The Accuser

Battle Cry

2006-06-06T08:36:00.000-04:00

Many apologies from the loyal readers of The Accuser. It's tough to keep things up, but I will try to do better.

A reader emailed me this interesting link. Battle Cry is a christian youth group, with the following mission, which they refer to as "The Crisis".

A stealthy enemy has infiltrated our country and is preying upon the hearts and minds of 33 million American teens. Corporations, media conglomerates, and purveyors of popular culture have spent billions to seduce and enslave our youth. So far, the enemy is winning. But there is plenty we can do. We need to take action. We need to answer the Battle Cry.

Creepy indeed, as my informant pointed out. Apparently, you can go to these rallies, indulge in a little god, and create a "battle plan" (with such useful actions like spending 10 minutes a day praying) and get other likeminded christian teens motivated.

My reader also brings up an interesting point: is there a way to get kids motivated who are the secular side of things. I'd say that this is a dangerous idea. Any ideological organization is highly susceptible to corruption. The best chance we have to get people to abandon religion is to make sure that the we diminish its effects in the world and let people come to their own conclusion. Atheists shouldn't minister. Leave that to the preachers.

While scary, I suspect this Battle Cry is ultimately harmless. If the concern is that it might create some psychopath who'd bomb abortion clinics, then chances are that person would become nuts in the first place.

Technorati Tags: Religion,
christian, Battly Cry, Atheism,

Hitchens Benjamin Debate - DVD Update

2006-03-29T08:57:00.000-05:00

Just got word from Scott Pelligrino, the president of popdebate.com who threw the Hitchens/Benjamin debate in February. He's informed me that once they should have DVDs of the event for sale on their site as soon as a few technical snags are worked out. Check back soon.

Technorati Tags: Christopher Hitchens,
Playthell Benjamin, religion, Iraq,

Abdul Rahman and the Curious Case of the Christian Convert

2006-03-22T08:40:00.000-05:00

In Afghanistan, apparently, a man by the name of Abdul Rahman could be facing trial, and execution, for converting to christianity.

While The Accuser appreciates the sentiment of such a law, the practical applications are a little extreme.

It points to a fundamental fact of religion... that they are intolerant, as previously discussed on this blog. In fact, they have to be intolerant by their very nature, otherwise, any authority they might have would disappear. How could you believe me to have the answers to the mysteries of the universe if I said this other guy had 'em too and they were also right.

The article also mentions that he may not be able to face trial because he is mentall unfit. Of course he is unfit. He's religious. Anyone who is religious should be deemed mentally unfit for all activities: trial, public office, medicine, teaching.

However, there is a deeper issue at play here. These countries, where we have fought to bring democracy, are now creating and enforcing legal systems based on religious law. That is a scary thing. Democracies based on religious beliefs are not democracies. And no, America is not a christian country, despite what the 700 club would attempt to have you believe.

Iraq also includes religious ideology in their constitution. To me, that is a big sign of problems to come.

Technorati Tags: Religion,
Abdul Rahman, Afghanistan, Iraq,

Gonzo is dead! Long Live Gonzo!

2006-03-14T09:13:00.000-05:00

Grievous day, readers of The Accuser!

Our good friend over at Deus Caritas Est has informed me that Bill Cardoso, the man who coined the word 'gonzo' died, February 26, of a heart attack.

Gonzo, if you recall, was a style of journalism embraced by the likes of Hunter S. Thompson.

But, the concept of gonzo has become much more than merely journalism. While defined in Webster's in 1979 as

meaning "bizarre, unrestrained, extravagant, specifically designating a style of personal journalism so characterized.

I think it's safe to strip out journalism and replace it with just about anything else. General writing, personal style of living, music, anything.

Cardoso's contribution was brilliant, and it's sad that he is gone.

Everyone should do something a little gonzo to remember him.

Technorati Tags: Gonzo,
Bill Cardoso, Hunter S. Thompson

Buddhist Bullshit - Revisited

2006-03-12T11:01:00.000-05:00

Faithful readers of The Accuser will remember a little story published here a few months ago, about Ram Bahadur Banjan, a 15 year old boy in Nepal who has been "meditating" without food and water for months.

It appears little Ram is back in the news. He's missing.

Followers of Ram Bahadur Banjan reported his disappearance and search parties on Sunday split up in the jungles of Bara, about 100 miles south of the capital, Katmandu, to investigate, said Santaraj Subedi, the chief government official in the district.

Gautam Raj Kattel, a police official, said eyewitnesses reported seeing the teen heading south before dawn on Saturday. His clothes were found near the spot where he had been meditating.

Kattel said officials did not believe Banjan had been abducted by communist rebels or robbers.

Don't really know what to say here. People actually believe that this boy has been surviving with no food, no water, motionless for nearly a year. And you could, until now, go see this miracle, with certain exceptions:

Visitors have only been allowed to view the Banjan between dawn and dusk from a roped-off area about 80 feet away. His followers kept him from public view at night, when they would place a screen in front of him.

Buddhism is a particularly dangerous religion. Mostly, I think, because the west has this soft attitude towards it: it's viewed more as philosophy than organized religion, and that it's all peace and serenity and tranquility. It's real dogma is obscured by a vague spirituality with which people approach it. There's a lot more to Buddhism that meets the eye, and The Accuser is going to try, at least, to bring some of its more nasty (and therefore, real) parts to light.

Technorati Tags: religion, buddhism, bullshit, atheism, Ram Bahadur Banjan

Hitchens Benjamin Debate Audio Recording Available

2006-03-09T00:08:00.000-05:00

An addendum to the Christopher Hitchens / Playthell Benjamin debate at Cooper Union on February 9, 2006.

I know a lot of you have been wondering if there is any recording of the Christopher Hitchens / Playthell Benjamin debate that took place on February 9th at Cooper Union in NYC. I have found that on WBAI, a local radio station, has copies available, if you donate to them, Here is the link

WBAI Donation Page

I haven't personally purchased one yet, so if anyone has and wants to comment on its quality or reliability, feel free to use the comment page or email me directly at editor@theaccuser.org.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Christopher Hitchens, Playthell Benjamin, debate, Atheism

Human Sacrifices: Absurd or Insane? or This Is Religion!

2006-03-08T08:51:00.000-05:00

Here is a beauty of an article from India this morning. It appears that human sacrifices are still going on.

Ten days ago Sumitra and her two sons crept to their neighbour's home and abducted three-year-old Aakash Singh as he slept. They dragged him into their home and the eldest son performed a puja ceremony, reciting a mantra and waving incense. Sumitra smeared sandalwood paste and globules of ghee over the terrified child's body. The two men then used a knife to slice off the child's nose, ears and hands before laying him, bleeding, in front of Kali's image.

This is religion. There is no clearer image than that of a "holy man" convincing an illiterate woman to kidnap and brutally butcher a child to death. It doesn't matter if it's one god, one hundred gods, aliens or whatever. All of it is insanity. The only difference here is degree. Catholics snack on Jesus' flesh and drink his blood every Sunday. Many Muslims think it's halal to strap a bomb to their chest and blow up schoolchildren. Some Jews practice oral suction during circumcision. There is no end to it.

Interestingly enough, this took place in Uttar Pradesh, the same province where Yaqoob Qureshi, minister of Minority Welfare, put out a 6 Million Pound bounty on the Danish Cartoonists.

I can't think what proof people need to wake up, if this doesn't do it.

Technorati Tags: Religion,
Hinduism, Human Sacrifice, India, Atheism,

Interesting twist on Religion and discrimination

2006-03-07T08:37:00.000-05:00

An interesting story out of Des Moines, courtesy of The Muslim News (courtesy of AP):

A Muslim woman who claims she was denied employment after she refused to remove a head scarf worn for religious reasons is accusing a Des Moines convenience store chain of violating her religious rights.

Here we have the corollary of a situation, involving Catholicism and Equal Employment Opportunity laws, that The Accuser brought up a few months ago. Is it really discrimination, or is it indulgence of religion?

I suspect that if a hasidic Jew came in for the job, wanted to wear a full black outfit, with tallis and a wide-brimmed hat, that Git-N-Go might say no as well. But is a conservative Jew came in, wearing only a yarmulka, there might not be such a big stink.

The truth, of course, in that case, is that is hypocrisy. You can't allow one type of religious garb (because it is more discreet) and not allow another. It's either all or nothing.

It's a difficult question to answer. On one hand, America is about freedom, to wear whatever stupid costume you might be inclined to don. I live in New York. I am well aware of stupid costumes. And I never liked the idea of judging a person on what they wear, even though that is usually, especially when it comes to people dressing up in the uniform of their particular subculture, rather accurate.

On the other hand, are two sides: First, that by allowing people to wear religious garb, we indulge religion. It's an example of how we can have something directly in our face (a silly hat, some robe, a turban, a smear of ash on your forehead) that embodies the absurdity of religion, and yet fail to acknowledge it as such. We should not indulge religion, in any of its manifestations.

Second, we should cease to categorize any deviance in behavior (like costumes, or rituals) as different than a secular behavior. Drinking wine at communion is no different than drinking wine with dinner. Performing a bris with oral suction (metzitzah b'peh) is no different than , forgive the crudeness, a man wrapping his lips around an infants penis.

A quick summary of the issue, but I think enough to lay it out. As much as I feel sorry for this woman for being discriminated against (and I suspect there may have been other factors at play against her), it is not the rest of society's responsibility to make room for her "faith." It is religion that needs to start accommodating society, not the other way around.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Islam, Dress,Discrimination, Equal Employment Opportunity, Atheism,

The Accuser's Editorial Notes - Part 2

2006-03-05T11:31:00.000-05:00

As you may know, The Accuser has been trying to figure out how we can reduce the influence of religion and aristocracy in the world. Clearly, the Soviet method didn't work, since so many of the people in the former Soviet republics, and Russia itself, and POURING back into Churches, Temples and Mosques.

So, what can we do? I first proposed, in an earlier post, that we no longer capitalize "god." Since meaning is not derived, it is ascribed, we can diminish the power of a word by ceasing to believe in its power.

Besides "god," what can we do?

1) Not refer to anyone by their honorific. No Sirs, Ladies, Dukes, Viscounts, Earls, Lords, etc.. Everyone is equal, regardless of what silly little name is given to them, by other people with silly little names.

2) If, you should ever have the opportunity to meet "royalty," do not, under any circumstances bow or show any respect, as they feel it should be done. That is not to say to be rude, but the idea of "showing respect" effectively means supplicating and subordinating yourself to them. Bow to no one. Stick out your hand. If they don't shake it, they are being rude, not you. The only reason they wouldn't, is because they feel they are superior to you. They're not.

3) None of this "Your Honor, Your Majesty or Your Holiness" nonsense. Mr or Ms is fine. If the Pope wants to go by some super-hero nickname, that is his business. His name is Joseph Ratzinger, not Benedict XVI. Likewise the president is Mr. Bush, not Mr. President.

4) Priests, Rabbis, Imams, Lamas, etc... should also be referred to by their real name. Not Father Jiminy, or Dalai Lama. Tell them the truth, if you don't think that they are the tools of god, let them know. Don't encourage or indulge them. One of the worst things a non-religious person can do is to pay respects to any religion. At the very least, it makes that person a hypocrite. At the worst, it contributes to the problem.

5) In fact, I would go so far to say, if you happen to meet someone who introduces themselves as a "baron" or "count", berate them. Mock them. Humiliate them. It's a joke that in the 21st century, people still give a damn about aristocracy. Chances are, those people did NOTHING to get their title. It is only a hangover from a dark period in human history.

These are only examples. However, a good rule of thumb is to examine how you are supposed to act. Is there something in "Tradition" that is really just a way to make you lower than the person, or situation, you are addressing? If there is, don't do it.

Technorati Tags: religion, aristocracy, titles, Atheism,

Ash Wednesday Update

2006-03-01T09:40:00.000-05:00

It's Ash Wednesday. Beware Catholics in black face.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Christianity, Ash Wednesday

Mega Churches: Bad Theology, Good Vibrations

2006-03-01T09:29:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting post on Megachurches, found courtesy of Religious News Online.

Megachurches, if you don't know, are those enormous suburban monstrosities you see in the USA, huge glass affairs that can fill up to 20,000 singing, dancing, worshipping christians. Think Nuremberg, before 1945.

It appears that the World Council of Churches feels that these protestant Megachurches are a bit shallow on theology. Here is the best quote:

"It has no depth, in most cases, theologically speaking, and has no appeal for any commitment," the Kenyan Methodist said at the WCC world assembly in this Brazilian city.

The megachurches simply wanted individuals to feel good about themselves, he said.

"It's a church being organised on corporate logic. That can be quite dangerous if we are not very careful, because this may become a Christianity which I describe as 'two miles long and one inch deep'."

This harkens back to a previous post on Peter Drucker, the management consultant who helped create the modern Megachurch movement

However, the beautiful thing about this quote is that the Samual Kobia, the WCC General Secretary, is upset that these churches want people to feel good. Perhaps he thinks it's not in the religion's best interest to make its followers feel good about themselves. After all, miserable people are much easier to manipulate.

Or perhaps they are upset at the cash that these Megachurches bring in. And he just wants a piece of it.

Technorati Tags: Religion,
Christianity,
Megachurches,
Peter Drucker,
Samuel Kobia,
World Council of Churches

Email to Domenico Bettinelli

2006-02-28T09:20:00.000-05:00

So, as promised, I will repost the content of the email I sent to Domenico Bettinelli this morning. As near as I can understand, he has blocked my account from posting in the comments section of his page for his article on saint Peter Damian from about a week ago.

Dear Mr. Bettinelli,

I was a bit surprised to see that my account had been blocked on your website, bettnet.com. I would hope that you were comfortable enough in your faith to allow a little dissenting voice. There were no nasty comments, at least from our part of the discussion, and your readers seemed to be enjoying it. I would urge you strongly to reconsider and allow Mr. Brisbois and I to continue our discussion on your forum. What could you possibly lose?

Cheers,

Leo Vladimirsky
editor, The Accuser
http://theaccuser.org

Technorati Tags: Religion, Christianity, Domenico Bettinelli, Homosexuality

Domenico Bettinelli Update

2006-02-28T09:11:00.000-05:00

Interesting developments in the little discussion with Domenico Bettinelli (of Bettnet fame and The Accuser and Lance Brisbois (of Deus Caritas Est).

It appears that my account has been blocked from posting. Which is surprising. You'd think a good catholic would like a little debate. To strengthen his faith.

I have sent him an email, the contents of which will be also be posted.

Anyway, to the readers of Bettnett who might come here, I say this: I will never block anyone from posting, and will never delete a comment, even if it is ad-hominem. I believe you have the complete freedom to say any damn fool thing that comes into your head. However, I would ask that you refrain from acting childish and try to engage in reasonable discussion. Please do. The Accuser loves to talk.

So, here is my latest post, that would have been on Bettnet, had he not blocked me.

A few points to address...
Melanie - Why is posting a name with a face the same as an attack? And I'd hardly consider posting an image "stealing." Besides, isn't there some bit in your bible about turning the other cheek?

Jason - You bring up an excellent point. Many of the saints (not to mention theologians, popes, preachers, etc...) say plenty of horrible things. It's these inconsistencies in the religious view that drive reasonable people away from religion.

General Question - I am trying to wrap my mind around the your (not all of you, just some) understanding of homosexuality in the greater view. As I can see it, in a religious view, homosexuality. Either:

1) It is created by god, and it is some sort of Job-like test for those who happen to have such inclinations. Also, if god decides to give it to some people, he doesn't give it to others.

or

2)Homosexuality is a choice, which everyone is faced with, and, therefore, it is something which most people ACTIVELY denies. Those who do not deny these inclinations are what we would all call homosexual.

Is there another understanding that I am missing?And, by the way, I am asking a serious question. Theology prides itself on being reasonable, at least the last time I read Aquinas it did, so there should be some reasonable explanation.

And please, no more ad-hominem attacks. I don't think god appreciates it.

Have at it boys.

Ante upped in Contracts on Danish Cartoonists

2006-02-27T13:53:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of capitalism, someone has raised the bid on killing off the Danish Cartoonists who so brilliantly illustrated precisely what would happen if someone dare comment on Islam, that religion of peace.

Except this time, it's not some idiot Muslim preacher, it's an OFFICIAL of the Indian government. Yaqoob Qureshi is minister of minority welfare (how ironic, devoted to tolerance) in Uttar Pradesh.

6 million pounds and his weight in gold, to the man who beheads a cartoonist.

Not much else to say... except where is the outrage in the west, and why haven't the Indian officials done anything about this?

Domenico Bettinelli vs Lance Brisbois

2006-02-24T18:12:00.000-05:00

The Accuser always stands up for truth. And nothing is more delicious than to see another great example of religion showing its ugly, truthful face.

The editor of Deus Caritas Est (full disclosure: he is a close friend of mine), happened upon an interesting, homophobic post on Domenico Bettinelli's blog, bettnet.com. Bettinelli quotes saint Peter Damian, an 11th century monk upset that his fellow clergy-men couldn't keep their penises in their pants.

Brisbois, editor of Deus Caritas Est, wrote a small entry on his blog, criticizing Bettinelli for being obsessed with homosexuals, whom he claims make up only 3% of the population. Brisbois is certainly correct, why should Bettinelli worry himself about such a small group of people.

The answer, of course, is because god, and his clergy, tell him to, through the bible, and their weekly (or even more frequent) conditioning events.

Regardless, Brisbois posted a deep-link to a photo of Bettinelli and his wife, to put a name with a face. He then posted a link to his criticism on Bettinelli's site as a comment. Which was responded to within ten minutes with an accusation from Bettinelli that Brisbois was a guilty of stealing his photo, and replaced the image on HIS server with an accusation saying:

The owner of this blog is a thief and an unscrupulous jerk who steals other people's work.

After this, the nastiness began. Brisbois' entry about Bettinelli's original post contained no ad-hominem attacks. It was merely a reasonable and appropriate analysis of Bettinelli's thinking. Bettinelli, however, deemed it necessary to cast aspersions on Brisbois, calling him a "typical homosexual stereotype: bitchy and mean."

I've known Brisbois for many years. Bitchy, occasionally. Mean, hardly. A stereotype, never.

He then accused Brisbois of attacking HIM, using the photo of his wife. This is paranoia at its height.

Brisbois then uploaded the saved thumbnail of the image of Bettinelli and his wife to his site, and then a few minutes later, replaced it himself with a rather humorous image that may very well describe precisely what is in Bettinelli's head most of the time.

Besides the pompousness and nasty tone in Bettinelli's response, this illustrates a deeper point: the fundamental and orthodox views of religion are always the accurate ones. This is what religion is: nasty, divisive, cruel and uncompassionate. They serve no other purpose but to strengthen one group against another. If I believed in such a place, I would say to hell with Domenico Bettinelli. Lucky for him, I don't.

Religion sneaks its way onto another government panel

2006-02-24T13:55:00.000-05:00

Governor Rod Blagojevich appointed Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam Minister of Protocol, Claudette Marie Johnson, to his Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes in 2005. Why this has just come up, is beyond me?

This gem, submitted by a reader, warrants special attention. Having lived in Chicago for some years, I’ve watched my fair share of public access television. On said TV, among others, Calypso Louie Farrakhan (oh, you didn’t know he used to be named Calypso Louie? Please click here to learn more) was often featured, giving his sermons to the Nation of Islam, boys on the left, girls on the right. Many of the times, I have heard him make legitimately anti-Semitic comments. This, by the way, is not surprising. All religions hate other religions. That is one of their prime functions. Interestingly enough, many of the christian preachers did the same thing. Remember all religions need to have an enemy.

What is amazing is that the NOI has such legitimacy. And now, the Governor of Illinois wants to listen to the thoughts of these religious lunatics. On the subject of hate?

Nevermind that hate crimes are a bad idea. It’s the thought that governments are soliciting the opinions of religious groups, who are guilty of the very thing that they are meant to advise on. Harkens back to a question from Aristotle: are judges who have committed crimes better than ones who haven’t? It’s the equivalent of asking the KKK to draft up civil rights legislation.

And what happened to separation of church and State? These cults have such a wonderful position… practically no taxation and over-representation. Lucky them. Dangerous times.

German Blasphemy Law intolerant of free speech

2006-02-23T17:48:00.000-05:00

Europe, as a whole, has demonstrated its TOTAL lack of respect for free speech with the whole Jyllands-Posten cartoon debacle.

Germany has taken it to a new low. A German man was arrested and convicted to 1 year in jail (suspended) and 300 hours of community service prison for breaking a law that bans insulting religion. Specifically, he printed the word KORAN on toilet paper and began selling it, on-line, to mosques and other interested parties.

I call this a blasphemy law, because that is precisely what it is. Article 166 of the German Criminal Code, which states:

Section 166 Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life

(1) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults the content of others' religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(2) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults a church, other religious society, or organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be similarly punished.

Found on Oxford University German Law Archive.

The fact that there is no outrage, no protests in the west, nothing other than a few buried stories (as far as I can tell) is not only outrageous, but terrifying. It is the same response that the west has had in supporting the Danish cartoonists. Cowardice and fear, supplicating Islam because we are afraid of them. Which is, by the way, the same response that many American's have when they see minorities get on the subway: clutching their pocketbook closer to their chest.

Still, that western countries have laws against BLASPHEMY is amazing. The fear of upsetting religion is so ingrained in people that they are still afraid of the dark. It's so unreasonable, but that is the nature of faith: suspension of reason, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But there is also a deeper question at work here: If god has such power and majesty, why can't he take a little joke?

The Accuser's editorial notes - Part 1

2006-02-23T09:18:00.000-05:00

The Accuser believes firmly in the meaning and power of words. Much like anything in this world, however, meaning is not derived... it is assigned. The reason the word fuck is so offensive is because we allow it to be offensive. Much like nigger or kike or chink. A good example of what I mean is the "taking back" of nigger, a very admirable action, I might add.

So, in light of this, we are going to make our own small in-roads into this game. Many of you know that God must always be capitalized. This needs to end now. The Accuser refuses to capitalize god. That small grammatical indication creates an enormous gulf between what the word actually represents versus what meaning is ascribed to it.

I urge all of you who read The Accuser to do the same. If you need to, change the auto-correct rules in Microsoft Word. You'd be surprised how trite that little three-letter word is without the imposing capital G.

Spread the word.

Religion is good for you.

2006-02-23T08:56:00.000-05:00

Sometimes there isn't much to say on the subject. This business of blowing up each other's mosques up illustrates the point quite nicely. Religion serves no good purpose. It is an evil institution, that can only be used to take power by creating an artificial enemy. By proclaiming you have the answers, and the others are offending god, everyone suddenly gets a sense of self-worth.

The tragedy here is that there are two classes at play: the clergy (or rabbis, or imams or whoever) and the believers (that would be everybody else). I don't see too many Imam's strapping dynamite to their chests and blowing up busses. Or flying airplanes into buildings. I only see poor, delude people doing that. While the clergy reaps the rewards. All on a lie that is SO obvious to see if you just remove the emotion surrounding religion.

Of course, this is nothing indigenous to Islam. Christianity has been doing this sort of thing for millennia. They've just calmed down a bit in the western world and focused their attention in the third world.

More divinely inspired massacres to come.

Tea, anyone?

2006-02-21T23:10:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court has just granted permission to an obscure, small Christian sect called O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal to drink hallucinogenic tea for their rituals.

The Accuser, as you may or may not know, holds a fairly libertarian point of view as far as drugs go. Adults are free to make their own choices. However, as you may have already guessed, we have a very strong opinion on the subject of religion.

It seems that here we have a two types of citizens, one religious, the other not. In a purely democratic society, shouldn't all people be treated the same? Why is it acceptable for one person, who believes certain fairy-tales to break the law, but another, who does NOT believe them, to be prosecuted?

It seem mighty unfair to treat one group any differently from another. Especially when your criteria (the Sherbert Test, recently upheld by this very SCOTUS decision) for allowing religious practices to break the law become so hypocritical that it's bad for society for some people to do drugs, but good for society if others do them.

Maybe instead of getting a prescription for medical marijuana from your doctor, you could visit your parish priest. He could fix you up.

The example of some tiny religion drinking happy tea is ultimately trivial. There are more grievous possibilities of this kind of decision. It's not hard to imagine one religion wanted to kill off another. Wouldn't they then have the legal backing to do so, all because we can't infringe on their precious religious rights?

Certainly, this is an extreme example. However, the idea that any group of people has special treatment is wrong. Categorically wrong. All people are to be treated exactly the same way. That is the nature of democracy. Of course, this assumes that our laws are just, which sometimes is not the case.

Joseph Smith Statue: Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb

2006-02-21T22:53:00.000-05:00

A new hero to The Accuser has been found, none other than loyal reader Dan McKinley, of McFunley fame! It turns out Dan has been keeping his eyes peeled in the dingy streets of lower Manhattan and found a huge infringement and colossal waste of our taxpayer money and did something about it. Go forth and read the article, and let's hope that Dan no longer has to be another contrarian toiling in obscurity.

Freedom of Speech in Europe? Hmmm.....

2006-02-21T09:05:00.000-05:00

The recent conviction of David Irving in Austria under their Holocaust denial laws is somewhat unsettling.

Not out of respect for David Irving, but rather for the sake of free speech.

Freedom of speech is about being able to tell the truth. Whether or not Irving was telling the truth (and the evidence is clear that HE IS LYING), there can be no laws specifically banning a topic of discussion. The Austrian law is too specific. If there are to be laws that infringe on freedom of speech, they need to be general: lying and deceiving people is wrong. It's clear that Irving was manipulating history and facts. This is wrong. But it is no more wrong than a priest defrauding his flock with the story of Jesus. Or Imams stirring up hatred against Danish cartoonists.

What was it that Voltaire said... "I disagree profoundly what you say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it."

I don't think he was talking about lies.

However, there comes a small practical matter if this is our criteria on free speech. There are plenty of examples of history ACTUALLY being false, and people being told to say things that are patently untrue: the Inquisition, Galileo, etc, even though the accused knew it to be true in the first place. How are we to deal with this? It's difficult. Our criteria implies that you can know whether a person is telling the truth a priori. Which is what torturers do. So then, we have to expand our acceptance of free speech and let people say whatever they want, and clean it up afterwards. By means of a law which punishes people for lying and intentionally deceiving. But not for a specific infraction against a specific piece of history. It must be general.

Patriotism: the last refuge of the scoundrel

2006-02-19T10:29:00.000-05:00

Normally, The Accuser, steers clear the hell away from partisan politics. It's nasty, ugly, unreasonable, and dangerously close to aristocracy. However, when a juicy bit like this comes up... it's too much for our hypocrisy detectors to keep quiet.

The United States Senate has passed, 96-3, the renewal of the beloved Patriot Act. Now, this would fine, except for the fact that for the last few years, the Democrats have at the throats of the Republicans (mostly the administration) for allowing these intrusions into our personal lives. Interesting, though, that when the chance comes to do something about it, they do nothing.

It's clear why. The political parties are effectively the same. With a few choice differences (abortions for some, tiny American flags for others), they have the same stance. And that should be terrifying.

Keep all this in mind when we are forced to elect "someone new" for president in 2008.

The following legislators are exceptions, and therefore worthy of admiration.

Russ Feingold, D-Wis
Jim Jeffords, I-Ver
Robert Byrd, D-W.Va

Send 'em a missive and tell them they are doing the right thing. And the next time you hear one of the great Democracy legislators crapping on about how George Bush is ruining the country, send them this link and remind them they had a chance to do the right thing, and they screwed it up. Again.

A Good Idea is a Good Idea...

2006-02-18T20:30:00.000-05:00

The Accuser is always on the lookout for interesting ideas. Here's one that was created by our good friend who runs Deus Caritas Est. It seems that this idea was also thought up by Andrew Sullivan. I'll let people make up their own mind.

Soliciting Ideas

2006-02-18T12:23:00.000-05:00

The Accuser needs your help. It's not easy patrolling the seas of the internet, searching for examples of the hypocrisy of man: after all, we are only one man. So here is where you can come in. If you read an interesting article, hear a news story, or have a tip that you might want to know the Accuser's point of view, let us know. Email The Accuser at editor@theaccuser.org. Help us help you!