Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts

17 October 2018

ROC vs priest Alexander Shramko and Facebook


ROC priest Alexander Shramko hasn't expected the bolt out the blue, I bet. He just wanted to document the epic arrival of Patriarch Kirill, the ROC chief, for a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Minsk (Belarus). Well, he added a few sarcastic remarks about the manner of the Patriarch's arrival, his inattention to the public gathered to meet him, his seemingly excessive security detail. He posted a few pictures on his Facebook page, like these two (and more):

On October 16, the priest received a decree on his release from the post of cleric of the St. Michael's parish of Minsk. The document states that he is forbidden to serve, to wear the priestly cross, and to bless the believers. Such a decision is justified, in particular, by the publication of messages that "slander the Orthodox Church and sow hostility and hatred in the hearts of people." The ban will be valid for a year, after which the Minsk Diocese will consider the resumption of ministry. “They said that after a year, if you repent, change your attitude ... Probably, it means that I should stop writing, stop speaking,” said Shramko to Euroradio.
Decree attached:


The sensitivity of the most powerful religious institution of Russia (and beyond) is mindboggling, isn't it?

30 June 2018

Henry Joel Cadbury and American Reform Rabbis

The story of the connection between the two started for me with this disturbing NYT quote:


Not knowing who professor Henry J. Cadbury was, I have started googling, and one of the first links happened to be an archive page of JTA, from the year 1934, referenced in the quote above.

Professor Pleads for Accord Between Jews and Germans

Lo and behold: the quote above was sounded not in some judenrein "safe space", but at annual convention of the Central Conference of American Reform Rabbis.
A plea that the Jewish people “display good will instead of hatred” toward the Nazis who are provoked to committing violence by an attitude of antagonism, was voiced by Professor Henry J. Cadbury, of Bryn Mawr, chairman of the American Friends Service Committee, in an address at the opening session of the forty-fifth annual convention of the Central Conference of American Reform Rabbis held here at the South Mountain Manor Summer Resort. More than 150 rabbis from all parts of the United States and Canada attended.

12 June 2016

A Christian, a Muslim and a Jew walk into a podcast

Nervana Mahmoud, prof. Matt Sienkiewicz and Ambassador Alberto Fernandez (currently of MEMRI) discuss religion, Middle East, life in an interesting meeting of minds.

Definitely worth your time.

15 February 2016

Loathing the Valentine day: not only in Islam


The media was abuzz with the story about Pakistan's president lecturing against celebration of this holiday. Of course, the media wouldn't care (or dare?) to dig just a bit deeper to learn that the prohibition of that specific holiday is part of Sharia fatwas. But whatever.

So, to balance the story about Islamic rejection of the Valentine day, here comes a rejection from a rather unexpected quarter: the RoC (Russian Orthodox Church). Translation, as usual, Google and I.
Orthodox activists in Krasnodar opposed the celebration of Valentine's Day. They have unfurled a banner with the inscription "You kiss her, and Judas kisses us all" on the so called Bridge of Kisses in the city. The banner appeared there on the night of February 14, but the morning after it already was in the river Kuban, as reports portal "Yugopolis".

In an official statement, representatives of the so-called orthodox "Gimena"* movement called Valentine's Day a "tragedy of modern Russia". "Love - a false value, alien to Russian culture," - they say - "Russian marriage is based on mutual respect of spouses, honoring traditions and faith in God."

"Love was invented by the West, which is the center of demonic and fatal passions. Tristan and Isolde, Romeo and Juliet - behind all those masks hides Judas, who betrayed Christ," - activists say. In their view, "assembly-line production of valentines and lustful exchange of saliva" "glorify the Antichrist".
And I don't even want to guess what the orthodox folks in Jerusalem say about the Valentine day at this stage, but my guess will be not something complimentary too.

So there.

(*) I've decided to leave "Gimena" as a slavish transcription of the movement's name, but there is no circumventing the fact that the only use of the word "Гимена" ("Gimena") is as an outdated synonym for "hymen". It is a somewhat strange name for a group of orthodox people, but there is no site on the 'net, so the only working assumption be that this is what they stand for...

07 November 2015

John Robert Gallagher RIP - the last will and testament.


From the National Post:
John Robert Gallagher was a Canadian who volunteered with the Kurdish forces in northern Syria to fight ISIL. He was reportedly killed in a suicide bombing Wednesday. This is an unedited essay may contain content objectionable to some readers but is presented in its entirety to fully explain his reasons for going to war.
Read the full text of his essay in the link above. Just in case some politically correct worm decides to remove the article, it is posted below as well.

10 February 2015

Chocolate Jesus, Ganesh and Buddha - yes. The other one? - not that you will notice.

A mighty interesting shop that:

To New York’s East Village, where you can buy edible chocolate Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Lord Ganesh and the Virgin of Guadalupe.

The edible Mohammad is there somewhere on the shelves, most likely, but spotting him as hard, what his image being banned, and all.
Well, Mohammad is not exactly ranking the same as Jesus, and Moses is also of a somewhat lesser rank that he whose name is forbidden, but let's not nitpick. Anyway, no Mohammad in the picture, no other Muslim VIP.

And, apparently, reps of other religions started to feel slighted by being included too.
Bond Street Chocolate storeowner Lynda Stern was recently asked to discontinue her Lord Ganesh chocolate by Universal Society of Hinduism president Rajan Zed. In a press release, Zed stated, “Upset Hindus urge withdrawal of Lord Ganesh-shaped edible chocolate”…

Stern has dismissed the criticism, saying, “All spiritual icons are treated equally in my shop…with honor and respect to the religion.
All spiritual icons? Beg pardon, but at least one is missing, methinks. And possibly many more, what with the myriad of different religions, but this will be nitpicking indeed.

But at least one can have some fun with that article, especially this bit:
“We Hindus look at the universe as eternal and god almighty as one…so we would not say that the lord resides only in that little piece of chocolate. It’s more like when they eat it, the lord comes back to us — he is within us.”
Generally true, but I am pretty sure that some of what we eat doesn't exactly stay within...

At least the candy for ISIS works 100%:

25 December 2014

Valerie Tarico attacking the rapey religions or what is haram and what is not?

Why rape is so intrinsic to religion, says the header of the Salon article by Valerie Tarico*, "a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington and the founder of Wisdom Commons". Apparently she writes for AlterNet and Truth Out as well - but it's high holidays time and we shouldn't hold it against her - or against anyone else for that matter. The first sentence of the article is quite combative:
Powerful gods and demi-gods impregnating human women—it’s a common theme in the history of religion, and it’s more than a little rapey.
And every religion gets its fair share of blame: the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Christians (early and otherwise), the Jews, the Hindus, the Zoroastrians, the Buddhists, the... let me see, I have a feeling that someone was unfairly overlooked in this list. Let's start again: the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians, the... nope, still someone is missing.

I am sure that by now you have already guessed the name of that missing religion - Islam, the Religion of Peace. The whole first part of the article, where the basis for its conclusion is built, avoids mentioning this most exalted (or is it excited?) of the world religions.

Oh well, as an avowed atheist I am not into defense of any specific religion or all religions. However, that omission goes a long way to show how far have the modern feminists gone in their mortal fear of offending Islam. Not mentioning the peculiar habit of Islam's main prophet - to marry and defile little girls - seems to be a glaring black hole in the article on the subject of rape and religion.

And the first reference to Islam by Ms Tarico comes in this peculiar sentence:
The men at the top owned concubines and harams, and virgin females were counted among the spoils of war.
(Emphasis mine).

To be frank, the reference to "harams" threw me for a while. Of course, the author meant "harems"... but the mistake is kinda symbolic, because "haram" means "Forbidden or unlawful according to Islam".

Interestingly, marrying and raping underage girls is not haram in the tenets of RoP...and no mention of this peculiarity in a feminist article? Beats me.

Oh well, eventually Islam gets a direct mention:
Two thousand years after Hebrew and Aramaic texts were assembled into the modern Jewish Bible, 1600 years after a Roman Catholic committee voted books in and out of the Christian Bible, 1400 years after Muhammad wrote the Koran (which draws heavily on the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition), we still struggle with the question of female consent.
Even this mention goes only so far as to blame the "Judeo-Christian tradition" - the real culprit in Islamic ill-treatment of women.

The most valiant attempt at criticism eventually comes in this sentence:
The most extreme example may be a document published by the Islamic State, outlining rules for the treatment of sexual slaves, rules drawn from the Koran.
And even here, Ms Tarico kinda softens the blow, blaming the IS barbarians, which is a fashionable and PC thing to do anyway.

The article, in short, is an excellent example of what is really haram for certain progressive thinkers nowadays.   They know it, we know it, but how to make them to confess it and to change it?

Beats me.

(*) The person in the picture starting this post is not Valerie Tarico, to make sure.

27 December 2013

Abu Musaab Wajdi Akkari: Saying 'Merry Christmas' Is Worse Than Fornication, Alcohol, Or Killing Someone

Abu Musaab Wajdi Akkari, a Lebanese Muslim cleric, has a pretty strong opinion on that point:



I have me a revolutionary idea: why don't we put this statement to test and try out all four of the mentioned sins for a period of, say, a year or so.

Since I am not of Mohammedan faith, nor any else, for that matter, I offer myself as a non-denominational volunteer tester. Any objections? No, I knew there wouldn't be.

So, to start with: Merry Christmas, everyone!

So far so good. OK, I am off to proceed with the other three sins, in the order of appearance. I will be at it for a while, so be patient.

P.S. Could I get a grant for the research-related expenses? Macca, Tehran, Vatican, Jerusalem - what say?

04 December 2013

A youngster's guide to seismology

Why do we learn most important things after they become irrelevant? Like this:


I may have caused a few of these earthquakes myself when I was young and restless.

So, kids, take care. The good ole Ayatollah knows what he is talking about.

02 December 2013

A finger of speech

I mean the "total whore" in that cartoon, but it's way too good to be nitpicking.



By Taslima Nasreen via BCF.

18 October 2013

In defense of Rabbi Mendel Epstein

The latest rabbi-related brouhaha in US of A is somewhat exceptional: it shows total lack of understanding by some people. The story in a nutshell is this:

Three rabbis, including one who claims to have conducted more than 2,000 divorces, were arrested for allegedly pressuring Orthodox Jewish men into giving their wives religious divorces.

The investigation revealed that unhappy Orthodox Jewish wives who wanted a divorce were paying $100,000 to the rabbis. In exchange, the rabbis would facilitate divorce, frequently by hiring armed thugs kidnap the husbands and beat them until they agreed.
The methods used by the Orthodox team were certainly unorthodox:
"Mendel Epstein talked about forcing compliance through the use of 'tough guys' who utilize electric cattle prods, karate, handcuffs and place plastic bags of the heads of husbands," FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman said.
The greed displayed by the gang is definitely to be condemned, and it will be. However, there is another side of the story, less known to people unfamiliar with the marriage and divorce ways of Orthodox community. Shmuley Boteach in Algemeiner has got it.
Granted, the cattle-prod-to-the-nether-region gang might be taking the whole thing to an extreme. But if we’re going to condemn them – as we should – must we not propose a legal alternative? Or will we choose the safe route of condemning only the rabbis who have at least made an effort – albeit a highly illegal and violent one – to remedy the problem rather than the mercenary husbands who are responsible in the first place.

Everyone in the orthodox community knows some woman who has suffered without a get, the victim of a husband’s shakedown or abuse. Maybe he used the get to obtain custody of the kids or to minimize his alimony payments. Perhaps his intention was making his wife’s life as miserable as he feels his is. But one way or another, he used Jewish law in a manner it was never meant to be used, namely to blackmail a woman.

And the rabbis watch and do next-to-nothing. Then we wonder why these things end in some horrible story like the cattle prod, grossly embarrassing the Jewish community and demonstrating the ossification, rather than the modern relevance, of Jewish law.
Of course, “the most famous Rabbi in America”, didn't miss a chance to somewhat justify the marriage/divorce laws that cause the impossible situation where despicable people torture their ex-wives for years, refusing to grant them divorce.
Firstly, it is a husband who, in Jewish law, grants a divorce because, as in marriage itself, it reflects the natural gravitation of the masculine to the feminine. It is still men who ask wives to marry them, and it is men who must grant the divorce.
So maybe it's time to review that point? But at least Boteach is a man enough to add:
If we don’t want Judaism to become Boardwalk Empire, we need to find peaceful, legal, yet effective, means to punish those in our community who would rob a woman of the gift of renewed companionship after a failed marriage.
As far as I am concerned, the money issue put aside, Mendel Epstein and his team provided an essential and necessary social service, and, their greed notwithstanding, should be honored for their achievements in pest removal.

As for the dramatic descriptions of "electric cattle prods, karate, handcuffs and place plastic bags of the heads of husbands": I don't know, to my taste this team displayed an excessive amount of lenience, taking care to remove the plastic bags before the vermin croaked.

The law is an ass in many matters. Both Jewish and American laws are asses in this case, helpless to resolve the impossible situation. And where the law is (or becomes) an ass, isn't it the job of the people to lead that ass in the right direction? And if the ass refuses to go there, isn't it the job of the people to repair the wrongs that the ass is causing by its wrongdoing or by its apathy?

You tell me.

15 October 2013

Only 2000 years late

In contrast to my previous post, immediately below, this one is only 2000 years late.

I mean, I know some people are slow learners, but this is ridiculous on any time scale.

See the detail here.

By Brian Goldfarb.

16 August 2013

How do you know you're in a reform synagogue?

Here is how:



Hat tip: A. and M. T.

13 August 2013

Richard Dawkins on Islam: finally someone succeeds to avoid mentioning Jews

This came as a real relief: Dawkins tweeted his opinion on the modern-day achievements of Muslims as reflected in the granting of Nobel prizes. I've started sweating immediately after seeing the headline of that article, but thankfully all he said was:

All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.
Thanks deity for Trinity College. We are left out from that one, this time at least.

Well, what can I add to that? Only that I am not a follower of Dawkins, his brand of militant atheism is a bit too alien to me, although there are moments when... but no matter. Anyway, there is no arguing with the fact he presented in that tweet, because:
Muslims have been awarded 10 Nobel prizes while Trinity College can boast 32 Nobel laureates.
Anyone what will challenge that statement, like this Guardian lady scribe who is, according to herself, trying to "parse the painfully obvious fallacy", is doomed to display own stupidity. Oh well, good luck, Ms Nesrine Malik, no Nobel for you for that one.

The most amazing effect of that tweet was the wave of anger, hate and name-calling it generated. Of course, the usual inanity of "old racist white man" and its likes was unleashed in quantity. You see, it is racism to make fun of or criticize a religion (or, let's be perfectly frank, Islam) in the modern PC progressive circles. Of course, the name callers conveniently forgot that Richard Dawkins despises all religions equally. But this is what always happens when Islam is mentioned, so no surprises here.

Update. Oops! I was wrong after all: Dawkins stepped into it!
No, please, erase this one, Mr Dawkins, I beg you!

Update 2. The man persists in that folly, dragging us all into the fray (hat tip SarahAB):

Oy vey...

02 August 2013

Kenyan lawyer takes State of Israel, Jews to Hague over Jesus' death

That's a capital idea, I think.

A Kenyan lawyer has filed a petition with the International Court of Justice in The Hague, suggesting that the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ was unlawful, and the State of Israel among others should be held responsible, Kenyan news outlet the Nairobian reported on Friday.

Dola Indidis, a lawyer and former spokesman of the Kenyan Judiciary is reportedly attempting to sue Tiberius (emperor of Rome, 42 BCE-37 CE), Pontius Pilate, a selection of Jewish elders, King Herod, the Republic of Italy and the State of Israel.
Time to clear the matter once and forever. There is only one problem: we had a Labor government at the time, and now it's a Likud coalition at the helm. So Mr Indidis will have to wait a bit...

12 February 2013

Atheists vs Dawkins or fifty shades of truth

Religion – it’s either true or it isn’t - is the headline of the post by Francis Sedgemore. It relates to an article Atheists vs Dawkins by Douglas Murray. Murray's opening statement is "While an atheist myself, it seems to me that claiming that religion should disappear is not just an overstatement but a seismic mistake."

There is a lot of interesting statements in that article besides the one quoted above. Like "Religion, whether you believe it to be literally true or not, provided people, and provides people still, with a place to ask questions we must ask." One would think that science and philosophy provided and provide people with at least some of the answers and that religion (or ideology, if you prefer to fill your head with another kind of nonsense) serves as a prosthesis where our knowledge and understanding are still insufficient. The ability of religion to fill the lacunae were science doesn't yet have a clear answer and fight for every square millimeter when the science fills the lacunae is amazing indeed. But the unwillingness of men to try and live without the prosthesis when it is no longer needed is amazing even more.

Doubly amazing when a self-defined "atheist" shows such dependence on something he should be rejecting and does his best to persuade other atheists to behave alike.

Says Mr Murray in his closing paragraph: "We may not agree with the foundational claims, but we might at least agree not always and only to deride, laugh at and dismiss as meaningless something which searches sincerely for meaning." Indeed, religion shouldn't be dismissed as meaningless. It is precisely for its meaning that we should dismiss it. Either humanity will learn to walk without crutches or it will fall. Or fail, if you prefer. And as far as the wave of religious "Renaissance" of XXI century looks, we are failing. Or falling.

As for the statement Francis focused on, namely "Just because something is not literally true does not mean that there is no truth, or worth, in it." - yep, dear Mr Murray: the definition of something "not literally true" in my (granted, limited) dictionary would be "false". Or, if "false" is not to your taste, feel free to choose from the following:

  1. Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery.
  2. Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony under oath.
  3. Arising from mistaken ideas: false hopes of writing a successful novel.
  4. Intentionally deceptive: a suitcase with a false bottom; false promises.
  5. Not keeping faith; treacherous: a false friend.
  6. Not genuine or real: false teeth; false documents.
  7. Resembling but not accurately or properly designated as such: a false thaw in January; the false dawn peculiar to the tropics.
  8. Unwise; imprudent: Don't make a false move or I'll shoot.

So there.

20 October 2012

"Lomonosov or Zuckerberg?" or unbearable pain of a good priest

Fate (or, rather, email) brought to my attention a peculiar article in a peculiar publication. The name of the publication - Russian People's Way*, the motto of the publication - Orthodoxy Autocracy Nationalism and the interesting habit of mentioning their main staff members' nationality and religion (which, for most of them is Russian and Orthodox, for those that are not Russian or Orthodox, nothing is mentioned); all this points to a pretty cool bunch.

The article in question is titled Lomonosov** or Zuckerberg? and was penned by one Alexandr Shumski, who is presented as "a priest, a writer and a publicist". I shall provide here a translation (with Google's help) of most of this remarkable opus with some running commentary. So take a deep breath, here it comes:

The other day we in Russia were granted a visit by a young American billionaire with a speaking first and last name - Mark Zuckerberg [if you don't get the meaning of the "speaking name", more examples: Vasily Ivanov will not be a "speaking" name to the author, neither will be John Smith], the founder of the so-called Facebook. Zuckerberg came as a master, with not too much respect for aboriginal [sic!] people. This attitude to the local population was emphasized even by his appearance. Zuckerberg was dressed in a gray undershirt [see the photograph from the article below, it is the Zuckerberg's regular T-shirt that the priest calls "undershirt"], about the same undershirt I put on after bathhouse under my shirt [now you know too...]. In such underwear American Mark Zuckerberg met with representatives of our scientific and political establishment.


But the purpose of his visit is thievery, as was definitely stated by an NTV presenter Tatyana Mitkova. It turns out that Mark Zuckerberg came for our talent. He needs good programmers and computer scientists. Naturally, we are talking about young people. Someone might say, "Oh, he's not abducting them, he just buys them. Why do you call him a thief?" Legally Zuckerberg is not a thief, he is doing everything according to the law, otherwise he would not be Zuckerberg [notice the oblique reference to the "speaking name"? Wait for more]. But, as Lenin used to say: "Technically correct, but in fact a mockery." [apparently Lenin has become acceptable to some scions of recovering Church?] I believe that the law that allows some Zuckerberg to come any time and and buy whatever he wants is a thieves' law. In Soviet times [wow - hear, hear - a priest nostalgic for Soviet times, when his Church was persecuted and practically extint!] this was impossible, thus we [sic!] created a great science, flew in space first, created the world's best weapons [hm... and folded like a house of cards eventually - I wonder why?]. So what is preferable for Russia: a restriction that prevents zuckerbergs [now that "speaking name" became an identifier of a group] from robbing my home or a liberal system - the game were the ball goes only one way, in which we lose everything and gain nothing, except a dirty Zuckerberg's shirt as a memento.

Someone might say, "So pay as much as they pay and there wouldn't be a brain drain." Russia and the Russian has never been and will never be competitive with zuckerbergs over money [heh.. indeed - "zuckerbergs" do sit on all that gold]. It is an axiom [sure, sure, Father]. Consequently, if we are to survive, to become a great power again, we must take the necessary restrictive measures, saving our intellectual resources. Whether we want it or not, we again have to remember Comrade Stalin, who understood this very well [no comment, I am rather speechless].

It was a bitter pill - to watch Mark Zuckerberg's meeting with the rector of Moscow State University Viktor Antonovich Sadovnichy in the university library. Zuckerberg, of course, showing off in his underwear, and Sadovnichy expressing joy on his academic face [how do you recognize an academic face?]. But suddenly, something totally unexpected happened. Zuckerberg got out a black sweatshirt with a hood and the word "facebook" And Sadovnichy, with strained smile, put this jersey on! It looked extremely silly and demeaning. Some punk billionaire makes an eminent Russian scientist, Vice President of RAS, respected and honorable man, wear a black sweatshirt with a non-Russian inscription [non-Russian, imagine that! sheer debauchery!]. All this was like a secret and at the same time a public ceremony, like an initiation [you all understand clearly what kind of initiation could be performed by "zuckerbergs", I only wonder about the good academician's foreskin]. I can not understand Victor Antonovich, why did he do it? I can not imagine that he liked it [who knows, the good Father should try it once, I suggest]. There wasn't a gun at his head at this point [who knows? one can point a gun from under the table too], so why did he disgrace himself? I do not blame Victor Antonovich, because I myself felt very ashamed, as if I myself put on the zuckerberg's hoodie.

This story looked like a symbolic act, like a putdown of all Russian science.
...
Believe me, my dear Victor Antonovich, I do not aim to offend or condemn you, but what I saw on Tuesday, caused me an unbearable pain.

Well, enough is enough. A few words on the general background of this "article". After the late Soviet Union's official religion, i.e. communism, largely vacated the scene, the revitalized Orthodox Church rushed to fill the created vacuum. As with any great turmoils, this one was used to the utmost by the different kinds of vermin, including characters of the Black Hundreds type, ultra-nationalists and, I guess, the ex-communists and ex-KGB characters that found themselves beached.

The expectations of the Western community that is used to see, as their own custom, religion as a stabilizing and benign influence, are not exactly met by the current state of ROC - Russian Orthodox Church, where the extremist element is quite strong, and the influence it wields, via the ever-growing power and influence of ROC, grows accordingly.

So don't make the mistake of considering our good Father Alexandr to be an exception. This mistake could be costly.

(*) Actually the literal translation of the last word is "Line", but it doesn't convey the meaning. So...

(**) I am aware that some names in the article may not mean a lot to the reader, so:
Lomonosov: Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov November 19 1711 – April 15 1765 was a Russian polymath, scientist and writer, who made important contributions to literature, education, and science. Among his discoveries was the atmosphere of Venus.

02 October 2012

Modi'in and the Haredi

I know, from a conversation with Snoopy the Goon and Gideon Swort some time ago, that at least some of those who are responsible for this site are worried about the influence of the Haredi on the rest of Israeli society. Particularly when they are such a small part of the total Israeli population, relatively speaking. Given this, the following can only add to the general level of worry.

Back in the days when I was involved, at a relatively high level, with Maccabi Great Britain, and on an official visit to Israel, we were taken to Modi'in, because Maccabi World Union were partners in the development. It appeared to be a very nice place, somewhere, were I an Israeli, I might well like to live.

Because of this, it was with a large degree of sadness and also with a tinge of anger that I came across this item from the (US) Jewish Daily Forward. It appears that the haredi from the nearby town of Modi'in Illit are determined to impose their standards on the secular dwellers of Modi'in. How so? Well, as the author of the piece, Elana Sztokman, who is also a resident of Modi'in, notes, "This Sukkot, there is a religious battle going on in the city of Modi’in, Israel, and as often happens in such battles, it is being fought over women’s bodies."

Oh come now, you might say (especially if you are not an Israeli and/or live somewhere like the US, Canada or the UK), you can't be serious? In 2012? Actually, of course, you wouldn't, if you've been reading this and similar sites for any length of time, but how could I resist such a cheap line? The answer lies in the following: "...haredi visitors started to make demands of the women on Modi’in. Suddenly, things began to change. First, a woman who was performing in the park was asked to leave the stage by haredi audience members — a request to which she unfortunately acquiesced, setting a bad precedent. Then, a well-known local reporter went to the park dressed in her usual clothing (jeans and a tank-top), and was made to feel uncomfortable by other park-users. She then wrote about the experience in the local newspaper."

There's more, much more, in the original article. Read and worry.

By Brian Goldfarb.

26 July 2012

Jesus was a Muslim. Says prof Robert F. Shedinger.

It's all here:



And here:

According to Shedinger, Islam is a “social justice movement,” not a religion, and since Christ supposedly supported “social justice,” that makes him a Muslim. To quote him, “I came to the conclusion that [Islam] was a social justice movement and I think that’s who Jesus was in the first century so I conclude Jesus is more like a Muslim.”
Well, some people ask:
Finally, about that “social justice movement” description, we’d like to hear more of an explanation about how a religion that encourages female circumcision and conquest of any and all unbelievers is somehow tied to “social justice,” or, if it doesn’t support these things, why people who believe it does are wrong. We also wonder why a social justice movement would be based around a belief that there is no God but theirs and their founder is the only legitimate prophet. We expect to be waiting a long time regarding these points.
I don't really know. Highbrow questions these.

But can I has professorship in that Iowa place? Puleezze...

10 July 2012

Find the difference

Between the two cases, I dare you. And the commonality too, of course.