1. Allowing Women To Drive Would Mean No More Virgins, Saudi Arabia Religious Council Says


    Allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia would mean no more virgins and an increase in homosexuality, according to academics at Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, Majlis al-Ifta’ al-A’ala, it has been reported in the Telegraph.

    More pornography would be used if women were allowed on the roads and rates of prostitution and divorce would also risethe report stated.

    Produced in conjunction with Kamal Subhi, a former professor at the King Fahd University, the study into repealing the ban predicted that there would be no more virgins left in the Arab kingdom in 10 years.

    Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world which bans women from driving.

    Professor Subhi described sitting in a coffee shop in an unnamed Arab state where “all the women were looking at me“.

    “One made a gesture that made it clear that she was available,” he said. “This is what happens when women are allowed to drive.”

    The report was produced for the country’s legislative assembly, the Shura Council. However this institution has no power as Saudi Arabia is ruled by a monarchy with absolute power.

    The state’s controversial ban on female drivers last came under attack in September after Shaima Jastaniya was sentenced to 10 lashes just days after Saudi King Abdullah granted women the right to vote. The punishment was overturned after international and domestic pressure.

    Saudi Arabia is currently considering a law for women to cover up their eyes if they are deemed too“tempting.”


    WHAT. WTF Saudia Arabia. Seriously? 

    All bolding in the above is mine. Because WHAT.

    Seriously, Saudi Arabi, what the fuck are you doing. 

    I cannot respond to this coherently right now. Jesus fucking christ.


  2. atheismfuckyeah:


    I’m listening to atheist debates again

    No. There is no way anyone will convince me that torturing someone to death, as a scapegoat, for a deed apparently committed four thousand* years before said scapegoat was born, is moral. Ever.

    It is not a good thing, it was never a good thing and it never can be a good thing.

    You cannot punish a great x n grandchild for the deeds of a great x n grandparent. You simply cannot punish one person in place of another. Torturing someone to death is not moral

    God is apparently all powerful, if it wanted to forgive humanity it’s sins, it could do it without the need to sacrifice a person/part of itself in human form/it’s son.

    The reason all of this scapegoating is going on (Jesus, and Abraham’s son, Isaac, before him) is because the Christian god is based on earlier gods, and the Christian god back then still required sacrifices - hence all the burnt offerings in the OT - and a scapegoat was a good way of doing it (literally, a goat, representing the person/s who misbehaved, was sacrificed/punished in place of the person who committed the crime/sin - hence ‘scapeGOAT’).

    And a human sacrifice was at the top of the hierarchy of meaningful sacrifices. That’s just how it worked. They burnt things so the smoke would go up and the gods could smell it. They sacrificed human lives because human’s are, obviously, at the top of the damn pile.


    If I had nothing else to base my opinion of the Christian and Jewish God on, this alone would put me off the entire thing. This alone would make me dislike and distrust. This single act alone is disgusting enough.

    (*If you believe the story of Adam and Eve, at least - if you DON’T believe the story of Adam and Eve, then I wonder why you think Jesus was sacrificed? Because he was sacrificed for the crime of Original Sin, so God could forgive humanity for that sin and other past sins and for ‘future sins’, the Original Sin being Eve taking and eating the forbidden fruit and then getting Adam to join her. Don’t believe in that story? Then you render most of the point of Jesus’ sacrifice moot.) 

    Reblogging myself, because I can.



    (Source: amaluelmwood)

  3. Boy Preacher, 11, Says Skeptics Make Him ‘More Determined to Stay in Christ’


    Ezekiel Stoddard may not quite be in the sixth grade and his voice has yet to break, but grown men and women kneel down before him as a prophet.

    The 11-year-old boy from Temple Hills, Md., said he was just 7 when he realized he wanted to become a preacher.

    “I had a dream,” he said. “God was telling me that he wanted me to do his will.”

    Even though he can barely see over the pulpit, Ezekiel preaches most Sundays at his family’s church, the Fullness of Time Church in Capitol Heights, Md., and at other churches around the state.

    He said he writes his sermons himself and that he likes that he is “bringing souls over to Christ.” He even said God gave him the gift of speaking in tongues and healing the sick.

    Just a few months ago, his mother, Pastor Adrienne Smith, and stepfather had Ezekiel, whom his family nicknamed “Zeek,” officially ordained as an evangelical minister, which provoked a holy uproar among people who believed his ordination was inappropriate.

    “The calling of an individual is truly between God and that individual,” Smith said.

    While Ezekiel’s adult critics might tell him he is just a kid who doesn’t have enough life experience to provide spiritual guidance, the boy preacher said their skepticism only makes him “more determined to stay in Christ.”

    But at the services “Nightline” attended, that skepticism was not evident, even from older pastors.

    “At 11 years old, you’re not going to preach experience, you’re going to preach the Word,” said Pastor Hercules Jones. “Preaching the Word carries enough power in itself to do what it’s supposed to do.”

    Hop on YouTube and there appears to be an explosion of child preacher videos. There’s an impression that preaching is going the way of “Toddlers and Tiaras,” where parents are living out their dreams through their children.

    But child preachers have been around for a while and they have long been controversial. Marjoe Gortner, a Pentecostal evangelical preacher who was ordained at age 3, created a sensation in the 1950s, but in the 1972 documentary, “Marjoe,” he claimed that his act was all a money-making scheme ginned up by his parents.

    In Ezekiel’s case, it is true that his parents are making money off of his preaching, as well as the gospel music act that he and his siblings have put together. But Ezekiel denies that his parents put him up to it.

    “This is something that God called me to do and that’s something that God wants me to do, and this is what I want to do,” he said.

    His mother also said she did not push her son into preaching and would be fine with it if he wanted to walk away from the pulpit.

    “But he will still be taught the word of God still continually,” she said.

    In between sermons, Ezekiel’s parents said they give him plenty of time to be a kid, including letting him play tennis, take a trip to the pet store and eat pancakes with his brothers and sisters. Although, a Bible quiz can happen at any time.

    When asked if he is ever tempted to act out or be bad, Ezekiel simply said, “the devil tries to step in, you know, he tries to ruin things.”

    But where the boy’s pre-pubescent precociousness can really get him in trouble, though, is with other kids. Ezekiel said he was bullied “a couple of times” in elementary school, and kids called him names or told him he was “weird” or “freaky.”

    “A lot of them will say, what happened to you? Are you still Ezekiel in there? Are you still ‘Zeek’ in there?” he said. “And I say, ‘yes, I am. But I’m different in my spirit.’”

    Ezekiel said his defense was to ignore them, but his mother said the bullying got so bad that she pulled him out of school and now homeschools him and his siblings.

    It may be a lonely road at times, but as Ezekiel says from the pulpit, being a Christian is not supposed to be easy.

    “I’m blessed where I am,” he said. “I know if I stick in the Word, God will bless me for it.”


    ABCNews: http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17018767

    Please excuse the formatting, I’m on my phone. I just needed to share this. I mean, seriously.


  4. Utah Judge Orders Mother to Cut Her Daughter’s Ponytail as Part of Shitty Public Punishment


    Remember when colonial Americans used to lead miscreants into the public square and put them in the stockades for a whole day, so they could be mocked and gawked at as an example of what happens when you transgress? Well, in Utah, the land that the Book of Mormon built, a judge recently ordered a totally vintage, eye-for-eye type punishment when he told the mother of a 13-year-old girl who’d cut a toddler’s hair in a McDonald’s to either hand her daughter over for an extra 150 hours of detention, or cut the girl’s ponytail off.

    According to — deep, calming breaths — Fox News, District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansendreamed upa public haircutting as a way for Valerie Bruno to reduce her daughter Kaytlen Lopan’s sentence by 150 hours. Lopan and an unnamed 11-year-old girl admitted to cutting a 3-year-old’s hair in a McDonald’s, so you can definitely see where Judge Johansen would think that the only thing that would set the universe back in order was if the shears were turned on the shearers (the 11-year-old was allowed to have her hair cut at a salon, which doesn’t seem like a punishment so much as, you know, a haircut).

    Bruno was understandably freaked out when Judge Johansen ordered her to cut her daughter’s ponytail off in the courtroom, but said she felt intimidated under the severe glare of Old Testament justice. “I guess I should have gone [sic.] into the courtroom knowing my rights,” Bruno said, “because I felt very intimidated. An eye for an eye, that’s not how you teach kids right from wrong.” No, it really isn’t. It is, however, a great way to build resentment and create a never ending cycle of violent retribution, until, before you know it, Mercutio’s dead and it’s a damn shame because he’s easily the most entertaining character in the whole play.

    Judge Johansen also asked Mindy Moss, the mother of the recently shorn toddler, if her hair-lust had been satisfied (it wasn’t), which also seems like the exact right way to carry out justice in ancient Babylon and the exact wrong way to do it in 21st century America.



    Not strictly religious, but there’s an intersection here.

    Also, I just can’t even. I mean, seriously. 


  6. People have the right to believe anything they choose, but not to impose that belief upon others. Protesting otherwise is merely trying to defend bigotry with pseudo-intellectual semantics.
    — David Robert Grimes, Irish Times (via atheismfuckyeah)
  7. I recently had a conversation with a Christian acquaintance over the subject of feminism.  She attempted to explain that ‘true’ feminism, from a Christian perspective, meant understanding the purpose given to you by God. The word ‘feminazi’ was dropped and I admittedly became irate.  She assertion that “women deserve better than abortion, abortion isn’t a choice,” and then my brain exploded out of the back of my head.

  8. atheismfuckyeah:

This has likely already been seen by many of you, but I thought I’d share it anyway.


    This has likely already been seen by many of you, but I thought I’d share it anyway.


  9. It’s time to focus on the common good – not minorities, says Archbishop of Canterbury


    The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that the United Kingdom is in danger of losing its identity over gay rights and feminism.

    In a recent speech to Welsh teenagers, the 61 year-old – who recently resigned from his role to return to academics – claimed that identity had become a “slippery” word because too much emphasis has been placed on the rights of minority groups.

    Instead, he insisted that society focus on the common good. 

    “Identity politics, whether it is the politics of feminism, whether it is the politics of ethnic minorities or the politics of sexual minorities, has been a very important part of the last ten or 20 years because before that I think there was a sense that diversity was not really welcome,” he said.

    “And so minorities of various kinds and … women began to say: ‘Actually we need to say who we are in our terms, not yours’ and that led to identity politics of a very strong kind and legislation that followed it.

    “We are now, I think, beginning to see the pendulum swinging back and saying identity politics is all very well but we have to have some way of putting it all back together again and discovering what is good for all of us and share something of who we are with each other so as to discover more about who we are.”
    He added: “Identity isn’t just something sealed off and finished with … it’s always work in progress. Once we start saying, “This is my identity and that’s it” then I think we are in danger of really fragmenting the society we belong to.”

    The comments come shortly after he scolded British people who rely on state welfare and social benefits as a danger to society.

    Pink Paper

    Why is this man ever allowed to open his mouth, let alone why is he ever given a public forum to espouse his hateful views?


  10. Rick Santorum’s 2400-word essay about how he was justified in saying that JFK’s speech about separation of church and state made him want to “throw up.”

  11. Bill Donohue Gets Tough on Rape Victims, Wants to Fight Them ‘One by One’


    Catholic League president Bill Donohue issick and tired of coddling rape victims. That’s why he supports efforts by lawyers for two Missouri priests accused of sexual abuse to cripple an organization that advocates on behalf of the victims of pedophile priests – Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). 

    SNAP is not involved in the Missouri litigation, but the priests’ lawyersare seeking“more than two decades of e-mails that could include correspondence with victims, lawyers, whistle-blowers, witnesses, the police, prosecutors and journalists.”
    Donohue thinks this effort, which seeks to bankrupt and embarrass the organization, is justified because “SNAP is a menace to the Catholic Church.”
    Donohue went further, telling theNew York TimesLaurie Goodsteinthat the Catholic Church “has been too quick to write a check” and could save money “in the long run if we fought them one by one” – them being rape victims.
    He also claimed that the bishops are reaching the conclusion that “they had better toughen up and go out and buy some good lawyers to get tough.” “We don’t need altar boys,” he continued, as only Bill Donohue could.
    Donohue may just be projecting though, or at least speaking out of turn. Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told Goodstein thatDonohue was wrong: “‘There is no national strategy,’ she said, and there was no meeting where legal counsel for the bishops decided to get more aggressive.”
    Meanwhile SNAP is resisting subpoenas in the Missouri cases, but national director David Clohessy hasalready been deposed.
    He told Goodstein that the deposition was “not a fishing expedition,” instead it was “a fishing, crabbing, shrimping, trash-collecting, draining the pond expedition.” He said the real motive is to “harass and discredit and bankrupt SNAP, while discouraging victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, police, prosecutors and journalists from seeking our help.”
    As for Donohue, he really can’t seem to help himself. He may have been an asset for right-wing bishops at some point in the past, but now he’s a liability. He attacked rape victims without denouncing pedophile priests, and then dropped in an altar boy quip. It’s almost as if he’s in the fight to amuse himself, not to win any arguments or friends.
    But we probably shouldn’t be surprised. After all, Donohue has a history of this sort of thing.
    Wow Bill. Wow.