wiegraf: It's beautiful. Maybe not as scathing as I'd like, but still beautiful. Where's it from?

I meant to state that and forgot. A blogger Opeyemi Ogunlad on ynaija

jayriginal:

You're right. I'm not sure though that the co-pilot is Jesus.

Jesus? Nah. τ̣̣ђё co-pilot has got to be an atheist screaming give em proof. It'll cost U̶̲̥̅̊ nothing to give 'em proof U̶̲̥̅̊ fuckhead.....errrr,god.

Ah Frosbel,
I hail. This is cognitive dissonance in overdrive. More grease, thou christian apologists and your crazy rhethorics.

Chrisbenogor: Yo,
Most people like to talk the talk but not walk the walk. It takes two and its a very very dangerous game if you are considering it, but like the best answer to almost all questions in the world "it depends".
It depends on you, what do you want for your kids? would you be also comfortable with him practicing his religion? Would you understand when he does not have to eat for the month of Ramadan? Would you be able to bear his friends and family who are muslims? Would you understand when he has to take wife number two?
It depends on him, what does he want for the kids? Would he be fine when you make Afang and Ekpang on a beautiful sunday in the Ramadan? Would he be fine when your pastor visits and says let us rise for prayers? Would he be fine with your kids saying the Lords prayer?

Religion is not easily separated from our day to day lives, when you get married you "marry" your lives together and then it takes a fine balancing act to make things work. Plus religion is one of those things were people tend to get "Damascus" Moments often, he might not want a second wife now but sooner or later he might "fall off his horse" see a shining light and want it. Same applies to you.

Remember, its not just talking the talk. Its walking the walk.

Chrisbenogor;
Thank U̶̲̥̅̊ for your comment. U̶̲̥̅̊ are τ̣̣ђё only sensible person in this house of crazed dementia.

I'm glad i opened this thread. It has served to remind me what a closeminded bunch of Bigots we have in this country. And no surprise,the bible in particular is τ̣̣ђё best lesson in religious intolerance. I have seen so much nonsense here i can't even think of any one person worthy of addressing.

U̶̲̥̅̊ r all a bunch of intolerant haters who believe it'ڪ "love my god or be damned". Some idiot here even went on to say τ̣̣ђё guy was "servicing her"-how very crude and pretentious and downright vituperative and stupid. As though it'ڪ a given that they were "servicing". U̶̲̥̅̊ people and your various "my god is better than yours" are all retarded and disgusting. It would take a real pervert and degenerate mind to enjoy their mythical heaven when others like me are supposedly burning in hell. What a bunch of freaks though!!

Bleep U̶̲̥̅̊ roundly.

History is replete with examples of majorities who have imposed their honestly and dearly held cultural or religious beliefs on an unwilling minority, very often with terrible consequences.

On Tuesday, 29th November 2011, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, took an unprecedented step in the Federal Government’s quest to protect all right thinking and godly Nigerians from the scourge of homosexuality which apparently threatens to overwhelm the Nation. The Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill (‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’) has now been passed by the Senate. The House of Representatives is yet to pass the Bill, but it will likely do so in record time. Presidential assent is also very likely, so soon all Nigerians will be liberated from the menace of homosexuality and same sex marriage. Sounds like the perfect pitch.

In his remarks after the passage of the Bill, Senator David Mark, president of the Senate, said that “same sex marriage is against our own culture and tradition and against our beliefs.” I doubt that a great many Nigerians would disagree with him. Islam and Christianity both leave absolutely no room for ambiguity with regards to homosexuality. The Bible expressly condemns homosexuality as an abomination before God. It is denounced as detestable in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27. In Leviticus 20:13, the penalty for homosexuality is death by stoning. Homosexuality is also strongly condemned in the Qu’ran at 7:80-1; and 29.28.29, as well as in several Hadiths of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

The (‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’) attacks homosexuality on multiple fronts, the first of which is same sex marriage and civil unions. The Marriage Act fails to clearly define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The (‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’) corrects this apparent omission and unequivocally declares a valid marriage to be between a man and a woman. The (‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’) also prescribes stiff penalties for contracting or celebrating same-sex marriages. Any person who purports to contract a same sex marriage will liable to imprisonment for a term of 14 years. Anyone who aids or abets the celebration of such a marriage, such as presiding over or witnessing it, will be liable to imprisonment for 10 years. The (‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’) goes even further to prohibit and criminalize the registration of gay clubs, societies and associations, processions and meetings, public displays of same sex amorous relationships all of which are now punishable, upon conviction, by imprisonment for a term of ten years.

The passage of the ‘(‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’) by the Senate has so far proved to be wildly popular. Nigeria is ostensibly a very religious country and the vast majority of Nigerians, being ‘decent and morally upright’ Christians and Muslims, are in support of the Senate’s attempt to defend our beliefs and culture from homosexuals and the western powers who seek to impose their values upon us.

Despite the wave of approving comments that have followed the ‘Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill’, anti-homosexual legislation is not new to Nigeria. Section 214(1) of the Criminal Code Act has long prohibited ‘carnal knowledge against the order of nature’, which is punishable by imprisonment for seven years. Section 217 of the Criminal Code Act prohibits acts of gross indecency between males, punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 years. These provisions have been a part of our penal code since 1st June 1916.

The (‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’) is a curious legislation. It attempts to cure a mischief that does not exist. Same-sex marriage is not a problem that keeps the average Nigerian up at night tossing and turning, worrying about the rising number of gay clubs, and non-existent gay weddings. The average Nigerian homosexual is too busy trying to avoid being victimized or discriminated against to even begin to contemplate the possibility of gay marriage. In fact, the vast majority of homosexual Nigerians do not live openly gay lifestyles. They blend in, they pretend, they are discreet, they get married, they have children, they hide.

The rationale for the (‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’) is even more peculiar; to protect our beliefs and culture. Protecting culture and religious belief is not a proper basis for exercising legislative power, which according to the constitution is to be exercised in order to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the country. Furthermore, culture and cultural practices are neither universal nor are they binding. Cultural practices are in fact not always salutary. There are many cultural practices in Nigeria which are repugnant to good conscience and natural justice, many of which have been discontinued and many of which continue to exist.

The Osu caste system and trial by ordeal are a just two examples of morally repugnant cultural practices. There are numerous others. The idea that the culture or the cultural practices of the majority is inherently good and desirable or that the views of the majority can be imposed on dissenters is factually inaccurate and quite nonsensical. History is replete with examples of majorities who have imposed their honestly and dearly held cultural or religious beliefs on an unwilling minority, very often with terrible consequences.

Slavery was once almost universally considered to be morally permissible, except of course, by the poor unfortunates who found themselves enslaved and held as chattels. So strong was the consensus on the morality of slavery that the Bible was frequently used to justify the continuance of this practice even by people who considered themselves good, upright, moral Christians. Slavery apologists may have been in the majority, but they were wrong.

Racial discrimination against blacks was morally justifiable in many societies and was sometimes institutionalized through legislation but is now acknowledged to be morally wrong. Inter-racial marriage or sexual relations between blacks and whites were once illegal in the United States and South Africa, on the basis of religion or culture. The moral zeitgeist has since moved forward, as it invariably does, and what the majority once considered perfectly morally upright is now universally despised and condemned as evil.

It is commonly and confidently asserted that homosexuality and same sex marriage are alien to African culture. This is a willfully false assertion and is completely and rather easily rebutted by available facts and anecdotal evidence.

The issue, however, is not whether one religious belief or cultural practice is right and another wrong. The issue is simply that the majority has no right to impose its religious and cultural views on the minority, no matter how dearly the majority of people may hold these views. The idea that the moral, religious or cultural views of the majority is some sort of barometer for what our collective morality must be is simply erroneous, chauvinistic and based on the inability to tolerate and respect the right of other people to freely make their own choices.

It is commonly and confidently asserted that homosexuality and same sex marriage are alien to African culture. This is a willfully false assertion and is completely and rather easily rebutted by available facts and anecdotal evidence. Homosexuality has always existed in various parts of Nigeria and pre-dates colonialism. A simple Google search will convince any of the people who ignorantly make this assertion and there are quite a few scholarly articles which have studied this phenomenon. See ‘The Politics of Homosexuality in Africa’ by Ben Anderson, for example. Granted, homosexuality in Africa is a complex issue and is not necessarily synonymous with Western concepts of homosexuality. Despite the fact that Northern Nigeria is heavily influenced by Islam, homosexuality exists there and is not at all a function of any western influence. However, the Yan Daudu subculture in the North is perhaps an example of homosexual acts in an African cultural setting, even if these acts are largely ritualistic or influenced by pecuniary considerations.

Igbo culture also recognizes, in some instances, same sex unions even if these are not homosexual in nature. This is generally where a woman who is already married but unable to bear children marries another woman with a view to raising children for her husband via proxy. My point is not that homosexuality exists in Nigeria in the same way that it is permissible in the West, but that to say it is alien to our culture is untrue and an oversimplification of a complex issue.

Anyone who doubts that homosexuality exists should consider the large number of convictions of men for engaging in homosexual acts under Sharia in the North and face the simple fact that this practice exists and is not at all related to any Western or imported influence.

“None of us has a right to impose our religious or cultural views on others, even if we earnestly believe it is for our or their benefit.”

The most unfortunate problem with the ‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’ is that it appears to have been passed in gross ignorance of even the most elementary and basic guaranteed constitutional freedoms.



Religion is another unfortunate argument that has been used to justify the ‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’. Nigeria is a secular state, irrespective of whether the vast majority of its people profess to be religious. Religious beliefs are personal and everyone has a right to profess whatever religion they choose, or even no religion at all. Personal religious beliefs, no matter how strongly held, bind the individual alone. No matter how dearly I may choose to believe that homosexuality is a disgusting, evil, unnatural practice, it does not give me a right to impose this view on others who may disagree or who may even agree but nonetheless decide to indulge in it. Christians and Moslem cannot decide to legislate their morals for everyone else, no matter how strongly and dearly they hold these morals and beliefs. No matter how deeply you care for the souls and salvation of homosexuals they have the God given right to choose how they want to live and the sexual practices they want to indulge in, even if the majority of us frown upon these choices.

As far as I am aware, everyone is free to make their own moral choices, whether good or bad, so long as they are prepared to accept the consequences. Religious chauvinism simply cannot be a basis for enacting legislation. If this were the case we wouldn’t need the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; we could simply adopt the Bible and the Qu’ran as our constitution. If religion is a valid basis for enacting legislation then the Senate really ought to comply with Leviticus 20:13 and amended the sentencing provisions in the ‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’ to condemn any person convicted under any of the offences in the Bill to death by stoning.

The most unfortunate problem with the ‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’ is that it appears to have been passed in gross ignorance of even the most elementary and basic guaranteed constitutional freedoms.

None of us has a right to impose our religious or cultural views on others, even if we earnestly believe it is for our or their benefit. Discrimination against homosexuals is popular, it is morally righteous but, like all other forms of discrimination, it is wrong.

Either the Senate is woefully uninformed of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or it has decided that religion and culture are now superior to the Constitution. The Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Chapter II of the Constitution are not justiciable but they are nonetheless an obligation of the Federal Government to the people of Nigeria, irrespective of their sexual orientation and religious or cultural beliefs. Section 14(1) clearly states that Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and social justice.

Apparently, homosexuals are not entitled to social justice. Section 15(2) states that national integration is to be actively encouraged and discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties, is to be prohibited. This apparently also does not apply to homosexuals.

Section 15(3)(d) states that it is the duty of the Nigerian State to promote or encourage the formation of associations that cut across ethnic, linguistic, religious or other sectional barriers. This provision apparently does not extend to homosexuals. Section 15(4) obliges the State to foster a feeling of belonging among the various people of the country. This also apparently does not apply to homosexuals. Section 17(10) states that the social order in Nigeria is to be founded on the ideals of freedom, equality and justice. Homosexuals are apparently not deserving of any of these things.

The ‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’ impressively tramples upon even more constitutional guaranteed freedoms in its relentless march to liberate us all from the scourge of homosexuality. Section 38 of the Constitution grants every person in Nigeria the fundamental and inviolable right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (or to abstain from religion), including freedom to change his religion or belief and to manifest and propagate this belief.

Section 39 guarantees the right of every person to freedom of expression, including to hold opinions (yes, even immoral ones!) and to receive and impart ideas (yes, even homosexual ideas) and information without interference. Section 40 guarantees the right to assemble freely and associate with other persons or belong to any association for the protection of his interests (including gay clubs, if they so choose).

Section 42 guarantees the right to freedom from discrimination, either expressly or impliedly, on the basis of origin, sex, religion or political opinion. Granted, these rights can be clawed back in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, but as I have tried to establish earlier, ‘public morality’ is neither objective nor are the moral views of the majority binding on the minority. There are nonetheless many who will argue that private consensual sexual relations are[b][/b][/b][i][/i][b] offensive to whatever their personal concept of what public morality ought to be. My response to this is simply that homosexuals are a part of the public and their personal morality cannot be discountenanced when deciding what amounts to public morality.

The ‘Same Sex Marriage Bill’ also violates numerous provisions of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights but in the final analysis this Bill is simply a blatant expression of discrimination against a minority on the basis of a sexual orientation that the majority find morally or culturally objectionable. Human beings have a visceral need to discriminate against those who are different from them. We discriminate on basis of gender, race, religion, religious denomination, ethnicity, class, age, educational background, skin complexion, appearance. It never ends. Justification is never lacking for discrimination, irrespective of the basis or specie of discrimination.

None of us has a right to impose our religious or cultural views on others, even if we earnestly believe it is for our or their benefit. Discrimination against homosexuals is popular, it is morally righteous but, like all other forms of discrimination, it is wrong!!!

dexmond: I want to complain about the unjust treatment meted out to me by the religion moderators. I did a well researched article on Muhammed. It was titled " Muhammed's obsession with woman" But to my utter amazement, wily Muslims did not allow it to stay. There was no abusive words, purely an academic exercise. It just goes to show that Muslims have many things to hide and we will continue to expose them.

Its nice to see people here with [color=#770077][/color]real issues for moderators. Jeez,i don't know what i expected when i got here but it sure is not the inane conversation,idle banter n witless questions that I've seen here.

[quote author=frosbel]As for me :

1. Will not enter into arguments with fundamentalists.

2. Will not force my point of view on others.

3. When loneliness comes , will form an atheist club to have a sense of belonging.

4. Will not keep referring to God when there is a narrow escape

5. Will eat , drink and be merry for tomorrow we die

6. When depression hits , will run to my GP for Prozac or Valium

7. Nothing will be right or wrong, everything goes, there will be no such word as depravity

8. Words like 'god dey' or 'god help us ' or Oh my god' or 'god please please do not let me die ' will be out of my dictionary

etc etc etc

Frosbel;
You were doing good until you got to the 7th and 8th points. if you think atheists are immoral people for whom any and everything goes, you are wrong. There is a right, there is a wrong but where atheists are different from the religious is that we do not need a god to be either. That is the very reason for which most shrink from declaring their atheism-the misguided notion that because you do not subscribe to a god who is hanging the promise of some frivolous eternity over you, or the threat of some burning hell-whatever, you lose a sense of values? Not true. Atheists simply have broken the yoke of being held to unrealistic and yet man-made standards. If you want to talk about morality, the christian god for instance is the most immoral creature i know who supposedly let his chosen-that in itself is a problem-ones kill other people, mostly women and children, rape, sacrifice their children, all sorts of things you cannot speak of in the same breath as morality. Moses descends the mount with tablets that say do not kill, then tomorrow their god is done wanking and asks them to go wipe out a whole land and it's people. Do people think? How can anyone make excuses for such a creature as this? So, if you need to hold up a bastion for morality, look beyond religion, particularly the more common ones. In line with morality, their originators do not pass muster. If you are christian, I AM BETTER THAN YOUR GOD!

On the 8th point, i'm just amused. Truth is we have these things almost encoded in our DNA. We have been saying oh god all our lives, we are not about to stop now. As a matter of fact, until you turn, u do not even realize how much these words are used as exclamations, rather than asking for any divine intervention. Hell,if i like a gospel song,i sing it. See? I said hell. Do i believe in hell? Haha! I like to say oh god too when i have sex. He'd have struck me dead by now if he could don't u suppose?

While cycling home today and daydreaming as I always do a curious thought arose. A thought which has probably already occurred to many but has somehow eluded me until today. The three Abrahamic religions have been fighting and persecuting each other for two millennia and currently still do. There were crusades, jihads, inquisitions, forced conversions, genocides, a multitude of wars, economic infringements; an endless list essentially. Today Christians are being persecuted in some Islamic nations, especially Iran. Christians and Muslims are approaching civil war in Nigeria. Muslims are being persecuted in Palestine, and Jews are persecuted in almost every Muslim state, they are not even allowed into some. Despite all this, I have seen a recent rather disturbing trend; they are all able to agree on one thing: atheists are evil and immoral. They somehow forget all previous transgressions and ignore current troubles to focus on the evil that is ‘militant atheism’. They are united in debates and protests, Rabbis are meeting Priests, Imams conversing with Pastors, Pastors discussing with Rabbis, and so on and so forth, all in the name of combating atheism and secularism. Even US Christians are also less frequently identifying themselves by their denominations such as Baptist, Anglican, Catholic, Mormon etc. but simply as Christian in a form of reactionary unity against secularism. The ironic and quite tragic thing is that it is we atheists who advocate the equal treatment of all beliefs and non-beliefs. A secular society tries to achieve just that, a government which rules over all its citizens equally regardless of their beliefs. Considering each religion preaches that they are religion of peace and tolerance then why are they rallying against an idea which prevents one religion persecuting another? Can it purely be because the idea of secularism is backed by people who don’t believe in a god? Or is it something much more disturbing, i.e. the need for each religion to be treated as special and s the one true religion. What will happen if they succeed in defeating secularism, will they return to the previous state of hostilities and mutual persecution? It is anybody’s guess but I do find it a curious thought that atheism and secularism are the only things that have been able to unite these religions since their foundations.

Interesting! I really do not know what to make of the big bang theory, with or without the intervention of any gods .

i hope you can pick τ̣̣ђё hint of sarcasm in my spiel. I understand exactly what you mean,as a friend aptly put it "people killing people over their imaginary friends". What i do mean is that in τ̣̣ђё absence of extremism,religion has it'ڪ place. It'ڪ not for nothing it'ڪ called τ̣̣ђё opium of τ̣̣ђё masses.

You cannot begin to imagine for how many,it is τ̣̣ђё threat of hell that keeps 'em sane, it'ڪ τ̣̣ђё promise of hope in their god,whatever that brings 'em from d edge of despAir. They believe dis shit,they need it and i say let them!!!. Not generalizing.

For you and i though,we do not need any of that. It is enough to do right. Cuz right is right,not because some sovereign yet terminally flawed being asked us to. But face it, if Most people didn't think they had a judgement day to answer on n a hell to face,damn!! τ̣̣ђё world would turn on it'ڪ face.

to whom it may concern above who asked what my guarantee is that my atheist husband would not cheat on me. Oh well,i don't know where that came from. Being an atheist is not guarantee that a person is good,just as a person being religious is not.

Inherent in that is part of my angst againt religious people. I do not need, nor have much respect for people who need τ̣̣ђё threat of hell or τ̣̣ђё promise of heaven to do what'ڪ right.

A moral atheist is a moral person indeed. His goodness is truly innate and of his/her own freewill. Religion is a good thing. It keeps people somewhat in check,i mean,imagine d world if people weren't afraid of an angry god staring wrathfully down at them. Yes,i like religion. Only,i do not need it to do what's right but let it stay because clearly,most people do.

You guys are making this thing personal. It isn't. Crusading for atheism makes it into a form of religion, the very thing i do not want or need. Atheism is not a religion. It has even been erroneously defined as "the belief that there is no god", showing u already the monotheist bias of the writer. This is wrong n we cannot have theist defining atheism for us. It is not a belief. It is a lack of it.

Still, for me, all i ask is that everyone accept the other for who or what they are or are not as the case may be. I do not try to convert the christian to atheism. It won't last. It has to come from deep within, a total inability to grasp the whole concept of "not everything can be explained, go with faith, u will understand in the sweet by and by....." and so on. I watch with horror, but i hold my peace. Trouble starts when the religious person starts to tell me how they are better than me by reason of their being religious and i not. Then i have it out with them. Until then,I am content to live and let live. As should everyone. Especially u the christians. Leave people alone. Do not wave your religion in my face, i wont my lack of one and there'll be peace. It's a big deal to u that i go to heaven. It's not a big deal to me that u believe in heaven. u are welcome to your heaven...whatever makes u sleep at night. See what i mean?

In saying all of this, i believe it's already clear why i do not believe. No evidence, too many contradictions. But i always say something, i do not know so i do not believe. The gnostic atheist is another matter. Mine is a default position. But i add, if on the off chance, ur god really does exist, i would ask of him if he is the self same person portrayed in the bible, particularly the old testament. If he is, then he is evil and i really don't wanna know him. And i want no part in his heaven. If the christian god is the figment of man's imagination, they did a very poor job of it cuz he really is a very unlikeable person. I'm done here.

Dear religious people, you forget that religion is all about copy and paste. U have been "copying" all your lives, from your parents, then your friends, to your churches, books, tv, everywhere, and now u are pasting everywhere...my pastor says, the bible says..... what do you say that is an original thought? Plus, you do not yet understand the concept of burden of proof. The atheist takes the default position that there is no proof, and as such we do not believe. We do not have to prove that there is no proof. You religious people claim you have the answers. The answer being Faith, that stupidly illusive thing which your god gives you and yet you are somehow supposed to get for yourself. If this isn't circular or nothing.

My summation. Your god is welcome to an honest conversation with me. Until then, there is no more proof of him than there is of Zeus and his croonies. second, if he does exist, his image is so mutilated that i wonder that he still knows himself. Man has created god, given him characteristics and put words in his mouth and called it the bible. Third, if again, ur god exists, i do not like him very much. He is partial, inefficient, insecure, chauvinistic and a lot of other non-admirable traits. So u see, we atheist rather be our own gods. If a god is no better than me, why should i bend my knee? You Guys!!!

Well, for me, the question is will i marry a religious person? Since i am an atheist myself. I really doubt it. There will be trouble later on, especially when the kids start coming. The reason i hesitate to say a categorical No, though is that atheists are some of the most free minded people. As such, the very reason for which i expect you to understand my godlessness is the very reason i understand ur godliness. As such, to every man his own, i do not judge. Still, there will be trouble later on. I prefer someone who believes...or does not believe as i don't, as the case may be. It's tidier.

Despite what you all who are thrashing this article say, there is a lot of merit here. I have said time and again that Paul was probably the worst thing that happened to a modern christian woman,If she chooses to, or isunfortunately tied to a man who decides to adhere to his bible teachings. And who can blame Paul. The bible at it's contradictory best made everyone equal and then time and again treats women as nothing, hell, it was always this and that number of men, not counting women and children. The bible is fraught with evidence of inequality. Paul simply followed the example he was set for millenniums by guess who!!! This is the problem of the Christians. I leave you to your god, the father of all immorality and chauvinism. At least as your bible will tell you. It's not i saying all this. you can read.

Like i keep saying, god, any of the gods, is playing golf somewhere and left humans to fend for themselves. Why won't they let him(or is it them) be? I would say this "unnamed" would look at the adherents to "unnamity"-let's call the religion that, with disdain. He's thinking i have given you guys all you need, how about some peace? Then i can see "unnamed" amused at all the antics that follow "in his name", i can hear him think "how pathetic". I can see him swing by from time to time, shake his head like damn, they do make a fine mess of things and go back to whatever.