I can see. Brianna is most certainly dead. I’ve seen people die in front of my eyes. It will take much more than your unsupported assertions for me to discard the evidence of "death" that I have directly witnessed in my life.

Why don’t you start with providing evidence that Brianna, my grandmother, JFK, etc... are not dead and never actually died?

"Many people are dead in Christ until quickened by the Holy Spirit."

So first you tell me that death is a lie, and now you are telling me that dead people reside within the dead body of Jesus Christ until "quickened"? I’m sorry but this statement is nonsensical as far as I can understand it. You might have to dumb it down a shade for me to grasp it. How exactly do living people exist as dead entities within the body of a fictional-or-dead cult fonder from 2000 years ago? And what exactly is this "quickening" process that allegedly removes the dead people from Christ’s body?

"The Holy Spirit is pure electrical energy and without that pure energy you are a mechanical robot or the living dead."

If the Holy Spirit is pure electrical energy, can it be detected, perhaps even contained? You know, we do have devices that contain, generate, convert, and otherwise manipulate pure electrical energy. Where does this Holy Spirit electricity reside? Earth? Perhaps the Andromeda Galaxy?

Last time I checked, electrical energy was not a singular, conscious, personal and acting entity. Since when did electricity get itself a thinking mind and a will and such?

And exactly HOW MUCH electrical energy comprises the Holy Spirit? A few Gigawatts? Maybe Terawatts? Electrical energy, no matter how much, is quantifiable.

And if the Holy Spirit is indeed pure electrical energy, why haven’t I heard this news from the guy who discovered it, Benjamin Franklin? Or why doesn’t the Royal Academy of Engineering have anything on this fact? Why hasn’t NASA, or the National Academy of Sciences, or some other group familiar with electricity spoken up on this little fact?

Is there anything at all from any recognized scientific or engineering body that attests to this rather revolutionary claim that the Holy Spirit is pure electrical energy? Where do you get this kind of information anyway?

"Some souls will choose to remain dead and will lose their identity, God forbid. Choose life not death. If we ultimately die in the end there would be no reason for us to go on at all."

Oh boy, now I’m really confused! A minute ago you said death was fake. Now you are implying that it is real. Which is it?

Furthermore, you seem to confuse the actual properties of death. You said that souls choose to remain dead. But I don’t think its possible to "choose" anything when you are DEAD! That’s the whole point: death = not existing anymore. If I, for example, am able to make a "choice," then I have to be alive to do so, don't I?

Thanks again for your reply, and I truly hope you can give me some clarifying answers, because your statements sent my head spinning and totally contradicted everything that I know regarding God, energy, matter, consciousness, and even existence itself.

Thank you,

Aaron Kinney

Monday, October 23, 2006

What's in a Name?

LogoThere are:
people with my name
in the U.S.A.

How many have your name?

There are 47 people in the United States with the name "Aaron Kinney." And if you Google the name "Aaron Kinney," I am the first result!

So it is official. I am the most popular Aaron Kinney in the United States. Hallelujah!

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Austin Cline on Christian Abuse of Women

Austin Cline of Atheism.About.com offers even more evidence of Christian-sanctioned abuse and subjugation of women. And this time, the problem is even admitted by the Archbishop of Canterbury! In the article, Austin offers an excellent analysis in the Christian abetting of domestic abuse against women, and he does so in his usual hard-hitting, fact-of-the-matter writing style that I love so much to read.

But I'm not going to quote any of it. You're just going to have to click on the link and read the article for yourself. You will be glad you did.

Diocese Bankruptcy Count: 4

The Catholic Diocese of Davenport filed for bankruptcy last week:

DAVENPORT, Iowa (CNS) -- The Diocese of Davenport is now the fourth Catholic diocese in the United States to file for bankruptcy protection because of sex abuse lawsuits it faces.

Oh how the mighty have fallen. Or rather, are falling. I expect many more bankruptcy filings in the coming years from the Cathylicks and other Christian cults. Maybe this is one instance, unlike the red scare, where the domino theory actually applies?

Years ago I had a roommate who worked at Calvary Community Church. He was eventually fired for being an agnostic (religious discrimination employment laws don't apply to churches), but before that happened, he told me that there was a sex scandal that took place with one of the pastors who worked there. Unfortunately I don't remember if it was a homosexual or heterosexual scandal, but it was definitely pedophilic.

The funny (or scary) thing was that my former roommate recalled a church counselor or official of some kind as saying in response to the sex scandal that, "this kind of thing doesn't happen here... not at this church."

Wrong, scumbag! It does happen and it did happen, at this very church! If I recall correctly, the sex scandal was kept relatively under wraps and hush/settlement money was paid out.

It’s a shame too, because I would have loved to see Calvary Community Church file for bankruptcy. Their facility is located right off the 101 freeway and their huge torture device (cross) is easily visible from the freeway. Not to mention that their attached high school looks like a minimum-security prison. Their cross, and their entire facility, is ugly as sin. I've seen more aesthetic looking crosses in The Passion of the Christ. The only church I've seen in the Los Angeles area that compares to Calvary in ugly factor is the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in downtown. Babyshit brown, huh? Who chose that color, Jesus?

I would just love to see a church in the Los Angeles area file for bankruptcy due to a pedophilic sex scandal. It doesn't have to be Catholic, hell it doesn't even have to be Christian! Any Abrahamic institution is good enough for me.

Oh holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, please grant me this prayer. May your noodly appendage serve up hot steamy dishes of your marinara-flavored justice.


Thursday, October 12, 2006

Even More Evidence That Christianity Views Women as the Property of Men

Craig Sowder, a Christian blogger and all around nice guy, has recently written about the ideas expressed in a book written by another Christian named Doug Wilson.

In his book, Doug Wilson writes about how a Christian man should go about finding a wife. Craig sums up Wilson's ideas of Christian courting by saying:

Wilson has written a little book called Her Hand in Marriage where he explains that, from a Biblical perspective, the father has authority over the daughter, and that an interested young man should approach the father before he ever approaches the daughter about courtship. If the father approves, the young man can begin spending time with his daughter under the supervision of the family. As time goes on, the two can begin spending more time alone together. But throughout the entire process, the father is the authority over the daughter.

Craig says that while he has a bone to pick with Wilson over specifics, he doesn't necessarily disagree with Wilson's general message.

To Craig's (partial) credit, he does say this in response to Wilson's views on women:

Sure, that all sounds good and everything until you actually try doing it that way. I would be willing to bet that if I walked up to the father of a girl I was interested in at church and said, "I'm interested in getting to know your daughter", the father would probably say, "Okay… she's standing right over there, so why don't you go talk to her?" Wilson might say that the father isn't doing his job, but the reality is that, right or wrong, this is the way things work in 21st century American culture.

Notice that while Craig accepts the reality of today's (post-Christian) world as not working that way, he doesn't actually disagree with Wilson's view that "women = property":

Now, as I said, I do believe Wilson's philosophy or vision for Christian courtship and marriage is a good one, so I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with it in theory.

Every time I read anything from a Christian about women, and every time I read any historical or news source concerning Christian treatment of women, the ownership concept is all over the place. What I mean is, that Christian women are owned at all times by someone other than themselves. Either they are owned by God, or their father, or their husband, or even a combination of these! But at any rate, the poor women are constantly treated as property.

But when Christians encounter my charge of sexism and maltreatment of the status of women, they disagree quite vocally. They say that not all Christians agree about this, and that I'm taking things out of context, or adhering to a narrow fundamentalist view of Christianity.

Yet again, I have to call bullshit. Ownership of women is so incredibly widespread in liberal, conservative, and moderate Christian circles, that I've yet to see a single Christian write against the idea. And believe me, I do read a lot of Christian writing. When I read religious/atheist blogs (and I do quite often) about half of my reading is done on Christian blogs, the other half is for atheist blogs. And this is probably the 1000th time I've read some Christian view about women not having ownership over their own person. I've yet to read anything from a Christian who says that a father or husband doesn't own their daughter or wife.

Would I ever accept a doctrine of my mother owning me and a woman having to ask my mother permission to court me? Hell no. And would I ever ask a father permission to court his daughter? Hell no. It's not his choice; its his daughter's choice. If I wanted to court a woman, it would be because I respect her as an equal, and my equals own themselves. It would be an insult to the woman to ask her father and to treat her like a commodity or piece of property.

I don't court pieces of property. I respect myself too much. I court women who are my equal. And I consider women my equal because I am not some chauvinistic insecure sexist bastard. I don't want to marry a piece of property. I want to marry an equal, where the respect and admiration and love between us is equal.

Craig, again to his credit, has experienced both Christian and non-Christian social environments. Craig couldn't ignore the reality of the situation when he compared Christian women to non-Christian women:

let me tell you that Christian women need to take a few lessons from non-Christian women. The non-Christian women I've been around over the years are not afraid to get into relationships with men and actually arrive at conclusions about men far more quickly than Christian women. Sometimes I don't think Christian women will go out for a cup of coffee with a guy without some kind of sign in the heavens telling them to go for it.

I literally LOL'ed at this. I think Craig may have accidentally revealed a bit too much about the detrimental effects that accepting an other-ownership doctrine can have in the mind of a young woman. Craig says here in no uncertain terms that non-Christian women are much more of what a woman should be: thinking for themselves, and taking responsibility for themselves.

Incidentally, Craig's blog is called "Autonomy is Madness," yet he quite clearly is praising secular women for their autonomy, while lamenting the lack of autonomy in Christian women. Craig has also expressed multiple times in the past that he thinks that Christian women are crazy.

So is autonomy madness, or is it the reverse? Craig is obviously implying that the reverse of his blog title's message is true, yet he doesn't seem to realize it. Craig can't seem to see the big picture here - that his religion is detrimental to the social lives of both male and female Christians. The Christian singles simply can't compete with the secular ones.

Anyway, where is the "women own themselves" Christian view? Where can I find the writings of a Christian who says that men do not own women, and that both men and women are equal in the sight of God? Where are the Christian writings that say that the father does not own the maiden, or that the husband does not own the wife?

And perhaps more importantly, where is the Biblical support for a "husband does not own the wife" Christian view?

Obviously the "women are property" Christian view is fucking up the lives of the Christian youth, and they are watching their secular peers live much happier, more fulfilling social and romantic lives, in general. I know that I sure am!

Thanks to Dr. Zachary Moore for writing about this first and bringing this to my attention.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Inquisition: Damning Evidence of Abrahamic Atrocities Towards Women

Austin Cline from atheism.about.com has an excellent picture and accompanying article about the sexual torture used by inquisitors during the witch hunts of the past.

Among other atrocities, the inquisitors used to look for supernatural tits:

Inquisitors were also quick to search for the purported "witches' tits," blemishes which were supposed to be extra nipples used by witches to suckle demons. If the men interrogating the witches were to become aroused, it was assumed that the desire originated not in them, but instead was a projection from the women.

What fun is it for a male authority figure to go through the trouble of torturing and killing a bunch of women if you don't get to fondle some tits and put hot pokers on vaginas in the process?

At least these inquisitors were more preoccupied with adult female sex organs than prepubescent male sex organs. But on the other hand, modern day anally raped altar boys didn’t get burned at the stake after the assault. I can't decide which is worse... I guess they are both equally bad.

The Bible reinforces and legitimizes violence, cruelty, and inhumanity towards women. I've had a number of Christians tell me that only an incorrect interpretation of the Bible allows for this horrible treatment of women.

Bullshit! Next thing you know, we will be hearing Neo-Nazis insisting that Hitler "hijacked" true Naziism through incorrect interpretation.

Britain: Immigrants, Old People Keep Church on Life Support

It is no secret that lip service to faith is in serious short supply in Europe. Churches in Britain particularly have been bitching about decreased church attendance for years now (which obviously carries with it collection plates that are less filled).

Well it seems that the British preachers are reaching for any good news they can get. Immigrants from Africa and senior citizens are slowing the hemorrhage of bodies from the pews, at least temporarily:

One of the biggest surveys among Britain's 37,000 churches, published today, finds that the growth of immigrant-led churches has partly offset dwindling congregations elsewhere.

The news will cheer Church leaders. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said the phenomenon was having a healthy impact on mainstream Churches.

So immigrants and minorities are getting their pray on. But the whites continue to be less and less keen on Jesus. You know, in Britain, for the most part, whites are more wealthy and educated than the minorities. Why do I get the feeling that significant part of this church attendance difference is based not on ethnic, but on income/class lines? It would be hard to figure it out without prying into everyone's income levels, but I bet that at least a big chunk of this minority/white attendance discrepancy is merely a side effect of an income-and-education-level-based discrepancy.

By the way, click on the link to see a picture of Dr. Rowan Williams. The guy's hairstyle and beard make him look like a cross between a mad scientist and a skinny Santa Claus. It's truly a baffling sight. I don't think that look has been in style anytime since the 1800s!

But enough ad hominem. Even this little morsel of good news for the church is laced with cyanide:

But the survey also shows that congregations are getting older as young people continue to abandon the pews, which could have a devastating impact in a decade.


The research, based on questionnaires from 19,000 churches, finds that 29 per cent of churchgoers are 65 or over compared with 16 per cent of the population.

It also finds that nine per cent of churches have no one aged under 11 in their congregations.

This statistic implies that the light at the end of the tunnel is more likely the hot white light of worldly secularism and materialistic atheism. Of course, no other proverbial light bulb shines as bright as the light bulb of atheism, and accordingly, when allowed to shine, it drowns out the black lights of theism with its radiance.

And that's why the youth in Europe are particularly averse to getting on their knees and opening their mouths (and wallets) for Jesus. In a secular world, you get to fuck real humans and spend your money on yourself. Theism simply can't compete.

The old people in Britain cling to the church the way Strom Thurmond clung to racism. He's dead now, and the old British ninnies will be dead soon as well. It looks like across the western world, these concepts of Jesus and Original Sin will die off with the old, just like sexism and racism have done. Who nowadays thinks that slavery is just, or that women shouldn't vote? Only fringe lunatics, poor ignorant trash, and old farts from a by-gone era think like that.

The future for Britain looks bright. These unchurched youth will eventually take the reigns of their homeland, and rule it without false values like racism, sexism, nationalism, and theism. When these youth are all grown up and working in the media, they will write articles about low church attendance with a positive slant, instead of an alarmist slant. They will refer to Christianity as a mythology from a more ignorant time.

But what of the immigrants? Well that depends on how much they can integrate and progress in Britain's society. If they are treated more inclusively by the whites, and given fair opportunity to increase their security and happiness and such, then these immigrants' children will likely follow the secular path that their more-well-off white peers did a generation before. Prosperity = less churchin'.

But perhaps most importantly, the future of Britain will have less Dr. Rowan Williams mad scientist hairstyles.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Theist: Naked Women Worse than Bombs

Indonesian Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir recently declared that images of naked women on television are worse to society than the Bali nightclub bombings of 2002:

Ba'asyir, who was released from jail on June 14 after serving 26 months for his involvement in the 2002 Bali bombing that killed 202 people, said pornography was more damaging because it destroyed people's morality.

"So if you ask me which one is more dangerous, nude women or the Bali bombs, then my answer would be the women showing off their skin," he said as quoted by Antara.

According to this guy, pornography destroys morality, but bombs don't, and destroying morality is worse than destroying people. Of course, this guy is wrong on all counts.

Seeing naked human female bodies does not destroy a person's ability to determine what is a moral or immoral action. Indeed, people with active sex lives and easy access to sexually stimulating material tend to report feelings of satisfaction and release. People who act mean, bitchy, uptight, or otherwise grumpy are often described behind their backs as in need of a good fuck. People report tensions and stress being released from their bodies immediately after they have a sexual release, even one that is achieved through the viewing of images of naked human females.

So this cleric's morality and porn premise is basically unsupported, as well as contradicted by a collection of reports of the personal experiences of numerous individuals. As I've said before, indulgence leads to healthy expression, while repression leads to unhealthy compulsion.

But more disturbing is this man's belief that bombs somehow do not destroy morality... or at least that they do not destroy morality as much as images of naked human females do. I must contend that bombs destroy morality and much more! Even if porn were to destroy Joe Smith's morality (which it doesn't), a bomb will literally and physically destroy Joe Smith in his entirety, not just his morality.

And what worldview is it that enables Ba'asyir to make such perverse and backwards statements about morality and destruction? It is Abrahamic Theism!

Abrahamic Theism is by far the most popular form of afterlife-belief in the world today. This includes the big three religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All of their respective holy books declare in no uncertain terms that a woman is worth less than a man. All of their holy books treat the consent of a woman with complete silence, as if it doesn't exist. All of their holy books put restrictions on a woman's appearance and behavior as if it were their fault that men tend to sexually assault them; as if the woman is to blame for being the object of a man's lust.

Applying these concepts to the Bali nightclub bombings, we can envision and evaluate two scenarios:

1) A video of a naked human female is displayed in a nightclub. What happens to the clubbers when they encounter this event?

2) A bomb is detonated in a nightclub. What happens to the clubbers when they encounter this event?

Which scenario will produce the "immoral" results? Which scenario will produce "anti-life" results?

Abrahamic theists just love to attack anyone that expresses sexual pro-life sentiments, because their moral system is ass-backwards. And clubbers are the perfect target, as General JC Christian, Patriot, so cunningly discovered not too long ago.

The act of sex is the expression of life-oriented values. The act of violence is the expression of death-oriented values. Anyone who supports violence, especially as being more "moral" than sexuality, is unmistakably at the height of the anti-life mindset. That person is evil to the core, and wants to destroy himself by proxy through the destruction of the very thing that created him: hot steamy sex.

Abu Bakar Ba'asyir's abhorrent statements bring new meaning and relevance to the phrase "make love, not war."