Satan likes women in pants

Niqabs, burkas, and veils are offensive reminders of the inequality of men and women in the countries where they are worn. Their defenders claim the garments “liberate” women, which is total hogwash. But the Quebec government’s plan to force women in niqabs to reveal their faces in order to receive public services isn’t any better.

Muslim countries accept that women must sometimes reveal their faces for security purposes. I crossed into Syria once in a minibus where several women had fully-covered faces, and all were required to lift their veils for the border guard. National security trumps religion, even in the Middle East. But the proposed Quebec law could allow a doctor to refuse to treat a woman wearing a niqab or from attending a class in university, simply because the religious symbol is “offensive” to Canadian standards of equality.

I’m so indignant about the proposed law that I’m beginning to sound righteous. Fortunately, I’ve found a website http://www.movingtowardmodesty.com/Pants.htm with an article for women called “Ten Reasons Satan Wants You to Wear Pants.” It’s written by a Seventh-Day Adventist who argues that the Prince of Darkness enjoys gender confusion. Women should look like women, the argument goes, because wearing pants promotes Satan’s “ungodly feminist movement.”

So, do women who wear dresses in Quebec also need to be liberated? Are ankle-length, floral print skirts “ambulatory prisons,” which is how Quebec’s minister responsible for the status of women, Christine St.-Pierre, describes niqabs? Maybe Anita Bryant should she be refused a drivers’ license if she ever moves to Quebec.

Our Constitution protects citizens, but it’s not meant to guard anyone from being offended. A law that forces people how to dress is tyranny, no matter how frilly the frock that’s draped on it.

Not that they’re selling anything….

One of the ways in which faith organizations act dishonestly is in their belief-based, self-appointed status as arbiters of fairness.

Here’s a neat example: an article on a U.K. christianity site. Sure, they balance the story with a a quote from the “secularists.”

But that headline? Wow, subtle. Bet they think this is a fair piece overall, too.

The vagaries of human behaviour

The naturally analytical tendencies of the military mind come to some interesting conclusions. Everyone’s seen the odd quote from Sun-Tzu. Here’s one from a German stategist, as quoted by Canadian newspaper reader Pete Needham:

General Baron Kurt Von Hammersteiner-Equord , was quoted thusly,

“I divide my officers into four classes;
the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid.
Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities.
Those who are clever and industrious are fitted
for the highest staff appointments.
Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy.
The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command;
he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations.
But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace
and must be removed immediately!

That’s pretty sound strategy, Baron.

FAITH, THE FINAL FRONTIER…

“Science fiction takes the reader into a strange world without God,” warns David Cloud of the Fundamental Baptist Information Service. “And the prominent names in this field are athiests.”

Cloud, who published his warning on his Way of Life Literature website, notes that Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov were both athiests. Arthur C. Clarke claimed he didn’t believe in either God or an afterlife, Cloud notes, and was “probably a homosexual.”

“Science fiction is intimately associated with Darwinian evolution. Sagan and Asimov, for example, were prominent evolutionary scientists. Sci-fi arose in the late 19th and early 20th century as a product of an evolutionary worldview that denies the Almighty Creator. In fact, evolution IS the pre-eminent science fiction. Beware!” writes Cloud.

Cloud is referred to as “Brother Cloud” on the website and has written a long books warning against the evils of everything from contemporary Christian music to immodest female attire. In a book on the latter topic called Dressing for the Lord , he responds to women’s vexing arguments such as, “I wear pants because there are many things I can’t do in a dress,” and “As an older woman I don’t think the modesty issue is very significant for me.” You can download an electronic version of the book from the website for $6.45.

Cloud writes that while science fiction may contain a supreme being or “force,” it isn’t the one in the Bible. He doesn’t mention anything about the dangers of reading J.R.R. Tolkein, a Catholic, or C.S. Lewis, who was an Anglican deacon. That’s surprising because their genre was fantasy — a field I suspect Cloud is intimately familiar with.

–30–

Fanboys in the hood

The next time you hear someone question the separation of church and state, tell them to trust in the Force and, Yoda willing, everything will be all right.

Seems to be working for Briton Chris Jarvis, who has received a letter of apology after being told by staff in a job centre in Southend that he had to remove his hood. Jarvis, you see, is one of 30,000 Britons who list their religion as Jedi.

Sure, if you want people to immediately ascertain your geek-fanboy status, it’s a lot less clever than switching a few letters on the back of your Volkswagen Jetta. But for those not blessed with German automotive technology, it’s a cheap alternative.

It’s already been pointed out by at least one blogger than Jarvis’s argument — he’s planning to sue over the hood incident — isn’t particularly valid, given that only the bad guys wear hoods consistently in the Star Wars movies.

I suspect there’s an easy answer to this.

Future leader of the British Labour Party, Mr. Yoda McYoda.

If he can get credit for believing in a fictional religion, from a series of fictional works staged on a series of fictional planets, the courts should be allowed to schedule the hearing on the desert planet of Tatooine. If Mr. Jarvis can make it, great. If not, they summarily dispose of the case.

He will have the right to be represented by an Ewok. If he waives that right, any lightsabre within reach may be used against him.

Of course, if we hold modern religions based on modern works of fiction to such a high standard, there’s no reason we shouldn’t hold ancient religions based on ancient works of fiction to the same standard — say, some objective proof of the existence of Christ. (Proof, not the New Testament, the first book of which was written at least six decades after Christ’s alleged birth and death.)

Any proof will do. Grave marker, piece of cloth with his DNA on it, standing diary or document actually written while he was alive, which, despite the discovery of numerous other documents from that era of human civilization, has yet to make an appearance. Anything.

No?

Well, then let the farce be with you.

Big breasts, Jessica Alba and the existence of God

Belief is a strange thing. I’ve spent a lot of time lately wondering why so many famous, young, beautiful women believe they need plastic surgery to remove the “unusual” features which, in my opinion, are what made them beautiful in the first place. Slightly crooked noses are being straightened. Cheekbones are moved up. The lips are inflated. Suddenly, they look just like everyone else.

And that’s exactly what they want.

I should confess at this point that I like slightly odd-looking women. I’d take Christina Ricci over Jessica Alba any day. I’ve always thought Sandra Bernhardt was kind of hot, and I never bothered to take a second look at Britney Spears until I’d heard she’d put on a few pounds. Many of my male friends admit to having unusual tastes, too. Sitting around with them — particularly now that we’re older and less concerned about how our tastes will be judged — is a lot of fun because we find out how truly different our perceptions of beauty are.

Am I creeping you out yet? Probably. What has this got to do with religion? I’ll get there.

I’ve been reading a book by Naomi Wolf published in the 1990 called “The Beauty Myth” that claims standards of female beauty have only emerged in the past two centuries as a means of patriarchial social control. In the last few decades, Wolfe asserts, these standards have supplanted religion, which was the previous system that preserved male dominance. The argument goes that beauty standards are in place to make women feel unworthy of promotions, raises and the recognition that would put them on an equal footing with men. Just like religion, Wolf argues that we accept the beauty myth without question.

I don’t really buy the idea that there’s a Learjet up above us with men in $2,000 suits concocting ways to make make women miserable so that they can continue to preserve a power structure. They just want them to fear their yellowing teeth so they can sell whitening strips. Ditto for the Pope — he just wants more Catholics.

Still, the desire to conform is powerful. I learned in childhood that not owning the right brand of sneakers or listening to Duran Duran risked ridicule. I wasn’t a stupid kid — I knew there wasn’t any rhyme or reason as to why Nike shoes were cool and Lotto shoes weren’t. I just knew I had to have the Nike ones to survive. So I bought into the game that made me cool for wearing Jordache, and I joined my peers in mocking the kids who didn’t. As an adult, I know that the magazines I’m reading are supported by advertizers that would have nothing to sell if I was completely comfortable with my looks. But I need to get by in the world, so I rationalize fashion necessities and blot out the fact it’s all a heap of crap. It’s no fun being righteous and lonely.

Religion offers a similar trade in return for comfort. How many times have you heard a religious message phrased in the form, “Is there something missing in your life?” or been told our lives must be “empty” without a faith in God? Church offers friends and social activities. Who can blame people for not wishing to scrutinize the existence of God too closely?

When I was younger, I was afraid to contradict society’s standards of beatuty and even tried to convince myself that the “beauties” that men’s magazines showed me were attractive. I wanted to fit in. Sadly, women want to fit in as well, and many are willing to surgically alter their bodies to do it.

Rational thought loses out to rationalizing. And it’s such a shame.

Faith, hope and character assassination

You’ve heard the phrase “playing to his base”?

Basically, it means pandering to the voters who got you where you are, giving them a message they want to hear. Given how much of pandering to a base on either side of the political spectrum is dependent on the ignorance and fear of said base, it’s definitely one of democracy’s shortcomings — especially when that base then demands some follow through.

Take Barack Obama’s Muslim ties, for example.

Or lack thereof. You’d have to be an idiot at this point to put any stock in the once-heavy rumor mill spiel that the U.S. president was actually a Muslim with a fake birth certificate. (In fact, you’d have had to have been an idiot at pretty much any time to believe it, but I digress.)

However, a recent study demonstrates just how easily swayed people are when a rumour matches their pre-existing bias — bias really being a nice short word for “orthodox belief”. It’s the same in religion, politics, chocolate consumption, you name it. We gravitate to the tribe that seems most like us, whether in thought or appearance (although, as often as not, not in deed), unless we possess enough social intelligence to inject humility into the debate and admit that our own lack of knowledge and foresight is worth heeding when making a decision.

Whether a message has any basis in rational thought  has really nothing to do with the equation for many, many people. If Rush Limbaugh tells them Obama is a Muslim, he may as well have been born on Mars, for all that reality will matter. Similarly, if Al Gore tells the extreme left that the continental U.S. will flood within a decade due to global warming, who are they to instead believe the thousands of climatologists who, while fearing the consequences of climate change, are somewhat more restrained?

In the Obama study, a researcher quizzed people on their knowledge or belief in Obama’s faith over the course of three months. Despite extensive media coverage demonstrating conclusively that Obama wasn’t secretly born overseas and a Muslim, after three months of new information, the same 20% that believed he was at the start still did so by the end of the study. They want to hate the guy and will simple accept anything that lets them do so.

When questioned on the lack of evidence to support the claim, cognitive dissonance kicks in and, rather than face the discomfort of challenging their own beliefs, they’ll react with a tangential argument, perhaps something about ruining health care or hiring death squads or whatever other political nonsense is being dreamed up today.

That’s faith for you.

Door-to-door spam and Azerbaijan

If someone came to the front door of your house at 10 a.m. on Saturday morning and tried to sell you penis enlargers, viagra and a dating site for older women, would it kinda piss you off?

.

Of course. We already get enough spam in our email without it actively seeking us out. Home, castle, that sort of thing.

.

So you almost have to kinda hand it to Azerbaijan … not exactly something you hear every day. When Jehovah’s Witnesses started going door to door handing out literature, authorities detained them and fined them three weeks wages.

.

Problematically, it was for all the wrong reasons. The charge? “Distributing religious literature without state permission,” which is just stupid.Denying people their right to practice their faith is like denying sheep the right to graze. It’s just mean and unnecessary.

.

Not that any faith could be much more deserving. Jehovahs live largely apart from the rest of society, up to and including the political, military and state support systems. Their faith demands that they bother us, door-to-door, because, well, in the age of mass marketing and telecommunications, they’re stupid enough to think that that’s what Jesus would do (if he existed; there’s no actual contemporary evidence to support it.)

.

They also refuse blood transfusions and related medical intervention , and  allow their children to die prematurely as a consequence.

.

So, basically, they’re walking spam who shun society but bother us on Saturday morning, like so many nasty offers in our Monday morning e-mail. They should’ve fined them for peddling without a license. Or, even better, justbanned door-to-door sales in the entire country. Faith Spam, outlawed.

.

Harsh? Not really. Let’s consider the parallels between religious proselytizing ande-mail spam for a second:

1. Both are non-targeted, non-specific mass marketing attempts.

2. Both are playing against the odds, fully aware that the majority of people aren’t

going to be interested.

3. Both can be intrusive and are publicly vilified.

4. Both are most successful when targeting vulnerable or intellectually challenged

individuals.

5. Both shill unwanted literature.

6. Both purport to sell something miraculous with no supporting evidence.

.

Unfortunately, you can’t attach a spam blocker to your frontdoor, as proselytizers tend to ignore the “no soliciting” sign on your mailbox.

I recommend nudity. Fight fire with fire.

Ok kids…repeat after me

One of the things it’s important to realize about faith is that the more orthodox it gets, the more likely it is to try and control the adherent. It’s one of the ways sociologists differentiate between religions and cults, which basically have the same methodology in many respects, but typically — as new, non-transformed, non-moderated religions — also use elements of emotional control and mind control to hook people in.

So it’s always interesting to gauge how a religious organization behaves around the question of faith in schools. Moderate and modernized faiths tend to acquiesce to the lack of certainty and agree with the separation of church and state.

And then we have organizations like Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition and Jerry Fallwell’s Moral Majority shoving the concept down everyone’s throat with a fervor that’s …well…evagelical, literally.

But sometimes, the push to help orthodoxy survive and thrive is a bit more subtle. Take the case of a pair of day care centres in Quebec, where the provincial government, once heavily dominated by Catholic dogma, now tries to exclude public funding from faith-based initiatives.

Of course, that wasn’t always the case, and three decades ago, a few faith-based daycares cropped up. Now the Quebec government is rightly saying they shouldn’t be fed from the public teat.  Imagine: suggesting that children who’ve yet to even properly learn to tie their shoelaces shouldn’t be indoctrinated with spirituality. Next thing you know, those pesky bureaucrats will be enforcing educational standards or something.

He singled out the Beth Rivkah daycare in Cote-Des-Neiges, a Montreal community, which in turn fired back that it “isn’t illegal” to teach religion in a daycare. The concept of giving their own children a choice at an appropriate age of whether to pursue religion, apparently, didn’t occur to the good folk at the BNai Brith, who are complaining about the decision. Shocking!

The next time you hear someone  spew about government indoctrination,  just remind them that there are religious daycare centres in North America … so indoctrination must be at least somewhat en vogue.

Lesbian ban prevents friskiness on prom night.

In a startling discover, a Mississippi board of education has uncovered the secret to saving kids from sexual hijinks on Prom Night: banning Lesbians.

Well, Ok, the board just banned a lesbian kid from being a lesbian kid at the prom. But really, what other purpose could it serve but to uplift the moral fibre of every other kid there, no doubt preventing all sorts of immoral hijinks? Next year’s LGBT ban is expected to end punch spiking as we know it.

Unfortunately, the kid miscreant in question, one Constance McMillen, took umbrage to the board’s doubtless deeply scientific discovery of the impact of lesbianism, and is suing for abridgment of free speech.