A Little TrumpWorld Idolatry for Your Sunday Services

This feels unhealthy to me, but of course, it's parked right there at Trump International Golf Course now, because why not? It's a Trump property, and if he wants to decorate with assorted artworks promoting the man, the myth, the legend, I guess that's his business. It's just that when he does stuff like this,

it's hard not to feel like he's sending a very political message:

The White House moved the official portrait of former President Barack Obama to a new location in the building’s Grand Foyer, replacing it with a painting of President Donald Trump with his fist raised in the air right after last year’s assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The portrait appears to be based on a photo of then-candidate Trump, bloodied and surrounded by Secret Service agents, still onstage after being shot at the campaign event. That image, along with Trump’s words to “fight, fight, fight,” became a hallmark of Trump’s bid for a second term.

"Appears to be"? Of course it is.  Trump didn't just suddenly find himself like a martyr, you know. His cult believes that what didn't kill him made him stronger. 

Climate Sunday: Ted Cruz, Climate Blasphemer Edition

Via Right Wing Watch, here's a clip of Ted Cruz (I'm sorry I'm on his case as of late) explaining that climate change alarmists are actually in a religion because they "never" argue from facts, and that being called a denialist proves it, because he thinks he's really a "skeptic". Bless his heart.

He's precious. I think it's kind of weird to hear a flat-out statement that people persuaded by climate change theory don't have facts, because it seems to me like I'm stuffing all sorts of observable data into my Climate Sunday posts. I think it's also adorable that he defines the business of a skeptic as being the business of science, which in effect is correct--but he isn't a skeptic, because he himself isn't engaging with the business of disproving squat, he's just ignoring whatever evidence does exist while providing disproved anecdata about an 18 year gap which is cherry-picked nonsense. That there isn't scientific--that's just political Lysenkoism.

In keeping with his idea that being a climate change evangelist makes me a religious adherent, then, I dub Cruz a climate blasphemer. The spit should dry up in his mouth like the Texas drought, and then the sweat should pour from his face like the Texas floods. This is my malocchio against him.

The Crucifixion of Ali al-Nimr Would Be Barbarism

The young man facing a death by beheading and the crucifixion of his body to serve as a warning to others would, in an open culture, not even be sentenced with such a disgusting fate because his right to protest and to freedom of speech would already be well understood. The slim hope that he might be given a pardon by the King is, well, slim. The pace of state executions is a tip-off that mercy isn't a very strong quality with the House of Saud at the moment.

Considering the reaction of the government in sentencing and the increasing harshness, is it plausible to assume the Saudi rulers are in trouble? One takes into account things like the chaos of the Hajj, and the tragic deaths of what might be as many as 1100 persons because of poor security planning. (The government of Iran would like an apology and have implied the Saudi state is very much at fault--and likely to be looking at some regime change inshallah.)

Just as with the case of Raif Badawi, I can not accept the idea of a state corporally punishing a person in this cruel manner for the kind of thing I, as an American, take for granted as being my right to do. This sentence should be pardoned. It is simply appalling.

Another Bangladeshi Blogger Has Been Murdered

A Bangladeshi blogger known for his atheist views has been hacked to death by a gang armed with machetes in the capital Dhaka, police say. Niloy Neel was attacked at his home in the city's Goran area. He is the fourth secularist blogger to have been killed this year by suspected Islamist militants in Bangladesh. Imran H Sarkar, head of the Bangladesh Blogger and Activist Network, told the Daily News Videonel that Mr Neel had been an anti-extremist voice of reason. "He was the voice against fundamentalism and extremism and was even a voice for minority rights - especially women's rights and the rights of indigenous people," he said.

I despise the fundamentalists who willfully murder such intelligent voices, and feel even more strongly that I should speak out against fundamentalism in my own country. Any impulse that views dissident voices as in need of being extinguished is an impulse of tyranny. Wherever the argument is silenced by force of arms--we have a true failure to communicate. But the failure is on the end of those who use force to silence--not those who use their voice for reason. One more voice was silenced--let a thousand others rise.

UPDATED: Bangladesh Home Minister Kamal in response has made a very strong statement: Don't go writing things that hurt religious sentiment. So the priorities here are clear. You can maybe have people hacked to death in the street, but let's not hurt those religious sentiments.

The Public Flogging Sentence of Raif Badawi has been Upheld

This editorial from The Guardian basically says everything. As I've noted, blasphemy laws are not about religion--they-re about state power.

I don't suppose I need to point out how I feel about this.

And for the record, I am very interested to know what's in the classified section of the 9/11 report pertaining to Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure how keen we should be on "allies" like these.

There is a Very Good House Bill Regarding Blasphemy Laws

I don't usually say many good things about Congress, but recently, I read about a bill I very much approve of--a resolution in favor of calling for the repeal of blasphemy laws worldwide.  Now, I know that such a resolution doesn't mean that all nations will decide they need to dump their current blasphemy laws, but as a statement of principle, it's one I'm very in favor of. And one that human rights activists, atheists, agnostics, and free speech fans alike can get behind.

The text of the resolution makes note of the murder of Rashid Rehman. It might as well be talking about Walid Abu al-Khair,  the lawyer of Raif Badawi. The jurisprudence behind a blasphemy or sedition conviction is very like a Potter version of pornography--the powers that be know it when they see it. Which means that blasphemy charges are very much politicized, and the use of them is not about defending the faith, so much, as defending the local political machine.

You bet I find that appalling. Consider the case of the recently murdered bloggers of Bangladesh. In part, their murders are about a scrum of militants who wanted blasphemy laws imposed to protect their Islamic ideal of government.

I have never found this kind of politicization of religion in any way fair. To my mind, sanctifying religious argument is a bit like lese majeste, in that it means that the status quo can't be safely argued, which denies people the right of openly criticizing the very structures that govern them. I may not like to see certain political figures lampooned in certain lazy and stereotypical ways--but I respect the right of people to do so.

I think blasphemy laws are especially ludicrous when found in majority Christian nations. Actually, that any professed Christian should be in favor of blasphemy laws or capital punishment, in light of the Crucifixion, has always struck me as really strange.

Blasphemy: You Know It When You See It--Right?

So, I have been following with some interest the protests occurring in some Moslem communities against the Charlie Hebdo "blasphemous" cartoons, because it just strikes me as so...forced. People are being killed in these protests. If protests from Karachi to Algiers are to mean anything, they are only to remind us that the compulsion to ban and kill to protect a ban on free speech exists all over, and that the sentiments of the attackers didn't come from nowhere. The idea that speech--ironic speech, critical speech, vulgar speech, should be met with death, is a sentiment enshrined in some nations' very being. Which does nothing to hallow it.

Take Pakistan, where very recently over a hundred schoolchildren were killed by extremists, whose legislature seems to be mouthing the extremists line. "Death to blasphemers?" Like, death to Asia Bibi, whose alleged blasphemy charge is very thin indeed? Like, death to Veena Malik?  Like death to Rimsha Masih--a mentally challenged child falsely accused?

The blasphemy laws in Pakistan are clearly arbitrary and can be politically motivated and terribly subjective. How does anyone look at lawmakers cheering the terrorists who killed people in France as anything but terrorist sympathizers--as being murder-minded and encouraging to people who feel this way?

It very much reminds me of the Justice Potter Stewart  definition of obscenity: "I know it when I see it." Which is subjective enough to do no one any good.

A Moment to Consider Raif Badawi

While we considered the freedom of speech rights of the murdered cartoonists and journalists and editors and others slain by probable associates of AQ in Yemen, a heartfelt consideration of what freedom of speech means in some Islamic countries among Muslim artists and writers--like Raif Badawi, who was recently the recipient of 50 lashes.   With a whip. (PS--godawful video--seriously. I'm sure there's repercussions for filming and all, but this wasn't great, actually.) But seriously, Saudi Arabia has held and even executed people for "sorcery".  As a blogger and sometimes alternative path practitioner, that is seriously heinous to me. People should have the right to comment upon their government, their community, their religion and the things that matter to them. How else can they right wrongs or address injustices so that they can be corrected? Shutting people up is saying "might makes right"--and that means, even wrong can be right, if only the mighty so decree it.

For blogging in a way that was irreverent about religion, his body was displayed to be publically seen and abused. This is to say, that his body is not his body at all, but a thing owned by the government of Saudi Arabia to prove some point about his kind of speech. As in--"don't you other people think about blogging like he did".

That is appalling.

Maher, Noah, and the Paradox of Blasphemy

I watch Bill Maher--I don't agree with him all the time, and sometimes I think he can be crude (heh, me too, come to think of it), but what I find fascinating is the way he gets up the nose of fundamentalists. Here's Maher the other week regarding the bad image one might get about God from that Book people are always talking about:



And just between you, me, and the rest of the Internet--he has a point. Old Testament God is very smitey and doesn't seem to be especially discriminating about who he does the smiting against. And people to this very day use that kind of smitey Godhead to harsh the mellows of other folks the whole world round, whether it's saying Gays or Boobs cause earthquakes, or even personal messages of how people done asked for it by not forgiving their abusive parents.

So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that some followers of Smitey Godhead want Maher to be punished for blasphemy:

The evangelical activist said Maher is known for his anti-religious views, but Emmanuel said “this time he’s gone too far.” 

“He may have protection under the First Amendment to say whatever slanderous thing that comes out of his toilet bowl brain, but that does not mean Christians should turn the other cheek,” Emmanuel said. 

He agreed with the Psalms 14 passage that questioned the character of anyone who would believe in his heart there was no God, suggesting Maher and outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens had much in common with the Devil.

Fetus Jesus wants you to celebrate Christmas.

This charming message is brought to us by way of Churchads.net. Well, it's mostly brought to the UK, but now that I've had a gander--I must know more about this "impactful" poster!

The campaign, which aims to reach 40 million people, shows a scan of a foetus with a halo above its head. It will feature on billboards over Christmas and reads: "He's on his way: Christmas starts with Christ."

Drawn up by ecumenical charity, Churchads.net, the "Ultrasound Jesus" campaign is backed by a number of Christian organisations including the Church of England, the Baptist Union, the United Reformed Church, the Anglican and the Methodist churches.

The National Secular Society (NSS) has criticised the ad, saying it gives the impression that it is politically motivated.

"It is an incredible piece of naivety on their part," said Terry Sanderson, director of the NSS. "If they are hoping to stop the secular drift away from Christmas as a Christian festival, they risk doing the opposite. It gives the impression that it was politically motivated, that they are trying to put across some sort of subliminal message. The image is too specifically associated with pro-lifers to be seen in a benign context. They should go back to angels and cribs."

--is the drift one gets from The Guardian.

I see it as a tad political, myself. Actually, as iconography, it definitely runs the risk of being co-opted in a way that not only addresses the political aspect of a depiction of the God man Jesus as a pre-born saviour, but in a way that also sort of tweaks the idea of the Soter mundi being a life in potentia--that would necessarily be lived according to a Divine plan that had but one result.



Or less obtusely:



(I know. I'm blaspheming again. It's a thing I do.)