Israel: 22 Arab rights make a Jewish wrong

29 May

Don’t the Arabs claim to have invented modern mathematics?

Let’s see how good your Arabic maths is then:
We live in a world where it’s ok to have 21 Arab Muslim states with no charters of human rights, appalling discrimination against women, slavery, no gay rights, questionable equality between Muslims on the one hand and Jews & Christians on the other (Dhimmi), and no separation of Quran and state, and also this is a world where it’s ok to form a 22nd Arab Muslim state to add to the shocking human rights breaches and religious intolerance and racism.  These Arab lands together are more than 3 times the size of the European Union and 650 times bigger than Israel.  Some of these lands even possess much of the world’s oil but we only focus on oil when Jewnited States planes are in the air, hokay?

So that’s fine. Who’d have a problem with all those Arab states? You’re not racist, are you?

But wait, you white supremist probably Christian or Zionist son of a bitch in disguise, here’s the catch:

Also on this planet we live on, it’s NOT OK – I repeat NOT OK – for there to be one tiny Jewish state smaller than New Jersey or Wales. Not one! No home for ethnic Jews to flee the ignorance that spawned this blog post. No home for Jews regardless of their race, colour, gender, sexuality, or religious affiliation.

Non, mon cherie amour! ¡Dije que no!

22 Arab Muslim states is fine even with the most appalling human rights record since the Nazis, culminating in the murder of millions of Arabs by oppressive Arab regimes. No one quibbles, certainly not the UN, and no one singles out any Arab state for “special treatment” solely to call their existence into question. Of course not. Calling an Arab state’s existence into question even though most were created around the time of Israel? That would be ridiculous.

But Jews can only be Jews in their own piss-pot smaller-than-Wales dot of a state if their piss-pot dot of a state is secular.  It absolutely cannot be Jewish (or secular Jewish) no matter how many secular and atheist ethnically Jewish left-wing socialists founded the country. That’s apartheid, you Judeo-Christian (white) supremist scumbag!

No one calls any other nation’s right to exist into question, but if Israel so much as dares to consider its tiny crumb on the map to be an escape pad for black, white, gay, male, female, religious, secular, atheist Jews in a – hello! – sometimes quite anti-Jewish world and its subsequent bias against Israel,  then you are perfectly correct to call Israel’s existence into question – and what’s more, that’s not racist!  Dat ain’t even antisemitic, yo!  In fact that makes you a bit of a liberal and a leftist (but not all at once I hope ;))

So, did you spot the double standard?

If not here’s the above in map form; this is what planet Earth looks like:

(Israel has been enlarged so you can almost see it. Can you see it?)

Did you hear what happened when the seahorse met the sharks? The seahorse was told to give up his only strategic foothold in the sea because the sharks wanted even more room to swim in.

Of course those of us from an atheist perspective call all nationality along any religious lines into question. But what we shouldn’t do is single out only one country, the only one that happens to be Jewish, for special treatment, while completely ignoring the fact that the entire planet is made up of hundreds of countries based on other religions – some far less secular and tolerant than Judaism for that matter.

It is transparent bias to focus on Israel’s Jewishness and ignore Palestine’s or the Arab League’s Islamoheit when comparing the two. All that is achieved by focusing solely on the only country on the planet that is Jewish is that it turns Israel into a smokescreen – a smokescreen that is used to cover up and hide the horrendous human rights breaches in the Arab and wider Muslim world.

And that ain’t progressive.

Short link:



Rapture v Religion Is Bullshit

22 May

You decide:

Short Link:

Atheists after the Rapture

22 May


Short Link:

Richard Dawkins on death

20 May

Click to expand:

We are going to die and that makes us the lucky ones

Short Link:

Stephen Hawking: Science will win because it works; heaven is a fairy story

16 May

From The Guardian:

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

This is  a great follow up to Hawking’s previous unequivocal swipe at religion when, in an US TV interview,  he said:

Science will win because it work.

Indeed, there is no contest between science and religion. We know it is science that finds & bases its knowledge on evidence. It has a proven track record of doing so. Religion has yet to produce a single piece of evidence for its mumbo jumbo. In fact all the evidence so far proves the opposite of its wild claims. Until religion can overcome the evidence against it and prove its wild fantasies using verifiable evidence it cannot be held in the same regard.

Or as Christopher Hitchens says: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Talking of Hitchens here he is on why it is right to hold religion in contempt:

Short link:


Taxi for Gaddafi!

23 Feb

Lady Gagaddafi

He’s on the run, vowing to die a martyr. Moammar Gaddafi is one two-eyed pirate with a Lady Gaga wardrobe that we’re not going to miss. Of course if democracy should shine its way over Libya in the future, some serious questions will probably be asked about why the UK under the last Labour governments got into bed with the monster. Public inquiry time?

Libyan civilians ready to fight back:

Celebrations in Benghazi, eastern Libya:

Short link:

The ‘biblical sexual standards’ of the Daily Fail

14 Feb

It’s Valentine’s Day 2011 CE, but if you read the Daily Fail today you’d think it was 2011 BCE – 4000 years ago. It seems our secular laws based on equality before the law are a real threat to the true moral authority as written down in over 60 books by over 40 shady authors over hundreds of years starting way back in the Bronze Age in a book called “the Bible”.

According to Melanie Phillips (who else?) gay marriage means that:

Truly, we are fast reaching the stage where upholding Biblical sexual standards will become the morality that dare not speak its name.

What did these biblical authors know that we don’t? And what would we be defending if we did speak its morality. Well let’s take a look at their great moral insight:

That’s right. When two angels visit you and a mob forms outside wanting to rape those angels, the only moral thing to do is offer your two virgin child daughters to the mob to be gang raped. God of war Yahweh rewards such morality as righteous. Those daughters could be forgiven for being so sexually confused that they later get their father drunk and have incest with him. Is that why god of war Yahweh continues to see Lot and his daughters as moral and righteous?

When invading other countries, murder all the men and take the women to be gang-raped as the owned property of the genocidal victors. Sieg heil, anyone?

Biblical morality doesn’t just stop at sex; it has a lot to offer modern secular society, so much in fact it really is difficult to see how any non-believer, any so-called ‘atheist’, could be moral at all:

Wow! This is good moral stuff. How did the human race ever drag itself out of the cave without the supernatural god of war Yahweh, eh? Here’s Yahweh again showing he’s down with civilisation and morality:

Melanie Phillips claims most gay people don’t want equality:

for many gay people do not approve of this ideological gay rights agenda

I’d really love to know who these ‘many gay people’ are, but in case those ‘many gay people’ missed the memo here again is the effect of gay marriage on society:

The effects of gay marriage on society

This is a far cry from the Melanie Phillips thesis that:

Those who make this argument merely reveal they have no idea of the significance of marriage. They seem to think it’s just another contractual arrangement involving a binding (or not so binding) commitment — like buying a house or a car.

But the truth is that marriage is a unique institution because it involves the process by which humanity reproduces itself — which is only through the union of male and female.

The fact that some married couples are childless is irrelevant. The sole reason marriage has universal value is that it is vital for the healthy nurture of the next generation. This is because children need to be brought up by the two people who created them.

Activists argue that gay people should be able to get married because everyone is entitled to the same status. But why should this be the case if their sexual circumstances are different?

How should we break the news to poor Melanie? Gay people can and do have children. Moreover, probably one evolutionary reason behind homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom is that it acts as a form of population control and a way where the mess left by heterosexual promiscuity can be picked up by gays adopting orphaned and abandoned children. What could be more moral than the taking on of other people’s unwanted offspring? If marriage is the standard bearer for the role models of mother and father, shouldn’t all those who can adopt or procreate, gay or straight, be allowed to marry?

Melanie Phillips seems to be defeated by her own misunderstanding of her own point. No surprise there then.

Meanwhile, also in the UK on this Valentine’s Day, one of the most romantic gay scenes of a prime-time TV show aired courtesy of Glee on Fox. How far we have indeed come.

Daily Fail
readers throughout the British Commonwealth are burning their kids’ school uniforms as you read this :p


Homophobia’s Reverse Victimhood

P(r)oof Melanie Phillips was right about GayAgenda’s “Operation Edugaytion”

Short link:

%d bloggers like this: