Sure, it used to haunt me for years. I was brought up very religiously, I wasted tons of time in church, on prayers, and on trying to reconcile the scientific knowledge of the world with the massively anti-scientific views presented to me as facts in church and school (yes, school, I had more religion lessons in school than biology or physics). Religion and the process of freeing my mind of religious thinking, used to be a huge part of my live.
I've spent years on researching other religions and non-religious points of view, making up my mind, reverting my conditioning; but now it's just… not there anymore. Now I can separate facts from mythology, I'm happy to live in a secular country, I'm not in touch with the birth family, I haven't been in a church for years, nor have I been proselytised to (much). Basically, the topic of religion became so irrelevant to me that I needed some internet users looking for a debate to remind me that it's a thing, and one that has shaped me so profoundly.
So here's a thing: I'm happier that way. Openly challenging religion and hearing the same old boring counterarguments over and over again was unbeliveably exhausting. And also quite pointless at this point. I've already said all I wanted to say, I put in writing my reasoning, my anger, my experiences. I made sure I had heard everything that could possibly change my mind. And now I'm basically done 🤷
But… now that the strong emotions are gone it might be worth pointing out a few things, at least so that people stop bothering me:
Many people have tried to convince me over the years that I should believe this or that thing. And honestly, I'm tired of listening to them. If there's no evidence to what you're saying, I'm not believing it, simple as that. I'm not going to no hell, there's no samsara, and thunders aren't cast by Zeus. And I'm justifiably angry for having been fed those lies in the past by people financially and politically profitting from it.
Even though I know it wasn't my fault in any way, I still feel embarassed and kinda sorry for having been religious. The world would be so much nicer, if we collectively cared more for evidence and reason – and I used to be a part of a system actively working against that goal. Oh well, I did my part trying to counteract that. It was exhausting, and I'm done.
Like, I'm still against religion, I'm still gonna speak up against it if necessary – but having taken an hour to write down those afterthoughts above is basically the limit of how much I'm willing to let the topic of religion occupy my mind anymore.
For me, life without religion is amazing – and that includes flame wars about religion. I'm done. Please don't at me.
]]>It's one where he doesn't even mention religion at all, even though he's destroying its very foundations.
(Btw, the quote also got featured in The Greatest Song on Earth ❤️)
I first read it in his 1998 book “Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder”. It was a turning point of my journey towards abandoning the Catholic mythology. It removed the greatest obstacle on the road of rationalism: the fear of death.
Here's the quote:
We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?
Yes. How dare we? How dare we!?
I'm convinced that every major religion exists for just two main reasons:
Making up a story that (poorly) answers “the big questions”, while also giving you hope that death is not the end, is not a perfect idea, but I guess better than nothing.
Now we have science though! But while it helps with the first part tremendously, my mind was still struggling to give up religion because of the second part… Death is scary, it's unknown… Pretending that it's not real is so very soothing…
Religion's approach to death is to give promises that it can't deliver, while using your fear to make you behave the way they want you to (or else you'll burn in hell!). Priests are wolves in sheep's clothing – their fairy tales sound soothing, but really they just enslave your mind.
Dawkins doesn't try to be nice or soothing. Instead of making up a story that will make you feel better, he scolds you for demanding a story in the first place.
Death is just an end of something beautiful. Focus on the beautiful. Appreciate the beautiful. You won a fucking lottery of existence! So appreciate it, make the best out of it while you can. Just don't be so arrogant as to demand that it lasted forever. It won't. You'll have to deal with it. It's harsh, but it's true. And accepting it is liberating.
The quote might sound like it's about death, but for me it's more about life, actually. It puts life into a proper perspective. It makes you focus on the joy and gratitude instead of fear. On the process instead of its end.
Accepting that I'm going to die, inevitably, without any “afterlife” to look forward to, realising that things can be wonderful and amazing even if they don't last forever – that might have been the most liberating moment of my life.
]]>So apparently I'm supposed to respect the belief that there are witches who have hexed the moon, because otherwise it would justify other people's homophobia.
What a pile of absolute bullshit.
My sexual orientation is a part of my identity. It comes from within, and it's completely harmless. It simply describes who I'm attracted to. Not even what I do with that attraction, just how I feel. Trying to deprive me of my human rights, telling me that I'm worse of a person / husband / father than you because of who I'm attracted to is just plain bigotry and hatred.
Contrast that with believing in a religion, astrology, witchcraft, tarot, etc. It's something that someone made up, and others decided to believe. It's just claims that no one cared providing evidence for. I can make up any claim, but it will neither make it true or worthy of any respect. Here: dogs can fly, they are just very good at hiding it from people. It would be nice if that were true, right? But it's not. And if you told me I'm silly for believing that, you would be absolutely right.
We all know the absolute worst that a religion can make people do. We all saw 9/11, ISIS, we all learned about the inquisition, crusades, conquista, religious wars… All of that because of a set of claims that nobody can prove are true, but many are ready to kill and die for.
But even the mildest, most peaceful belief based on blind faith, even the idea of witchcraft, hexing the moon, talking to tarot cards, believing horoscopes, etc., even those are still harmful in a way. Because they reinforce the notion that every claim, every made up fairy tale is worthy of respect, just because someone believes in it. Such notion, if accepted by a lot of of people, makes it possible to more radical religious groups to exist and thrive. Such notion shuts down the conversation and reinforces ignorance.
I am a victim of blind faith making people believe that I'm inferior and not worthy of human rights. I'm emotionally scarred for life by homofobia. I've lived through mental abuse. I had to leave my country because of homophobia. And you're trying to tell me that I can't fight back against the source of bigotry that has hurt me, because that would give people the right to hurt me more?
Are you trying to teach me “respect” by telling me to “shut my mouth”?
Are you telling me that disrespecting a living, breathing person for their sexual orientation is in any way comparable to criticising an unproven, rectum-derived idea that an educated person in the 21st century should be ashamed to take seriously?
Are you comparing my trauma with me telling someone that witches aren't real?
Are you using my identity to try to shame me into giving up my rationality?
How dare you!
]]>I keep hearing this one argument over and over again: “if I see things around me that have been created, that means everything had to be created, that means there is a god”.
What they don't seem to notice (apart from such extrapolation being unjustified) is that looking in that direction actually points us towards there being no god.
First of all, it's like thinking “all the food I know comes from a supermarket, ergo that's where all food comes from”. That doesn't mean you're right. It just means you've never been to a farmer's market, to a greengrocer's, or seen someone produce their own food – and it means you're terrible at inductive logic.
Just because you're able to list eight objects manufactured by inteligent beings, doesn't necessarily mean every single thing in existence was necessarily manufactured by inteligent beings. That's just not how logic works.
Also: what you're addressing is not atheism. Atheism simply means looking at a claim “there is a god/gods” and saying “nah, I don't believe that”. That's all. Atheism doesn't require you to have any beliefs about the origins of the universe or life (or specifically a belief that “they came from nothing”). I'm pretty sure that Epicurus didn't have the faintest idea about the Big Bang theory or the modern understanding abiogenesis. He didn't think the universe came from nothing, he taught that it was eternal. It doesn't make him a theist, does it?
Then, there's the fact that neither the origins of the universe, nor the origins of life are currently understood by science as “coming from nothing”. Life came from matter (not nothing) that in proper conditions and by random chance over a very long time got organised in a way that let it reproduce, eventually leading to its complexity rising through natural selection. And the Big Bang means that the universe rapidly expanded from a singularity – we don't know exactly what the singularity was, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was “nothing”.
But... let's get to the main point: arguing that everything has to have a creator kinda undermines your own conclusion that there has to be a god who does not have a creator, doesn't it?
What purpose does your reasoning serve, other than just introducing a new step, an extra complexity? Inventing a god to solve the problem of not knowing where did all the stuff come from doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it back a step. If the complexity of the universe (allegedly) can't be explained without an even more complex being, then it's gonna be even harder to explain that more complex being, won't it?
If you're asked “how do you explain X?” and you reply with “well, imagine there is a Y that doesn't need to be explained”, you're not really helping, are you?
And why exactly doesn't god need to be explained? I've only ever heard one answer to it: “because he's eternal”. Yeah, you can imagine he's eternal, so what?
And what if the universe is also eternal? What if it just keeps collapsing and exploding endlessly? Asking about things “before” the Big Bang make no sense, because the Big Bang created time, which pretty much makes the universe “eternal”. Are you satisfied with explaining the universe with “it just exists”, or does that only work with god?
If we want to use sound logic, let's apply the same principles to a potential god as we do to everything else, shall we? If everything has to have a creator, why doesn't god? If god can be eternal, why can't the universe? Do we need god to explain anything or can we go with the simpler answers?
]]>My Twitter bio includes the words “Hail Satan 🤘“.
Except I don't believe in Satan (nor in his evil enemy, Jahwe)... So why the hell the did I put put it there?
So, first of all: Satanists don't believe in Satan. Just read their FAQ:
Satan to us is a symbol of pride, liberty and individualism, and it serves as an external metaphorical projection of our highest personal potential. We do not believe in Satan as a being or person.
Yup, a symbol. They chose this one, because it's controversial, that's all it is 🤷🏼
But that being said – I'm not even a Satanist. I do agree with most of their philosophy (and despise some parts of it), I own a copy of “The Satanic Bible” by LaVey (and I find it unbearably boring), and I follow their Twitter account (it's smart and hilarious!). But that's pretty much it. I've never visited any temple, never witnessed any ritual, didn't bother to become a member, and in my daily life I don't really bother thinking about Satanism too often.
Until, that is, a random Christian sees something I wrote online, checks out my bio to find an ad hominem to use, and replies with something along the lines of “yeah, but you worship Satan, so what do even know?! 🤡”
And that's the point: I don't believe in Satan, but I know that this person does. And they are scared of him.
I've spent too many years of my life suffering because of their mythology – not being able to be myself or do things I wanted to do – just because I had been indoctrinated into being scared shitless of some horned imp with a pitchfork.
I say “Hail Satan” not because I actually praise a nonexistent character from a horror book, but to show Christians that I'm not afraid of their imaginary enemy. Those two words represent my victory in the fight for liberation of my mind from their indoctrination.
I say “Hail Satan” just because I'm proud of the fact that I'm not afraid to say it anymore.
Oh, and there's one more thing: if you read the Bible, you'll find out that Jahwe is actually the bad guy in this story...
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)
So on the off chance that the Christian mythology is actually true (it's not, let's not kid ourselves 🙄), I'd rather make sure that I won't end up in the Celestial North Korea.
Call it a “Reversed Pascal's wager”, if you will 😉
]]>Under a news that yet another church keeps being an asshole towards queer people some guy is asking why don't they just ignore it and find a better church.
Oh the privilege...
If the churches indoctrinate you since childhood & threaten you with eternal damnation for defying their doctrine – membership is far from voluntary.
And as long as the churches have a huge influence over how our families and the society treat us – not caring about them is a luxury we simply can't afford.
My family's homophobia towards me is motivated purely religiously. And my apostasy from the Catholic Church didn't make them hate me less, quite the opposite.
Asking queers to just find a better church is like asking black people why don't they just ignore the existence of the KKK. 🙄
]]>As a kid I just couldn't wrap my head around the idea of salvation. It wasn't a big deal, I just accepted what they taught me at home, in church and at school, and assumed that when I'm older and wiser, I'll finally understand.
This approach worked out for many other things, like understanding how sex actually works or finally learning what “money laundering” means (my parents never managed to explain either to me). When it comes to salvation, though... I might be an educated adult with a solid dose of religious indoctrination in the past, but I still cannot understand how can any rational person believe in salvation.
It just doesn't make sense. None at all, from any perspective. It's just bullshit.
Let's start at the beginning: what do we even need salvation from? Well, from sin, obviously. Because we are all sinful, of course. It's all because Adam & Eve. Because they did something wrong – without even knowing it was wrong.
You know, like when a child says “fuck” without even knowing what it means, and instead of explaining them that it's a nasty word and they shouldn't repeat that, you get angry at them, throw them out of your house make them beg you for ever and ever to forgive them for that one “fuck”.
It seems so obvious to Christians that humans need “salvation”. But salvation from what? What's gonna happen if no one “saves” us?
Whatever the punishment is, it comes from god. Ex definitione. Dude's supposed to be all-powerful and the source of everything that happens in the universe (yes, even evil, see: Isaiah 45, 7).
Is god saving us from himself?
Apparently, I'm more powerful than god in one manner: I am able to forgive someone without requiring a human sacrifice.
Why the hell would an all-powerful, benevolent god come up with such a crazy plan, if he could just forgive?
I think we can all agree that there's no greater sacrifice than sacrificing your life. From an atheistic perspective it's literally all we can give. Whatever you owned, whatever you planned to do, whatever you craved for – it's all useless if you're dead.
Even Christians, who believe in life after death, and who claim that one is the real life, while our time here on Earth is basically worthless, they still don't want to leave this planet too early. Even Jesus himself said that “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15, 13).
And Jesus's sacrifice is supposed to be the greatest ever. So powerful that it can redress all the wrongdoings in the entire history of humankind! It needs to be huge! And it supposedly is: not only is it someone offering their live, but also this someone is an all powerful god. Can't get bigger than that, can it?
Except it can get smaller. You know, when you come back to life after three days. Sure, all the tortures you've suffered were awful and everything, but in the end you have your life back, right? Also, you are supposed to be a Trinity. Have you really been dead for those three days, if two thirds of you we fine and living all along?
So as big as your sacrifice might have been – was it really the greatest one ever? Was it so huge that it can redeem every single murder, rape, theft and fraud in the entire history?
Jesus's sacrifice is often described as “paying off a debt” (for instance in the Exsultet). Who paid whom with what, may I ask? God paid god with god's life? That makes perfect sense!
When my husband jokingly demands some money from me for something, I joke back, saying I'll transfer it to his account. You see, the joke is: we have a shared bank account.
How is that different from god paying himself off?
Would it be moral (and legal), if I decided to go to jail, as an innocent person, in place of some rightfully convicted criminal?
Is the world going to be a better place, if I sacrifice myself so that a person who should suffer the consequences for their terrible actions goes free?
Would any judge allow it, if I stood up after a trial of some rapist and said that I'm willing to murder my son so that this rapist goes free?
Salvation was supposed to fix the world. The Easter Vigil is filled with pompous words about “defeating death”, “destroying sin”, “defying satan”, etc. etc.
Has any of those promises really been delivered? Why do we still sin, if the “Lamb of God, took away the sins of the world”? If time is irrelevant and Jesus died for the future sins too, why are there still consequences for sinning? How is Satan still scary? How does any of it make sense?
Sooo... god created us flawed and wants to punish us for being flawed. Except really he doesn't, he'd rather save us from his own rage. So he has sent himself (aka. his son) to be killed (but not really) so that his suffering teaches us a lesson and removes all the sin, suffering and death, except all of them are still there.
Convincing.
]]>Rather, you are admitting to the very thing I’m accusing faith of being: out of touch with reality, reason and facts.
Good job! 😅
]]>Well, let me tell you how is sexual orientation different from believing in Santa Claus, and why tolerance has nothing to do with it.
The thing is...
Being gay, Syrian, black, trans, etc. are things that you are.
Being a Christian is something you do. You get tought religion. You go to church. You recite prayers. You read a specific book and decide to believe in its content despite the facts not supporting it.
Your religion is an idea. And ideas can be challenged.
Tolerance, in the meaning they meant, is about people’s identities. About their very existence. About their human rights.
Mythologies, and this might surprise you, are not humans.
And yes, religious freedom is one of the human rights, but it means that others cannot forbid you to believe and practice your relgion, and that they can’t discriminate you based on your beliefs. It doesn’t mean that your unscientific beliefs or specific practices are protected from any criticism.
Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean I’m intolerant 🤷🏼
P.S. “Tolerance” means “putting up with something, despite disagreeing with it”. So me openly disagreeing with theism, while respecting people’s right to believe in it, is pretty much tolerant by definition.
]]>The very first thing I’ve ever tattooed on my body is a symbol of atheism. It might sound stupid for some (“if you don’t believe in god, why do you care so much about the nonexistent?”), but it’s a really important thing for me. Let me tell you why.
I’ve always been a curious kid. Asking thousands of questions about the world, reading popular science journals, being super diligent at school...
My greatest fear was not understanding things. I was honestly suffering psychologically and emotionally from not being able to wrap my head around some concepts. Having a mental mess in my head was just painful.
And there was one issue in particular that was bothering me – how did the world and humans actually come into being? At school I was taught about the big bang and about evolution, while at church I was told about a guy who just existed and who took six days to say things and they just magically appeared. Two equally valid and reasonable hypotheses, right?
For a reasonable adult, of course not! But for a ten-year-old who’s been taught practically from birth to trust their parents and to believe whatever priests says? Who has learned to get on their knees and recite prayers earlier than learning to count? Who’s been indoctrinated practically every day of their childhood?
Parents and catechists seemed not to notice / to actively ignore the obvious contradictions between their favourite book and what science actually knows about the universe. So I had to put my mind at rest by inventing a worldview that would somehow combine both of them: with a god who caused the big bang and then watched over the universe until the Earth formed, who created the first single-cell organism and then watched it evolve into humans... I swear, I’ve never heard of “Inteligent Design” at that age. I just went on with whatever made sense under the assumption that no one is lying to me. I didn’t know that was an option.
Then came the teenage years and I can’t even begin to describe what a horror it was to realise that I’m a horny bitch. Not only I had sexual fantasies, not only did I masturbate and liked it, but I also started to think that I might be into boys more than into girls.
Now I know those are all amazing thing, but back then I was a good catholic boy. And to quote Stephen Fry:
It’s the strangest thing about this church – it is obsessed with sex, absolutely obsessed. Now, they will say we, with our permissive society and rude jokes, are obsessed. No. We have a healthy attitude. We like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly; because it’s a primary impulse it can be dangerous and dark and difficult. It’s a bit like food in that respect, only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese, and that in erotic terms is the Catholic Church in a nutshell.
There wasn’t a week going by in which I wouldn’t hear voices condemning “impure thoughts”, masturbation, pornography or homosexuality... And the punishment for all of them was the eternal damnation in hell, worse than any suffering you can possibly think of. Can you imagine what damage being in this cult can do to a developing mind?
If the Catholic Church gets you to really believe in their bullshit, you start hating yourself. Everything you do is potentially a sin. You have to regularly go to a cult guru and tell them all the worst things about yourself. Seriously, what sadist came up with the whole confession thing?
Going back to slightly more mundane things than psychological damage: religion can take up a lot of your time. I didn’t just go to a mass every Sunday. I was an altar boy, I was singing in a band, I was learning their bullshit at school, as if those were facts, I was going on pilgrimages, I was praying every day, I was spending a massive chunk of my time trying to reconcile my sexuality and morality with the “moral” teachings of the Church... There’s so many more useful things I could’ve spent those hours and hours...
Oh damn, it was supposed to be just a short note, but it’s already gotten quite long... And I didn’t even start complaining about all the awful and pointless traditions, about facing the catholic homophobia from my own family, about all those matters who didn’t affect me personally but are still shitty, like opposing women’s rights, the Rwanda genocide, pedophilia, anti-condom campaigns, etc. etc.
I know, I know, I’ve been bitching about the Roman Catholicism, not religions in general, but the truth is, they all operate under a similar framework. It can be better (like Protestantism, being less dogmatic and less homophobic), it can be worse (like Islam, threatening death to apostates), but the underlying principle is the same: blind faith is more important than reason, and whatever rules we make up, you have to follow, or else...
It’s abuse.
Getting out of my cult felt like escaping a prison. It took me years to get there. But I’m happy now. I’m loving myself. I don’t fear the afterlife. I don’t waste my time on rectum-derived mythologies. I’m not stuck in toxic family relations. I embrace and enjoy my sexuality. I follow the morality based on compassion and reason instead of arbitrary rules and fear of supernatural judgment. I’m finally free to think for myself without worrying about dogmas and blasphemy.
I enjoy my life.
So yeah, that freedom is certainly worth being celebrated in a form of a little “A” on my shoulder.
]]>For whatever reason, many monotheists seem proud of believing in just one god as opposed to those “pagans” who believe in many. They consider it some kind of a “progress” (well, one is closer to the actual number of gods – zero – so technically it might be correct). But are they really monotheistic?
When you walk into the church I used to attend as a child, what do you see in the very center? Yes, the tabernacle, allegedly containing god himself. But what’s way way above it? What’s surrounded by golden ornaments and votive offerings? A figurine of Mary.
One might get into semantic tricks, sure... Talk about how Catholics don’t worship Mary or any other saint, they just admire their lives. How they don’t pray to them, they pray to Jahwe “through the intercession” of the saints. We all know that’s bullshit.
In ancient Greece sailors had figurines of Poseidon on their ships, they would pray to him before setting sails and they believed that would keep them safe during their journey. Modern Catholic sailors have a picture of saint Nicholas of Myra in their wallet and they pray to him before embarking.
Both ancient polytheists and modern quasi-monotheists believe that there’s a group of beings, immortal (at least spiritually), inhabiting heavens, each having a “domain” assigned to them, who deserve of having their images made, who can listen to their prayers and somehow cause them to come true.
A catholic bishop once really really wanted to trick me into just touching a golden reliquary containing a piece of fabric of John Paul II’s cassock. Would he believe so much in that stupid object having some magic powers if he really believed in just one god and treated all the images and relics of saints as merely reminders of how to be a good person like them? Please...
And don’t even get me started about the god himself being simultaneously three persons. Early Christians were so into the idea of Jesus being a god, but also so into the Jewish teaching of there being just one god, that they invented this idiotic idea that there is indeed just one god, he just happens to technically consist of three separate persons, who are also not so separate.
Honestly, the “best” explanation of the trinity I’ve ever heard was from an actual sermon in an actual church quoting an actual Christian theologian, who basically said that the absurdity of that idea is actually the whole point! It’s a god thing, we can’t comprehend god... So if we think we understand the concept, that means we don’t, and if we accept it regardless of its absurdity – that’s when we somehow really understand it.
What a neat, anti-intellectual bullshit.
As much as they might claim otherwise, what Catholics believe in is actually the same kind of mythology that the ancient pagans believed in.
]]>Ostatnio widzę, że wiele osób robi dobrze Kościołowi katolickiemu, publicznie namawiając ludzi, by nie dokonywali formalnej apostazji.
Twierdzą, że to “upokarzające”, że Kk i tak nie usunie twoich danych, i że wciąż będzie uznawał cię za katolika (tylko ekskomunikowanego), więc w sumie to po co się fatygować?
No właśnie, po co?
W sensie “duchowym”, oczywiście, osoba niewierząca ma zapewne w dupie, czy bozia wciąż uważa ja za swoje dziecko i czy jakiś głupi rytuał polewania wody głową da się odkręcić czy nie... Więc skupmy się raczej na rzeczach, które mają jakiekolwiek znaczenie.
Jak na przykład pieniądze. W krajach takich jak Niemcy, w których wierni płacą na rzecz swoich wspólnot wyznaniowych podatek kościelny, do namacalnych korzyści formalnej apostazji nie trzeba nikogo przekonywać.
Ale co z Polską, w której apostazja nie wpływa na wysokość netto wypłaty, a tak w ogóle to możliwa jest jedynie jej marna namiastka?
Cóż... W krajach, gdzie nie ma równości małżeńskiej, lecz są związki partnerskie, pary jednopłciowe wprawdzie wolałyby wziąć ślub i wciąż walczą o pełną równość, ale póki nie mają innej opcji, zawierają związki partnerskie.
Tak samo w kraju, gdzie wypisanie się z sekty nie jest możliwe bez osobistego odwiedzenia sekty, i w którym sekta ma prawo mieć w dupie RODO i nigdy nie usunąć twoich danych osobowych ze swoich baz – skoro jest możliwa jakaś droga oficjalnego opuszczenia sekty, choć inna od wymarzonej i zdecydowanie gorsza, to czy nie warto z niej skorzystać?
Ponoć procedura apostazji wg instrukcji episkopatu jest “upokarzająca” i zmusza by przychodzić do księdza “jak petent” i “prosić o łaskę” apostazji. Może i dla kogoś tak to wygląda. Może i poprzednia instrukcja taka była. Ale, dla analogii, jak chcę się wypisać z partii politycznej, to też muszę złożyć deklarację przedstawicielowi tej partii i przebrnąć przez trochę biurokracji. Wprawdzie partyjniak zapewne nie będzie mi robił kazania o tym, że “odłączam się od miłości chrystusa”, że nie dostanę katolickiego ślubu ani pogrzebu, ani że pójdę do piekła – ale czy tak trudno przez to kazanie przebrnąć, patrząc na klechę z politowaniem?
W sumie to trochę mi szkoda, że wyszedłem z kościoła po niemiecku (w sądzie administracyjnym), a nie po polsku (na plebani). Ta rozmowa, owszem, mogłaby być upokarzająca, ale nie dla mnie. Trochę chciałbym poczuć tę satysfakcję spojrzenia w oczy pracownikowi Watykanu i wytłumaczenia mu, dlaczego nie chcę mieć z jego sektą nic wspólnego.
I choćby nawet miało to nie wywrzeć jakichkolwiek skutków prawnych wg prawa powszechnego, choćby nie miało to nie skutkować usunięciem bazy z danych, choćby Kk nadal uważał Cię za katolika i naginał statystyki na swoją korzyść: czy nie lepiej pójść i pokazać im, że wcale nie jesteś tylko leniwą bułą, której po prostu nie chce się na msze, a człowiekiem szczerze wkurwionym na to, co ośmielają się odpierdalać?
Wyobraź sobie, że chociaż 10% Polaków nie tylko przestanie chodzić na msze i posyłać dzieci do komunii, ale i pofatyguje się załatwić ten głupi papierek.
Może i przekaz “mamy dość Kk” nie dotrze do polskiego rządu (Kościół pewnie nie zamierza im się chwalić statystykami), może nie sprawi od razu, że rozwiążą konkordat czy opodatkują Kościół, ale wiecie do kogo ten przekaz trafi? Do Kościoła.
Jasny przekaz: nie, nie jesteśmy katolikami, którzy z lenistwa przychodzą do kościoła tylko na pasterkę i ze święconką. Nie, nie jesteśmy niewierzącymi, którym jesteście obojętni, i którzy po prostu przestali chodzić do kościoła. Nie. Jesteśmy obywatelami, którzy aktywnie, otwarcie i głośno mają was dość.
]]>Oglądałem ostatnio wywiad Trevora Noah z Karamo Brown z Queer Eye. I byłem wręcz zdruzgotany informacją, że Karamo kiedyś fizycznie znęcał się nad swoimi partnerami, bezczelnie oczekiwał bezkarności i nie uważał, aby robił coś złego. Przecież Karamo jest takim ciepłym, otwartym, kochającym człowiekiem! To niemożliwe, żeby kiedyś robił tak okropne rzeczy!
A jednak. Jeśli człowiekowi od dziecka będzie wpajać się, że “dziewczynek się nie bije”, ale chłopcy to tam chłopcy, “boys will be boys”, u nich to zawsze się trochę bijatykuje – to jest to gotowy przepis na wychowanie człowieka stosującego w dorosłym życiu przemoc domową. To, czego dzieci uczą się w najmłodszych latach życia, jest dla nich jak instynkt, jest tak głęboko wbudowane w ich osobowość, że pozbycie się tak starych nawyków wymaga niesłychanie wiele pracy.
Karamo przeszedł przez ten długi proces stawania się nowym, lepszym człowiekiem, dzięki czemu teraz znamy go jako tę cudowną osobę, którą jest. Ale warto jest pamiętać, że nie zawsze nią był.
To dało mi do myślenia: jak niewiele być może brakowało, bym sam stał się potworem?
Przypomniałem sobie kurs ceremoniarski, w którym brałem udział ponad dekadę temu. Miałem 15 lat... Okres dojrzewania, hormony buzują, dopiero co odkryłem w sobie, że jestem gejem, jeszcze nikt inny o tym nie wie... Trzykrotnie jadę na kurs ceremoniarski do AWSD w Szczecinie i zostaję tam na weekend. Wokół mnie dziesiątki młodych chłopaków w moim wieku, dziesiątki przystojnych kleryków. Wszystko kipi testosteronem, który nie ma żadnego ujścia.
W tym okresie byłem chyba najbardziej vulnerable w swoim życiu. Dojrzewanie w pełni, dopiero co zacząłem odkrywać w sobie homoseksualność, dopiero co zacząłem na poważnie kwestionować wiarę, byłem cholernie socially awkward, nie miałem zielonego pomysłu, jak chciałbym, by wyglądało moje życie... Jestem niemal pewny, że każda drobna pierdoła kształtowała wtedy mój charakter wielokrotnie mocniej niż w którymkolwiek innym okresie życia.
Wiem, że to czysta spekulacja, ale wyobraziłem sobie, co by mogło być, gdyby zdarzył się wtedy jakiś drobny epizod, który zmieniłby wszystko. Może któryś z kursantów przemyciłby alkohol i poszalelibyśmy za bardzo, może jakieś pierwsze gay experience z którymś z kursantów, może któryś kleryk zaprosiłby do swojego pokoju na lodzika?
Wiem, że takie rzeczy się tam dzieją. Na szczęście nie widziałem tego na własne oczy ani nie doświadczyłem na własnej skórze, ale musiałbym trwać w silnym wyparciu, żeby zignorować te wszystkie opisy z pierwszej ręki od znajomych oraz doniesienia medialne o tym, co się wyprawia w seminariach, na plebaniach, w kuriach, w Watykanie...
Co więc, gdyby coś takiego wydarzyło się mi? Nawet nie mówię tu o gwałcie (a słyszałem o prefektach i ojcach duchowych, którzy uzależniali dopuszczenie kleryka do święceń od regularnego dawania dupy), bo zapewne większości z tych facetów dokoła z miłą chęcią sam bym wskoczył wtedy do łóżka, gdyby zaprosili. Ale co mnie w przeraża w tej wizji, to atmosfera, w której wydarzyłby się ten mój potencjalny pierwszy raz.
Budynek seminarium w Szczecinie ma moim zdaniem jakąś dziwną, ponurą atmosferę, czułem się tam jak w pół-otwartym więzieniu... Nie wiem, czy w pozostałych seminariach byłoby podobnie, no ale... Chodzi mi o inną atmosferę: tę panującą wśród duchowieństwa, i którą systematycznie zarażają swoich wiernych.
O atmosferę grzechu, winy, strachu i tajemniczości. Grzech czyha na każdym kroku. Masturbacja jest grzechem, pornosy są grzechem, homoseksualizm jest grzechem, pożądliwe myślenie o kimś jest grzechem, seks przed ślubem jest grzechem, seks po ślubie też może być grzechem, jeśli nie jesteście wystarczająco otwarci na potomstwo... Te zespoły rockowe są satanistyczne, te bajki dla dzieci to furtka dla szatana, te symbole zapraszają diabła do twojego życia. Grzech jest tematem co drugiego kazania, seks jest motywem przewodnim co drugiego grzechu, piekło tylko czeka na ciebie i cieszy się na przejęcie twojej nieśmiertelnej duszy za każdym razem, gdy ty ośmielisz się czerpać przyjemność z życia.
A największym złem, według katolickich moralistów, jest relatywizm moralny. Grzmią z ambon: ten zgniły zachód propaguje relatywizm moralny! to homolobby relatywizuje dobro i zło! ta ateizacja doprowadzi do zatracenia absolutnej prawdy o dobru i złu!
Znajoma mojego męża spytała kiedyś jednej zakonnicy, jak wytrzymuje bez seksu. Ta odparła: “ty uprawiając seks łamiesz jedno przykazanie, ja dwa... czy kiedyś nie dostałaś rozgrzeszenia?”. Tak właśnie działa moralny absolutyzm: wprawdzie seks przed ślubem to grzech ciężki, ale złamanie ślubów czystości to także grzech ciężki. Za oba pójdziesz do piekła, ale z obu możesz się wyspowiadać. Być może za jeden dostaniesz do odmówienia trzy zdrowaśki, a za drugi cały różaniec, ale czy to naprawdę tak wielka różnica?
Oglądanie pornografii – to grzech ciężki. Zgwałcenie niewinnego chłopczyka, rozerwanie mu odbytu i pozostawienie mu traumy na resztę życia – też grzech ciężki.
Zwalenie sobie konia zamiast dojść w kobiecie – to grzech ciężki. Zgwałcenie niewinnej, kilkuletniej dziewczynki, która kilka lat później odbierze sobie z tego powodu życie – to także grzech ciężki.
Demonizowanie tak niewinnych czynności jak masturbacja czy konsensualny seks między dwojgiem dorosłych ludzi działa też w drugą stronę – nieuchronnie wynika z niego także bagatelizowanie tak okropnych czynów jak gwałt, nawet na dziecku. Bo skoro za oba czeka cię ta sama kara (wieczne piekło) i w obu przypadkach możesz tej kary w łatwy sposób uniknąć (spowiedź), czy aby na pewno jest między nimi różnica moralna?
Dodajmy do tego jeszcze fakt, że całe duchowieństwo jest oparte o ścisłą hierarchię. Każdy doskonale wie, kogo musi się słuchać, od kogo zależy jego dalsza kariera w firmie, kto może jedną decyzją administracyjną zepsuć mu resztę życia...
Jestem w stanie sobie wyobrazić młodego kleryka regularnie gwałconego przez przełożonego, który nawet nie myśli o tym, by komukolwiek się na to poskarżyć czy jakkolwiek przeciwstawić. Przełożony tak wbił mu do głowy poczucie winy za dopuszczanie się seksu z mężczyzną, (mimo że jest przecież ofiarą gwałtu, a nie sprawcą), że kleryk boi się, że pójdzie przez to do piekła, jeżeli nie dostanie rozgrzeszenia. Boi się, że gdy doniesie na przełożonego, to żaden inny członek tej mafii już mu rozgrzeszenia nie da. Że nikt go nie dopuści do święceń. Czuje silny popęd seksualny, którego nie pozwala mu się rozładować. Gdy go rozładuje, choćby ręką, czuje taką samą winę, jaka kojarzy mu się z byciem gwałconym. Powoli zaczyna utożsamiać taką winę z sytuacjami, gdy sam krzywdzi innych. Robi się coraz bardziej obojętny wobec tego poczucia winy – ono i tak towarzyszy mu nieustannie, jego i tak może się pozbyć idąc do spowiedzi, nieważne, co zrobił. Powoli zaczyna krzywdzić innych bardziej i bardziej. Powoli pnie się w hierarchii wyżej i wyżej. Powoli czuje się coraz bardziej bezkarny...
Że jestem w stanie sobie wyobrazić takiego hipotetycznego kleryka, to pikuś. Najgorsze, że potrafię sobie wyobrazić siebie samego jako bohatera takiej historii. Siebie. Człowieka, którego znam najlepiej na świecie. Człowieka, który w sytuacji konfliktowej prędzej się poryczy niż podniesie na kogoś głos, a co dopiero rękę. Człowieka, który bije się z rozkminami typu “wiem, że on wczoraj sam bardzo chciał się ruchać, ale czy na pewno był wystarczająco trzeźwy, żeby się na to zgodzić?”.
Ale gdy przeniosę się myślami do czasów, gdy moja moralność, świadomość świata, religijność i charakter de facto dopiero zaczęły się na dobre kształtować, jestem w stanie sobie wyobrazić dziesiątki dość prawdopodobnych sytuacji, które mogły zmienić mnie o 180°, wprowadzić mnie na tory, od których zaczęłaby się równia pochyła ku deprawacji...
Wprawdzie nie jest to żadna naukowo potwierdzona obserwacja, ale jeśli miałbym powiedzieć, co moim zdaniem powoduje kryzys nadużyć seksualnych, gwałtów i wykorzystywania dzieci w Kościele katolickim, mój educated guess brzmiałby tak: to chora atmosfera winy, grzechu i strachu, to absolutyzm moralny, demonizacja seksu prowadząca do bagatelizacji gwałtu, łatwy dostęp księży do bezgranicznie ufających im ofiar, opcja uzyskania rozgrzeszenia z dowolnej zbrodni, hierarchiczna struktura, i wreszcie: poczucie bezkarności.
To jest mieszanka wybuchowa. To jest atmosfera, w której sam się wychowywałem, w której od dziecka byłem głęboko zakorzeniony, i od której ucieczka zajęła mi długie lata. Kto wie, czy jakaś drobna iskierka nie dałaby rady doprowadzić tej gęstej, nieprzyjemnej atmosfery do wybuchu. Kto wie, czy gdybym w porę nie odszedł od Kościoła, tylko dał się wciągnąć głębiej w tę sektę, czy być może nie skończyłbym najgorzej jak tylko zwyrodnialec w Kościele katolickim może skończyć: przeniesiony do innej parafii...
]]>So, yeah, technically, it’s Snape who directly cast the spell that killed Dumbledore, for sure. But he only did that because Dumbledore asked him to. He’s not a murderer, he’s just a guy who did what had to be done, in order for the good to eventually win.
It wouldn’t have happened without Malfoy though, would it? He’s spent an entire year trying to kill his headmaster, and he almost succeeded, if it weren’t for his scruples. He let all the Death Eaters into Howgarts, he disarmed Dumbledore... He basically did everything to kill the guy, except for just casting the spell at the end. Ain’t he a murderer then?
On the other had, Dumbledore knew about all of that in advance, he let Malfoy proceed with his plan, he didn’t even try to protect himself. He asked Snape to finish the job that he knew Malfoy wouldn’t be able to do. If it weren’t for that, Snape probably wouldn’t have made the Unbreakable Vow and he wouldn’t have had to kill Dumbledore. The Headmaster knew he’s gonna die anyway, he wanted to pass with dignity and on his own terms.
Except, it’s not like he knew he’s gonna die soon just because he had been pretty old. There was a curse in his hand that was spreading to the rest of his body and there was nothing he could do about it. He would have died in agony, if Snape didn’t “mercifully” casted Avada Kedavra on him. That curse was no accident though, was it? It was Voldemort himself who put a curse on Marvolo’s ring so that anyone who tries to destroy his Horcrux would die.
If someone put another person in a chamber full of radiation, and that person got cancer because of that, and they would have died in terrible agony, so they asked a doctor for euthanasia, who’s the murderer? The doctor? Or the maniac you gave them cancer in the first place? Or the poor person who decided they want to die on their own terms?
Who actually killed Dumbledore then? Whoever you think it is, I think one thing in that history is clear for everyone: it’s not that easy to put blame here... morality is a complex subject...
Ain’t it stupid that some people want to reduce that complexity to just one phrase “thou shall not kill”?
]]>Pan Dziewiecki zasłynął ostatnio tym, jak z ambony ogłosił, że osoby niewierzące w boga nie są zdolne do miłości. Jest to wierutną bzdurą, co dla większości jest zapewnie oczywiste. Pozostałym służę krótkim wypunktowaniem.
Ks. Dziewiecki wytłumaczy nam dlaczego ateiści nie są zdolni do miłości.
— KartonowaPolska (@PolskaNormalna) November 4, 2018
Większe brednie to tylko w TVPis. pic.twitter.com/TEpHrfh5zx
To fascynujące, że choć “prof. dr hab.” przed nazwiskiem świadczy o imponującym dorobku naukowym, to wystarczy dodać “ks.”, żeby tytuł “ks. prof. dr hab.” nie świadczył zupełnie o niczym.
]]>I’ve finally seen “Spotlight”. And then, for the first time in my life, I grabbed the first object around and angrily threw it on the floor. And, of course, I burst into tears out of helplessness.
Over 1000 survivors in a city with population 600 thousand. Hundreds of predator priests. And the cardinal gets punished by being moved to the honourable Santa Maria Maggiore (guess by which pope...).
If I were one of those journalists, I’d have a lot of trouble trying not to break the fifth commandment... And what a fucking shame that hell does not exist, because I’m absolutely sure that every single one of the priesthood would rot in hell.
I don’t have a shred of respect to any priest. NOT ONE. It’s not that scale of the problem, where you can “not know”. It’s a systematic abuse that corrodes this mafia from the bottom to the very top.
It’s an abuse that directly stems from the very nature of the Church: indoctrinating children already right after they’re born, teaching them that priests are almost “saint” ex definitione, scaring them with hell, staying celibate, enjoying the non-deserved power and wealth of this mafia...
If you join them, you know what you can expect. Even if you don’t, you will eventually. And you keep silent about it. So you’re not much less culpable than those predators who rape children.
The blood of their future victims is on your conscience. The blood of those who didn’t withstand the abuse and the trauma and took their lives is on you too.
I am disgusted with you. My fists clench at the sight of the clerical collar.
]]>Obejrzałem wreszcie “Spotlight”. A potem po raz pierwszy w życiu zdarzyło mi się złapać pierwszą lepszą rzecz, która była pod ręką, i z wkurwu cisnąć nią o podłogę. No i oczywiście poryczałem się z bezsilności.
Ponad 1000 ofiar w 600-tysięcznym mieście. Setki księży zwyrodnialców. A kardynał “za karę” przeniesiony na zaszczytne stanowisko w Santa Maria Maggiore (zgadnijcie przez którego papieża...).
Gdybym był jednym z tych dziennikarzy, miałbym spore problemy z przestrzeganiem piątego przykazania... I kurwa jaka szkoda, że piekło nie istnieje, bo nie mam najmniejszych wątpliwości, że wszyscy księża co do jednego by w nim gnili, na czele z pawlaczem.
Nie mam najmniejszego szacunku do żadnego księdza. ŻADNEGO. To nie jest ta skala, przy której da się “nie wiedzieć”. To jest zjawisko systematyczne, przeżerające tę ich mafię od dna hierarchii aż po szczyt.
To jest zjawisko wręcz wprost wynikające z natury Kościoła: z indoktrynacji dzieci niemal już od urodzenia, z wpajania im wiary, że księża są wręcz “święci” z definicji, ze straszenia ich “piekłem”, z celibatu, z niezasłużonej ziemskiej potęgi i bogactwa tej mafii...
Jeśli dołączasz, to wiesz na co się piszesz. Nawet jeśli nie wiesz, prędzej czy później się dowiesz. I milczysz. Więc jesteś niewiele mniej winny od tych zwyrodnialców, którzy gwałcą dzieci.
Na twoim sumieniu jest krew ich kolejnych ofiar. Na twoich rękach jest krew tych, którzy nie wytrzymali tej traumy i odebrali sobie życie.
Brzydzę się wami. Na widok koloratki pięść mi się zaciska.
]]>Could it be, that Satan is the good guy?
Let’s start at the beginning: the Garden of Eden. God doesn’t want humans to eat from a tree that would give them “knowledge of good and evil”. What’s wrong about that knowledge? How can you expect humans to follow any moral standard, if they don’t have such knowledge? It’s Satan that sets the humanity free from the blind obedience and gives it the gift of knowledge.
On the other hand, it’s God who mixes up human languages and divides people out of sheer pettiness (Tower of Babel). It’s God who sends a massive flood on Earth, brutally killing almost all of its population, including innocent children and animals – all so that evil could be eradicated, which it isn’t. It’s God, who demands from Abraham a human sacrifice from his own son. It’s God who utterly destroys entire cities. It’s God who sends his people to conquer, to destroy, to kill, to rape and to enslave.
It’s God, who punishes the disobedient with eternal suffering. It’s God, who tortures Job and kills off his entire family, just to prove a point. It’s God, who kills all the innocent newborns of Egypt, just because their Pharaoh did something wrong – and he didn’t even want to do the wrong thing, but God has “hardened the Pharaoh heart”, free will my ass. It’s God who demands burnt animal offerings. It’s God who commands inhumane laws that demand death by stoning for things like homosexuality or adultery.
It’s God, who sent his own son to be tortured and die a horrible, painful death, just so that he can forgive humanity for having created them so flawed (sic!) and so that sin can be eradicated (which, again, it isn’t).
Want a full list of all the terrible things that God has done or commanded to be done throughout the Bible? Check out The “Cruelty” section of the “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible”. It’s 1312 points!
To quote Richard Dawkins:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Now: I believe neither in Santa Claus, nor in fairies, nor in God, nor in Satan. I can only describe them all as fictional characters. But if you’re a person, who really believes that the Bible is a true account of the past and a valid description of the universe (it’s not), then think about it:
Based on what the Bible tells you about those two characters, which one should you rather worship? That monster who commits countless atrocities, or a guy whose main “crime” is opposing him, accusing him, and bringing enlightenment to all the humanity?
]]>Today I read about a Polish catholic priest, who equates pedophilia with homosexuality and premartial sex, because it all stems from breaking the sixth commandment. Wow. Just wow.
Setting aside the fact that “the sixth commandment” only talks not about cheating on your wife/husband, and not, how the Church likes to interpret it: any sex-related stuff they don’t like you to do, like masturbation or porn... Setting that aside, and assuming that the commandment is indeed about any sex-related activity that doesn’t involve your lawfully wedded spouse, also if you don’t have any... You can’t possibly defend the claim, that all of those acts are morally equivalent. It’s a complex moral issue, not a black-and-white no-brainer.
And how about the origin of the universe or the origin of species? There is a complex explanation of how it all happened (complex and hard to find out, but also relatively easy to understand by common people). What does religion say about that? “God simply is, always was”. Really that’s it? And how did all the other things come to be? “God said so, and they appeared”. Oh, give me a break!
On the other hand, there’s teology – a master of spending decades on debating how many devils can fit on a pin.
The reality is simple: there’s not god. It’s a made up story. Enter a theologian: “But is it one god, three gods, or one god in three persons?”. Dude, you’re missing the point! You’re overcomplicating an issue that’s not an issue. “OK, but what is the exact relatioship between those three persons?”.
Man, chill. There’s no such thing. “OK, I hear you, but let’s think about how when a priest consecrates a host, is it literally or figuratively becoming the body of Christ?”. It’s simple. We can, and we have checked that. We’ve put the wafer under a microscope, did all the tests necessary on it, and we’ve concluded that not a single thing about it has changed during the “transformation”. It’s the same as when a child hands you a fist full of thin air, claiming it’s a cake – you pretend to eat it and you say it’s yummy, but it’s obvious to you that it’s not a fucking cake. “So you’re saying we should have a schism between those who think it’s literal and those who don’t?”.
It’s all so shamelessly made up...
]]>Religious people often threaten atheists with what will happen to them after death, if they don’t convert. Yeah, cause out of all the different made-up stories about what happens after death, it’s specifically yours that’s gonna be the right one. Right...
Let’s revert that question into “what if you’re wasting your life on religious bullshit”. It’s not as scary, because if it’s the case, you won’t notice you were wrong (that’s how being dead works). Still, your current life is the only one that you know for sure you’re gonna get. Are you really willing to waste it?
I’m gonna make a lot of assumptions about you, but please bear with me.
You’re spending an hour every week, and possibly way, way more than that on going to the church, sitting through services that are always almost exactly the same every time, that change nothing in your life, that provide no real value to your life.
You’re living with a constant feeling of guilt. You’re never good enough. You’re a sinner, you’re dirty, you were born a sinner and only faith can make you worthy. Your sexual preferences are an abomination. You love porn and masturbation so much, but every time you do it, it comes with a price of feeling like shit about it. You don’t enjoy those awesome and harmless pleasures as much as you could, because of that constant guilt.
You feel like shit every month when you realise it’s time for a confession. You don’t know that guy, you don’t trust that guy, but you’re supposed to tell him everything that’s the worst about you. You live in fear that if you don’t keep doing that thing, which you hate doing, you’re gonna end up in a pit of fire. Your head is busy thinking and re-thinking all you’re gonna say to that guy, instead of doing something useful, good for yourself, good for others.
Every time you learn something at school that contradicts what you’ve learned at church, you feel confused, and you spend hours trying to make both those “truths” true at the same time. You need to give up critical thinking, you can’t live up to your full intellectual potential.
You spend hours and days on prayers, you keep talking to your imaginary friend who never answers, you’re being told that repeating mantras like the rosary somehow works, even though it’s boring as hell and seems useless.
You spend plenty of time trying to reconcile god’s benevolence and omnipotence with all the evil in the world. You’re trying to reconcile all the contradictions in your holy book. You read a lot about different religions and denominations, trying to figure it all out. You feel like the whole world is some kind of a terrible puzzle...
Even when you finally manage to get out of that cult, you still get bombarded with religion. It’s in politics, it’s on the Internet, it poisons the minds of your friends, it brain-washes little kids... You have to speak up, so you keep “wasting” your time on religion – but finally, that time doesn’t seem wasted anymore.
If all of that doesn’t apply to you, congratulations! You’re a lucky person! It does apply to me, though. It was hard, but now I’m free. I can fully enjoy life in all the ways I want. Cause it’s the only life I’m ever gonna get.
]]>15 września ulicami mojego rodzinnego Szczecina przejdzie pierwszy w historii Marsz Równości. Trzymam kciuki za Lambdę, by wreszcie się to udało!
Tymczasem “środowisko patriotyczne i kombatanckie” śle do prezydenta Krzystka list, który jest tak absurdalny, że aż nie wiem, czy się z niego śmiać, czy położyć się i czekać na śmierć z zażenowania.
Podział na akapity najwidoczeniej autorów listu przerasta.
“wyrażamy zaniepokojenie”
Jeżeli kogoś niepokoi pokojowa demonstracja, która w historii sobie podobnych nie ma przypadków agresji uczestników, głoszenia haseł nienawiści, ani nic podobnego, to ja mu szczerze współczuję.
“Zauważamy poruszenie i negatywne odczucia mieszkańców Szczecina”
To wy sami jesteście tymi poruszonymi “mieszkańcami Szczecina”. Wielu się z wami zgadza, ale wielu też nie. To, że w 400-tysięcznym mieście znajdą się ludzie, którzy chcą dyskryminować osoby LGBTQ, nie jest ani odkrywcze, ani istotne. Nie próbujcie nikomu wmawiać, że reprezentujecie mieszkańców Szczecina, bo nie reprezentujecie.
“Uważamy, że każdy zasługuje na szacunek oraz na takie same traktowanie”.
Raczej “takie samo”... Ech, patrioci, poloniści za dychę.
Poza tym: wcale tak nie uważacie, i dobrze o tym wiecie. Popieracie prawa i inicjatywy jawnie dyskryminujące osoby nieheteronormatywne, wzniecacie nienawiść wobec obcokrajowców... To jest klasyczne “nie jestem rasistą, ale...”, po którym zawsze następuje coś rasistowskiego.
“przeciwstawiamy się promowaniu dewiacji seksualnych”.
Mam dla was newsa: my też. Na naszych transparentach nie ma tekstów w stylu “podglądanie ludzi uprawiających seks jest fajne” ani “no weź zgwałć jakieś dziecko”. Homo- i biseksualizm nie są dewiacjami. Nawet jeśli by były, nie da się ich promować – nikt, kto nie czuje pociągu do facetów, nie zacznie sypiać z facetami tylko dlatego, że zobaczył tęczową flagę. Nawet jeśli by się dało to “promować”, wcale tego nie robimy – promujemy tolerancję dla tych, którzy do LGBTQ należą, a nie “werbujemy nowych członków” 🤦
“podważania takich wartości jak Bóg, Honor i Ojczyzna”.
Ech... Ja osobiście jak najbardziej podważam istnienie “Boga” i sens przywiązania do loterii narodzin, jaką jest “Ojczyzna”, ale pierwsze słyszę, żeby marsze/parady równości coś takiego głosiły. Wasze narzekanie jest zupełnie nie na temat. Offtop. Bicie chochoła.
“tolerancjonizm będący de facto bezkrytyczną akceptacją zła, hedonizm i egoizm”
Puszczając już mimo oczu waszą nieumiejętność stawiania przecinków w oficjalnych pismach... Bezkrytyczna akceptacja zła? Serio w to wierzycie? Sam na swoim blogasku wielokrotnie pisałem o moralności ( Kodeks moralny niewolnictwa, Relatywizm moralny, ks. Piotr Pawlukiewicz – bardzo miła nienawiść, Pope Francis: I pinky swear, I won't be a criminal anymore!, Kodeks moralny niewolnictwa, ...), wcale nie bezkrytycznie, stanowczo potępiając czyny, które uważam za niemoralne. Nie znam ani jednego człowieka, czy to pośród LGBTQ czy nie, który “bezkrytycznie akceptowałby zło”, jakim jest na przykład morderstwo, kradzież, gwałt czy pedofilia.
“domagając się dla siebie nieograniczonej tolerancji”
Nikt się nie domaga dla siebie nieograniczonej tolerancji. Nikt nie chce stać ponad prawem. Geje nie chcą, żeby uchodziło im na sucho, no nie wiem, przechodzenie na czerwonym czy ekshibicjonizm. Chcą jedynie tolerancji wobec tego, że kochają osoby tej samej płci, i tyle.
“nie mają tej tolerancji dla nikogo innego”
Ja mam. Na przykład dla pozostałych homoseksualistów. Dla biseksualistów. Dla heteroseksualistów. Dla katolików. Dla buddystów. Dla Francuzów. Dla Syryjczyków. Dla leworęcznych. Długo jeszcze muszę wymieniać?
Środowiska lewicowe jak najbardziej mają pełno tolerancji, którą tak promują, a twierdzenie że tak nie jest to zwyczajne kłamstwo.
“z prowokacyjnego zachowania aktywistów LGBT”
Aktywiści LGBT tak prowokują homofobów, jak zebra prowokuje lwa, a dzieci kuszą księży-pedofilów.
“Brak reakcji ze strony miasta”
Ano właśnie, dochodzimy do chyba najważniejszego punktu: co niby miasto miałoby z tym fantem zrobić? Jakie są wasze żądania? Co chcecie osiągnąć? Aż tak głupi nie byliście, by żądać od prezydenta zakazu Marszu, bo najwidoczniej wiecie, że prezydent nie ma prawa zakazać pokojowej demonstracji. W takim razie czego właściwie od niego chcecie?
“skutkuje swoistym homoterrorem”
🤦
“oraz niepokojem społecznym”.
Tak, ale to wy go tworzycie! Grupa uśmiechniętych ludzi idąca przez miasto z tęczowymi flagami i domagająca się równego traktowania nie tworzy niepokoju społecznego. Za to grupa ludzi, którzy z czystej nienawiści wyzywają ich od “terrorystów”, albo grupa ludzi, która próbuje fizycznie zaatakować taki pokojowy przemarsz – jak najbardziej.
Wśród podpisów widzę podpis Tomasza Kancelarczyka, katolickiego księdza, gwiazdy ruchu anti-choice, asystenta kościelnego stowarzyszenia Civitas Christiana i założyciela Bractwa Małych Stópek. Tak się składa, że znam wiele osób, które są lub były członkami tych grup. I wiem, że co najmniej pięć spośród nich jest homo- lub biseksualnych, a zapewne sporo więcej.
Czy te osoby słyszały, co o nich sądzi ich (być może już były) duszpasterz? Czy pan Kancelarczyk zdaje sobie sprawę, że swoją nienawiścią bezpośrednio krzywdzi osoby głęboko wierzące i zaangażowane w jego “walkę o życie”?
Szczerze mówiąc, gdyby środowiska LGBTQ naprawdę wyglądały tak, jak ich malują w powyższym liście, sam bym protestował. Terroryzm? Narzucanie innym swojej orientacji? Podburzanie niepokoi społecznych? Propagowanie absolutnej bezkarności dla zła? Delegalizować to jak najprędzej!
Tyle że społeczność LGBTQ wcale tak nie wygląda, a marsze równości wcale takich rzeczy nie propagują. Powyższy list nie odnosi się do żadnego realnie istniejącego problemu, ani nie domaga się żadnych konkretnych działań. Ten list jest wyłącznie zrodzonym z nienawiści płaczem rozkapryszonego dziecka, które ryczy “ale ja nie lubię tych pedałów!”.
]]>Yeah, nice, you “won’t spare effort to create a culture able to prevent such situations from happening, but also to prevent the possibility of their being covered up and perpetuated”. Let’s be generous and believe you that you really mean it, and that somehow it’s gonna work out... What about all those predators and all those guilty of being an accessory in their crime (including yourself), who have already committed their atrocities? No big words about them, huh? About giving them away? About helping the prosecution?
And most importantly: what about the victims? Saying “sorry” and praying for them doesn’t mean shit. Your Church has thought me about the “5 conditions for a good confession” – wasn’t the last one about reparation? Do fucking anything meaningful to help all those people who your Church has hurt over the decades!
Also, you’re supposed to honestly admit your guilt. Have you? Have you really? You’re saying that “an ecclesial community” was “not where we should have been”. It was not a damn “community”, it was particular priests and bishops raping innocent children, and it was particular bishops and popes who were covering it up, in a manner that would put them in jail if only they were lay people! You’re blurring the responsibility, blaming all the scandals on “the community” or “the culture”... You make me sick!
You’re writing this letter as a response “to new reports of clerical sexual abuse and the ecclesial cover-up of abuse”. To the reports! You’re not responding to the abuse itself. You’re just scared that your buddies got caught! It’s not regret, it’s damage control. There’s no way you didn’t know about the whole thing in advance.
Hardly any other crime is as repulsive and as hurtful as child abuse. Covering up the crimes of pedophiles is just as evil. Every week the public learns about more and more cases, sees more and more evidence that the Catholic Church is basically a huge gang of pedophiles and pedophile-helpers!
Yet somehow it still has over 1.1 billion members worldwide! How the hell is that possible? Do people have absolutely no conscience to tell them that legitimising such a criminal organisation is plain evil? How can they sleep at night, knowing that their collection money might be being spent on moving pedophiles around?
Seriously, dear Catholics, how do you justify being a part of that?
]]>Mam do niego parę (retorycznych) pytań, bo chyba nie przemyślał za dobrze swoich żądań...
I’m sick and tired of biggots treating me hatefully because of my sexual orientation.
Especially, if they are catholic. Why? Because they have even less of a moral highground than the other biggots. Here’s the logic:
QED
]]>