The Bible Should Be Banned

So many worthwhile books have been banned over the years. The Grapes of Wrath was banned especially in California because it was partially set there and made the residents look bad. Thomas Paine's Rights of Man was banned in the UK and Paine was charged with treason for supporting the French Revolution. It was also banned in Tsarist Russia. Uncle Tom's Cabin was banned in the southern US during the Civil War, then in Russia. (full list here)

The following list of great books have all been challenged somewhere in the US in the 1990's: Nineteen-Eighty-Four (1984), the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, The Catcher in the Rye, Brave New World, Cat's Cradle, Catch-22, The Handmaid's Tale, Harry Potter (series), James and the Giant Peach, Lord of the Flies, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Slaughterhouse-Five. (see full list here)

Different books are banned for different reasons. Many due to their political nature or implications that threaten the current government, many others for obscenity or for being objectionable in one way or another.

Well, I have a couple of books that should be banned. How about the bible and the quran for inciting violence against homosexuals, women, and anyone who doesn't believe the given book, for inciting hate, for glorifying murder, rape and incest. You get the point. It's immoral, unjust, violent and hateful.

Recently, a man stoned another man who he thought might be gay because the bible told him to.

It was at the hospital where Seidman met and befriended Thomas, according to neighbors. The young man and Seidman were often seen together grocery shopping and going to church.

Seidman was 70 and he made Thomas, 28, the executor and sole beneficiary of his will.

"I killed a man," Thomas allegedly told the witness. He then described how he placed batteries and rocks in a sock, and hit Seidman in the head at least 10 times. Thomas then returned to Seidman's apartment several days later and called police, saying he had discovered the body, according to court documents.

When police interviewed Thomas on Wednesday he said Seidman had been making advances toward him over a period of time. Thomas said he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned in certain situations.

The bible really does say to kill homosexuals in Leviticus 20:13:

• New International Version: “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


• New Living Translation: “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.


• English Standard Version: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.


• New American Standard Bible: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.


• GOD’S WORD® Translation: When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.


• King James Bible: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.


• American King James Version: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.


• American Standard Version: And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


• Douay-​Rheims Bible: If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.


• English Revised Version: And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


• Webster’s Bible Translation: If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


• World English Bible: “‘If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


• Young’s Literal Translation: And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

See also Romans 1:26-32.

There's so much more in the bible that is murderous and despicable. If any book should be banned, it should be this one. And the quran should be banned as well, which I admit I haven't read as much as I have the bible, but what I have read is pretty hateful.

Of course, I don't really believe in banning books. I don't think information should be censored. Maybe the bible and the quran should just have warning labels on them. And they should definitely be in the fiction section!

A New Version Of The Religion Test

So here's another test to see what you know about religion to follow up from the Pew Research review.  This one was written by Nicholas D. Kristoff for the NY Times. Some questions have more than one correct answer. Answers are at the bottom.

1. Which holy book stipulates that a girl who does not bleed on her wedding night should be stoned to death?
a. Koran
b. Old Testament
c. (Hindu) Upanishads

2. Which holy text declares: “Let there be no compulsion in religion”?
a. Koran
b. Gospel of Matthew
c. Letter of Paul to the Romans

3. The terrorists who pioneered the suicide vest in modern times, and the use of women in terror attacks, were affiliated with which major religion?
a. Islam
b. Christianity
c. Hinduism

Why Does God Hate Pigs?

More to the point, why do Jews and Muslims hate pigs, since god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's look at the bible and quran to see what they say about the other white meat.

Question: Are pigs native to the Middle East, then? If no decent jew or muslim could eat them, why were they raised and by whom?

God seems quite fickle about what were were to eat:

• Adam and Eve are supposed to eat a vegan diet: Genesis 1:29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.


• Noah and his sons can eat any living thing, but they have to drain the blood first: Genesis 9:2-4: And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

That didn't last long because in Deuteronomy and Leviticus he gets into all the things that are forbidden. Here I'll highlight the references to swine.

• Leviticus 11:7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.


• Deuteronomy 14:8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

The Burqa’s Hijab Defense

There is a lot of debate about the burqa and its links to oppression today.  To state my stance immediately, I dislike the burqa for everything—and I mean everything—that it stands for.  I however, do not say we should ban it, but complete criticism of it should be brought forth.  I have an issue with the current struggle in the debate; I can see where the anti-burqa argument is coming from…  I however, have no clue where the pro-burqa argument seems to get its legs.

For those who wear the burqa “freely” the argument amounts to it being religious tradition.  They’re not oppressed, it’s their religious tradition and heritage and they’re proud of it.  For those not wearing the burqa, the defense is the Qur’an doesn’t actually enforce the burqa (they’re not being forced to wear it, and if they are being forced to wear it—it is the culture).

These arguments aren’t compatible—they’re contradictory.  The fact that they are contradictory is a sign of oppression itself.  Why do these women think that burqas are a part of their religion if they are not?  The banning of the burqa proposal is constantly referred to as an attack on the Islam religion, and yet, at the same time the same people are arguing that the burqa has nothing to do with the Islam religion itself but with oppressive cultures…  The argument contradicts itself even.

Perhaps we should inspect why people think the burqa is commanded by their religion.  I’m sure everybody is aware of commands to lower gazes, cover private parts and so forth.  The main aspect is covering the beauty, and that the traditional khimar would be extended to cover the bosom.  The Qur’an directly calls for a hijab, as Muhammad clarified on these parts and stated their meaning as covering all but the face and hands (although hey, I for one think the face is an incredibly beautiful part of the body).

But hold on now, do not take this into thinking that the Qur’an doesn’t say that women should cover their faces.  The niqab, or burqa, has the impression of being required in a later passage.  It’s a matter of interpretation, which one is it?  Typically the one that comes later as a general rule of all religions is the one that actually matters (which brings up the question why give it in the first place if it was just going to be labeled obsolete).  Even though the niqab rule comes later sequentially in the book (Surah al-Ahzab 59 for the niqab vs Surah an-Nur  31 for the hijab), chronologically it’s argued to be actually before…  There is a bunch more evidence for that as well though.

The issue here is that the Qur’an does indeed have the burqa as a requirement, even though it is supposedly rendered obsolete.  This rendering obsolete, however, is a matter of interpretation.  Along this, there are interpretations that the clothing is not required at all but rather more suggested by the prophet Muhammad…  This is contradictory, as Muhammad’s words are law under Islam religion, especially considering Muhammad clarified the rule as opposed to creating it anyways—overall it is simply trying to explain away oppressive doctrines by applying what they think is morally right to a book that is supposed to define what morals are.

But just a second here, most conclude that the burqa is not required but the hijab is.  What is the difference?  Is the hijab so much better?  I don’t think it is at all!  Under the common interpretation, the only parts of the body left uncovered are the face and the hands…  I’m sorry if you don’t find that nearly as oppressive as I do.  For that matter, from a book ordering nearly 96% of the body to be covered, is it not safe to assume that the rest should be as well?

Let’s get back to the debate that is occurring.  It is claimed that the anti-burqa movement is simply anti-Islamic (yet again, at the same time they conclude that the Qur’an doesn’t enforce the burqa…).  Is it really so hard to see why women and people in general associate the burqa with this oppressive structure that subjugates and confines women under the name of Islam?

All I see is that they are obscuring the fact that there are indeed pervasive and sexist propaganda in the Muslim communities for favor of these burqas.  Women are murdered for it even in the Western world, and giving a blind eye to that fact is—in my opinion—a completely uncaring and wrong action to do.  Let me ask you, why it is a “choice” to choose whether or not to get murdered and not a guaranteed right.

Do you know the real problem about the burqa is?  Why do so many women hate the burqa?  Can you differentiate between two burqa wearing women, even if you knew them personally?  When women wear the burqa, in a sense, it the most perverse kind of sexual objectification… that woman, is identified by absolutely nothing other than her gender: a shapeless, faceless, nameless woman and nothing more than that at all.

Perhaps a ban is needed, maybe just a temporary one though—one that enables women to escape if they need to from their oppression.  To allow them to get their voices and give them back their right to be human.  Have no mistake, many need help, and to ignore those pleas is perhaps the worst action to do by those who are free.

islam: Religion of Misogynists, Pedophiles and Barbarians

As if I needed any more proof that islam is barbaric, insane and disgusting, I found this video last night at AtheistNation. muslims have the gall to call themselves a religion of peace? Could you be any more hypocritical than that? Insane. Completely insane.

Please watch this 3 minute video:



I've been wanting to talk about this ever since I found out about it, but finding the video brought this issue to the forefront and gave me a clear venue for expressing my thoughts. A few months ago, my husband told me that muhammad was a pedophile. I admit I'd never read the quran so I didn't know that. What could be more reprehensible than for a 52 year old man to fuck a 9 year old girl? There is no nice way to say it. It's rape, it's barbaric, it's sick and evil, and beyond comprehension.

Here is a picture of a 9 year old girl. She certainly looks emotionally, physically and psychologically ready to be raped by her husband, doesn't she? NO! Of course not! That's horrific!

10 Reasons Atheists Are Morally Superior To Religious Fundamentalists

I found a refreshingly different article titled 10 Morals Atheism Gives Me a bit ago. While most atheists have been asked the typical religious question about how we can be moral without a god, this article dismisses the question as inherently flawed, and makes a statement instead.

In my experience, the bible goes on, especially in the old testament, about how to treat people who are different than you. It's full of hate and cruelty, with some arbitrary rules thrown in. Only a few of those rules are sensible. The rest are about control. From the little I know of the quran, it's even worse.

I'm not going to pick the bible (or the quran) apart. It's not worth my time and aggravation. If you believe that the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, you're only going to skim this article, find a few points to attack me while you brew up a cup of moral and righteous indignation, and then try to shove your fundamentalism down my throat because you're scared of people who think for themselves and don't have blind faith in fairy tales from the Fertile Crescent like you do. You don't listen anyway, you just find ammunition then viciously attack. What great role models you are. How very christ-like.

On the other hand, if you are truly interested in breaking free of the iron fist of god ruling your life and keeping you in ignorant fear, you can go to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and look around for yourself.

The atheists who read this probably have already read that awful book, because as a general rule, we need to be more educated on religious matters than those militant religious folks that try to tell us how we should believe.

So, onto the 10 reasons atheists are morally superior, in no particular order, and my personal opinion about each one: