Burqa

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/worldview/100225/france-burqa-ban-human-rights

The burqa is a part of Islam despite what some proponents (including Muslims) of banning the garment on the grounds of human rights claim. I do not doubt that in some cultures the burqa is used as a tool of oppression but to say that it the wearing of it is not a part of Islam is incorrect.

“And say that the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms ... ”

— Qur'an [24:31

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not harassed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. ”

— Qur'an [33:59]

If a woman chooses to cover herself because it is written in the scriptures that she follows then she should be allowed. No harm is being done to others and thus should be allowed under freedom of religion. If however, anyone who forces a woman to wear the burqa should be punished for violating human rights.

Muslim Headscarves

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/wilders_goes_for_headscarf_ban.php

Attempts to ban Muslim headscarves are not part of an effort to protect European culture and heritage it is a clear assault on religious freedom.

“A ban on headscarves for city council workers and in all institutions and clubs which get local authority money will be the most important point in the PVV´s negotiations to join governing coalitions in Almere and the Hague, says party leader Geert Wilders.

The ban will not apply to other religious items such as Christian crosses and Jewish skull caps because these are symbols of our own Dutch culture, Wilders said in his speech, receiving a standing ovation from the crowd.”

Xenophobic bigotry is surprisingly strong in a region of the world that North American Liberals often look to as a beacon of tolerance. Despite what Wilders says, this ban has nothing to do with protecting the Dutch culture. It is simply a front on which to attack Islam which has becoming a dividing topic in Europe. Europeans must stand up and prove that they do stand for the freedom of all people.

Many will argue that the headscarves are a symbol of oppression. No Muslim woman should be forced to wear the scarf but, she should have the right to choose on her own if she wants to wear one. Freedom of religion applies to all religions even if we disagree with the beliefs. As long as no harm is being done to another individual then the practice of the faith must be permitted.

“'Almere must become the safest city in the Netherlands,' he said. 'There will be an end to subsidies for Turkish macramé and Arabic finger painting. Not just the Netherlands but all of Europe will look to Almere.”

Banning headscarves is nothing more than a distraction it will not improve safety in Almere. In fact, it could do the exact opposite as anti-Western sentiments among Muslims are likely to grow if a ban is put in to place. If the intention is to make improve the safety conditions in Almere, then the leaders must examine the true causes and motives behind Islamic extremism. Purposing this ban an easy way to gain political points but it will not solve the greater issue.

Atheists Meeting With the White Houses, Pisses off Fundies

http://www.earnedmedia.org/igwt0225.htm

Crazy Christians, freedom in America means we all have the right to express our views that is all we are doing in this case.

"It is one thing for Administration to meet with groups of varying viewpoints, but it is quite another for a senior official to sit down with activists representing some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation," says In God We Trust's Chairman Bishop Council Nedd.”

Nedd seems to be horrified at the prospect that atheists, like any other group in America, are protected by the right to free speech. The government willingly listens to activists who oppose same-sex marriage and rights for gays and lesbians. Therefore, its decision to meet with atheist groups is merely a step towards taking in all view points. Free speech protects all view points, even ones that some may view as hateful.

“"President Obama seems to believe that it is a good idea to have a key senior aide plan political strategy with people who believe faith in God is a disease," Nedd says. "Some of the people in this coalition believe the world would be better off with no Christians and no Jews and they aren't shy about it. The fact that this meeting is happening at all is an affront to the vast majority of people of all faiths who believe in God."

As an atheist I can say that the world wouldn’t be better off with no Christians and no Jews (notice how he doesn’t mention other faiths that exist in America). The world wouldn’t be very different from the way it is now. On a personal level I wouldn’t find myself sitting in disbelief over the stupidity coming from the mouths of fundamentalists, which would be a nice change but, it would soon make for a boring world as there would cease to be a debate over the issue.

"The President should tell the American people whether he believes these groups' hate-filled views to be 'mainstream' and worthy of his supposedly inclusive administration," Nedd says.

Nedd’s idiocy here is astounding. Does he know that inclusive means that the President would consider these atheists groups as ‘mainstream’ and worthy. By saying “supposedly inclusive” Nedd is implying that being inclusive means not including atheist groups or does he mean the President’s administration is exclusive? Sorry, I have to stop here. I’m going to strain myself training to figure out Nedd’s moronic statement.

Quebec Parents Don't Want Children Learning about Other Religions

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/02/25/que-judge-ruling-religious-course.html

Here’s a difficult problem for the separation of the Church and State.

“The Quebec Court of Appeal has refused to hear the case of two Drummondville parents who want their children exempted from a mandatory religion and ethics course.

Judge Yves-Marie Morissette ruled Thursday that the court would not hear the case because the parents in question have already found a solution.

The Catholic parents have argued the course, which is compulsory in public schools and in some private schools across the province, represents an infringement on their freedom of conscience and religion.

They said the course, which covers religions around the world, including Judaism and aboriginal spirituality, threatens their Christian beliefs.”

Are mandatory courses on religion infringing on the rights of the family to be free from religion or should the parents accept the fact that if they are going to put their children into a publicly funded school that they should follow the will of the public?

I’m not familiar with the contents of the course though it would seem to me that simply teaching about the religions is a lot different from preaching them as truth. I want to understand the parent’s reasoning behind saying that this education will threaten their Christian beliefs. They need to show how this will negatively affect their faith. I remember when I was young and still believed in the Christian faith. I did not take the education I received regarding the Egyptian gods to be a threat to my faith nor did my parents. Personally, I have no problem with religion being taught in school as long as it is taught through an educational perspective and is noted as being myths that have not been proven by science. I also doubt the parents would be opposed to a mandatory course on Catholicism.

“One of their children has gone on to attend CEGEP, and the other is now enrolled in a private school.

In his decision, Judge Morissette wrote that the child in the private school is no longer obligated to follow the religion and ethics course.

Well, we ended up in a situation where you have more rights if you have more money," Côté told CBC News.”

If parents want their children to receive an education in line with their own beliefs (what about the children’s beliefs?), then they should send them to a public school. Concerning though it may be that only the wealthy will have this option it misses another point that I mentioned earlier, what if the only religion course was a mandatory course on Catholicism? I believe in a black and white solution to this issue. Either provide an education that covers religions around the world or cover none at all. Those who are opposed to the first option on the ground that it threatens their own religious beliefs are only fostering ignorance in their children. We live in a global society and parents should recognize the importance of educating children on the fact that the people of the world hold many different beliefs. We do not have to teach these beliefs as truth but they must be given acknowledgement.

Texas Church Arson

http://tyler.thedailyyou.com/news/2010/feb/25/east-texas-church-fires/

An update to the Texas church arsons according to a friend of the arsonists, “Daniel and Jason do claim to be Christians and believers in God.” Keep in mind that this article wasn’t written by some evil atheist looking to blame everything on religion. The author is making a passionate plea for fellow Christians to forgive the arsonists for their actions. Now he’s not saying their faith influenced the Church burnings but, it just goes to show what side of the story the media will run with. Discoveries of atheist and demonic books will always win out over the faith of the majority in America.

The Fraud of Mother Teresa

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/colleencarrollcampbell/story/96D479CEC39728AB862576D500588661?OpenDocument

Debate has been stirring up over the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s demands to have Mother Teresa’s image removed from U.S Postal stamps. The decision to go after this symbol is likely to backfire on the organization negatively affecting public perceptions of atheists and secularists. Unfortunate, because Mother Teresa was not the holy symbol many have made her out to be.

Examining Mother Teresa’s own words suggests that she did not truly care for the poor rather she wanted them to remain poor.

“…a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

She appears to have believed that through the suffering of the poor the world will be able to see the passion of Christ. I’m assuming that seeing poverty would inspire people to work for Christ and in her mind the suffering of the poor must continue in order for people to continue to see this passion.

“MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.” (http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/)

It is poverty, not the actual desire to remove humans from poverty that promotes the passion of Christ. A sick and perverted anti-humanist ideology promoted by this “saint.”

Any claims of miracles performed by Mother Teresa have also been put into doubt.

“As for the "miracle" that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No.” (http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/)

The willingness of the populous to be blissfully ignorant on this matter is disturbing. Ideas of miracles being caused by the supposedly holy and compassionate Mother Teresa win out over the sound logic of medical treatment. This ignorance is capitalized on to bring someone to a level of holier-than-thou status.

It is a risky move for the FFRF to go after Mother Teresa. In a country that is still dominated by the influence of the religious attacking a well respected religious figure will always have consequences. FFRF should bring attention to these lesser known facts regarding Mother Teresa. Instead of opposing her image because her beliefs were in line with extreme Catholic dogma and her support for abortion, discuss her suppression of the poor and the fraudulent claims of miracles.

Atheist Charity

http://www.flashnews.com/news/wfn5100225J20879.html

Here’s a good idea. Atheists everywhere need to prove that they can be charitable without motive from a god. We need to show the world that we believe in people.

“When it comes to giving to charity, Atheists are major tightwads.

It’s not their fault though.

According to atheist Dale McGowan, ungodly folks are just as generous as Bible beaters but don’t have as many chances to give back.

Christians are reminded every Sunday to donate their money when the collection plate is passed around at church, but because atheists don’t congregate, they aren’t conditioned to give on a regular basis.

For this reason, McGowan created Foundation Beyond Belief, a charitable network that automatically takes a specified amount of money from an atheist’s bank account every month and disperses it to various organizations.

He believes the foundation gives people the “nudge” they need so they make “a habit of giving, and giving a habit.”

McGowan says that unlike churches, 100 percent of donations go to charities, so Christians can’t really judge atheists for not donating as much as they do anymore.”

You can check out the site at the link below.

http://foundationbeyondbelief.org/