It was widely reported today that a Jewish woman is suing Lancome with the claim that its 24 hour foundation does not last for 24 hours. Evidently, Jewish law prohibits the application of makeup from dusk on Friday to dusk on Saturday, and she noted that the makeup failed to last that long. This woman has succeeded in making her religion look silly. According to HuffPo:
“Rorie Weisberg claims the company’s Teint Idole Ultra 24H fails to live up to its promise, and thus does not assist her ‘dual objectives of compliance with religious law and enhancement to her natural appearance.’” [source]
Why would god care when you apply your makeup? If I were god, I would prohibit the use of makeup —and probably suggest death by stoning — to anyone who would obscure the work of god. The use of makeup suggests that god made us all ugly.
This is just my opinion, but perhaps sleeping with makeup on is the problem? In any case, maybe if she applied an extra thick layer, or followed some more irreverent makeup styles, she would not have any issues, like these lovely young ladies below.
Deuteronomy 22.5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
The above is bad news for cross-dressers and another example of dictatorial fashion statements from the quills of primitive man.
These dictates continue in verse 11:
Deuteronomy 22.11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
Why? Surely, there were more important issues to be addressed. Alas, it seems not, as we move straight into the heinous issue of fringes.
Deuteronomy 22.12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.
It’s amazing to me that the writers move from odd and minor fashion dictates straight to the advocacy of murder.
Deuteronomy 22.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Deuteronomy 22.21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die…
The chapter goes on to advocate for the murder of adulterers. Christianity is certainly not a very forgiving or peaceful philosophy. In chapter 23, we find exclusions for those who may have undergone a sex change operation or who have suffered grievous injury to the penis or testicles. The lesson here is that castrati are not welcome in heaven.
Deuteronomy 23.1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
On the other hand, god repeatedly demands that the foreskins of baby boys be hacked off. Speaking of sexual organs, the Old Testament moves straight ahead to the pressing issue of nocturnal emissions:
Deuteronomy 23.10 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp:
I can hardly wait for chapter 24.
But this thing stinks to high heaven #falseflag. – Alex Jones
I’m suspicious of anyone who claims to know the answers to things they cannot possibly know, largely because these people rarely have any evidence to support their irrational claims. This applies to religion as much as it does to alien abduction and conspiracy theories. I was sickened, but not surprised, to learn that Alex Jones blames the United States government for the Boston Marathon bombings. It’s the same delusional thinking behind the conspiracy theories at Sandy Hook. It’s offensive and stupid. Worse, there is simply no way anyone can know this to be true, especially at this early stage. For Alex Jones and others to claim that they have the answers is ludicrous. In the face of these preposterous suggestions, we ought to be suspicious, incredulous, and skeptical, the three things that Alex Jones and his followers are not.
There is simply no evidence (and there will never be) that any of these events were the work of the US government or its agencies. The Truthers can rant and rave on their blogs about government conspiracies designed to erode public freedoms and rights, but there is not one solid piece of evidence that supports these delusional claims. Instead, the conspirators ignore mountains of evidence and focus on small unexplained coincidences that, together, might hold the attention of a mentally-challenged or deranged individual for maybe 5 minutes. But, if you are paranoid and afraid of random evil, then these theories are for you.
After ten years, the Truthers are no closer to having any real evidence to back their claims about 9/11. In all of that time, after such an enormous operation, someone must have talked. Alas, no one has, because there is no conspiracy.
False Flag operations are well known. Perhaps the most famous was the Reichstag fire, in which the Nazis framed a communist, paving the way for Hitler’s solidification of power. The difference is in the evidence. When future historians look back on events at Boston, Sandy Hook, and the terrorists attacks of 9/11, the truthers will be viewed as little more than raving lunatics.
It’s so easy to create a conspiracy theory, that anyone can do it. Why not argue that the right wing, gun-loving militia types bombed the Boston Marathon and then blamed it on the government in order to focus attention on its own anti-government, anti-Obama agenda?
The only thing that stinks is the conspiracy theorists.
Max Igan makes the silly suggestion that there will be a coup in America. “The government wants civil war,” he says. Feel free to listen to his broadcasts. In the end, you have to conclude that he has not a shred of evidence to support anything that he says.
I just realized that my reluctance to post recently is deeply psychological. I am avoiding Deuteronomy because it bores me silly. It’s simply killing me. Like the previous books in the bible, it has so little to keeps one’s interest. It’s a real struggle to open up the damn thing and keep reading. And, look at how many books remain! I fear that I will never finish. Moving ahead in chapter 20, it’s the same thing: killing and destruction, and collecting booty (this time cattle, women, and children).
In chapter 21, we encounter polygamy again:
Deuteronomy 21.15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated…
Seems like a divorce would be in order for the hated spouse, but I guess that’s out of the equation. I suppose the man could simply add another wife, one that he loves. It seems there are no limits on the number of wives. But, the chapter gets worse. We are told that rebellious sons are to be stoned to death:
Deuteronomy 21.18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Deuteronomy 21.19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
Deuteronomy 21.20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
Deuteronomy 21.21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
What sort of loving god would tell his chosen people to kill their children? Who can read this nonsense and not accept that these are the scribbles of the unenlightened? Religion tells us to do evil unto others. Why we ever built monuments to this kind of stupidity is beyond me.
It’s the repetition that is slowly taking the life from my body. Over and over again, we are given the same morals, and over and over again, we see the same violence meted out against the enemies.
Deuteronomy 19.1 When the LORD thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the LORD thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses;
Why can’t we all just get along? Deuteronomy also delves deeper into the bizarre justice system of the time. Upon reading the following verse—and we know that the vast majority of those in this time period were illiterate—I would have made sure that I only committed crimes in front of no more that one person.
19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
In one of the most frequently-quoted passages in the bible, we are advised to follow this course of action.
Deuteronomy 19. 21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
No pity; no mercy. Just poke out his eyes or cut off his head and call it even. It strikes me as a very unenlightened system of justice.
I share with many librarian colleagues the dismay that Dale Askey, a professional librarian at McMaster University, has been sued by Edward Mellon Press for libel. The press is seeking $3.5 million in damages. I have, subsequently, read the offending blog post (The Curious Case of Edwin Mellon Press) via the Internet Archive. Askey removed the post from his blog in March 2012, according to the Library Journal’s blog [source].
I have no knowledge of the quality of Mellon Press publications and so I am not going to offer an opinion as to whether Askey’s assessment of the press is accurate. What does concern me is the reaction from Mellon. We all know the old saying: “There is no such thing as bad publicity.” We have to ask ourselves which is worse publicity: a negative blog post or a multi-million dollar law suit? Which attracted more negative attention? It’s a perfect example of self-inflicted bad publicity. I am reminded of those few authors who write letters to editors in protest of bad reviews. In my opinion, that does more harm than good.
I could have lived the rest of my life never having read that blog post. I may have even made it into retirement without having stopped to question the quality of Mellon books. Instead, Mellon has forced me to take a long, hard look at them, which I will do. I would bet that most of the outraged librarians tweeting about Mellon Press had been in a similar state of ignorance. But, thanks to Mellon’s ill-advised lawsuit, it seems that we are all aware of Askey’s post and I am sure that we find ourselves asking questions about the quality of Mellon’s publications. I suspect that some librarians are probably going to stop buying Mellon books in protest.
It is surprising that the press would take such an extraordinary step to silence a critic. My legal advise to Mellon would have been to do nothing. Instead, the press has plainly stated that academic freedom and freedom of expression are meaningless to them. That’s an indefensible position for an academic publisher.
Update: I forgot to link to the petition. Please sign it.
Maybe the next pope will be less of a homophobe and more of a true humanitarian. Maybe the next pope will not shield child rapists. Maybe the next pope will use the billions of dollars the church has amassed to help the less fortunate, without the religious destruction that invariable goes along with it. The real question is, will the Panzer Cardinal receive a pension? I think that if you assume a position which normally terminates in death, you should have little recourse to retirement funds.
Deuteronomy 18.18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
I admit that I love the phrase “and will put my words in his mouth.” It seems to me that this is what theologians have been doing for centuries. They are constantly interpreting and reinterpreting the bible and the new testament, adding commentaries, discounting the more horrific elements of the myths, and telling us what the passages really mean. They have been putting words into the mouths of god and Jesus for centuries.
With respect to the above verse, it seems clear to me that the religio-brainwashed would interpret this as a foreshadowing of the arrival of Christ. However, the passage is so vague that it is utterly meaningless. I take issue with those who argue that these latter verses in this chapter refer to JC. There is nothing to support this claim. So, when Matthew Henry writes: “It is here promised concerning Christ, that there should come a Prophet, great above all the prophets; by whom God would make known himself and his will to the children of men, more fully and clearly than he had ever done before [source],” we know this only comes with hindsight and a great deal of manipulation. It strikes me as being not dissimilar to a conspiracy theorist looking for evidence to fit a preexisting theory.