The prosecution in the Tony Alamo trial has rested its case. Now it’ll be up to Alamo’s defense attorney’s to convince a jury of Alamo’s peers that he’s not a lecher and a pedophile. As they finished today, the prosecution played audio from telephone conversations Alamo had with women and girls of his “compound” (these cult nuts always have a compound, eh?) and, in one, “women and girls giggle as he discusses how the charges against him might differ had his alleged crimes occurred in Texas or Arkansas.” Alamo is charged with transporting underage girls across state lines for sex. The underage girls? One of them was 15 and worked in his “ministry office.” The other was 14 and taken by Alamo as his wife.
The trial of faith-healers in Oregon charged with manslaughter in the death of their toddler has reached a deadlock. The 15 month old daughter died of an infection. Instead of treating the toddler’s pneumonia, the Worthingtons anointed the helpless baby with olive oil. No doubt the jury is split over whether or not religious beliefs should be honored and respected even at the expense of children who can’t make the choices for themselves. Such actions would be considered child abuse and inhumane according to a United Nations resolution, of which the United States is one of only two nations to refuse ratification. The other nation is the Somalia, where the religious indoctrination and abuse of children is par for the course. U.S. legislators afflicted by superstition, who feared not being able to properly brainwash or indoctrinate hapless children blocked ratification in the U.S. This resolution requires that states act in the best interest of the child and that every child has “certain basic rights.”
Non-Muslims in the UK are turning more and more to sharia courts in order to find resolution of disputes and other civil matters. According to the Times Online, “[t]he Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) said that 5 per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.” This is interesting given the extent to which the British government has been accommodating Islamic superstitions and customs. A related story in the UK involves a teacher of 10 years’ service recently sacked for refusing to kowtow to racist comments and actions of Muslim students. His offense? Refusing to tolerate openly racist and hateful behavior of juvenile delinquents indoctrinated and brainwashed in Muslim superstition and hatred for Western and non-Muslim people. Read the link. It’s startling.
The Archdiocese of Dublin is dealing with allegations that up to 450 people there may have been abused by Catholic priests. This is the second major sex scandal the Catholic cult in Ireland has faced this year.
Also in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights has upheld the turban ban imposed by France in 2004 when it passed a law prohibiting religious symbols in school. The petition filed against this law was dismissed. I’m thinking we’re going to find out that Sikhs are really hiding male-pattern baldness.
“In God We Trust”? California Republican, Dan Lungren, wants to include these words and more on the walls of the Capital Visitor’s Center -a move that continues the modern trend of “Christianizing” the United States and re-writing history to reflect a fallacious assumption that we’re a “Christian nation,” a premise that’s only true statistically. But, this logic would also require that we identify as a “white nation.” Not a position any rational person should want to hold. Which is why the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued to block the engraving of these words, which would force a “force [a] religious beliefs on as many as 15 percent of all U.S. adults. That comprises ‘atheists, agnostics, skeptics and freethinkers, none of whom possess a belief in a god.’” According to FFRF co-president, Dan Barker:
“It really is a Judeo-Christian endorsement by our government, and so Lungren is wrong. Lungren and others are pro-religious, and they want to actually use the machinery of government to promote their particular private religious views. That is unconstitutional, and that’s what we’re asking the court to decide.”
The proposed cost for one superstitious engraving? Nearly $100,00. And in these economic times. Tsk-tsk conservatives.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Atheists Sue To Keep ‘In God We Trust’ Off Capitol Visitor Center (huffingtonpost.com)
- Sharia across the pond (guardian.co.uk)
- Between naivetÃ© and intellectual dishonesty: debating Shari’a in the UK (marranci.wordpress.com)