Egypt Bans ALL Female Genital Mutilation

Hooray! There is sanity in this world after all. As an empathetic human being and a female, I am overjoyed at this civilized move, which strengthens the ban against female genital mutilation (FGM) implemented by Egypt in 1997. Let the rest of the world follow suit - there is hope!!

If you ever wonder why we activists stick out our necks and run the risk of being hammered, keep this victory in mind. Like so many others, I've been speaking out against this nightmare for many years, almost as long as I've been online, starting in 1995! I've been beaten on mercilessly for even daring to bring up such subjects - hysterical cries of "bigot" and "phobe" of assorted stripes have been tossed my way. I have maintained my strength by considering, in this case, the poor girls and women who have been hideously tortured and sometimes killed in this vile manner, in the name of "tradition" and/or "religion." Upwards of 100 million females still alive at this writing suffer from this wretched abuse, among many other types of brutality, worldwide.

Finally, a break from the violence and savagery committed endlessly against living, breathing and feeling beings.

Now, can the human species stop hacking at boys' genitals as well?!

Egypt outlaws all female circumcision: "CAIRO (AFP) - Egypt on Thursday finally banned all female circumcision, the widely-practised removal of the clitoris which just days ago cost the life of a 12-year-old girl.

Officially the practice, which affects both Muslim and Christian women in Egypt and goes back to the time of the pharoahs, was banned in 1997 but doctors were allowed to operate 'in exceptional cases'.

On Thursday, Health Minister Hatem al-Gabali decided to ban every doctor and member of the medical profession, in public or private establishments, from carrying out a clitoridectomy, a ministry press official told AFP.

Any circumcision 'will be viewed as a violation of the law and all contraventions will be punished,' said the official, adding that it was a 'permanent ban'.

A survey in 2000 said the practice was carried out on 97 percent of the country's women.

In the latest fatality, 12-year-old Bedur Ahmed Shaker was taken by her mother to a private clinic in Minya, a town on the Nile south of Cairo, for the operation. She died before she could be transferred to hospital.

Her mother accused the woman doctor of negligence, charging that her daughter's death was linked to the anaesthetic and not the removal of the clitoris, for which she had paid 50 pounds (nearly nine dollars). Police have arrested both women."

Islam in the UK - Coming Soon to the U.S.?

A new government report in Great Britain has all but handed the keys to the (united?) kingdom to the Islamic brotherhood. Prediction: Islam will become dominant in Britain faster than the majority realize. Prediction: Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand will follow, so long as the brotherhood's coffers are being filled by massive amounts of oil money, etc.

And so long as there are vast numbers of "dhimwits" to aid and abet, like so many Rahabs opening the gates of Jericho, we of the freethinking world are doomed. (Rahab, by the way, was a Canaanite prostitute who became a great hero to Joshua's Israelites by allowing them to invade the walled Canaanite city of Jericho and slaughter every man, woman and child they could find.)

"dhim·wit (dmwt) -- A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility or guile. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity."

Lest you think we are exaggerating, please be sure to read the following article:

Islam and the Blair legacy in the UK

A recent government report on how Islam is taught in British universities signals another step towards the Islamisation of Britain and its education system. It was launched by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at the opening of the “Islam and Muslims in the World Today” conference sponsored by Cambridge University on 4 June 2007. Should this report be implemented, education will be handed over more and more to Muslims who will train and shape the next generation. This means a further move towards the establishment of Islam in the UK as a religion of state....

Some of the report’s recommendations:

1. Universities should employ Muslim scholars to teach Islamic theology: “Students should be given the opportunity to learn from competent traditionally trained Islamic scholars in at least those parts of the syllabus that directly inform everyday practice of Islam”.

2. All universities must employ Muslim chaplains or advisers to deal with the growing number of Muslim students on campus. More prayer rooms for Muslims should be provided.

3. Islamic Student Societies should be better recognised and encouraged.

4. Universities should cooperate with Islamic schools and colleges (dar al-ulum) to break down the divisions between British society and the Muslim community. Universities should help madrassas and dar al-ulum because they play a key role in Muslim communities and in the training of future community leaders. They need a formal link to higher education qualifications.

5. Islamic studies should be linked to job opportunities such as teaching, chaplaincy and Islamic banking.

6. Universities should provide add-on modules in Islamic studies for all students.

7. Guidance should be given to all universities on Friday prayers, Ramadan and halal food. All university staff should receive awareness training on Muslims and Islam.

An analysis of these recommendations reveals that the report is in fact asking for a privileged position for Islam in the universities. It would seem to aim at transforming Islamic studies in Britain into a Muslim monopoly, a Muslim enclave in which the vast majority of staff and students are Muslim.

Ron Paul and the Reason Why

I have liked congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul for a number of years now. On several salient issues, I concur with his intelligent and thoughtful insights. After hearing about the recent brouhaha regarding him, I was at first puzzled by Paul's remarks concerning 9/11, until I took his advice and spent some time "listening" to Osama Bin Laden by reading the latter's purported 9/11 "confession."

First of all, let's review Ron Paul's comments at the second Republican presidential debate. When asked about about whether or not the terrorist attacks on the U.S. had "altered his view" of the aggressive American foreign policy, Paul responded:

"Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."

Paul was then quizzed by Fox News's Wendell Goler, who asked, "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?"

Paul answered:

"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now, since that time, killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

Without getting into the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, some of which are meant to absolve foreign involvement and blame the "American government," let us look at the purported speech of Bin Laden's that was released on October 29, 2004, in which he clearly accepts responsibility for 9/11 - and states that the attacks will continue, essentially because the "enemy" has not learned his lesson.

Since I am very concerned about continued attacks on American soil as well as the aftermath of such decimation - to wit, America being "bled" into bankruptcy and subsequently overtaken - I do believe we need to heed Ron Paul's advice and pay close attention to what Bin Laden is saying, if there's any chance that by doing so we can avoid such attacks. In other words, we ignore Bin Laden's words at our own peril, as he is clearly spelling out his intentions.

If this 2004 speech is authentic and is accurately translated, it is evident that Bin Laden is not an uneducated hick but, rather, an intelligent person who is very much aware of numerous aspects of politics. His observations regarding the Bush dynasty seem to be uncannily accurate - few people outside of the extreme Right would not recognize the self-interests of the Washingtonian powermongers in the policy towards Iraq. Bin Laden is probably correct in surmising that Bush is after complete control of Iraqi oil - after all, Bush is an oil man.

From the perspective of a savvy person in Iraq, it would certainly seem that the aggression against that nation had much to do with financial gain, rather than the outward humanitarian appearance of being concerned for the Iraqi people - or the fallacious excuse of looking for "weapons of mass destruction." Knowing this fact, one could easily make the case that the American government, et al., had absolutely no altruistic reasons for making a move on Iraq - and this fact could understandably cause some people to become upset if not irate. Factor in other policies around the world, and we can understand precisely what Ron Paul is saying.

I do not believe Ron Paul is at all claiming that "we invited the attack." First of all, who's "we?" It's too bad Paul used that language in describing U.S. foreign policy, because "we" certainly didn't have anything to do with it. The U.S. government did, but I for one did not vote for those characters, and I do not include myself in the "we" bit of their policies. In any event, Paul is not saying "we invited it." He's saying, as far as I can tell, "If you want to know why these people did what they did, take a close look at what they're saying is the reason they did what they did."

In other words, they're saying "we invited it." There's a subtle but important difference. If one reads the speech by Osama Bin Laden - again, assuming it's authentic and accurately translated - he clearly spells out the reasons why the Twin Towers were attacked: Because of previous aggressions in predominantly Arab and/or Muslim countries that have killed thousands of men, women and especially children. That's what Bin Laden said was the motive for the attacks, not "because they hate our freedoms." Here are some pertinent excerpts from the Bin Laden speech of 2004:

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children—also in Iraq—as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Accordingly, in his mind Bin Laden's continuous aggressions against Western agencies over the past several years have been in retaliation for the destruction of Arab and/or Muslim peoples and interests by the selfsame Western agencies. The reason for the 9/11 attacks given by Bin Laden is that the assaults which left so many people dead were "unbearable oppressions." When he describes the situation in this manner, with graphic images of the mass killing of children, we can understand the impetus for the assault on American interests. While I do not know the facts he bases his allegations on concerning "Bush Sr." being responsible for "millions" of deaths or the "greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known" - by not only warfare but also starvation, perhaps? - if such allegations are true, the angry reaction would be understandable. Certainly, the previous aggressions in Iraq left some pretty hideous developments, including the results of depleted uranium that almost no one is discussing.

Now, back to Ron Paul and his advice: Point well taken, Congressman Paul, and once again you've proved yourself a highly intelligent man entirely worthy of consideration to lead the American nation. In listening to what the "enemy" is saying about his reasons for aggression, we can learn how to avoid further attacks and to prevent his stated intention from becoming reality. What is this stated intention? To quote Bin Laden:

"So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah."

Perhaps we can prevent this frightening decimation not by kowtowing or capitulating to counter-aggressions but by applying a more sane and less destructive policy towards other nations. Regardless of whether or not the move into Iraq can be ethically supported, the fact is that it has been handled very badly all around. If the American nation is so sophisticated, surely there is a better and more intelligent way to conduct itself than pounding the crap out of poor people half way around the world.

Maybe Ron Paul has the answer to this sad quandary - at this juncture in history, with such an atrocious mess on our hands, I for one am more than willing to listen to his seemingly sane voice of reason. And to gladly vote for Paul if we are lucky enough to have him make it that far.

Confessions of an Empath

It's time for me to come clean about why I do what I do. You see, I'm an agent. Yep, that's right - I am an agent for change.

Seriously, I do what I am doing because I cannot stand the notion of suffering - anywhere in the cosmos, much less here at home on good ol' planet Earth. My motives practically since birth have been the same: I am sickened by violence, injustice and man's inhumanity to man and other creatures.

A little known fact about me is that I spent the first decade of my life becoming physically ill at the mere thought of violence. My family shielded me from violence, but still it managed to creep into my innocent psyche through images in the media, in movies, TV, books and magazines. I recall one Life magazine photo of a bloated corpse being pulled from an African river - a more grotesque sight my child eyes had never seen before.

I didn't vomit at that image, but I did puke all over the upstairs hallway after my older sibling explained to me what a "leper" was, as I was watching the movie "Ben Hur." As it was described to me, leprosy was "where your fingers and other body parts turn black and fall off." Not exactly a clinical definition, but it sufficed to have me running for the bathroom. I didn't make it.

Nor did I make it to the barf bag my family had brought especially for me to the drive-in movie theater, where we watched the scene of a man being hung in front of a jeering mob during the era of the American Wild West. Nope, that time the candy took the hit, as I grabbed the wrong paper sack. Needless to say, my siblings weren't thrilled at losing the candy.

Prior to the Ben Hur incident was a nightmare at grade school - fourth grade, when I was 9 years old. The kids in my class were surrounding one pupil, looking at a photo sent by his penpal and going, "Ooohhhh, grossss!" The children were also laughing, so I peeked over the boy's shoulder to see what they were looking at.

To my horror and shock, the photo was a picture of an American GI holding the severed heads of two Vietnamese soldiers - and smiling. I immediately backed up from this diabolical image, turned around and walked away, choking back tears and vomit. I was incompassionately pursued by the other children, who ridiculed me for not being a "good American," because these slaughtered human beings were "the enemy." Horrified, I looked to the teacher for relief, but she seemed to be joining in the finger wagging!

A Decisive Moment

That moment in my life was decisive. I knew then that I was very different from most people. I had seen an image of two human beings viciously murdered, while the others had seen "the enemy." I've never tortured or killed anyone, and I cannot even stand the sight of such atrocities; yet, I feel sometimes as if I'm all alone on this planet.

At some point during my first decade on this planet, it was suggested to me that, in order to survive in the world, I would need to become "inured" to its horrors. If by "survival" is meant that I couldn't go on barfing, I agree. And for many years I managed to push hideous atrocities out of my mind. A couple of decades later, I finally woke up, once and for all. I will never become inured to the horrors of this world. I am simply too emphathetic not to feel the evil that men do. Indeed, my empathy was the mechanism by which I would become sickened and vomit as a child. I would actually feel the terror, pain and suffering of individuals as they were tortured and killed. I am still feeling the suffering of my brothers and sisters globally, and I am compelled to expose this suffering and help it to heal.

Unfortunately, there are some very evil characters on this planet, and their sickness is infectious enough to have spread far and wide to what amounts to millions of people. These loathsome characters have created their clones and drones, desensitizing them to a mind-numbing level of violence against other living and breathing human beings. The crimes of these evil creatures are beyond comprehension, including but not limited to:

• torture of all manner
• floggings, lashings and beatings
  
• beheadings
  
• slitting throats
  
• stonings
• hangings from cranes and other devices
  
• hacking off hands and feet
• rape - gang and individual of both genders
  
• child abuse, including rape and sodomy
• animal abuse
• "honor killings"
  
• female and male genital mutilation
  
• depriving women of air and sunlight, and subjecting them to sweltering heat beneath black or other dark-colored clothing
• acid attacks on women's faces and other body parts
  
• slavery
• genocide

Most sickening, these atrocities and crimes against humanity are being committed by entire groups of people in the name of God! In other words, these horrors are unleashed as a major part of "religion." Is it any wonder there are "angry atheists" speaking out against the very notion of an all-powerful, good and merciful God in charge of everything? If the scenario just listed is "godly," what the hell is satanic?!

Every day, day in and day out, these vile thugs are grabbing people - including children of both genders - against their will and doing heinous and evil things to them. In all too many places, these montrous tyrants get away with this despicable behavior all the time, because they are allowed and commanded to do so by the governing authorities, both political and religious. Psychotically, these sadists believe themselves correct and righteous in seizing other living, breathing beings against their will and beating, torturing and murdering them. These savages have such power that large groups of people are under their dominion - and they are not content to stop there.

Who is stopping these constant abuses against innocent human beings? Who can these voiceless victims turn to for respite and salvation? As a person of empathy, I am feeling their pain and suffering - and I am outraged by their persecutors' audacity and megalomania. This unmitigated hubris of vilely destroying God's creatures is absolutely ungodly.

And it must be stopped, because it's making not only me but all of us sick. If there has ever been any creator, it seems "he" has long abandoned his flawed creation to its own devices, much to the dismay of all rational and compassionate human beings. That is to say, all true human beings. I can only fervently hope that there are enough of us true human beings to stand up to these sadistic bullies wherever they may be found.

Muslim Takeover of Europe and America?

The following video records a Muslim leader - Libya's Qaddafi/Gaddafi - discussing the 100 million Muslims now or soon to be in the European Union, and how Europe will be an Islamic state within "a few decades."

According to the translation, which I have not verified, Gaddafi says, "There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe..." This takeover will not be "forceful," it is claimed. Rather, it is implied and understood, the main mechanism will be by outpopulating the Europeans and, obviously, subjugating them.

Gaddafi also relates the plot to overtake America as well, saying:

"Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time or else declare war on the Muslims."

In other words, if you don't voluntarily convert to Islam, you'd better be prepared to fight physically for your life: "Convert or die."

This speech was given before thousands of men in Timbuktu. This situation is not an isolated incident of "a few extremist Muslims." They have the numbers and the money as to be alarming - and they should be taken quite seriously. At this writing, an estimated one-fourth or more of the world's population is Muslim - the fastest-growing segment by far.

Presuming this translation is accurate, and factoring in many other signs - including the attempted and successful implementation of sharia law in a number of European countries and in Canada - it seems evident that if the world doesn't wake up, Gaddafi will prove to be correct in his predictions and actions to compel Europe and America to become Muslim.

Adulterer Gingrich Destined for Hell

In yet another display of unmitigated arrogance, while giving the commencement speech at recently deceased fundmentalist minister Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, American politico Newt Gingrich called for an attack on "radical secularism." Gingrich's hypocritical "holier-than-thou" stance is particularly amusing in light of the fact that he is a twice-divorced, known adulterer.

In his pretentions of being a moral cop, possible presidential candidate Gingrich peppered his speech with quotes from the Bible, presumably leaving out the following scriptures:

... take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless. (Mal 2:15)

And Pharisees came up to [Jesus] and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." (Mat 19:3-9)

According to the New Testament, Jesus was squarely against divorce, as well as remarriage, calling the latter "adultery." Since Gingrich is by biblical default and admission an adulterer, let us look at biblical scriptures concerning adultery and adulterers:

You shall not commit adultery. (Exd 20:14)

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. (Lev 20:10)

Neither shall you commit adultery. (Deu 5:18)

He who commits adultery has no sense; he who does it destroys himself. (Pro 6:32 )

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.... It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Mat 5:27-32)

And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness..." (Mat 19:18)

While Jesus upholds the proscription against adultery found in the 10 Commandments, the gospels do not record Christ as assigning the death penalty as a punishment for adultery, as does the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus is depicted as stopping the stoning of a woman on the charge of adultery, uttering the famous words, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (Jn 8:17)

So egregious is the sin of adultery, however, that St. Paul lumps adulterers in with "the immoral...idolaters... sexual perverts... thieves... the greedy... drunkards... revilers [and] robbers." According to the New Testament, none of these individuals "will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:10)

Thus, it would seem Newt Gingrich is destined for Hell!

In his Liberty-University speech, Gingrich also remarked:

"A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded... We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights.

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms....

"Too often, the courts have been biased against religious believers. This anti-religious bias must end..."

In reality, not only is religion divisive, but the a priori assumption by religionists that God exists, as depicted in the Bible and other "holy texts," is utterly dishonest and is at the root of many of the world's problems. The honest debate should be not whether or not "God" is to be allowed in public schools but whether or not the anthropomorphic god as portrayed in the Bible even exists.

The fact is that the majority of individuals in the United States consider themselves to be religious, including judges and legislators, and there have been no professed atheists on the Supreme Court since its inception. Fortunately for Newt Gingrich, however, the courts have been biased against fervent believers in the Old Testament punishment for adultery, i.e., stoning. Gingrich had better hope for his own sake, therefore, that the wall of separation between church and state remains high and unbreachable.

"Suicide Killers" - Islam is "Beautiful?"

On last night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart hosted a French filmmaker named Pierre Rehov, whose recent creation "Suicide Killers" presents the views of would-be Muslim "bombers for God." Rehov stated that the suicide killers talked to his team because they believe that the French are "100% on their side." The absolute pathology of the individuals involved in this documentary is sickening, reflecting a psychotic indoctrination that can only be termed child abuse.

Although from his website Mr. Rehov is clearly appalled by this pathological attitude and behavior, he unfortunately repeated the disturbing and perilous platitude that it's not Islam but extremists who are the problem. Granted, extremists are a problem, but "innocent" Islam is not. Rehov went so far as to say that "Islam is a beautiful religion." In consideration of its history and all that we know about Islam, including widespread violence, torture and murder wherever it is found, we would really like to know exactly what is "beautiful" about Islam?

• Is the suppression and oppression - the torture - of women "beautiful?"

Here's the Koranic origin of that abysmal mentality:

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient." (Q 4:34)

The Prophet Mohammed is quoted as saying:

"I was standing at the edge of the fire (hell) and the majority of the people going in were women."

This gruesome image shows an Iranian woman beaten for not covering her hair properly - but one example of sharia or Islamic law. (Reproduced with permission from the Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation.)

The vicious attitude towards and vile treatment of women within Islam is spreading throughout the world:

"From 1998 until 2002, Muslim male gangs taunted Australian girls, particularly in Sydney. The females were labeled 'sluts' and 'Aussie pigs,' therefore, they were bait for rape.

"In Australia's New South Wales Supreme Court in December 2005, a visiting Pakistani rapist testified that his victims had no right to say no, because they were not wearing a headscarf...

"As more and more Muslims move into Western nations, this gang rape will increase because it is part of the Muslim male killing cult, otherwise known as their 'religion.'"

There simply is no excuse for this evil mentality and behavior, but there will be many who deny that it exists, adding insult to the severe injuries - including hideous rape and murder - suffered by its victims.

• Is the constant call for the deaths of infidels something "beautiful?"

The Koran/Quran itself contains repeated statements to torment and kill unbelievers:

"This Book is not to be doubted.... As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them." (Q 2:2-6)

"God's curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls. To deny God's own revelation, grudging that He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants! They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers." (Q 2:92-6)

"... Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage." (Q 2:190-3)

"When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them." (Q 9:5)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Q 9:73)

These are direct quotes from the Koran, translated but not "interpreted." No interpretation is necessary, as the meaning is clear.

• Is the repression of sex to the point of driving young men to want to kill themselves and others somehow "beautiful?"

Again, this repression is sanctioned by the Koran, which promises a garden of sexual delights to those who martyr themselves in the name of Islam.

"The righteous shall return to a blessed retreat: the gardens of Eden, whose gates shall open wide to receive them. Reclining there with bashful virgins for companions, they will call for abundant fruit and drink." (Q 38:51-2)

"On that day [the unbelievers] shall be sternly thrown into the fire of Hell... But in fair gardens the righteous shall dwell in bliss, rejoicing in what their Lord will give them. Their Lord will shield them from the scourge of Hell. He will say: Eat and drink to your hearts content. This is the reward of your labours.

"They shall recline on couches ranged in rows. To dark-eyed houris [virgin girls] We shall wed them.... Fruit We shall give them, and such meats as they desire. They will pass from hand to hand a cup inspiring no idle talk, no sinful urge; and there shall wait on them young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls." (Q 52:13-24)

"Reclining there upon soft couches, they shall feel neither the scorching heat nor the biting cold. Trees will spread their shade around them, and fruits will hang in clusters over them.

"They shall be served with silver dishes, and beakers as large as goblets; silver goblets which they themselves shall measure: and cups brim-full with ginger-flavoured water from a fount called Salsabil. They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who to the beholders eyes will seem like sprinkled pearls. When you gave upon that scene, you will behold a kingdom blissful and glorious." (Q 76:9-20)

Note that these last scriptures promise appealing young boys to serve the men who arrive in Paradise.

None of the despicable and inhuman behavior brought out by these scriptures is "extremist" within Islam - it is mainstream. In the future, it would be best to question what exactly is "beautiful" about Islam?

I'm waiting to hear.

(More illustrations of "beautiful Islam." Warning: Extremely gruesome.)

Immigration Reform Protests

On this day of mass immigration-reform protests, the book Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market appears to be singularly significant. In fact, it represents an extremely important aspect of this divisive debate that most people may be unaware of. Hence, we feel that this vital information needs to be widely spread in order for people to make a more informed opinion on this critical controversy.

In Reefer Madness, the best-selling author of Fast Food Nation investigates America's black market and its far-reaching influence on our society through three of its mainstays -- pot, porn and illegal immigrants.

The underground economy is vast; it comprises perhaps 10 percent -- or more -- of America's overall economy, and it's on the rise. Eric Schlosser charts this growth, and finds its roots in the nexus of ingenuity, greed, idealism, and hypocrisy that is American culture. He reveals the fascinating workings of the shadow economy by focusing on marijuana, one of the nation's largest cash crops; pornography, whose greatest beneficiaries include Fortune 100 companies; and illegal migrant workers, whose lot often resembles that of medieval serfs.

All three industries show how the black market has burgeoned over the past three decades, as America's reckless faith in the free market has combined with a deep-seated puritanism to create situations both preposterous and tragic. Schlosser traces compelling parallels between underground and overground: how tycoons and gangsters rise and fall, how new technology shapes a market, how government intervention can reinvigorate black markets as well as mainstream ones, how big business learns -- and profits -- from the underground.

With intrepid reportage, rich history, and incisive argument, Schlosser illuminates the shadow economy and the culture that casts that shadow.

For more information on this highly relevant and germane work, please go to Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market.

Jesus Tomb - Not!

This post concerns the article on the Discovery Channel website regarding the current "Jesus Tomb" brouhaha. In the final analysis, it's amazing how Discovery, et al., can continue putting out such malarkey over the years without any damage to their credibility.

If you read that article closely, you will see a perfect example of intellectual legerdemain in action. Firstly, they say there's DNA evidence "suggesting" the tombs are those of Jesus, et al. What is this evidence? They took the DNA of the bones and compared it to what? Did they have some DNA evidence that had already been scientifically determined to be that of Jesus? Wow! That IS big news!

From this article, what this so-called evidence appears to be is that the bones in two of the ossuaries - one reading "Jesus" and one "Mary" - are not related. Therefore, goes this incredibly specious argument, they are the bones of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene! The guy who is making all these definitive connections, Jacobovici, was involved in the Jame ossuary hoax - how credible is he? In his declarations, he is already assuming a priori that these tombs are proved to have been those of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. Considering that Jacobovici is now trying to prove that the James ossuary came from the same tomb, my suspicion is that all of this sleight-of-hand is an attempt on his part to resurrect his own reputation.

I find it interesting that there is no mention of the work of James Tabor called The Jesus Dynasty, which, not having read, I am assuming is based on the same tomb and which was widely touted on all the talk shows some years ago. Why is he not being mentioned now? Could it be because his work has been discredited since then, and the producers don't want anyone to realize the connection? (This is speculation on my part, obviously, since I haven't followed that debate.)

Furthermore, what about the Jesus tomb found in 1945 in the same Talpiot Quarter of Jerusalem, as I mention in my article on the James ossuary? It had charcoal crosses on it - so why couldn't THAT be the tomb of the "real Jesus of Nazareth?" Perhaps because, as the archaeologists themselves have repeatedly stated about this "new" find (from 1980), there is no real, solid and scientific evidence to that effect? I.e., the archaeologists on neither tomb have made these definitive connections - and that's an important point. Nowhere does Discovery even mention the 1980 tomb's archaeologist Amos Kloner, who pointedly stated, ""It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever."

If the inscriptions are from the Herodian period (1 BC to 1 AD), per Frank Moore Cross, how the heck are they relevant to Jesus and his family? Even if Jesus himself had been born and named by then, did someone predict his marriage to Mary and the name of their son, born decades later, such that these inscriptions were made before either event had occurred, in anticipation that both would be buried there? What nonsense!

As to the conclusion by "Jodi Magness" that the New Testament writings demonstrate Jesus "likely" lived during the 1st century AD/CE - wow! I'd never heard that before. What stellar reportage.

And what is "Matthew" doing in this family tomb? Say, now, that's why the book of Matthew is so "accurate" - because Matthew was in reality one of Jesus's lost siblings! (FYI, that's sarcasm, because the book of Matthew and the other gospels reveal the writers did NOT have familiarity with the topography and geography of Palestine at the time, proving they could not have lived there and been eyewitnesses to the events. For more on the problems with the New Testament, please see my book Who Was Jesus?)

Discovery reports that a scholar has stated that the name "Mary," as in "Mary Magdalene," was probably "Mariamene" or "Mariamne." Well, that's good enough for Discovery, apparently, to conclude that these bones belonged to Mary Magdalene! Never mind that the name "Mary" was common in Jerusalem at the time - and has been found on numerous tombs and ossuaries, including two in this so-called Jesus Tomb itself.

As concerns the silly statistic regarding the names (600 to 1), again, the fact is that the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph were VERY common at that time. The name Mary, in reality, was apparently SO common that there are THREE Marys mentioned in the gospel tale! Indeed, there are few other named females in the gospel tale, such as Anna and Salome, and these are relatively minor characters. Hence, for the major female characters in the gospel drama, we are faced almost exclusively with Marys! What are the odds for that? Could it be that the gospel writers hit upon the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph PRECISELY because they WERE so common? It would be much easier to place them into history because of this commonality - the results of such efforts being that here we are some 2,000 years later squabbling about which "historical" Jesus, Joseph and Mary these characters were!

Based on this sketch at Discovery, what it comes down to here, apparently, is that, because the two sets of bones in the 1980 Talpiot tomb discovery are not related, they are THE Jesus and Mary of New Testament myth. From there, we have the set of bones belonging to a "Judah son of Jesus" that must be those of the son of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene! (As an aside, would Jesus and Mary - had they actually been married and parented a child together - really name their son after the person [Judas] who betrayed Jesus to the authorities?!)

Discovery Channel is obviously the World Weekly News of television. I'd say the National Enquirer, but that august publication is actually far more accurate in its reportage.

Jesus's Tomb Found - Really?

Those of us who have been studying the Jesus myth for long enough not only have seen this coming, but we've already addressed it, because the "Jesus's tomb found!" crowing is as old as the hills. This latest load of hooey pops up, of course, right in time for Easter, when we will be bludgeoned with the hideous tale of the gentle Lord and Savior of the cosmos being brutally beaten and sacrificed - to himself, in an expiatory ritual somehow designed to remove the sins of the weak and beggarly creatures this all-powerful Lord created in the first place.

As outlined in my books The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God, the creation of holy relics to bolster a flagging faith constitutes ancient priestcraft of the first order. No self-respecting priesthood could be without such fabrication, and this latest bit of legerdemain is hardly anything outstanding within this long line of chicanery and treachery.

Let us look more closely at the sleight-of-hand being foisted upon us in this newest attempt at anchoring the mythical into history. First, some years ago when another such piece of priestcraft, the so-called James ossuary, was being touted as the missing "proof" for the existence of Jesus Christ, I wrote a long rebuttal called "Bone Box No Proof of Jesus," which was published in a three-part series in Secular Nation at the suggestion of Dr. Robert Price. In this article - written in 2002 - I discuss the fact that ossuaries of this type were not uncommon and that inscriptions with the names of "Jesus" and "Mary" were likewise to be found abundantly. I even addressed this latest purported "tomb of Jesus":

... as [archaeologist] Avi-Yonah states regarding the numerous bone-boxes found in the Tombs at Dominus Flevit, which contained "122 ossuaries of the usual type [square]," common names included Jeshua or Yeshua (Jesus) and Maria (Mary). (EAEHL, II, 636.) In one of the surviving family tombs in Jerusalem are 18 ossuaries with Greek inscriptions, one of which contains the names "Joseph" (twice) and "Maria." (EAEHL, II, 635.) By the typical media and religious standards this tomb should have been exalted as that of Jesus's family.

In another example, in the "Tomb Cave in the Talpiot Quarter, discovered in 1945," are found large charcoal crosses on one of the ossuaries, while "two other ossuaries had Greek inscriptions reading IhsouV iou. IhsouV alwq," a phrase that contains the name Jesus twice. "The excavator interpreted the crosses and the inscriptions as expressions of sorrow at the crucifixion of Jesus, an interpretation not accepted by other scholars." The tomb itself dates to the beginning of the first century and demonstrates the commonality of the name Jesus before the purported time of the Christian messiah. (EAEHL, II, 635.) If this Jesus tomb had dated to a few decades later, no doubt the media and faithful would have had a field day in presenting it as the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, thus "proving" the biblical fable, although these two tombs mentioned herein would certainly infuriate the keepers and believers in the "Holy Sepulchre," yet another profitable tourist attraction. It would be surprising that no such incautious and mirthful rush to judgment has occurred concerning this particular Jesus tomb. In reality, at least one sloppy sensationalist author has claimed this tomb to be that of "Jesus of Nazareth," asserting that the tomb also contained the ossuaries of not only a Jesus, but also a Joseph, two Marys and a Jude. The excavation report, however, does not mention these other burials, leaving the question as to whether or not this particular author is prone to fiction, as is suggested by his other writings as well. As is evident, looks can be deceiving, such that caution should be utilized in regard to artifacts.

In Jerusalem there is even a "Tomb of Jason," complete with an ossuary and a scratched image of a warship, which could lead to the conclusion that this is the tomb of the Jason of Greek mythology. "On the walls of the porch are charcoal drawings of ships, a Greek inscription, and several Aramaic inscriptions, the longest of which consists of three lines lamenting Jason, the deceased." (EAEHL, II, 630) Using coins and pottery, the tomb is dated to having been used between the Hasmonean (2nd-1st cent. BCE) and the Herodian eras (37 BCE-70 CE). Although it is evidently the tomb of a real person of that era, true believers in the demigod Jason of Argonaut fame could attempt in the same manner as Christians to "prove" the existence of Jason and his Argonauts, such as Hercules, as "real people."

Indeed, the creation and/or discovery of the tombs of various gods has been a mainstay throughout the world for millennia and centuries, with the Egyptian god Osiris, for example, purportedly buried in dozens of places. The same has occurred with Jesus, as his remains are alleged to be found in Kashmir and Japan, to name a couple of tourist traps. I further explore this issue in my article "Jesus in India?"

Moreover, one of the individuals in this newest scandal happens to have been involved in the James ossuary hoax. Hence, we could hardly consider this find to be any more credible than that one. We also must make note of the fact that the senior archaeologist on the pertinent excavation, Professor Amos Kloner, says of this fictionalized tale - the new "documentary" of which astoundingly includes famed director James Cameron - "It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever."

As an aside and postscript, if Ray Santilli can be busted for the "Alien Autopsy" hoax, then James Cameron should likewise be found culpable for foisting this fraud upon an unsuspecting public. It rankles me to no end that, when it comes to religious tomfoolery, no one is held accountable for their fraudulent behavior.

Muslim Misogyny

I spied a Muslim woman in a store recently, dressed in a black hijab. Over the years, I have beheld many Muslim women in major cities, but I remain disconcerted by the sight. This particular woman kept looking at me, wondering, I suppose, why I was peering at her every so often. I look because I am curious - and appalled.

Unlike countless people who preach "tolerance," I know too much about Islam, which has proved itself one of the most sexist and misogynistic ideologies human beings have ever conceived. In fact, the entire purpose of Islam often appears purely to repress and oppress women. An examination of the blatant sexism and misogyny within Islam would require an entire tome, such wretched perspective occurring so continually throughout Muslim doctrines.

I glance at these women because I am searching for a reason why, in a country as free as any on Earth, they would deliberately cover their hair - or worse, their faces. I frankly feel like walking up to them, pulling the hijab or burkha off them, and saying, "You're free now!" Unlike the deranged savages who exhort their followers to slap, beat, rape or kill uncovered women, however, I cannot engage in violence against another's person.

I also can't turn my face away from Muslim women, because I see such suffering there. In consideration of the disgraceful treatment of women within Islam, I do not think it too harsh to say that Islam is to women what Nazism is to Jews. To me, the hijab is equivalent to the yellow star. As but one sickening example of this horrid notion, every day the genitals of thousands of girls and women are hideously mutilated, per "traditions" largely but not exclusively found in Islamic countries. Each day, women are viciously killed in the name of "honor," completely destroying any meaning of that word. Millions of women are enslaved, beaten, abused in every way imaginable. And on and on it goes, unrelenting, with only a miniscule minority objecting.

Where is the humanity when this type of suffering goes on day in and day out? Why no outcry about this human rights violation? Does the silence exist because "God" is continually invoked in order to justify this vile behavior? What good is "God" then, if such obvious evil is allowed to flourish in "his" name?

As the Greek sage Epicurus (341-270 BCE) said:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Humanity will only exhibit truly enlightened behavior when it ceases to allow criminal cowards to veil themselves with the patently unprovable and frequently puerile concepts of God. No matter how much one hides behind the sacrosanct concept of God, the fact will remain that abusing women is not religion.

Benny Hinn: Used Religion Salesman

I recently watched a video expose of the superevangelist Benny Hinn, whose tax-free enterprise rakes in some $250 million a year. It is apparent that Hinn is a showman, but he is also quite evidently a conman who is dishonest in his presentation of the "miracles" that fuel his enormous organization.

If the fruits of the labors of telephone psychics are taxable, it makes NO sense to allow the circus run by Benny Hinn to exist tax-free. In fact, it makes little sense not to tax religious organizations, other than because of their charitable occupations. Does God really need the tax break? Why does the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God need money in the first place to spread His Word and Gospel? Hinn, it should be noted, is evidently very stingy with his hundreds of millions when it comes to charitable activity.

Oddly enough, I like Hinn's show, as much as I liked Steve Martin's "Leap of Faith" movie about a conman who fakes miracles in order to make a living. Obviously, in the name of honesty and ETHICS, Hinn's gig should be presented as a SHOW, not reality, because THE FACT IS THAT BENNY HINN IS HURTING PEOPLE with his bogus antics. The offenses that Hinn commits would be VERY scandalous if a medical doctor engaged in them. But, because Hinn invokes God and rants on about the Lord and Savior, etc., ad nauseam, he gets away with such atrocious behavior. Perhaps all conmen and criminals should invoke God - they could then get away with it too! Hinn has obviously gotten help from powerful people as well, so it seems clear that the powermongers gleefully encourage this type of fleecing of the sheeple.

While watching this Benny Hinn expose, I was struck by a few other things. At one point while "healing" someone, Hinn shouts out, "Cancer cannot stand in the presence of the Holy Ghost." So, why does cancer exist in the first place? Is the Holy Spirit not omnipresent? Where is the Holy Spirit not? Does the Devil cause cancer? Maybe the Devil is the cancer? So the Holy Spirit cannot go where the Devil is - until Benny Hinn steps in? Benny Hinn is necessary before the Holy Spirit can work? Or is willing to work? Is the Holy Spirit impotent without Benny Hinn? If not, why can't anyone anywhere access the Holy Spirit to heal themselves? Why are people diseased in the first place, if the Holy Spirit can heal everything? Why isn't the healing Holy Spirit already present to prevent disease?

After Hinn's quarter-of-a-billion-dollar yearly income was revealed, and his lavish lifestyle exposed, one of his naive supporters stated, "It costs money to travel, to bring the gospel of Christ around the world." Again, why would it cost money for human beings to spread the Word of God? Isn't God omnipotent? Can't God spread His Word without making poor people give up all their money? It is astounding that everyone is so eager to give up their money to the most powerful force in the universe, who, if real, surely would not need money.

Wow! What a racket!

At one point Hinn acted out a "miracle" of curing a blind boy, during which the boy was pronounced "healed" and promised a trust fund to take care of him through college. When confronted with the fact that none of this occurred and that the boy was not healed at all, in his reply Hinn referred to his non-medical advisors who tell him someone is "cured":

"When he comes up on the platform, I'm only able to know what happens because they tell me so."

So what happened to the Lord, who was supposedly speaking to Hinn the whole time? How come Hinn has to rely on his staff with no medical credentials?

It is so obvious that Benny Hinn is not speaking to or for "the Lord" and that he is not doing miraculous healings. It is a shame that Hinn is scamming not only himself but so many others. But, alas, it is not unexpected, as such scams and schemes have been going on for millennia with too many used-religion salesmen to count.

Hail Zeus Pateras, God the Father!

So, relatively indigenous people would like their own religion back, but the Greek Orthodox Church feels it has the right to disparage them and discriminate against them, because, in its megalomania and arrogance, it feels it alone possesses the "only truth." Well, I say, "Shove off, Greek Orthodox Church!"

As a philhellenic, I would much prefer to see Greece embrace its glorious past, including its extraordinary ancient mythology, rather than this repulsive foreign intrusion of horse hockey called Christianity. The Greek Orthodox clergy should be considered traitors to the Greek culture, frankly, as they cast aside their homegrown traditions and gods, substituting in their stead a Jewish man to be worshipped as the god of the cosmos. "Out, out, damned spot!"

Naturally, I am not one for bringing back the attendant idiocies of slavery and human sacrifice, or compulsion in worshipping these fabulous gods. Just allow them some breathing room as imaginary friends who can sit alongside the fictional Jesus Christ - or toss his sorry arse out of Mt. Olympus.

Zeus devotees worship in Athens

By Malcolm Brabant

BBC News, Athens

The temple of Zeus has not been long unattended by priestesses

Worshippers who believe in the 12 gods of ancient Greece have held a ceremony at the Temple of Zeus in Athens.

This is a landmark event to celebrate official recognition of their religion by a court last year.

The Greek Orthodox Church has said they are miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion.

But the ceremony went ahead, with crowds watching priests and priestesses, who said the event was a symbol of their civic rights.

In 2003, white-clad worshippers performed an illicit ceremony at the Temple of Hephaestus, just below the Acropolis.

At that time they were chased off the site by ministry of culture staff.

Despite vigorous opposition from the highly conservative Greek Orthodox Church, a court last year officially recognised the revived ancient Greek religion.

The worshippers are loyal to Zeus and the other Olympians

One of its leaders, Doretta Peppa, a writer who calls herself a high priestess, told the BBC the temples were built to respect the gods and now they were going to be put to their proper use.

Ms Peppa said she had been given official permission to use the temple, but there were fears that the culture ministry, which administers the site, might give way to pressure from the church.

The president of the Association of Greek Clergymen, Father Efstathios Kollas, has described the followers of the Olympic gods as a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past.

Ms Peppa and her followers aspire to have the rights afforded to Britain's druids who worship at Stonehenge, and Danish believers in Thor and the Nordic gods who are allowed to perform marriages, baptisms and funerals.

Eye on the Future

From 11:00-12:00 PM EST/8:00-9:00 PM PST tonight, Sunday, January 21, 2007, I will be appearing Hehsehboah's "Eye on the Future" radio show out of Canada. We will be discussing my book Who Was Jesus?

H and I always have much to say about the state of the world, and I always enjoy our shows. I'm sorry to say that she has not been well at all for the past several months.

In any event, tune in if you can!

Eye on the Future Radio Show

Dr. Robert Price's Review of "Suns of God"

I am delighted to announce that I have just now posted online the review by Dr. Robert Price of my book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled. This review is long awaited, and the hard copy of it, appearing in Price's "Journal of Higher Criticism," is going to press as I write. Bob has kindly allowed me to post this preview copy online. As one can see, after the previous debacle with my book "The Christ Conspiracy," Bob has come forth to prove himself a real mensch.

Dr. Robert Price's Review of Suns of God

Enjoy!

Robert Anton Wilson, RIP

I've just gotten the news that the great Robert Anton Wilson passed away early this morning. Perhaps that's why I couldn't sleep last night.

Although our paths had crossed previously, I had the pleasure of finally meeting RAW several years ago, at Tim Leary's memorial service in a hangar at the Santa Monica airport. Wilson was forlorn, but, as was to be expected, made a humorous send off of that singular character.

Some years prior to that, I had sent Wilson a letter - by snailmail! - giving him the skinny on the origins of Christianity. I was delighted to receive a missive in return from him - again, snailmail! - exhorting me to "convert to Islam, and everything would be all right!" Obviously, he was being his usual funny self. Somewhere around that time, I also became friendly with a person who had spent quite a bit of time with Bob, so I was regaled with Bob Wilson stories for months on end.

The most recent "encounter" I didn't have with Robert Anton Wilson was when conspiracy maven and RAW friend Kenn Thomas and I spent a couple of hours trying to find his home in Santa Cruz, California. We had asked Bob to write the foreword to my book The Christ Conspiracy and were very anxious to see him. Alas, the foreword and meeting never occurred, but Kenn and I did very much enjoy our drive to Santa Cruz and then up the California coast.

Other than those little tidbits and having read several of his books, I don't know all that much about Robert Anton Wilson. He appeared to me to be an extremely creative person who took life by its tail and gleefully ran with it. Certainly, RAW has left an indelible mark in the thinking of hundreds of thousands.

It is gratifying to know that in his last days Bob Wilson was bombarded with reciprocated love and generosity that lifted his spirits. Of course, RAW will be sorely missed on Earth, but we know that if there's a Discordian heaven, it is richer today.

Om shanti shanti om, Bob. Much eternal love to you. Have a great ride on infinity...

The Reason for the Season - AGAIN?

A belated "Christmas" present - a new video based on a conversation between "Infidel Guy" Reg Finley and me:

"The Reason for the Season"

In this long but worthy video, I go into detail about exactly whence the Christmas holiday originates and what it really means, including the following:

--What is the winter solstice?
--When was Jesus's birthday traditionally placed?
--Why are the two intertwined now?
--Who else was born on December 25th?



My vids have been watched by tens of thousands of people. Here is a partial list of Acharya's Online Videos.

Enjoy!

Subway Superman Saves Stranger

Wow - what a moving story! I hope this guy Wesley Autrey has a great life after this. I like the last couple of sentences: Autrey's elderly mother thinks it's "the Lord" saving the men, while his cute daughter wonders if her father is going to become Superman! Indeed, we prefer the latter. Why didn't the all-powerful Lard prevent the man from falling into the subway in the first place? Was He just trying to bring a little excitement into the lives of jaded New Yawkers? Let's give credit where it is due: Quick-thinking Autrey risked his own neck to save a total stranger. He's the hero, not "the Lord."

Look for a movie to be made out of this awesome story...

Subway hero saves stranger
Train passes over pair lying on tracks

Andrew Strickler
Newsday
January 3, 2007

NEW YORK – When Wesley Autrey saw the man suffering a seizure fall onto the subway tracks, he jumped in to save the stranger.

As he tried to pull the man to safety at the Harlem stop, Autrey looked up.

"I saw the two white lights, and said, 'Whoa, you ain't got no time,' " Autrey said.

Autrey, 50, grabbed Cameron Hollopeter, 20, in a bear hug and the pair landed in a shallow trough filled with dirty water, with Autrey on top.

The screeching train missed the pair by the barest of margins.

"In my mind, I believed, I hoped, the train had enough clearance," he said. "It didn't hit my head; it just nicked my cap."

Wesley estimated they were under the train for 20 minutes before the power to an adjacent track was cut so emergency workers could safely remove them.

At St. Luke's Hospital, where Hollopeter was taken for treatment for the seizure and minor injuries, thankful family member Jeff Friedman said Hollopeter was shaken by the experience.

Friedman, 55, of New Jersey, said Hollopeter was the son of his daughter's husband and was studying to be a film director at New York Film Academy.

"He's a talented writer, but he couldn't have written the screenplay any better," Friedman said.

Hollopeter's father was on his way to New York from Massachusetts and sent thanks to Wesley, Friedman said.

"I'd like to buy him a drink, maybe a hundred drinks," Friedman said.

The near miss occurred Tuesday about 12:44 p.m., as Autrey and Hollopeter waited separately for a downtown train.

Wesley, who was taking his two young daughters to meet their mother, said he saw Hollopeter fall on his back on the platform and begin to convulse.

After running to a transit worker to call for help, Wesley said he returned to Hollopeter, who was still convulsing and choking. Wesley got a pen from another rider and forced it between Hollopeter's jaws.

Hollopeter soon appeared to recover, and even stood to walk on the platform, Autrey said.

But then Hollopeter stumbled and fell onto the tracks, and Autrey jumped after him.

A Navy veteran who grew up in Brewton, Ala., Autrey was humble about his heroism.

"I'm just saying, I saw someone in distress and went to his aid," Autrey said.

The No. 1 train pulled in and tried to stop to avoid hitting the pair. Police said at least two cars passed over them before coming to a halt.

Tuesday afternoon, members of Wesley's family gathered at his mother's apartment to cheer Autrey's heroism and give thanks for his survival.

"It was the Lord who did it. Can you picture it? God just moved that train over him," said Autrey's mother, Mary Autrey, 69.

Autrey's daughter had a different interpretation.

"Is my daddy going to become Superman?" Shaqui, 6, asked.

Worldwide Scam Alert!

It has come to our notice that there are groups of people around the world who convince people there's an invisible Jewish man floating about in the sky who will become very angry if they don't do certain things. One of the things these scammers insist others do in order to appease the wrath of this invisible Jewish man floating about in the sky is to give them money for a variety of reasons, including in order to build the scammers' headquarters where they can continue to fleece their sheep with the story about the invisible man in the sky.

There are many scammers and victims involved in this scam - the numbers are staggering, in fact. And the crimes committed by these scammers against unwilling victims are legion. We at the International Church of Astrotheology are currently attempting to set up counterterrorist units in order to battle this fraud.

Intellectual Rapists

For the last couple of days I've had some abusive creep email me about how he's going to beat me up on his website. His vicious commentary is based on his reading of some pages on my website, but he has emphatically stated that he has NOT read my books and does not intend to. Despite his confessed ignorance of my work, he is now on a rampage to attack me as an "expert" on my work. Such dishonesty is not uncommon, as I have been encountering it for years.

Not content with being dishonest and hateful towards me, this individual has threatened me if I don't respond to his reprehensible assault. It appears that people who viciously assault others in the intellectual realm, as this person is doing to me, do not consider that they are a major part of the problem - to wit, divisiveness and hatred based on beliefs.

To put it in blunt terms: Basically what this guy is saying is that, even if I'm not attracted to him, if I don't willingly have sex with him - and enjoy it - he will brutally rape me.

Hence, he is an "intellectual rapist."

Here's a thought - what is it exactly you are trying to accomplish with your personal assaults on others? Are you trying to make the world a "better place" with your violent attacks? Sorry, but that type of mentality is exactly what we are attempting to get rid of.

The Coolest Chick on the Planet

In case anyone's wondering who I am exactly, it is now official - according to Google, I am the coolest chick on the planet.

Oh, I know - it was tough beating out those chick peas.

And you thought I didn't have a sense of humor!

Hee, hee!

MSN also has me as the coolest chick on the planet - and the smartest woman in the world!

Yahoo search also has me as the coolest chick on the planet.

In case you're wondering, folks, this is an experiment in SEO - "search engine optimization." And a fruitful experiment at that. Very amusing to me as well - hey, we all need some comic relief!

Religious Rubbish Removal

The remarks in the following article about religious fanaticism being quite tiresome are well said and much needed.

"Some senior Australian cleric declares that women without hijabs are uncovered meat inviting rape..."

Well, of course, if the men are BARBARIANS who are taught that "women without hijabs are uncovered meat inviting rape!" It is quite obvious where this cleric's rotten mind lies - in the gutter. Moreover, anyone who is interested in raping MEAT is a subhuman in the first place, although an argument could be made that someone who would rape a woman - or a man or, god forbid, a child - is much more diabolical than a meat-rapist...

Gee, here's an enlightened thought: How about teaching the MEN to respect women, with or without the hijab, and enforcing strict LAWS against rape? Wow! How novel, what brilliance! But, no, we have to encourage the psychotic men to behave badly while repressing - nay, enslaving - the women. How very evolved indeed. And "they" wonder why so many of us don't want "them" in our civilized neck of the woods.

Here's a message for Earth's bullies:

"You may be quite pleased by your ability to terrorize 'your' women into covering themselves up, but you will not succeed in forcing the rest of the world's women into doing likewise."

So many morons, so little time.

Tired of all the religious garbage? It's time to become an Enlightenist
Muriel Gray on the need for recognition of all beliefs

GIVEN the uniformly alarmist nature of the news, leaving the country for the half-term holiday felt good this year. Choking in the wake of our carbon emissions was a nutcase Britain utterly obsessed with religion. People were threatening Jack Straw with violence; some woman (we think - for all we know it could have been Paul Gascoigne under that niquab) was claiming her right to mumble lessons at children while wearing a bag over her head, and the pope had made the hilariously Monty-Python
esque declaration that he was "considering" abolishing limbo for unbaptised babies, no doubt making intelligent Catholics squirm with embarrassment at the screaming silliness of heavenly admission by human whim.

But on our return, sadly, there is no let up. Some senior Australian cleric declares that women without hijabs are uncovered meat inviting rape, and now we have arguments over faith school quotas and whether or not 25% of pupils admitted should come from other faiths, including no faith. If I tell you that I am sick, sick, sick, way beyond the back teeth, of all this dark ages, loony tunes, divisive religious garbage then I am making an understatement. The worst thing is that although for the most part all the nonsense can be ignored, when it gets political it simply cannot, and there is nothing more political than how we educate the next generation of British citizens."...

Biblemania is an Addiction

Biblemania, or the "love of the Bible," is a deliberately contrived, socially acceptable addiction no less destructive to the individual and society as a whole than is heroin. The Bible pushers start in on their victims very young, sometimes before they can read, and insidiously and aggressively peddle their wares so that a child will become addicted to biblical junk for his entire life.

Biblemania is a very tough habit to break - and it's meant to be. In order to create Bible junkies, pushers must make their victims uncomfortable and dis-eased, filling them with an intense self-loathing, so that, broken, they will desire and be desperate for a fix. Bible pushers break their victims, so they need to be fixed.

The biblemaniac is armored against rational criticism of his habit - and he has a whole support system of fellow Bible junkies who will viciously defend his addiction. The biblemaniac is in denial that he has an addiction or that there is anything wrong with it. The biblemaniac's junk consists of sweet and sugary platitudes laced with poison, but his addiction will not allow him to see the poison. The Bible junk is no different than sugar - it may taste good on the surface, but a steady diet of it will kill you. In reality, Bible junk is worse than sugar, as, again, it is laced with poison. And Bible junkies often have no other fare to supplement their poison-filled diet.

Bible addiction is no laughing matter. Not only has it caused extreme pathological behavior in individuals, but it has led to the annihilation of entire cultures and the genocide of whole peoples. And, if the addiction is not addressed, it will lead the world into an Armageddon from which it may never recover, as its most virulent junkies - priests, pastors and politicians - stand by gleefully rubbing their hands, waiting for the biggest rush of their biblemania - the mushroom cloud of destruction.

Fortunately, there are treatments for biblemania. The first step, of course, is to move beyond denial and to recognize the addiction and its harmful and destructive affects on relationships and the quality of life. Next, we must find "food for the soul" that is more palatable and healthful, including appreciating the beauty of creation and humankind's enormous capacity for love.

What the World Needs Now is Amma, Sweet Amma

Although I don't find her parochial perception of the cosmos to be very stimulating, I do find the Indian saint Ammachi to be an excellent example of a true human being who has the ability to better the world in a very profound way.

When I first encountered Amma, I trivialized her hugging as so much frou-frou fluff, but in studying the sources of sociopathology and psychopathology - so prevalent on this planet - I believe that her instensely loving modus vivendi is EXACTLY what the world needs. The people who come to her are STARVED for love, tenderness, affection and attention. Human beings are frail and self-contained entities who simply need community and communion. No child should ever be starved for attention, affection and love - yet not only does it happen to heartbreakingly countless millions day upon day, but the most evil abuses are heaped upon them instead. Is it any wonder the world is filled with messed-up adults? When I feel the intense love for a child (my child), I sometimes become sad to consider how other children are not receiving the same - and I become sick to my stomach to consider what many of the ARE receiving.

In the face of such hideous deprivation and abuse, it is outrageous to assert that there is some "loving" personal God somewhere who cares about this planet and its creatures. It just doesn't wash, no matter how many times it is repeated - and abusively shoved down our throats by bibliophilia-demented fanatics who insult us and condemn us to the most atrocious punishments for not subscribing to their evil cult.

I sincerely hope the future of mankind moves away from that disgraceful human-hating mentality and towards replicating millions of hugging, loving Ammas all over the world.

God the Ultimate Child Abuser

Think about it. Not only does Biblegod Yahweh teach us that we should be cruel and hateful towards children, telling them that they are foul, born in sin wretches, but he also on several occasions causes people to slaughter babies and other children. For example, God calls Abraham to kill his child, allowing the poor boy to be terrorized by his father until the last second, when God changes his mind. God then hardens Pharaoh's heart and causes him to kill all the first born of Israel in his attempt to destroy Moses. Then he incites Moses to slaughter all the Midianites, making sure that he has killed all the male children and taken the virgin girls for the men of Israel to rape. God also works through the prophet Elisha, sending bears to kill 42 boys who made fun of Elisha's bald head. And so on, throughout the Bible, with the endless genocide of other peoples.

Proceeding to the New Testament, we find God - having come to Earth as Jesus - fleeing the scene while Herod, like Pharaoh doubtlessly under control of the omnipotent Lord, slaughters thousands of babies and toddlers. But Yahweh the Child Abuser isn't done there. No, his great plan to "save" the hopelessly sinful mankind whom he made badly in the first place is to destroy his own son! So, he sends his Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary - another CHILD - and, voila! He takes birth as his own son in order to kill himself hideously, in a ritual torture suicide mission. So, God kills his own son, first making sure he is viciously tortured. God is guilty of creating a child specifically in order to kill him.

Nice precedents there. The pathology produced by this book and its foul inhuman stories is unimaginable.

Ban the Bible!

It's high time to ban the EVIL BIBLE from schools. And churches, and libraries, etc.

The Bible is full of horrible stories about the "chosen people" going about slaughtering everyone else, including men, women and children - all ordered and condoned by God. All other cultures besides the Israelites are considered evil. The Israelites are given authority to take the young virgin girls for themselves to have their way with. Just check out Numbers 31, for but one example. This short rant doesn't pretend to go into all the atrocities in condoned by the biblical god. There are few books more disgusting than the Bible.

Mom seeks a ban on Harry Potter in schools
Associated Press

ATLANTA — A suburban county that sparked a public outcry when its libraries temporarily eliminated funding for Spanish-language fiction is now being asked to ban Harry Potter books from its schools.

Laura Mallory, a mother of four, told a hearing officer for the Gwinnett County Board of Education last week that the popular fiction series is an 'evil' attempt to indoctrinate children in the Wicca religion.

Board of Education attorney Victoria Sweeny said that if schools were to remove all books containing reference to witches, they would have to ban such works as Macbeth and Cinderella."

God needs your money!

Following is a clip of George Carlin's brilliant critique of religion and God, part of "You are all diseased."

Get this video and more at MySpace.com

Who Was Jesus?

Good day, folks!

I am delighted to announce that my new ebook Who Was Jesus? is ready and available for immediate download! WWJ is not a long book - about 40 pages - so it should be easy to print out and read. Here's the link:

http://stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html

Here's what the 1984 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, David Bergland, Esq., has to say about Who Was Jesus?

"For those who prefer to learn the actual facts that constitute important events in
history, Who Was Jesus? is an eye-opener. It is a gateway to better understanding of the foundation of Christianity. What if that foundation were not what everyone knows?... If there is any reason to believe that the very foundations of the Christ story are not what you thought, wouldn't you want to know about it?

"Who Was Jesus? is a succinct and penetrating examination of the gospels and their internal contradictions as well as a critical look at how the Jesus story was put together by fallible humans. It does not claim to be the whole story. But it is a great beginning to your search for truth about the Jesus myth and the hopelessly muddled foundations of Christianity."

You will note that I am requesting a minimum of $5 donation for immediate access to this new ebook. If any of you are able to give more, I would be most grateful. I will be actively working to get this book ready for hard copy distribution, using print on demand, but I need time to do so.

Well, I sincerely hope you enjoy and/or are edified by my new ebook Who Was Jesus?

The Bible is Repulsive

This is a great video that everyone should watch immediately! The fact is that the Bible is repulsive, and this bizarre psychosis that not only prevents people from seeing this fact but actually allows them to view the Bible as something "sacred" and "holy" needs to be treated as a collective mental illness that is destroying the world.

The people who created this video are wonderful.

Proving the Bible is Repulsive

Is Lance Armstrong a Psycho - or a Victim?

When I first heard about Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer years ago, my immediate thought was, "He's been using steroids." At the time, I figured many people must have had the same thought. Not knowing much about Armstrong or the sport of cycling but basing my thoughts on the doping scandals in other sports, such as the Olympics, I also figured that it was well known and admitted that Armstrong had been using steroids. I found it unfathomable that someone so young and a world class athlete could be riddled with testicular cancer if he had not been doping. Even though the stigma of such activity is quite heavy, I still was quite surprised to learn that Armstrong, when confronted with the issue, had actually denied using steroids and other performance enhancement drugs. Even with such a stigma, many athletes over the years had come clean, so to speak, when confronted with evident difficulties associated with doping - including getting busted. And then there was the sad story of NFL player Lyle Alzado, cut down in the prime of life at age 42 by brain cancer that may have been caused or exacerbated by doping. The assertion that he caused his brain cancer by heavy use of steroids was made by Alzado himself, but it is claimed that no scientific studies have found a solid link. Said Alzado, "Ninety per cent of the athletes I know are on the stuff."

And so, it would seem, are the majority of cyclists on steroids and other such drugs, if the testimony of ex-cycling trainer Willy Voet has any merit. This fact makes Armstrong's denial all that more implausible, particularly with the testimony by his former friend Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, who both claimed they overheard Armstrong tell his doctor that he had used "steroids, testosterone, cortisone, growth hormone and EPO." Armstrong's doctor, however, denies the claim.

The question needs to be asked, is Lance Armstrong a psycho - or a victim? As has been pointed out, he is a role model for athletes and cancer survivors the world over, and he is doing a tremendous disservice to both, if he is lying. How many impressionable kids became cyclists because of him, and then were possibly drawn into the seedy doping world, to risk side effects that could have been prevented if their hero had copped to his use, supposing that he is guilty? Moreover, when my own mother became fatally ill with ovarian cancer, she took strength in Armstrong's recovery, although I did caution her about my suspicions regarding his cancer cause. She was quite disappointed to hear that, and I could sense her becoming deflated in her battle. My beloved mother was very strong, so she turned her mind to other inspiration, but she finally succumbed to the cancer in 2004. In any event, it would behoove Armstrong to tell the truth, presuming he is not.

Perhaps Armstrong is telling the truth and is merely a victim of jealous and vicious gossip? Considering what trainer Voet has said about non-doping cyclists ending up at the "back of the pack," if Armstrong is being truthful, he would have to be hailed as one of the greatest athletes ever. If not, well, he would have to be considered a psycho.

P.S. I'm appending this entry to state that, after careful consideration of information provided by others (thank you, Steve P.), I do believe we must give Lance Armstrong the benefit of the doubt, especially since he's never tested positive for anything. He was apparently a world class athlete long before he began in cycling, when he was a youth who evidently could not have used drugs. As someone who has been on the receiving end of hideous, false rumors from very vicious and vindictive people, I can relate if Armstrong is being unfairly maligned.

P.P.S. The assertion in the following article that "one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular cancer" appears to be controversial, as other claim there has been no scientific evidence linking steroid use to testicular cancer:

"Fears about steroid use also include other cancers, heart enlargement, increased blood pressure, elevated cholesterol levels, and musculoskeletal injuries. Upon closer examination, these too turn out to be overblown. Reports associating heart enlargement, or cardiomegaly, with steroid use often ignore the role of natural, nonthreatening enlargement brought on by prolonged physical exertion, not to mention the effects of alcohol abuse. The relationship is unclear at best. Evidence supporting a link between steroids and ligament and tendon damage is weak, since steroid-related injuries are virtually indistinguishable from those occurring normally. And blood pressure problems, according to Yesalis, have been exaggerated. There is some associative evidence that steroid use can increase the risk of prostate cancer, but this link has yet to be borne out in a laboratory setting. No studies of any kind link the use of anabolics to testicular cancer."

Source: Pumped Up Hysteria

The truth is out there - Cycling - Yahoo! Sports
E.M. Swift, SI.com

Is the truth finally catching up with Lance Armstrong, and is this one race the seven-time Tour de France champion may not be able to win?

In Tuesday's New York Times, two of Armstrong's former U.S. Postal Service teammates admitted to having used EPO, an illegal performance-enhancing drug, at some point in 1999, the first year Armstrong won the Tour de France. While neither said they saw Armstrong do the same, the implication was that the drug use was common knowledge within the team. 'The environment was certainly one of, to be accepted, you had to use doping products,' said one of Armstrong's teammates, who requested anonymity, fearing reprisals from the notoriously vindictive Armstrong, who still wields considerable power in cycling.

The other teammate was 39-year-old Frankie Andreu, a domestique who competed professionally for 12 years and was once Armstrong's close friend and roommate. He's now a motivational speaker and real-estate dealer in Dearborn, Mich. He said he only used EPO 'for a couple of races' and was speaking out in hopes of cleaning up his tainted sport.

More interesting -- to me, anyway -- was the testimony the Times uncovered that Andreu and his wife, Betsy, gave last fall during a lawsuit between Armstrong and SCA Promotions. The company had withheld a $5 million bonus it owed Armstrong after he won the '04 Tour because of doping allegations.

The suit was eventually settled out of court in Armstrong's favor, but in their sworn testimony the Andreus said that when they visited Armstrong in the hospital after he'd been diagnosed with testicular cancer, they'd heard him tell his oncologists that he'd used 'steroids, testosterone, cortisone, growth hormone and EPO.' Their testimony was disputed by the doctor who administered Armstrong's chemotherapy at Indiana University Medical Center. In the same trial, Armstrong testified that his doctors never asked him if he'd used performance-enhancing drugs, and that he'd never used those substances.

Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus' or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular cancer. It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus testified to under oath is true, than Lance Armstrong, role model and hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs. Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the case."