Thou Shall Not Kill?

The recent hideous events in Norway have inspired an e-mail correspondence with an old and I hope still a good friend in Texas. My friend favors the death penalty and I do not, which he finds hard to understand. He asks that surely this cold-blooded mass murderer, if anyone, deserves to die? And I replied no, with some rather short justifications for my views. Views which I want to examine in depth here, both for his sake as well as my own.

First, when we discuss the death penalty as practiced in America, its opponents always bring up the facts – facts regarded as mere bagatelles by proponents – that not a small number of innocent people have been executed – and that convicted killers from a minority group have a greater chance of being given the death penalty.

But let us for the sake of argument ignore the complaint that the death penalty is sometimes given to the innocent – or more generously given to the colored races. Let us instead stick to killers who are in fact killers and who are guilty of truly awful crimes. The ultimate crime.

My friend is a thoroughly honorable man, a man who has had broad experience in policing and crime prevention, a man who has risked his own life when dealing with violent criminals, a man who has been generous and caring in his support of the victims of awful crimes.

And because he has seen pain and injustice close up, he advocates the death penalty in certain cases, for at least two main reasons: sympathy and respect for the families of victims – so that they can have a sense of full justice meted out and finally feel some relief.

And my friend supports the death penalty so that certain convicted killers cannot go on to kill guards or other prisoners while in prison – nor will they be able to kill again on the outside if they are ever released. (Why can't the most dangerous killers be kept in solitary confinement, without possibility of contact with guards or fellow prisoners, meals served though a slot in the door as in maximum security prisons today and the door never opened? The walls of their cells could have the built-in photos of the killer's victims to stare at for all eternity. Although it may be difficult, total isolation for certain killers can be achieved.)

First, let's examine the feelings and the rights of the family members of victims:

In a very recent case in Texas, a white supremacist who had murdered several local Muslims and Hindus, was executed by the state despite the fact that some of his victims and their families expressed their opposition to his execution. They campaigned to spare his life.

I would like to ask my friend, is it the families that should make the decision who should live and who should die?

And if so, what should be done if the various family members disagree? Always favor the ones wanting death? Or decide by majority vote?

One can see strange complications if the feelings of victims' families are to be polled and given major deciding consideration. The justice system was evolved to take the place of personal vendettas and the arbitrary assignment of punishment based of strong feelings. And what about cases of rape – or pedophile abuse? If family members can only be satisfied with death for the perpetrator, should that determine the punishment?

Remember, Jesus Christ was executed because of the strong feelings of those who felt he had wronged them with his blasphemy.

Remember, too, that in England 300 years ago, as an example, there were over 30 crimes punishable by death, from pickpocketing to killing the king's deer... and all the deer were the king's!

Imagine you lived in England then, had your pocket picked, your megre savings stolen, and the judge decided to let the criminal off with 30 lashes and a branding? If you, as the victim, were not satisfied with anything less than death, should your feelings always be respected? After all, the death sentence at the time was applicable!

In Norway now there will be many many, both family members and members of the public, who will want to see this monster killed. But there will also be family members and others – large numbers, if I know Norwegians – who will be content with locking him in a bleak cell until he rots.

Whose wishes here are paramount?

The entire subject can perhaps be boiled down to Which came first – the chicken or the gun?

For those societies with the most guns floating around and have the most primitive legal systems are often the societies with the most murders and the most executions. The fact that China, America and Iran are the 3 countries that execute the most prisoners, is considered irrelevant by most proponents of capital punishment in America.

“We kill for different reasons – for better reasons!” is the boast.

I'm not so sure.

But is it also a bagatelle, that in a world of outsourcing America's last great products – products which still dominate world markets – are arms and action movies? Lethal weapons and movies named Lethal Weapon, movies that glorify violence?

Yes, American movies may well chronicle the fight of good against evil. But have you noticed the evil criminal is never taken away to jail in an Arnold or Stallone, or Bruce film. He is always killed and killed with excruciating pain, much to the delight and satisfaction of audiences. (And the evil idiot in Oslo wants to dress up as a kind of Darth Vader for his trial!)

If the death penalty is designed to satisfy our own murderous pleasures we cannot claim to live in a civilized, moral and thoughtful society, but instead in a society which mirrors the hatred and desire for revenge that motivated the monster from Oslo.

Finally, I'd like to ask my friend, “Do you believe that the societies of Europe - Norway, Denmark, Britain, France and many many others – are somehow inferior or hypocritical societies – societies which do not offer victims of horrendous crimes full justice – and that the American way of an eye for an eye is the superior practice? Are they more vulnerable or dangerous societies - or is it a mere coincidence that the numbers of murders per capita is vastly lower in Europe than America?

For if it is not just a strange coincidence, could it be evidence that human life is held more valuable and sacred in countries which do not lower themselves to murdering their captives – and therefore their citizens generally behave somewhat better?

Which came first – mercy or civilization?

God is Innocent.. say the atheists..

After every horrifying disaster the so-called - and self-appointed -  religious leaders dash from their pulpits and thrust themselves before the media's cameras to explain things to us. And to no one's great surprise we always get some fire-breathing nut blaming God for massacring thousands. 

From the late Jerry Falwell telling us God struck the World Trade Towers because we were too soft on homosexuality, to Pat Robertson telling Haitians that God brought down a quake killing 200,000 because they had gotten uppity 200 years ago and rebelled against the French(!)

And this time Billy Graham's dead-eyed zombie of a son, Franklin hints that Japan is just the harbinger of a riled God's righteous displeasure.

The only group of people who never ever blame God for sadistic murderous behavior are atheists. Atheists know He is undeserving of such slanderous accusations.

Has It Ever Been Said More Poetically?

The wonderfully insightful, ceaselessly creative and great friend to all, Russ Buchan (..who also resembles a sane F.N.) has graciously offered his thoughts on this whole religion business.

Arise, arise, you pious; get off your bended knees,
For even heathen atheists know gods don't come in threes.

"A Mighty Fortress is Our God", a song the Christians sing,
But once you're through those hallowed gates, you will not find a thing.

For Christendom's a hollow mock; there's nothing really there,
Time spent at the horse track is more exceeding fair.

Though gambling's nearly useless as a way to gaining riches,
It beats the writhing whining of those Holy Roller bitches.

Your Jews, your chanting Arabs, your fucking useless Copts,
When comes the time for begging, they pull out all the stops.

"It's God's work that we're doing", they testily reply,
But who held up the ladder when their God hung up the sky?

Any mortal clad in flesh can lay his faults 'neath Jesus,
Then amble off and drunkenly engage in that which pleases.

Cosmologic happenings to atheists seem random,
The more religious folks, however, think a Planner planned 'em.

A man who lies with other men (Leviticus' blackguard),
Surely shall be put to death (unless his name's Ted Swaggert).

A wondrous shrub that burnt, yet spake, a parted Sea, a talking snake,
A fishy-sounding Virgin Birth; these silly myths yet walk the Earth.

The Pope's own credibility has been severely tested,
But it falls short when he protects the Priests who have molested.

At standing sexual intercourse, your Baptist looks askance,
Lest voyeuristic lookers-on mistake the act for dance.

When Mormons meet, the clothes they wear are anything but civvies,
For underneath their garments they're sporting magic skivvies.

While we regard as quaint beliefs in transubstantiation,
The Papists eat and drink their Lord with shows of degustation.

The Afterlife sure looks a bore, with moping prigs and such,
Considering alternatives, you're better off born Dutch.

Your basic Hindu cops a stance that he regards as holy,
Eschewing animals as food, which leaves just guacamole.

Your Buddhists, too, aspire to Zen, a state that borders Oneness,
But stick a fork in that, me lad, and check it out for Doneness.

Your Muslims have a touchy side, and be they Shia or Sunni,
They think the Prophet's cartooned mug is anything but funny.

It's atheists, yes, atheists, who really know the score,
So read your Richard Dawkins before knocking on that 'door'.

Yes! Off with all your finery! Give your garments to the poor!
And realize, you silly cunts, Religion is a whore.

(editor's note: Freddy also pointed out that "..a casual stroll through any lunatic asylum proves that faith means nothing."

The Worst Song in the History of the World?

Until very recently if someone had asked me what is the worst song ever recorded I might have answered “Honey” by Bobby Goldsborough or “Tie a Yellow ribbon” by Tony Orlando – or “Save Your Kisses For Me.”

Now, however, I have had, or should I more precisely say, my ears have had the great misfortune to stumble across.. if ears can be said to stumble.. a song recorded more than 30 years ago by Dolly Parton and Porter Wagoner.

Let me say here that my respect and admiration for Dolly is immense, both for her talent and her determination, as well as for her humanity and for her politics. I’ve always respected her Christian faith, as well.

Until now.

The song in question, “The Party” is perhaps the single greatest amalgamation of maudlin sentiment with hideous religious superstition ever.

Have a gander..

"As we were dressing to go out our little girl and boy
Came in and asked if they could go this time
We told them little girls and boys don't belong at parties
And that they should be in bed asleep by nine
The babysitter came in then and we kissed the kids goodbye
And told them that we'd be home soon and told them not to cry
Then we left for the party like we'd so often done
Thinkin' only of ourselves and not our little ones
The party started out wild and it grew wilder as the night wore on
With drinking laughing teling dirty jokes nobody thinkin' of home
Then the stranger feeling came over me and it chilled me to the bones
And I told my wife that we'd better leave the party
Cause I felt that we were needed at home
As we rode along I got to thinking of how the kids that mornin'
Had asked if we would take them to church the next day
And how I'd put 'em off like I'd so often done
By sayin' we'd probably get home too late
Then my thoughts were interrupted by the sound of sirens
As they cut through the still night air
Then we turned down our street that's when we saw the fire
The rest was like a nightmare
We took their little bodies to church the next day
Though we'd left the party early we still got home too late."

Now what does this song try to tell us – apart from the fact that people ought not to be so cheap that they refrain from hiring a competent baby sitter?!?

It tells us:

1. If you are so sinful as to go to a party where drinking, swearing and possibly lewd behavior is enjoyed, God or Fate, will some how know it..

2. ..and despite the fact that your children had asked you to take them to church the next day, God or Fate will burn them to death to punish their parents – and the babysitter with them!

3. ..although the song does not specifically proclaim it, the implication is, if the parents had instead left their kids at home to deliver baked goods to their Christian congregation, the good Lord would have spared the tykes.

No, no.. some might protest. This song is about horrendous consequences resulting from irresponsible behavior. God doesn’t come into it.

Oh, no? Then why is church repeatedly mentioned in the song?

Perhaps such a song cannot be constructed if it is about numbskull parents who leave their brats to dehydrate and die in locked cars while they mega-shop in Walmart?

As we all too sadly know by now, the “God-Fearing” rural section of America (..and the rest of the world..) enjoy the fact that the All Mighty is a wrathful and punishing deity.

And in the case of the Party, they don’t seem to mind that He is also so nearsighted that he smites innocent children instead of their wicked parents!

Unless of course, the message is, God is so sadistic He will deliberately
murder children to punish their parents!

One final comment on this hideous insult to the dignity of humanity: The song states that the children begged to be taken to church the next day.

Forgive me if I find myself believing that no child in the history of the world – except perhaps for the fictional Rod and Todd Flanders – ever begged to be taken to church.

Have a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-1hCAIVAOI


The lies of the Believers are not to be believed!

Is God a Commie???

Assuming there is a God – and that “He” in fact created everything, and specifically created the human body to work optimally if not abused by alcohol, tobacco or drug consumption – which socio-economic system would seem to fit in best with “His” plans and intentions?

Recent events in Cuba may give us a clue.

After the fall of communism in Russia in 1990, Russia stopped helping Cuba with money and food subsidies.

The average daily consumption of calories fell in Cuba during the following years from an average of 2800 calories per day to around 1800.

And after a decade of reduced calorie consumption, type 2 diabetes has almost disappeared from the country – and there has been a drop in heart disease by a third.

Correspondingly another fortunate result is that medical costs have also fallen.

America has boycotted the export of food, fuel and medicine to Cuba for 5 decades – but it is only now that results are being seen, as Cuba has lost its replacement subsidies from Russia.

By America and Russia working together to deny Cuba the munificence of capitalism. Cubans are living longer and healthier.

God’s plan? If so, is “He” a commie?

And would it greatly lessen America’s staggering medical costs if we turned food production over to those notoriously incompetent Communists?

Next time you find yourself heading for the fridge, ask yourself, “What would that pinko Jesus do?”

This Says it All..

..about the Catholic Church.

No nun would ever be caught dead photographed with an engorged penis in her hand.. but a semi-automatic rifle?

Death and other Inconveniences

Certainly our ultimate fear has always been the fear of the grave (..although it was Jerry Seinfeld who pointed out that death was actually number two on the list of our greatest fears, with most people listing a fear of public speaking as first. Amazingly this indicates, Jerry noted, that more people would rather be in the box than standing over it giving a eulogy!)

In any case death has always loomed large for us, and any hope for warding off an early death or obtaining some sort of life after death has always been clutched at. Quite naturally nothing can be more desirous to us than eternal life for ourselves and our loved ones, or at least some sort of life beyond the grave.

But in order for a life after death, our resurrection, to be made possible, a super-natural Organizer has to be envisioned who has arranged for such magic and who will administer the system (No dogs, cats or any other pets allowed in, babies to be parked in limbo, bad guys cast into burning pits, good guys given harps, wings and virgins.) In heaven, as on earth, rules are necessary, and exclusivity is preferred. Rewards are stratified with spiritual gold and platinum cards. The hereafter, we claim, is a meritocracy, though we secretly hope there will be favoritism when we show up to be tested.

Death and a hereafter are difficult subjects to get our minds around, and mankind, for good and bad, has always had a hard time distinguishing between what is imagined and what is real. Buddhists seem to fear not death but endless cycles of rebirth usually followed by lives of suffering, and so they long for blessed extinction instead of a hereafter. But the three religions of The Book, however, play a kind of three card monty with their adherents. First after we die we find out our prize, heaven, hell or purgatory. (Purgatory seems the more cruel of the three, like an eternity in a Department of Motor Vehicles or a grungy laundromat.)

Heaven is too absurd to even discuss seriously, especially if, in the hereafter, we are all to be allowed to individually decide what our heavenly reward is to be. For if our desires are to be met, what if my idea of the joyful afterlife is to ride around on a muffler-less Harley, thundering for all eternity? Are my neighbours to be blissfully deaf to my pleasures? Some martyrs dream of 72 virgins. Would it be greedy and gauche to wish for 73? And we are told that in the sweet hereafter we will be reunited with our friends and loved-ones. But do you really want to meet your sweet old Grandma and have to tell her you've basically been doing nothing for the last 25 years? But if, in fact, our friends and family members are waiting for us, will there also be celebrities on display that we can chase and pester? Or do they live in a sort of exclusive gated community, cordoned off from prying eyes?

Well, no, heaven and our desires and pleasures there will in no way resemble life on earth, clergymen feel forced to admit. The ecstatic pleasures of heaven are fundementally different and superior, and we will not miss earthly pleasures in the slightest as the heavenly will be supreme.

Admittedly this idea gives us something to chew on. We will not miss our old pleasures because we will be transformed and will thereby appreciate the superior pleasures to come. But this idea begs the question, who is being rewarded in heaven? Certainly not you or me, for in order to gain admittance we need to be bleached of our old desires before being allowed entrance. And our desires are who we are.

Personally I'm fond of my pleasures, as they are a decent blend of the physical and the intellectual. But one group of the religiously demented strongly suggest that there will be no sensualism in heaven, at least not anything resembling the carnal kind. Another group suggests rich abundences of virgins. It seems to me obvious that trying to satisfy legions of virgins frothing and frustrated after eons of anticipation, seems more like hellish work in the long run.


As most men have learned, providing women, divine or not, with regular orgasms is as strenuous as mining coal - and will wreck your back sooner.