The Real Honor Killer

Ten get death penalty for honour killing - The Times of India:

At least 10 members of a family were sentenced to death by a local court for killing an 18-year-old girl, her lover and the lover's brother in 2008.

Vijaya, 18, her lover Udai Pal Singh and Singh's brother Satyabhan were killed in Pilkathra village in Etah in November 2008. Vijaya's father Ramesh Pal, along with his other family members and relatives, had killed the three people.

The death sentence for Ramesh Pal and his accomplices is undoubtedly an exemplary punishment for honor killing. It's small comfort, though, when we note that 5000 girls and women around the world are killed every year by their own family in the name of "honor", according to the the United Nations Population Funds [UNFPS] report on "the state of world population 2000". Almost all of them involved love, sex, or marriage against the wishes of their parents, family, or community.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts:

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

These rights are violated when family or parents force their children — of "full age" or not — into a marriage not of their choice, or murder them when they enter into a relationship of their choice, but against the family's wishes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that religion and its inseparable twin, tradition, are almost always the prime movers in "honor killing". Just take a look at the reservations expressed by the member states of the U.N. on Article 16. The judiciary ought to be the first recourse for any violation of individual rights. It will be hamstrung, however, as long as political compromises and appeasement of religious conservatives prevent much needed legislative reforms.

The triple death of Vijaya, Udai Pal, and Satyabhan demonstrates how critical it is to have a uniform civil code in a multi-religious society, that is based on reason and not religion. My fellow Americans who are supportive of Biblical, Shariah, and other religious laws, please take note.

Read More...

What were they having?

Too Much Coffee Can Make You Hear Things That Are Not There:

High coffee intake can cause auditory hallucinations - hearing things that are not there - researchers from La Trobe University, Australia report in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, after measuring the effect of caffeine and stress with 92 non-clinical participants. Even five coffees per day can trigger this type of hallucination, they explained.

What Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were having, when they heard their unseen god speaking to them!

Read More...

Your Life under Shariah

Jailed rape victim seeks to sue Commonwealth of Australia:

A Brisbane woman who claims to have been drugged and raped by co-workers in Dubai plans to sue the Commonwealth of Australia after she was jailed for adultery.

Alicia Gali, 29, has already been granted leave to sue the Le Meridien Al Aqah Beach Resort in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, alleging her employer breached its workplace obligations by failing to have systems in place to protect workers against assault.

But on Tuesday, Ms Gali will seek leave to sue the Commonwealth in the Brisbane Supreme Court, claiming a consular official failed to warn her that a complaint of rape in Dubai could lead to her being jailed.

Go Alicia! Time to teach the politicians that they must pay for bedding with religion. And, to everyone else, beware of the Islamists bearing jobs.

---

Hat Tip: Butterflies and Wheels

Read More...

Camping Is Not Alone!

The end is always nigh in the human mind — New Scientist:

Secular end of days may be found in Karl Marx's end of capitalism and Francis Fukuyama's end of history, along with scientistic doomsdays brought about by global warming, ice ages, solar flares, rogue planets, black holes, cosmic collisions, supervolcanoes, overpopulation, pollution, nuclear winter, genetically engineered viruses, the grey goo of runaway nanotechnology - and let's not forget Y2K, the millennium bug.

Not to forget my grandmother, who used to mutter, "Kali muthippochu (the epoch of Kali is coming to an end, in Tamil)", whenever she caught me playing with the girl next door!

You see, the Hindu folklore has it that the last avatar of Vishnu as Kali should appear anytime now to rescue the humanity from evil. What could be more evil than your 8-year old grandson holding the hands of that 7-year old temptress, eh?

Read More...

My Religion Requires Me to be Topless!

One more reason why "religion" should be excised from the Constitution — Muslim cabbie and Taxi Commission at odds over his hat:

Nabeel Langrial was talking to another cabbie near the Lumière Place casino last summer when an enforcement agent for the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission stopped to tell him his hat did not conform to the driver dress code.

Langrial, a 23-year-old Muslim, told the officer the reddish-brown cap — called a kufi — had religious meaning...

What next, a Hindu Brahmin asserting that his religion requires him to be topless, and a Jain refusing to wear leather shoes?

---

Hat Tip: Reason Magazine

Read More...

The First Amendment is Flawed!

In his latest post on the Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Eugene Volokh discusses some interesting » Parental Rights / Religious Freedom issues arising from N.J. Div’n of Youth & Family Servs. v. Y.C. (N.J. App. Div. May 27, 2011), a case upholding the conclusion that Y.C. had abused or neglected her daughter, A.C. (which had led to a temporary removal of the child from Y.C.)":

As you might gather, this raises some of the same parental rights and religious freedom issues that we had discussed in the circumcision discussion. Of course, there are substantial differences, which may justifiably lead to a different bottom line: circumcision of boys may well have long-term health benefits; when done to an infant, circumcision likely doesn’t leave lasting memories of pain or fear; at the same time, circumcision involves permanent excision of tissue and not just pin pricks. But I thought this would be an interesting way to test people’s intuitions about the proper scope of parental rights and religious freedom rights.

After a careful reading of the post and the comments that followed, I have concluded that the First Amendment is flawed. Both the Establishment and the Free Exercise Clause should be edited out, and it should simply read:

Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment takes care of what is really important in the edited out clauses:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

With that, the term “religion” will be excised from our Constitution. Instead of futilely attempting to define “religion”, we could all focus on getting a life, and J. Scalia can retire!

Read More...

A Secular Vision

... I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues... the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the ... outer space. These are the real issues ... And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.

... it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

... I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice...

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it -- its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in ... I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come... when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

— John F. Kennedy, Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, delivered 12 September 1960 at the Rice Hotel in Houston, TX.

Read More...

A Mind Without Fear

Dr. Jack Kevorkian [May 26, 1928 - June 3, 2011]

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
— Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian at Royce Hall, UCLA, January 15, 2011.

In 1999, Kevorkian was convicted and served eight years in prison for defending our natural right to die with dignity. Thanks, Dr. Kevorkian.

Read More...

Latisha's Baby

Her name is Latisha Lawson, a 31 year old mother of two, one dead, and the other, scarred for life. Latisha has been found guilty of strangulating her 3 year old son, Jezaih. Here are some excerpts from what Latisha said on the witness stand, explaining to the Jury and the Allen County Superior Court, Indiana, why she did what she did to Jezaih:

All of it was either directed by God or an attempt to get closer to God, she said.

"I was willing to learn. I was wanting to learn," she said. "I was learning how to learn him."

She believed she saw the demon Marzon transform her son's physical shape. She said she believed the toddler was completely overtaken, and the more information God gave her about the demon, the more changes she saw in her baby son.

Lawson said she believed her son became possessed because of how she lived her life when she was pregnant with him.

"I had no love in my heart for life. I had no love in my heart for God," she said. "He was pretty much grown in hate."

She said she knew it was the time to exorcise the demons that affected all in their home because God told her so.

"It wasn't something I planned," she said.

Lawson prayed, "pleaded the blood of Jesus" to protect the child's body so when Marzon came out, the baby would be unharmed.

"I knew and believe I was interacting with a demon at that time," she said.

Lawson told the jury the "process" of the exorcism and giving Jezaih the three doses of the mixture took a few days, and that the child did not pass away immediately.

"It was awhile," she said. "We just held his body and were praying ... and he was passing away."

After he died, Lawson sought no help and ordered the children not to tell anyone. Instead she and Hawkins put the body on Hawkins' bed, praying over it, sleeping with it and believing God would bring Jezaih back.

"I went in and just asked God to bring him back," she said, sobbing. "He did it in the Bible. He did it with Lazarus. He did it with a child in the Bible."

Prosecutors argued that she hid the body in a tote for two years, because she knew that her actions were wrong. What if Latisha had believed that Jesus would resurrect her Jezaih, but only if she had preserved his body, as that of Lazarus and billions of dead Christians after him? Alas, she couldn't find a cave in Fort Wayne, Indiana, nor could she afford a cold, dark coffin, six feet under. A tote bag on the bed beside her was handy and inexpensive. Any thought of disposing the body in a ravine or in the woods to cover up the willful murder, of course, would have been beyond her.

In the end, the jury did not believe Latisha Lawson. They found her guilty on all counts — murder, battery, and neglect of a dependent resulting in death, both Class A felonies; and neglect of a dependent and battery, both Class D felonies.

I wonder, though, how many of the twelve jurors did not believe this passage to be true [Matthew 8:28-34]:

28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, there met him two possessed with demons, coming forth out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man could pass by that way.

29 And behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

30 Now there was afar off from them a herd of many swine feeding.

31 And the demons besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, send us away into the herd of swine.

32 And he said unto them, Go. And they came out, and went into the swine: and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep into the sea, and perished in the waters.

33 And they that fed them fled, and went away into the city, and told everything, and what was befallen to them that were possessed with demons.

34 And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart from their borders.

If they could believe this flight of fantasy about demons exiting men and entering pigs upon hearing a monosyllable "go" from Jesus, why didn't any of the jurors believe that Latisha was telling the truth? Who is to say that Marzon couldn't be one of those demons that jumped from pig to wolf to raven and all, and finally into Jezaih?

During the trial, a clinical psychologist was asked to evaluate Latisha's mental condition at the time of Jeziah's death. He testified that she knew right from wrong. Perhaps, Latisha knew that the Bible was right about demonic possession, and that it was wrong, even blasphemy, not to believe the word of god. Could it be what the psychologist meant by right and wrong?

Could Latisha have read the Bible? If not all of it, at least the parts that describe demons, and Jesus' power to exorcise them? Or, on a cold Sunday morning, she heard her pastor warming up to Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, or Luke 13:10-17. Perhaps, he concluded, "let us rejoice in the way that God worked through human instruments to bring salvation to those who were desperately lost and destined for eternal judgment". Did Latisha think that she could be one of those instruments to bring salvation to Jezaih?

Fictional violence in movies and video games, some say, could lead to violent behavior in the real world. May be, Latisha saw one too many of the Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, the Omen Series, the Exorcism of Emily Rose, and Twilight, allowing herself to confuse the reality of colic with the imagery of devil. Or, in a moment weakness, she had read Harry Potter to Jezaih as his bed-time story, opening a window to demonic possession. As a "leading Catholic exorcist", Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuers, the author of "Exorcism and the Church Militant", said in an interview:

"Harry Potter and these Twilight vampires glamorize the power of evil," Father Eutenener explained, "and this has lead to many, many cases of possession among young people." It may begin with a child or teenager simply "playing around" with the occult, but that seemingly harmless act is "opening a window" to possession.

Pay heed, young parents, if you happen to be die-hard Harry Potter or Twilight fans. Keep the demonic windows closed.

Whether Latisha was delusional or not when she killed Jezaih, religion will not be held responsible for his death. Not even as an accomplice to the murder. For centuries, with the connivance of kings and lawmakers, god and his coterie have been able to weasel out of any such responsibility. Latisha, and Latisha alone, will be punished for the crime, a minimum of 45 years in prison, may be more.

Read More...

A Pious Fraud?

FFRF calls for fraud probe into Rapture campaign:

There are media reports of dozens of Camping's followers who liquidated their own assets to contribute tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars to Camping's organization, convinced (by Camping) that they would have no need for the money or material goods after May 21 and that they were needed by Family Stations Inc., in order to advertise for the proclaimed Rapture. Others incurred thousands of dollars in debt through extravagant purchases and family vacations, allegedly convinced (by Camping) that they should enjoy the world before its impending destruction. Some quit their jobs, sold or abandoned their homes, packed their families and moved in preparation for the 'end of the world.'

Read More...