islam

Crazy Religious Moments of February

baptedbear

In latest funny and slightly crazy news, is that here in Denmark, a bishop has forbidden the local priest at the church of Sthen in Snekkersten.

Since 2009, priest Kirsten Knutzen has baptised 80 dolls and teddy bears at sermons for children at the ages one to six.

She told the press that she is aware that she is not making a blasphemic ritual, but she puts the ritual as close as possible to the actual ritual she uses her own words.

The Bishop Lise-Lotte Rebel of the Helsingør Congregations put an end to it. With the message that the People’s Lutheran Church of Denmark does not baptise objects.

In my honest opinion, I think it is an effective way of pulling children into the religion, but on the other hand, it also undermines the religion, by making fun of it. How can you tell a fake baptism apart from a real one?

May 2011 they had planned baptism and wedding for the teddy bear couple at Church of Sthen.

 

In Indonesia, a man was sentenced 5 years for blasphemy, a Christian man who insulted Islam.

I am not sure what he did, if I would consider it insulting, but hey I also think it would be as bad as insulting someone who though they were herding invisible unicorns.

But it wasn’t the sentence that I thought was the most absurd part, no no no..

The absurd part is that the local muslims wanted him killed, and they processed to burn local christian churches.

Horray for the religion of peace, both of them.

 

Sigh.

UN deletes gay reference from anti-execution measures

UN Emblem I was genuinely surprised when I read this piece of news. It was with a narrow 79-70 vote that it was removed.

You might wonder what are the potential effects of this reference being removed, I will tell you.

76 countries have criminalised being homosexual, bisexual, transsexual. Five of those have made it a capital punishment, and Uganda being one of them have also tried to add it to death penalty for being gay.

When this reference has been removed, the UN cannot condemn the nations that want to execute some for being gay. You might think this violating human rights, but not according to the UN. The UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity has not been adopted as a resolution.

”The proposed declaration includes a condemnation of violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

–Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_sexual_orientation_and_gender_identity

This is one of the flaws of democracy, the majority might be a bunch of anti-gay, religious fucktards, and yet because there is no constitution within the UN that protects the minority from the majority, it is possible.

I read comments on various news sites that have been featuring this piece of news, and it seems people are more than ready to say it is all the fault of Islam and the Arabs.

But when you look at the list of the countries that voted for the deletion of this references, it is basically 50/50 Christian and Islam majority based countries.

 

Countries that voted to delete sexual orientation from anti-execution measures:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Salam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

 

Countries that voted against:

Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia,Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland,India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

 

Countries that abstained:

Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Fiji, Mauritius, Mongolia, Papau New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

Banning burkas and niqabs?

niqab

Should they be banned?

There have been a lot of talk in the media around in the European Union about perhaps banning these two particular clothing items.

I can see the reasoning behind it, in the Western World, we value that we are able to see who we are interracting with. On the other hand we also like to brag about being the frontier fighters of human rights and liberty. By imposing a ban, we remove the liberty of those that wants to walk around in a burka or niqab.

Here is my view on the entire case, I do not think that the government should impose a ban, that tells people not to wear this like some sort of fashion police. But those individuals who choose to wear this clothing item must also understand that wearing any of these clothing items does limit themself, in the sense that they should be allowed to be rejected in situation where you needed to be identifiable.

Religion should not be a “Do what ever you want”- free card, just because it is your religion, it shouldn’t be something that bends the rules of others.

If a bank has a rule that says that their customers are not to be masked when inside the bank, they must respect this, and either show their face, or stay out of the bank.

You might say that it will alienate some people from society, that they will not be able to use banks, or go into stores because of their choice, yes that is a risk, but they can just change their belief. Easier said than done, but there is a price to pay when you cling to superstition and faith, if that belief tells you to walk around in clothes that masks you completely from head to toe.

Free the burkas and niqabs, do not ban them.

Death & reversed Pascal

Support Tylzen

Support my work

Categories

My Archive