The Ugandan Anti-homosexuality bill is dead, what next for Uganda?

Am happy the state put the Anti-homosexuality bill 2009,popularly known as the “Bahati bill” in trash.  Not only will Uganda not pass the Anti homosexuality Bill, but David Bahati and James Nsaba Buturo will become laughing stocks in Uganda and throughout Africa. 

                                                            Map of Belarus
There will be Gay Pride parades in Uganda--soon.  They will be met with some violence at first, but in the next year, there will be less opposition.  See article on Belarus as an example. The ugliness of Pastor Ssempa and the Red Pepper will be exposed and discussed. With your (my readers) help, atheism will spread as long as we gather facts of how oppressive and irrational religion is.

I'm especially outraged that within the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is the insistence that homosexuality is a choice and is not natural. I take this opportunity to  remind my audience that the Bible or the Qur'an are not science books.  They're books of fantasy and fiction and because people erroneously BELIEVE that they are true, end up doing a lot of harm to others and themselves.  When people are deliberately disabled because of ignorance and hatred, everyone loses. 

The situation in Uganda is the same as like that of all oppressive Countries across the globe. I have directed my support to this noble cause of making Uganda a much friendlier, peaceful, lively Country for all people including homosexuals. 

You might enjoy reading this article too.

Islam is NOT a religion of peace,its a terrorist cult

As anyone can see, the violence is not over class differences (rich vs poor), not because the U.S. is still in Iraq, but because of religious differences. Anyone who says that Islam is a religion of peace KNOWS that she/he's lying.

Members of Al-Qaida cannot be dismissed as wayward radicals.  Fighters for al-Qaida are carefully following the writings of the Qur'an.  Their interpretation of the Qur'an is the correct one.  Of course, other denominations of Islam say the same thing--and to settle the differences, they kill.  They blow themselves up inside mosques, at food markets--anywhere there's a crowd.  They not only blow themselves up, but they arm bicycles and donkeys with explosive devices and detonate them by remote control.  And large segments of the moslem population support all this. New al-Qaida in Iraq Chief Vows Blood-Soaked Days

Blasphemy laws in European Nations around this time?

How can citizens of European nations which maintain blasphemy laws — and there are more than a few — cry foul when Muslims are offended by a cartoon, when they themselves press charges and demand imprisonment over something as simple as a pop star making negative statements about their religion? There may be a difference in the degree of punishment, but isn’t the intent the same, to silence those who don’t agree?

Blasphemy laws are an offense to anyone who values liberty and intellectual freedom. They are a tool used by religious fundamentalists to silence nonbelievers. Fundamentalists of different religions do not use the laws to silence one another (such as Christians vs. Islamists); no, they are used solely against the secularist. Maybe it’s time for the secularists to start suing the religionists!

Suing religionists.  Not a bad idea!

Giving free haircuts can get you into the news

Giving free haircuts can get you into the news. It will certainly free you from the painful moments of loneliness.  But your reputation is always at stake. Do everything you can to engender and preserve a good reputation.

Uganda Panel Gives Setback to Antigay Bill

Largely, I'm not surprised.  I predicted this earlier in my posts and discussions online. As was mentioned on one of the Sanyu FM shows, discussion of this topic of gay rights and homosexuality was good for Uganda. It also shows that the world is, to some extent, a self-regulating community. Most important, it gives a black eye to American evangelicals.  This will help promote atheism.  Also see Catholics Sent Predator Priest to Remote Village

Is it true that Islamists killed this Russian Priest?

No, no.  You don't understand.  See, it was in God's plan to have this priest killed in a church as an advertising gimmick.  Since God can't speak so that we can hear, he has to do things like this to get his message on TV and newspapers.  Let me ask you, when was the last you heard about the Church of St. Thomas in Moscow?  See, you don't remember. You probably never even heard of the Church of St. Thomas.  But now you have.  And since it works so well, we need to know about EVERY church in the world by this means of effective advertising.  Wouldn't you agree?  All of us know about the pope--so he's safe.  Of course, god works in mysterious ways that we mere mortals cannot understand, but I think the aim of God is to bring more people into church and to increase revenues, because God needs money.

But  Why didn't God saved this priest? worse still the shooting was in church,was God around? God witness the shooting and did nothing to stop the death of his servant? was God out on that day? but they say He is everwhere antime,any day, ...hmm truely God was there but asleep and helpless.

Did a historical Jesus exist?

This is funny, but can you see yourself on that cross? I'm sure some Ugandans would like to see me in that position.

There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed, and much against it. And if he can't be bothered to reveal himself to show that he does indeed exist, I doubt he'd be surprised or heartbroken over someone doubting it.

One of religion's tools is emotional blackmail. The entire concept of hell is morally reprehensible. The fact that Jesus was said to have preached it, the fact that he worshiped a god that ordered genocides and the slaughter of infants, the fact that he was prejudiced against others outside of his ethnic group, that he treated his own mother poorly, killed a tree (that didn't belong to him) ... for not bearing fruit of out season when he could have made it bloom, ordered his followers to steal a donkey, didn't know a bat wasn't a bird, didn't know the earth wasn't flat, didn't do anything to add to our knowledge base about the world or our bodies, actually preached hatred as a requirement of following him, shows that he was far from perfect, far from omniscient, far from anything other than perhaps a radical preacher (if he existed) who was enveloped after his death in pre-existing mythology. And any good tenets that he offered didn't take a genius to figure out, and were mores already practiced in many other societies.

I actually heard from a woman sticking up for the concept of hell two nights ago. She said she does not question her god and that she would personally burn and torture her son forever if that is what god wanted from her.

Where is the morality in that? It is not moral of a god, it is not moral of a human. It is a dangerous dogma. If that woman were to succumb to mental illness (if she is not already) and were to hear the voice of god telling her to murder her child- she would do so without question. It's what her beliefs have programmed her to do.

Did a historical Jesus exist? Read more here

Fleeing Rebels Kill Hundreds of Congolese

I'm trying to make sense of this madness.  Joseph Kony is one person.  But thousands join him to kill tens of thousands of Africans.  Surely this couldn't just be religious fanaticism.  Is it hunger that drives so many to join Kony? Read more
  
LRA Killed Hundreds In Late 2009 Congo Massacre
  
The UN is investigating reports of a massacre by Ugandan rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Let's Harass Women Who Seek Abortion Services

                            By    *Hotem Dajenid on 3 May 2010
Kathleen Parker is not one of my favourite Washington Post columnists. There is so much in her article that I disagreed with, that I converted it to an interview format. Her article of 02 May 2010 is entitled: "Women should be informed before they abort." 

PARKER: When Bill Clinton said in 1992 that he wanted to make abortion safe, legal and rare, many Americans applauded. Even if one dismisses this as rhetoric, it is a sentiment shared by the large middle and provides nearly everyone a thread of hope.

HOTEM: I don't know what percentage of Americans applauded *rare* abortions, but the majority still want abortion legal--and without harassment of those seeking abortion services. More than 80% of Americans "say an abortion should be legal to save the woman's life, to preserve her health, or when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. A smaller majority, 54 percent, supports legal abortion if there's evidence the baby will be physically impaired." --

Let us not forget that most white Americans sixty years ago were opposed to racially integrated schools and 90% were in favour of punishing gay people. Just ten years ago, most Americans were absolutely opposed to legalising marijuana.


Today, 95% of Americans are in favour of racially integrated schools, and the majority are in favour of legalising marijuana. 58% of young people (below 30) favour same-sex marriages. Just because a majority of idiots and bullies are opposed to rational public policy and equal human rights, does not, therefore, justify supporting irrational public policy. Laws aimed at controlling women's bodies are irrational, unjust and cruel.


My wording would be: "Safe, legal, and completely up to the woman when and how many abortions she wishes to have." Women who are opposed to abortions shouldn't have one.

PARKER: But how does one get to "rare" in a sexualized world where choice is a sacrament?

HOTEM: Oh really? Is Parker saying that freedom of choice should not be a top priority?! "In a sexualized world . . . " Excuse me Ms Parker, the world has always been sexual--that's how we got here. Parker seems to think that this would be a "nice", Calvinistic world without sex and sexually-oriented advertising; that babies come from Heaven and are delivered by a stork. But that's not how I got here.

PARKER: The only plausible answer is through education, but of what should that education consist?

HOTEM: In this case, "education" is harassment meant to make *exercise of choice* the reason for punishment. Denying a woman abortion on demand is punishment.

PARKER: Most everybody over the age of 10 knows how to apply a condom these days.

HOTEM: Give me a break! When a woman is raped, is the man wearing a condom? Is the methodology of using a condom taught in Catholic schools? Is this taught in Republican Michele Bachmann's district? If it's the case that kids learn from other sources, then this also applies to knowing what a foetus is. (For those who don't know, Michele Bachmann is Minnesota's Number One Embarrassment. serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. Think of all the idiots that voted for her TWICE. Yeah, democracy isn't easy, but dictatorship is worse.)

PARKER: And moral education -- the kind that might suggest remorse over the ending of a life -- is frowned upon.

HOTEM: Moral education is remorse over bringing to term a child that will not be supported by a woman who is not ready to spend the next 18 years raising a child. So often, it's the single mother without a partner. But, even married couples may not be ready or willing to raise a child. Some may have more important goals in mind: such as getting higher education. I knew a couple in Washington, D.C. who enjoyed a rewarding life traveling around the world. Having even one child would have prevented this. To the foetus worshippers, this lifestyle would be considered *selfish." It is not. Besides, the lifestyle that couples choose is none of anyone else's business.

PARKER: My own view, both pro-life and pro-choice, has been that abortion truthfully presented would eliminate itself or vastly reduce its numbers.

HOTEM:  This blows my mind! There is very little truth coming from the self-discrediting anti-Choice crowd. Parker is over-bearingly arrogant. She insists that those who have abortions are ignorant.

PARKER: Once a pregnancy is viewed as a human life in formation, rather than a "blob of cells," it is less easy to terminate the contents of one's vessel.

HOTEM: Women have abortions because they KNOW they cannot support the child. This is particularly the case when it involves teen-age girls. Forcing a woman to bring the foetus to term is the Christian's way of punishing the young woman for having sex.

PARKER: An unwanted pregnancy isn't any less inconvenient, but humanizing a fetus confounds the simplicity of choice. Alternatively, dehumanizing as a means of justifying an action from which we prefer to avert our eyes is a well-traveled road that history does not view charitably.

HOTEM: Wrong. Humanising or dehumanising is not the issue. We MUST deal with the human after birth--which anti-Choice bigots deliberately shun. We MUST take the broad picture into consideration. We have too many people on earth. We MUST remember that tiny little infants eat and deposit wastes--including worn-out clothes and broken toys. When they become adults, they buy cars and consume thousands of other things that further global warming.

Already too many people are looking for jobs that cannot exist because we are already consuming so much that shouldn't made in the first place. Too many people are crowding out forests and wildlife, and are emptying the lakes and oceans of mammals and fish. Already more than ONE BILLION people are malnourished. Parker apparently loves seeing little children suffering from kwashiorkor.

Seven billion people not only need to eat, they need water. Nations go to war over limited water supplies. War means that people are dehumanised and kill one another. This is what Kathleen Parker enjoys. Now how responsible and humane is that?

PARKER: Such considerations recently have taken the form of legislation in several states where lawmakers want women considering an abortion first to view an ultrasound. Oklahoma passed a law a few days ago that would require women to have an ultrasound, though, contrary to early reports, they are not required to view the images. They would have to hear the doctor's description of the images on the screen under the law.

HOTEM: This is oppressive. This is an example of harassing women and doctors for a religious aim--to get them to bring the foetus to term--and put it up for adoption. Even if successfully adopted, it's still an additional human in an already overcrowded planet.

PARKER: Florida passed its own legislation Friday, and Louisiana is considering a similar bill.

HOTEM: Oh well, if these conservative states are passing repressive laws, this must be the right and moral thing to do.

Reaction to the Oklahoma law has been predictable. Pro-lifers think it's too weak; pro-choicers think it's untenably intrusive. Were women required to view the images of their fetuses, I would have to side with the pro-choicers on this point. It is still vexing that a woman must deliberately look away from the image, which adds some heft to the intrusive argument and could be viewed as intimidation.


That said, I can't muster outrage over what can be viewed as both medically pragmatic and morally defensible.

HOTEM: Am I understanding this correctly? On the one hand, Parker admits that forcing a woman to view a foetus she wants to terminate is intrusive and intimidating, but still this is "medically pragmatic and morally defensible."

PARKER: A well-informed patient should always be our route to safe and legal. Is it unacceptable that a life-preserving decision might result from greater knowledge?

HOTEM: Life preserving? Parker is failing to look at the broad picture of wars over limited resources because of overpopulation.

PARKER: Anyone considering, say, gall bladder removal will be told each and every detail of what will happen, what is likely to be the result, what consequences might be expected and so on. Doesn't it make as much sense to provide women with a view of what's going on inside their bodies before they take the leap that can't be undone?

HOTEM: This is no analogy. When I had a navel hernia repaired in August 2000, I certainly did not want the doctor providing me any details. Actually, my doctor did and I passed out and fell to the floor. I have no stomach for these details. After recovering, I told the doctor "Don't tell me about it, just do it."

PARKER: Obviously, pro-lifers are trying to curb abortions through this legislation. The pro-life Bioethics Defense Fund drafted Louisiana's S.B. 528 at the request of its sponsor, state Sen. Sharon Broome, and the Louisiana Right to Life Federation. Call it a tactic, if you will. But is a woman's changed heart such a terrible result?

HOTEM: Yes it is a terrible result in the same way signed confessions under torture is a terrible result.

PARKER: Wouldn't such a result bring welcome numbers to the "rare" in Clinton's equation?

HOTEM: No! I don't want abortions "rare." I want abortions on demand for whatever reason!

PARKER: In testimony before the Louisiana Senate Health and Welfare Committee, women who had had abortions recounted being told they were ridding themselves of "tissue," only to learn later, often during ultrasounds with subsequent pregnancies, that they had destroyed fully formed fetuses. From what I can tell based on my own conversations with post-abortive women, this is a common event and is often the point at which formerly pro-choice women switch sides.

HOTEM: Now wait a minute. Parker wrote: "Most everybody over the age of 10 knows how to apply a condom these days." Wouldn't the same apply to most every woman over the age of 10 knows that what is being aborted is a fully formed foetus? Good heavens, there are millions of billboards all over the country paid for by "pro-life" groups describing when a foetus has fingerprints, a tongue, at what week the heart starts to beat, etc. So Parker needs to make up her mind here.

PARKER: The testimony in Louisiana included the story of one woman who suffered both physical and emotional trauma after an abortion. She didn't see an ultrasound but did see the remnants of her abortion on a tray beside her and was told "they" had been twins.

HOTEM: So, do we make laws based on one woman's reaction? What about the many women who have had abortions who did not suffer any traumatic reaction? There are many. I met some of them myself. However, we're not going to be hearing from thousands of women who have had abortions and suffered no ill-effects afterward. But we should be hearing from the millions of women who had an abortion and are glad they made that choice. And were glad that they HAD that choice to make.

PARKER: Well, enough of that. We all know what abortion is, and, thanks to some of the sign-toting anti-abortion protesters -- who do their cause no good -- we know what abortion looks like. Shouldn't pregnant women also know what their healthy fetuses look like before they hit delete?

HOTEM: Had I been that woman, I would have said to myself: "I would have been burdened raising two children!"

Parker said: "We all know what abortion is . . . " But Parker also said that it is common that many women don't know what a fully formed foetus is. And another consideration: What if their foetus is not healthy? Well, the answer is that the anti-Choice fanatics will still do everything possible to prevent abortion. No exceptions.

Life is tough enough without physical handicaps. Unhindered abortion marks the qualities of an advanced civilisation. This allows for the elimination of defective human--defects that won't be passed on to the next generation. I see no reason to bring a child into the world with impaired vision or one that is mentally retarded. But Christians (and other religions) think that their "god" of perfection imposes challenges upon babies, so that the Almighty can see them struggle through life with one or more handicaps. But their god is omniscient and will already know everything about the painful struggle of the handicapped person. Therefore their god is a cruel god.

PARKER: This is a question lacking in sinister intent. What is sinister is the proposition that ignorance is better -- and the implied hope that women won't choose to reconsider.

HOTEM: How condescending! This is made worse by the fact that Kathleen Parker has such contempt for her sisters. Although just as unacceptable, this line of "reasoning" coming from a man would be more understandable.

On the problem of forced "instruction". If you don't accept my religion, then it's because you don't understand. So let me instruct you again until you do accept my religion. Likewise, if you insist on having an abortion, then obviously I didn't instruct you well enough to change your decision about having an abortion, so let me instruct you more. If you tell the doctor that you don't want instructions, the doctor will be required to remind the woman that this is the law. Again, the woman and the doctor have no choice.

PARKER: I can't speak to the efficacy of these bills. Let the doctors and lawyers hash that out. But as an advocate for informed choice, I can't rationalize ignorance or denial as preferable options for women in need of sound counseling.

HOTEM: First of all, there should be no legislative bills on abortion. Abortion should be an absolute right, a decision to be made by the pregnant woman only. The father's decision doesn't count.

I hear men arguing "Well, it's my baby too, don't forget!" But it's not your body. Besides, men have the long-held reputation of not following through with their support for the 18 years for their child's life. This burden falls on the woman in 99% of the cases.


Women ARE intelligent enough to make a decision to abort an unwanted foetus. Parker is like your typical male: Women are dumb and need the guidance from those who know better.


To the reader: Beware of incorrect terminology used by slick anti-Choicers: "Babies" are not being "murdered" in women's clinics.

PARKER: Or for a nation that wants to make abortion rare.

HOTEM: I'm part of that nation and I want all forms of contraception, including abortions, to be undertaken by more women.  Abortion is good. Unwanted children and overpopulation are bad.

What this world needs is not for people to emulate Kathleen Parker, but to stand up for their full freedom and full rights in all matters concerning women. Women have been progressing against male oppression since before Emma Goldman, but so much more work needs to be done.


Your comments are invited--both in support of or opposed to my article.

From the blog owner: This is what happens when you say no to abortion

-------------------
*Hotem Dajenid, originally from Turkmenistan and now living in Minneapolis, MN, is a guest writer for this blog.

Is masturbation immoral? What does an atheist say?

My title was going to be: "Is masturbation a sin." Yes, in most religions, masturbation is a sin, but atheists do not sin. The concept of "sin" is purely religious.

I have been called various names when I openly tell my friends both religious and non-religious people that I do masturbate when the need arises. Some, if not all of my non-religious friends, said that I am insane and the act itself is disgusting. My religious counterparts said that the whole thing is immoral and sinful.

Atheists don't sin but we can break the laws of the land individually and are always available to pay the price of our actions. Masturbation is not a crime in Uganda. So am not neither breaking the law by doing it. There are religionists that say their God didn't create man or woman to pleasure him or herself! Well, the concept of a god is bogus, so I simply disregard just about everything religionists tell me. Point is, I love masturbation--just like all other men and women.

Many people have problems with religion because of masturbation. They were taught that masturbation is bad and that their god strongly disapproves of it. So when they masturbate, they fear that their powerful god is watching and will severely punish them soon or eventually. I am a normal man and I love my life, because I am not hurting myself with my desires.

Masturbation is not evil, dirty or harmful - it will not make you go blind, drive you insane, turn you in to a pervert, stunt your growth, give you an STD, make you sterile or get you pregnant. Both guys and girls masturbate; it is a normal and healthy part of sexual development.

Masturbation is a very personal thing and should not be done in public places or around people who are not willing partners (think safe sex activity). You are normal if you masturbate, normal if you wonder about it but don't do it, and normal if you never give it a second thought and don't do it - it is one of the few things in life that is "normal if you do and normal if you don't".

Masturbation may make sexual intercourse more enjoyable because you will already know what it takes to "please you". It alleviates stress and releases endorphins (the pleasure hormones) in to your system making you more relaxed. 

Masturbation as exploration of the body is common in children between the ages of 3 and 6, in teens masturbation becomes more sophisticated and sexually motivated. Masturbation is also practised by most adults of all age groups. Surveys have shown that 80% of males and 59% of females have masturbated by age 18.

Many experts believe that masturbation is more prevalent in the teen years due to a strong fluctuation of hormones; masturbation alleviates the strain of this build-up and is a necessary part of development.

The only real problems that come with masturbation are psychological and are the result of unhealthy attitudes toward doing it (if you do it, but are ashamed) or abnormal practices (for example, public masturbation). 
Read what   Dr David Delvin, and Christine Webber say on Masturbation

Cecil Sherman, Who Led a Faction of Moderate Baptists, Is Dead at 82

Cecil Sherman was a "moderate" and worked within the Church. However, I and other atheist activists  can do just as much damage to religion by working on the outside. But what do I mean by "outside"? In this case, outside the Church, but we're still inside as members of society. We're inside because we're writing and publishing our thoughts on the Internet.The bigotry is on the part of the people who opposed the liberating moves of Cecil Sherman. In this article, there are no names of the bigots.

Finally, read about Repression in Rwanda

Facial Beards are Religious symbols, why do atheists grow them?

Atheists grow them because beards are not grown for religious reasons.You can also read from wikipedia. They're grown because many men think they enhance their appearance. Some men, both religious and non-religious choose to wear beards because they saw no benefit in shaving. In countries that go through cold winters, a beard definitely does offer protection against icy winds.

There is also an association in place that promotes the worldwide appreciation of beards and moustaches, and to co-ordinate international events, including competitions, held in such a manner as to encourage friendship among those with beards and moustaches.

It was 1:30pm Friday 30th April 2010. I just returned home feeling very exhausted for no particular reason. I left home very early in the morning, feeling very energetic and hopeful that May will be a better month since I didn't make any money in April. Also I hope that since Saturday 1 May 2010 is a public day, I will enjoy it home listening to my best music.

On my way home, I decided to visit a barber and trim my beard that I have left grow; not very big but it was an issue since I had an appointment with a female friend whom I met online. Previously I had met people, both men and women while wearing my beard. Time has changed many things in our generation.No one minded our fore fathers when they had beards. No one labeled them Moslems or any other religions. There are many religions and cultural traditions that treasure beards. But none of them were making me grow my beard.

To tell the truth, I don't mind beards. I wouldn't mind growing them or not. I still feel okay with either. My recent attempts to grow a beard proved that women fear men with beards, at least Ugandan women and those who are married to men with huge beards, only adopt how to live with them. If you doubt me, try to grow your beard and make a move to a new lady, try to date her. Chances of her saying NO are very high compared to when you have no beard. So in most cases, I have used the beard to scare away those small women that I always desired and had inner crush on them. The moment I open my mouth to say hello, they turn away from me mainly because of my beard.

But then, I cut off my beard when Moslems start to initiate "Asalam allekum sheikh" way of greetings to Moslems. I always wondered why one would think that am a Moslem because of my beard, yet there are other religions that treasure beards like those who belong to an Orthodox Church.

The only reason why I allow my beard grow is simple. It's neither cultural nor religious. It's because I hate saloon barber shops. All the times I have visited them, my skin develops strange painful pimples. The utensils in these shops are not well maintained, not clean, and even the barbers themselves are dirty. Honestly there are some good barbers who are clean and maintain their utensils, but these are very few. And when you met one, the trimming prices are always skyrocketing--just like many services in Uganda.

It seems as though some of these barbers don't brush their teeth, or they eat garlic just before opening shop. Hence, they smell. If you are in a business that makes you come close to your clients, you need to be extremely clean since only a small space will be between your nose and their mouth. Sometimes people have bad odour because they eat garlic--even though they brush their teeth before coming to work. The oils of garlic seep through the skin and the body transfers this oil from bloodstream into the lungs. This is why I avoid eating garlic.

Recently I found a good barber who was in Kawempe. He was smart and young and he boiled his utensils in my presence. But when he came close to my face, the air from his mouth (I smelt it because he was talking to another barber and every time, he talked, I felt nauseated. Since then, I haven't shaved or trimmed my beard. So today I decided to return to the same guy since he boiled his tools. He was trimming a client's beard on which he spent two hours and several minutes. I decided to wait and wait. He finished and I thought that it was now my turn. But then he called another guy whom he claimed was there before me. I wouldn't imagine spending another two hours waiting. This immediately made quite unhappy.