Beit Shemesh resident Natalie Mashiach, 27, was hanging up flyers for the national lottery in the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet on Tuesday afternoon, when she was approached by haredi man who she said cursed her and spat in her face.

According to Mashiach, she retreated to her car, when dozens of men started pelting her vehicle with stones, punctured her tires, poured bleach on her inside the car and stole her car keys. She then fled to a nearby building chased by the mob, before the police arrived and dispersed them.

Mashiach sustained a light injury from a rock which was thrown at her head during the incident.

How manly of these guys to attack one woman. What an accomplishment! Why, they must be so proud of themselves for having taken on such a mighty foe!

Fucking cowards … !

Photo credit: Alexbip.

Christianity and even religious belief are in grave danger across the globe, risking oblivion, Pope Benedict XVI said.

“Across vast areas of the earth, faith runs the danger of extinguishing like a flame that runs out of fuel,” he said.

Last I knew, religious faith was still going strong. The vast majority of people in the world are religious, and while religious fervor is fading in a few places such as Europe, in most regions religion is going strong and is nowhere near dying out.

It almost goes without saying that, in those few places where religion is becoming less common, the Roman Catholic Church’s own conduct has very likely contributed to this trend. “Charity begins at home,” or so the saying goes, so maybe the Pope should look in his own mirror and figure out how he might try to reverse this trend that so alarms him? My guess is he’ll refuse to do so and continue to wail about the evils of “secular humanism,” rather than examine and ferret out the evils within his own Church.

The article includes an additional quote, though, which I find remarkable:

“Without faith, the whole ecumenical movement would be reduced to a form of ‘social contract’ that’s adhered to out of common interest,” the pope said.

I’m not quite sure what the problem is with a “social contract” that people embrace “out of common interest.” Wouldn’t that be the best thing … for people to get along with each other, because it’s in their own best interest? And isn’t this precisely how the Ethic of Reciprocity works — a principle which, ironically, none other than the founder of the Pope’s own religion promoted? If this is something Jesus taught, why would the Pope find it objectionable?

None of this should be news to any Vatican-watcher. As the clerical child-abuse scandal has hammered the Catholic Church around the world, the current and prior Popes both staunchly refused to acknowledge any part in it; they both tried to prevent bishops from allowing abusive clergy to be investigated by local authorities; and Benedict remains committed to a policy of evading responsibility for it, becoming offended when he’s forced to face it. He could, in one moment, restore the credibility of his own Church — and by extension, that of Christianity and of religion generally — by dealing with the scandal in a contrite and moral manner. But he never will. Count on it.

Hat tip: CNN Belief Blog.

Photo credit: Catholic Church (England & Wales).

1. What’s wrong with abusing children?
2. Claims are claims, so we don’t care
3. The Devil within the victims caused the abuse
4. The Devil lurking in the Vatican caused the abuse & the scandal
5. The scandal is a plot against the Pope
6. The Bible forbids anyone to “judge” the Church
7. The scandal was falsely cooked up by “masonic secularists” and “great newspapers”
8. The scandal is a conspiracy of the Jews
9. Admitting wrongdoing would cost too much money
10. The scandal is an attack by “the world”
11. Sexually assaulting children is not pedophilia & there’s nothing wrong with it
12. The priestly-pedophilia scandal is all society’s fault
13. The victims liked it, so it was OK

The above are all serious statements offered by current or former Church officials, accused clergy, or the Vatican’s defenders. In addition to all of these, there’s also a widespread assumption among lay Catholics that allegations of child abuse are all fabricated, made up in order to extort money from dioceses.

The aforementioned excuses are all depraved evasions of the truth, which is that Roman Catholic clergy around the world abused children in their care; they sometimes did so systematically; abusive clergy were aided and abetted by the Church’s hierarchs; and to date the Church still tries to keep its clergy from being prosecuted.

And yes, folks, the abuse absolutely did occur. While it’s not reasonable to assume each and every individual allegation is true, a long line of independent reports in many countries have all verified that the abuse happened, it happened on a wide scale, and it took place over the course of decades; see e.g. reports from Ireland, Belgium, and the Netherlands, to name just three.

I’m sure more excuses will be offered in the future, but at this point I expect they’re likely to be variations on the above … along the lines of “it wasn’t all that serious” or “it’s a conspiracy!” More’s the pity.

Photo credit: Demotivators blog (defunct).

A small group of ultra-Orthodox Jews has prevented some women from voting in local elections in Jerusalem. It’s the latest step by the extremely pious Jews to try to force their practices on others.

Israel’s Channel 2 TV video showed the men screaming at a few dozen women, demanding that they leave a voting station Wednesday. Then the men pushed them away.

The article makes one final point:

The vast majority of Israel’s Jews object to such measures.

If this is truly the case, one wonders why this stuff is even happening at all, not to mention accelerating in frequency and militancy. Hmm.

Hat tip: Unreasonable Faith.

Photo credit: vicki wolkins.

A “church” whose central tenet is the right to file-share has been formally recognised by the Swedish government.

The Church of Kopimism claims that “kopyacting” — sharing information through copying — is akin to a religious service. …

The church, which holds CTRL+C and CTRL+V (shortcuts for copy and paste) as sacred symbols, does not directly promote illegal file sharing, focusing instead on the open distribution of knowledge to all.

Kopimism is less of a spiritual movement, and more like a transparent effort to protect file-sharing, as admitted by its founder:

It was founded by 19-year-old philosophy student and leader Isak Gerson. He hopes that file-sharing will now be given religious protection.

The effort here is to use laws religious-freedom laws as a facade behind which to share files. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea how well this will work.

In case you feel like finding out more about it, the Missionary Church of Kopimism has a Web site, with this introductory page in English. Photo credit: kopimi (aka “Copy Me”).

Approximately 1,500 ultra-Orthodox men gathered at Shabbat Square in the capital’s Geula neighborhood on Saturday night to protest what they called the “oppression” and “incitement” of the “secular community” against them.

Dozens of men wore yellow Stars of David on their jackets with the word “Jude” in the center, and banners bearing slogans such as “Zionists are not Jews” and “Zionism is racism” were paraded at the rally.

They’ve even asked for protection, because this criticism — as they see it — is no different than a genuine, physical attack upon their persons:

“Orthodox Jews demand the presence of international forces to protect them,” another sign read.

So not only are these people hyperreligionistic and immature, they’re also delusionally paranoid. What a wonderful combination. (Not unlike the Religious Right in the US!). These ultra-orthodox Jews view the insolence of secular Israelis who won’t give up being secular and abide by their dour ultra-orthodox standards as the equivalent of an active campaign to destroy them.

Sorry people, but in this world, no one is entitled never to be criticized, and to be criticized is not the same as being physically attacked. Time to fucking grow the hell up, OK? Wah wah wah.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

A shy 8-year-old schoolgirl has unwittingly found herself on the front line of Israel’s latest religious war.

Naama Margolese is a ponytailed, bespectacled second-grader who is afraid of walking to her religious Jewish girls school for fear of ultra-Orthodox extremists who have spat on her and called her a whore for dressing “immodestly.” …

The girls school that Naama attends in the city of Beit Shemesh, to the west of Jerusalem, is on the border between an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood and a community of modern Orthodox Jewish residents, many of them American immigrants.

The ultra-Orthodox consider the school, which moved to its present site at the beginning of the school year, an encroachment on their territory. Dozens of black-hatted men jeer and physically accost the girls almost daily, claiming their very presence is a provocation.

The problem with harassing people over “immodesty,” of course, is that “immodesty” is both subjective and relative. Almost any kind of outfit can be labeled “immodest” if one wishes to do so. And the context in which an outfit is worn can make it seem more or less “immodest.”

The tension between the hard-line Haredi Jews of Beit Shemesh and their more moderate neighbors is not new, though:

Beit Shemesh’s growing ultra-Orthodox population has erected street signs calling for the separation of sexes on the sidewalks, dispatched “modesty patrols” to enforce a chaste female appearance and hurled stones at offenders and outsiders. Walls of the neighborhood are plastered with signs exhorting women to dress modestly in closed-necked, long-sleeved blouses and long skirts.

In other words, they’ve carried on a campaign intended to force others — not of their sect — to act as though they believe as they do.

(Gee, sounds a bit like the Religious Right here in the US, no?)

Christian readers of my blog have complained previously that they feel I don’t criticize other religions. This blog entry — like a number of others — proves them wrong on what score. Moreover, even if I only pointed out examples of Christian extremism, that in itself does not make me wrong. Extremism is not relative; it doesn’t become acceptable in one religion just because it happens in another; and I don’t have to talk about the extremism of other religions in order to remark on Christian extremism.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Thousands of children suffered sexual abuse in Dutch Catholic institutions over the past 65 years, and church officials knew about the abuse but failed to adequately address it or help the victims, a long-awaited report said Friday. The release of the report was followed by an apology to victims by the archbishop of Utrecht, who said the revelation “fills us with shame and sorrow.” …

The Dutch report said Catholic officials failed to tackle the widespread abuse, which ranged from “unwanted sexual advances” to rape, in an attempt to prevent scandals. Abusers included priests, brothers, pastors and lay people who worked in religious orders and congregations, it said. The investigation followed allegations of repeated incidents of abuse at one cloister that quickly spread to claims from Catholic institutions across the country.

The suspected number of abuse victims who spent some of their youth in church institutions likely lies somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, according to a summary of the report investigating allegations of abuse dating back to 1945.

It’s nice, I suppose, that Archbishop Wim Eijk apologized and expressed remorse over this, and compensation will be offered to victims, but once again I must ask why it took so long — the culmination of a thorough examination and investigation — for the apology to be forthcoming? Would it have been so fucking hard for the Dutch Catholic Church simply to have owned up, right at the start? Why does the Catholic Church, which claims to be the sole remaining arbiter of morality in the world, to show some damned courage and moral fortitude, just once? They love telling everyone else what they ought to do, but refuse to be held accountable for their own actions, or inaction as the case may be, and must have all concessions of wrongdoing dragged out of them. Hypocrites!

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

A Saudi woman was beheaded after being convicted of practicing “witchcraft and sorcery,” according to the Saudi Interior Ministry, at least the second such execution for sorcery this year.

The woman, Amina bint Abdulhalim Nassar, was executed in the northern Saudi province of al-Jawf on Monday.

The “evidence” against her?

A source close to the Saudi religious police told Arab newspaper al Hayat that authorities who searched Nassar’s home found a book about witchcraft, 35 veils and glass bottles full of “an unknown liquid used for sorcery” among her possessions. According to reports, authorities said Nassar claimed to be a healer and would sell a veil and three bottles for 1500 riyals, or about $400.

This execution received a stamp of approval from the entire Saudi court system:

According to the ministry, Nassar’s death sentence was upheld by an appeals court and the Saudi Supreme Judicial Council.

Are we quite clear, now, on how barbaric it is to kill people over mere metaphysics?

Note: Any Christians out there who are thinking how superior their religion is to Islam, in this regard, had best be careful: I’ve already blogged about Christians in Africa who’ve gone after supposed “witches.” Christians would do well to keep in mind how much harm their own religion has inflicted on people in the name of eliminating witchcraft. Christianity certainly does not have clean hands in this matter — even now.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said this week that Palestinians are an “invented” people, a position that could be seen as putting him at odds with the U.S. push for a two-state solution in the Middle East.

“Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire,” Gingrich told the Jewish Channel, which posted portions of the interview online on Friday [cached]. “And I think that we’ve have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab community, and they had the chance to go many places.”

Here’s video of this part of the interview, courtesy of the Jewish Channel and Youtube:

His criterion for what makes the Palestinian people “invented” and therefore ineligible to have their own state — i.e. that their land once had been part of the Ottoman Empire — is more than a bit strange. After all, many countries that exist now, and have existed for a very long time, were also once part of the Ottoman Empire. Most of the Balkan states, for example, had once been under the Ottoman regime. The same goes for countries like Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Armenia and even Hungary … just to name a few. By the standards the Newtster has laid down, these nations are all “invented peoples,” and none are entitled to statehood.

In spite of his error, Gingrich is far too ideologically-driven (and too desperate to hold onto Christian Zionist primary voters) to admit his error. He maintains he’s factually correct, even though quite obviously he’s not (cached).

Yes folks, even though he’s a history professor, Newt Gingrich doesn’t actually know anything about history. I only have a B.A. in the field, yet I know how catastrophically wrong the man is. His lie about the Palestinian situation places him in my “lying liars for Jesus” club.

One last thing: During the interview, Newt says:

And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel since the 1940s.

I have no idea who this “we” is that the Newtster claims has been waging a “war against Israel” all that time. Is he referring to the US? Somehow I doubt it, but I can’t imagine who else that “we” could possibly be.

Photo credit: Eliel.

* The R.R.’s fondness for hypocrisy is well-known, but is strange, considering the founder of their own religion clearly, explicitly, plainly and specifically forbid his followers to be hypocritical, ever.

All I can say is, how prescient of me! (Or better yet, how predictable the R.C. Church is!) The BBC reports that exactly the same thing happened in Spain, beginning during the Franco regime and continuing into the 1990s (WebCite cached article):

Spanish society has been shaken by allegations of the theft and trafficking of thousands of babies by nuns, priests and doctors, which started under Franco and continued up to the 1990s. …

The scale of the baby trafficking was unknown until this year, when two men — Antonio Barroso and Juan Luis Moreno, childhood friends from a seaside town near Barcelona — discovered that they had been bought from a nun. Their parents weren’t their real parents, and their life had been built on a lie.

Juan Luis Moreno discovered the truth when the man he had been brought to call “father” was on his deathbed.

“He said, ‘I bought you from a priest in Zaragoza’. He said that Antonio had been bought as well.”

This criminal scheme has a quick and ready scapegoat in Spain’s infamous Francisco Franco, however, it became entrenched, and outlasted him by a very long while:

The practice of removing children from parents deemed “undesirable” and placing them with “approved” families, began in the 1930s under the dictator General Francisco Franco.

At that time, the motivation may have been ideological. But years later, it seemed to change — babies began to be taken from parents considered morally — or economically — deficient. It became a money-spinner, too.

Investigating this scheme has been hindered by an amnesty that had been issued:

After Franco’s death in 1975, the major political parties agreed an amnesty to help smooth the transition to democracy.

But this amnesty law has never been repealed, so attempts to investigate Spain’s baby trafficking as a national crime against humanity have been rejected by the country’s judiciary and resisted by its politicians.

Thus, all responsible for dealing with the aftermath of this criminal scheme, have an easy excuse for doing nothing. How wonderful. (Not!)

All I can say is: Wow. It’s sickening to think that not only did the R.C. Church exploit a criminal enterprise for its own religious and ideological sake, they found a way to profit monetarily, too.

Does anyone wonder — now — why I keep repeating that the Roman Catholic Church has all the morals of the Mafia? They operated baby-stealing and -selling rings in at least two countries, that we know of. One can only assume this must have happened elsewhere, too. How many lives have been turned upside-down by this? And how long will it take the Catholic Church to admit its criminality, apologize for it, and make amends?

Hat tip: Unreasonable Faith.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

A major Roman Catholic organization has agreed to pay up to $18 million in a historic compensation agreement for sexual abuse committed over several decades in Quebec.

The Congregation of Holy Cross said Thursday that it has agreed to issue an apology and financially compensate victims for abuses at three different institutions over a five-decade span.

The amount is believed to be the most ever awarded in Quebec and, lawyers say, perhaps even in Canada.

The abuse occurred at a number of schools operated by the Congregation of Holy Cross and date back to the 1950s:

The agreement applies to three Quebec institutions that are now defunct — Montreal’s College Notre-Dame between 1960 and 2001; College Saint-Cesaire, located south of Montreal, between 1960 and 1991; and Ecole Notre Dame in the Lower St. Lawrence region (1959-1964).

At least 85 people are thought to be eligible for compensation. Lawyers believe that number could be much higher, but that many victims are likely too traumatized to come forward.

The revelation that abuse occurred in the Congregation’s schools took some time to be noticed. In the 90s one of the victims, René Cornellier Jr., wrote letters to the Congregation school he had attended, asking for them to own up to it, but he died shortly after that, so the matter wasn’t pursued. Those letters turned up when the Montreal Gazette went looking for evidence of abuse in Congregation schools. Cornellier’s abortive efforts were posthumously recognized in the agreement:

As part of the settlement, Rene Cornellier Jr. will also have a $100,000 scholarship named after him, in recognition of his role as the first victim to denounce the school.

The Congregation also apologized for the abuse, but — as is typical — never bothered to explain why it allowed the abuse in the first place, or how it could have been going on for decades, right under their noses … especially since they’d been put on notice about it at least in the mid-90s, via Cornellier’s letters. Once again, a Roman Catholic organization reveals its total moral bankruptcy by “apologizing” only when it’s coerced to do so, and only in minimal fashion, in spite of the fact that the R.C. Church represents itself as the planet’s sole remaining arbiter of morality.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Saudi Arabia will allow women to stand for election and vote, the king announced on Sunday, in a significant policy shift in the conservative Islamic kingdowm.

In a five-minute speech, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud said women will also take part in the next session of the unelected, advisory Shura Council, which vets legislation but has no binding powers. …

“Women will be able to run as candidates in the municipal election and will even have a right to vote.”

To be sure, Saudi women are still severely restricted, even with this concession, as the Reuters article explains:

The king did not address the issue of women being allowed to drive. Although there is no written law against women driving, they are not issued licences, effectively banning the practice.

Women in Saudi Arabia must also have written approval from a male guardian — a father, husband, brother or son — to leave the country, work or even undergo certain medical operations.

Despite this, women’s suffrage in Saudi Arabia is unprecedented, and is a large step forward. There are lots of misogynist Christofascists here in the US who could learn a thing or two from this.

Photo credit: Jerusalem Post / Ruth Eglash.

Ireland stepped up its battle with the Roman Catholic Church over child abuse Sunday, with Justice Minister Alan Shatter vowing to pass a law requiring priests to report suspicions of child abuse, even if they learn about them in confession.

The Catholic Church regards information learned in confession as completely confidential.

But under the law proposed by Shatter, priests could be prosecuted for failing to tell the police about crimes disclosed in the confession box.

Shatter said in a statement through a spokesman last week that priests’ failure to report what they learn in confession “that has led sexual predators into believing that they have impunity and facilitated pedophiles preying on children and destroying their lives.”

The R.C. Church considers the confessional to be more sacred than almost anything else, so it’s sure to resist this law. Furthermore, even outside the confessional, the Church is vehemently opposed to any kind of mandatory-reporting requirement. This was a key sticking point in the Vatican’s rejection of changes in procedure which had been contemplated by Irish bishops in the mid-90s, and specifically and explicitly condemned in the (now famous but then secret) letter to Ireland’s bishops in January of 1997 (available at the NY Times and on this server):

In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature.

Shatter’s proposal, then, is especially provocative, and it strikes at the very heart of how the Vatican wishes to operate. Good for him … and good for the Irish government.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

The Vatican has rejected claims by Irish PM Enda Kenny that it sabotaged efforts by Irish bishops to report child-molesting priests to police. …

In a speech to parliament in July, Mr Kenny accused the Church of putting its reputation ahead of abuse victims.

The Vatican said it was “sorry and ashamed” over the scandal but said his claims were “unfounded”.

“The Holy See is deeply concerned at the findings of the commission of inquiry concerning grave failures in the ecclesiastical governance of the diocese of Cloyne,” said the Vatican, in a detailed response to the allegations [cached].

“The Holy See… in no way hampered or sought to interfere in any inquiry into cases of child sex abuse in the Diocese of Cloyne.”

“Furthermore, at no stage did the Holy See seek to interfere with Irish civil law or impede the civil authority in the exercise of its duties.”

The Vatican continues to claim innocence in spite of the discovery of a “smoking gun” document … a (then) secret letter to Ireland’s bishops in 1997 … which showed the Holy See had derailed efforts by those same bishops to cooperate more fully with secular authorities (cached). As the BBC article relates, the Vatican insists any such conclusion about the letter is a “misinterpretation”:

But the Holy See’s response, published on Saturday, said Mr Kenny’s blistering accusations were based on a misinterpretation of a 1997 Vatican letter expressing “serious reservations” about the Irish bishops’ 1996 policy requiring bishops to report abusers to police.

I challenge anyone to read this letter (available at the NY Times and on this server) and not conclude — rather than “interpret” — that it was intended to do anything other than prevent the sort of cooperation with local authorities that the Irish bishops had been contemplating in the mid-90s. It clearly and explicitly states that, for example, mandatory reporting requirements are, in papal eyes, canonically and morally problematic:

In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature.

What Irish bishop, reading this Vatican instruction, would fail to conclude that he should not follow mandatory reporting guidelines? Seriously?

Once again the Vatican demonstrates its proclivity to act in denialistic and juvenile fashion, continually refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, even in light of demonstrable evidence of its own wrongdoing. The robed denizens of the Holy See — nearly all of them middle-aged or elderly — are far too old to be acting as childishly as this. It’s time for them to act their ages.

A key element of the report, and which sparked so much ire, is this: In the midst of several Irish investigations into the abuse of children by Catholic clergy, it turns out that, as late as 2009, Ireland’s Catholic bishops were still actively protecting abusers, in spite of promises made as long ago as the 1990s that things had changed. The Vatican itself had, in a 1997 letter to Ireland’s bishops, intervened and specifically ordered them not to turn reported abuses over to secular authorities.

In other words, the cover-up went all the way to the very top echelons of the Catholic hierarchy.

One would think that the Roman Catholic Church — which ostensibly teaches the humility and contrition that Jesus demanded of his followers — would respond humbly and show some contrition over this. However, that’s precisely what they are not doing. In the wake of the documentary evidence of wrongdoing provided in the Cloyne Report, the Vatican continues to lie … insisting it never did anything wrong and never ordered bishops not to cooperate with secular authorities.

After Taoiseach (prime minister) Enda Kenny ripped the Vatican a new one the other day, the Holy See responded … by recalling their nuncio (ambassador) to Ireland. The BBC reports on this latest event in the history of Catholicism in the Emerald Isle (WebCite cached article):

The Vatican has recalled its special envoy in Ireland after a damning report on the Catholic Church’s handling of child abuse by priests.

Papal Nuncio Giuseppe Leanza has been called back to Rome to discuss the impact of the recent Cloyne Report. …

Vice-director of the Vatican press office Father Ciro Benedettini said the nuncio’s recall “should be interpreted as an expression of the desire of the Holy See for serious and effective collaboration with the (Irish) government”.

He added that it “denotes the seriousness of the situation and the Holy See’s desire to face it objectively and determinately.

“Nor does it exclude some degree of surprise and disappointment at certain excessive reactions.”

That last sentence is the real cause of this ambassadorial recall. Yes, folks, it’s true … the Vatican is so angry that the Irish government and people are (understandably) angry at the Church for what it did, that they’ve brought their nuncio home in protest! How dare the Taoiseach publicly condemn the Vatican for what it was shown to have done wrong! Why, that kind of insolent response just can’t be tolerated!

Fucking childish is what it is. And a fucking disgrace.

Photo credit: BBC.

Today, on his stupid radio show, [Beck] compared the Norwegian Labor Party youth camp that was the site of a spree killing that left 76 people, most of them teenagers, dead, to the Hitler Youth:

There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth. I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing.

OK, so incendiary and insulting comments are something one expects from the Glennster. My guess is, he’s still enraged with the Norwegians because in 2009 they dared give the Nobel Peace Prize to Glennie’s mortal enemy, President Barack Obama. So really, I get that Beckie-boy would want to insult that country. Of course he would! He’s much too childish to be able to control his sanctimonious rage at anything and everything associated with Obama.

But there’s a problem with Glennie’s complaint about Norway’s Labor Party summer-camp … and Gawker also picked up on it. You see, guess what other political and ideological organization also hosts summer camps for kids? That’s right … a Tea Party outfit connected with none other than Glenn Beck himself (cached)! Yes, folks, even the Tea Partiers that Glennie so dearly loves, are guilty of doing the very same thing he condemns in Norway’s Labor Party!

Wow. Glenn Beck, a hypocrite? Whodathunkit?

Memo to Glennie: Since you’re such a devout Christian, I suggest you go open your Bible and read the parts of it where your own Jesus specifically, clearly, and unambiguously ordered you never to be hypocritical. Ever. Not at any time, and not for any reason. Try it just once. OK?

This despicable escapade reveals the morally and intellectually bankrupt nature of the Christofascist mindset, as depicted in this post’s graphic (above): “It’s not fascism when Christians do it.”

Photo credit: Austin Cline / About.Com.

For the record, I still am not sure to what extent his religion per se inspired him to do what he did. It’s clear, however, that he despised Muslims, feared they would take over his native country and all of Europe within decades, and wanted them out before they destroyed western civilization.

In other words, he is a Neocrusader.

The New York Times offers a profile that explains his thinking on the subject (WebCite cached article):

The Norwegian man charged Saturday with a pair of attacks in Oslo that killed at least 92 people left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination, according to Norwegian and American officials familiar with the investigation. …

In the 1,500-page manifesto, posted on the Web hours before the attacks, Mr. Breivik recorded a day-by-day diary of months of planning for the attacks, and claimed to be part of a small group that intended to “seize political and military control of Western European countries and implement a cultural conservative political agenda.”

He predicted a conflagration that would kill or injure more than a million people, adding, “The time for dialogue is over. We gave peace a chance. The time for armed resistance has come.”

Breivik claims, in his manifesto, to be part of a small group, although he names no one else and is strangely vague about his supposed cohorts:

The document also describes a secret meeting in London in April 2002 to reconstitute the Knights Templar, a Crusader military order. It says the meeting was attended by nine representatives of eight European countries, evidently including Mr. Breivik, with an additional three members unable to attend, including a “European-American.”

There are rumors he may have had an accomplice in the attacks, but so far, authorities haven’t been able to confirm this. The existence of any of his claimed cohorts has yet to be confirmed.

Breivik’s fear of Islam undermining and destroying Europe and the west is shared by many Neocrusaders here in the US, and by European pundits and politicians such Mark Steyn and Geert Wilders. However, this fear is not couched in reality. According to the research of the Pew Forum (cached), the proportion of Muslims worldwide will only grow from 23.4% in 2010 to 26.4% in 2030 — incredibly modest by comparison with extreme claims that the world will become majority-Muslim in only a slightly longer time frame.

At this point it sure looks as though Breivik was motivated more by his own apparent mental illness than anything else. However, his illness seems to have latched onto this anti-Muslim fervor, and he bought into it so completely that he was willing to kill innocents over it, and — if his manifesto is to be believed — to martyr himself for it.

Allow me to be very, very clear here: At this point I am not willing to claim Breivik’s religiosity drove him to this. Nor am I blaming what he did on people like Steyn, Wilders, or any other Neocrusader. What I am saying is no more nor less than what I said in the previous paragraph: He seems to have latched onto this raging anti-Muslim fervor, and coupled with his apparent mental illness, this became an impulse to kill and possibly be killed. At the very least, it’s time we all take a serious look at these anti-Muslim Neocrusading scare campaigns. Is it really worthwhile to keep up them up?

Photo credit: 2083- A European Declaration (Screenshot) via International Business Times.

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

But it turns out this atrocity may not have been carried out by Islamofascist terrorists. Norway’s Verdens Gang and other outlets are reporting, now, that there’s only one suspect for both the Oslo bombing and the Utøya shootings, and it’s a Norwegian nationalist (WebCite cached version; translation to English courtesy of Google Translate, presented as-is):

VG has received confirmation from several independent sources that it was Anders Behring Breivik, who was arrested by armed police after the mass killings of Utøya Friday. VG was also present when the emergency squad took action against the flat 32-year-old susceptible west of Oslo. Several foreign media have also named Breivik as the perpetrator.

A profile of the reportedly-nationalistic Breivik is also available courtesy of the (UK) Telegraph (cached):

The blond-haired 32-year-old appears to have set up accounts on the social networking sites Facebook and Twitter just a few days ago.

Although police have not officially named Breivik as the suspect, Norwegian media identified him as the gunman. Police say the suspect is talking to police and was keen to “explain himself”.

In a remarkable twist on the original assumption that Islamist terrorists had been behind these attacks, it seems Breivik may be a Christian fundamentalist instead:

On the Facebook page attributed to him, Mr Breivik describes himself as a Christian and a conservative. It listed his interests as hunting, body building and freemasonry. His profile also listed him as single. The page has since been taken down. …

Police officials have also said that the suspect appeared to have posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies.

I should caution that it’s far too early yet to be sure of Breivik’s motives. But Norwegian authorities are certain that he is the culprit, and are equally sure that Islamism had nothing to do with it. Whether or not this is an example of Christian terrorism … well, at the moment it seems a possibility, but that’s about it.

Photo credit: Verdens Gang / Frode Hansen.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has strongly criticised the Vatican for what he said was an attempt to frustrate the Cloyne inquiry, accusing it of downplaying the rape of children to protect its power and reputation. …

Never before has a Taoiseach used such language in criticising the Catholic Church.

Mr Kenny told the Dáil that the Cloyne Report highlighted the ‘dysfunction, disconnection, elitism and narcissism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day.’

The rape and torture of children had been downplayed or ‘managed’ to uphold, instead, the primacy of the institution, which are its power, standing and ‘reputation’.

The hierarchy had proved either unwilling or unable to address what he called the horrors uncovered in successive reports, a failure which he said must be devastating for so many good priests.

Mr Kenny said that the Catholic Church needed to be truly and deeply penitent for the wrongdoing it perpetrated, hid and denied.

Kenny all but accused the Vatican of being a criminal enterprise. Virtually every news outlet which has reported on the Taoiseach’s condemnation of the Vatican, has noted its vehement and unprecedented nature.

Another Irish official had similarly harsh words of a papal spokesman, based on the latter’s denials of Vatican wrongdoing:

Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi, speaking in a personal capacity, has said that there was nothing in the advice given by the Papal Nuncio in 1997 to encourage bishops to break Irish laws.

He said that the Vatican’s advice to Irish bishops on child protection policies could not be interpreted as an invitation to cover up abuse cases.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland, Minister for Justice Alan Shatter said the comments were disingenuous and he said he expected a more considered, formal response from the Vatican.

The minister called Lombardi a liar. He had very good reason to. The Vatican’s 1997 order to Ireland’s bishops was most assuredly an instruction to cover up abuse.

Hat tip: Mark at Skeptics & Heretics Forum on Delphi Forums.

Photo credit: Irish Times.