Heathen T-shirts!

I’m both really amused and also incredibly tempted to get one of these (click on pic to link to online shops):

 

I been a’paintin’, I ‘ave.

Okay, by serious demand (Chris) and serious encouragement (Marty and LM) I went through the arduous task of scanning in my current/recent paintings on a scanner that is too small for them (so keep that in mind). The first one is an A6 canvas, so the whole painting is there, but the second is square format and was cut off. Also, the third is a long painting, I only managed to get in the portion that really matters, though I’m not quite finished. If I get a chance to scan in the full painting/take good quality photographs, I’ll change the pics in the future… but in the meantime… here’s a peep anyway

 

Icebreaker © VM 2009

Forces © VM 2009

Skin 01 © VM 2009

Ta da!

Yep, so I’m currently working on a big painting, and a self-portrait that I’m fighting every inch of the way. I’m keen to do more faces, the one above is just a picture on the cover of a book in my library. It was something to work with, and since I’m still learning, I don’t want to commit myself to anything that might put on the pressure i.e. painting the faces of people I know.

There’ll be more to come. I’m really enjoying painting as a hobby. What creative things do you do in your spare time/generally?

Why shouldn’t atheists marry?

Why do atheists marry? Hemant Metha at Friendly Atheist addressed this question from a Christian woman, in a post on the site a couple of weeks ago. Well, the answers should be clear to anyone thinking straight, but you can read them anyway in the comment section.

My question is, why shouldn’t atheists marry? Are there specific, worthy wins for being actively unmarried (what a concept!) or is it just shooting yourself in the foot if you do want to get married and don’t in order to make a statement? Is the payoff worth the action, or are you shouting into the wind?

Actively living as an atheist in a society that assumes many religious expectations and behaviours does require effort, sometimes effort that feels as frustrating to give as it would be to give the status quo any attention at all, because the point is that you don’t subscribe to it. You want to live your life separate from it. You don’t want it to be a framing concept. You just want to live your life.

So it’s bothersome, that in order to live a life free from religious pressure, oppression, repression and injustice, all those things need to be addressed anyway, even if it is just by firm and loud rejection. And since actions speak louder than words, our non-participation in certain religiously considered (whether they have religious foundations or not) events could be said to make the greatest statement, and have the greatest effect of all, on changing these perceptions and expectations.

Or it could mean that by our non-participation – acknowledging commonly held religious stances, especially on acts that are not foundationally religious – we’re actually sending out the wrong message and encouraging the perpetuation that things like marriage, for example, belong to religion.

What do you think? How much did/are you considering this in your own decisions as an atheist? Or as an atheist marrying an non-atheist, or a theist marrying an atheist?

Why Affirmative Action/B.E.E. doesn’t make sense

I would really hate to think the main reason I have my job is because of the colour of my skin. We recently had some unfortunate retrenchments at my work because times are tough, and thankfully I got to keep my job by what I imagine was a very small margin. I only hope that margin didn’t have anything to do with the colour of my skin. I can think of nothing more scary, deflating and horrifying than being here for a reason as inane as pigmentation. Personally, the idea that I’m only here because I fall into that group of ‘previously disadvantaged’ and meet a requirement, doesn’t make me feel fortunate or lucky, but ashamed and lacking confidence in my ability to do the job at hand.

Yes, I know the reasons and motivations behind B.E.E (Black Economic Empowerment) and Affirmative Action, but I can’t help thinking there has to be some kind of regulation on the process, and the first question asked should be “Can this person do the job?” Yes, there are then jobs that are deleted from the list because they require some kind of formal training that wasn’t afforded to the previously disadvantaged individuals. But I would tend to think then, that they’re the kind of jobs where it is almost impossible to learn from scratch, on the job without some kind of foundational education and basic understanding. And, in my opinion, if it’s that kind of job we’re talking about, then it’s likely more imperative to have someone who knows what they’re doing and how to do it properly at the helm rather than someone who’s floundering, or plain disinterest will cause more harm than create opportunity.
And when does ‘reconstitution’ end? Is there a period of trial, after which a person is evaluated on their growth and the potential they show, or does it come purely down to demographics and meeting quotas?
How is somebody who gets a job ever supposed to grow in confidence and ability with the notion of what (I believe, at least) is an unearned handout hanging over their head?
In the long term, it doesn’t seem to make sense if the projected outcome of such acts and programmes is to give a previously disadvantaged sector of the population the opportunity to increase self-esteem, self-motivation and increase quality of life for all. Pride is an essential ingredient in taking responsibility for our lives, but shouldn’t it come from what we do as opposed to what we are defined as? It seems a bit counterproductive trying to make up for the unfairness of the past by continuing to jam people into boxes according to the same criteria.
It seems a great number of the people in this country place more emphasis on their heritage, culture, traditions and language as a source of pride and motivation in life. I am a South African/Zulu/Xhosa/Indian/Afrikaner/Pommie/black/white/Christian/Hindhu/atheist, therefore I am proudly dot dot dot. It seems silly to be proud about, and find your bolstering identity in things you don’t have any choice over (I include religious stance here because many religious people embrace their religion as a part of their culture/heritage and therefore as inseparable from who they are. I include atheist because I believe no label we adopt signifies action more than our actions themselves).

I find cultural pride strange. I understand it’s role in place and time, but when I hear kids who weren’t even alive during apartheid talking about how ‘their people’ were wronged and ‘we didn’t have equal rights then, therefore we are entitled to this now’, it baffles and angers me because it relays an attitude of entitlement that actually doesn’t belong to them, if anyone.

Yes, so if my mother was allowed to live in a different area, with better resources and more varied opportunities, maybe she would have had more choices that having to study either teaching or economics, and maybe she would have travelled the world like she wanted to, and maybe I wouldn’t have grown up in the home I did, in the suburb I did, with the opportunities and resources I grew up with. But so what? How far down the line do we have to go to make amends for things that are long gone in the past when the present needs such urgent attendance? Two, three, four generations? Or do we look at people according to their needs first, with colour a secondary concern?
I know there are still business owners and other people in power out there who would prefer to have people of their own race and colour in their establishments and companies – but that is an issue that isn’t restricted to one group of people. But there are also fantastic B.E.E initiatives that actually educate and empower the people who really deserve to get ahead in life because they actively want it. They are presented with opportunities and they make the most of it – which is exactly what my mother did 27 years ago when she had a decision to make between two options and she chose what appeared to her, then, to be the lesser evil.

Equal opportunity does not equal outcome. Surely what you put in is what you should be getting out.
Surely we must have a better system in place than one which actively encourages laziness by placing emphasis on identity as a prime qualification for a post of any kind, without strict measure in place to make sure the person considered shows potential and personal ability or drive to get the job done?
I harbour no real fears about my own ability or potential but I do understand the effect affirmative action quotas have on me personally, and where the concept is doomed to fail, and I can’t help wondering – even as I hear more and more stories about government officials and employees who are unqualified, unskilled, unable and disinterested in their offices, making gratuitously more money than the people depending on them could ever imagine – what does this mean for the future of our country, the future we were all raving about 15 years ago?

The other day a B.E.E. official came to do evaluations at work with some of us. I was slightly surprised when I was called down to be interviewed by her – but then I have that silly habit of forgetting the colour of my skin. What it did do was call into question my perception of my own self-worth and ability. It didn’t last long, but it sure didn’t help either.

Diagnosis Religion: Parents sentenced for ‘prayer-death’ of their child

Madeleine Neumann, the youngest of Dale and Leilani Neumann died last year when her parents ignored her deteriorating health in the belief that their God would heal her through a test of ‘faith healing’. Instead, unsurprisingly her health deteriorated further until she finally died on the floor of her family’s living room, surrounded by people praying for her. Medical attention was only sought once she’d stopped breathing. To add to tragedy, it transpired that Madeleine had an easily treatable form of diabetes – a condition hundreds and thousands live with daily the world over.

Earlier this week, after months of trial, both parents have been sentenced to 6 months each in prison. Charged with reckless homicide, each is to spend one month a year over 6 years in prison, and serve 10 years probation. The sad thing is the couple have 3 other children, all in their teens. I imagine the psychological effects of this even in their lives will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Their parents, in a display of religious solidarity and faith, I no doubt, have never shown remorse for their actions. In fact, they continue to trust in their god, and Dale Neumann had only this to say about his sentencing:

“I am guilty of trusting my Lord’s wisdom completely. … Guilty of asking for heavenly intervention. Guilty of following Jesus Christ when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying my God,” he said.”

“Dale Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, told reporters the couple continues to trust in God.
“We live by faith,” he said after the sentencing. “We are completely content with what the Lord has allowed to come down, but he is not done yet.”

Full article here.

When I read that, I wanted to punch something. Then I realised that these people are not mentally ok. They’ve been brainwashed by religion to the point that turning back seems unthinkable. I suppose if I had that much ‘faith in god’ to watch my child dying and do nothing, then I too probably would be in denial about my actions. I probably would question the existence and nature of my god even less. After all, imagine if the Neumanns had to face the facts: that their failure to gain medical attention for their child resulted in her painful, prolonged illness and ultimate death – as well an untold trauma for their other children – and that it could possibly be for nothing after all.

It’s an extreme case, though perhaps not as extreme as this mother who stabbed her toddler to ‘get rid of the demons’, or this couple who’s toddler died of a treatable infection. Most rational people will easily identify behaviour such as this as child abuse, but for the religious involved it was about a test of faith.

And I think it’s that last bit that makes me understand better than I would like to why people like Dale Neumann, despite being at the centre of this tragic story, still cling to their religious beliefs, because as extreme (?) an example as it may be, everyday ‘normal’ religious believers do exactly the same, except their manifestations of faith don’t result in the death of their own children.

Why? I’ve addressed this question in a previous post here.

The point is, it seems like a deviation from the norm, when really it’s just an extreme form of expressed religious belief which has resulted in tragedy and subsequent media coverage. Because it doesn’t hit the news when Jo Reg ‘faiths’ on getting the money he needs to go on a church camp and it doesn’t work out, or when Godly Woman ‘faiths’ on God bringing her a suitable husband but stays miserably single anyway.

But I’ve seen reactions in these kind of situations that echo of Dale Neumann’s comment about God not being ‘done yet’. It would be too easy to say it’s a get out of jail free card for him, but I think it’s more than that. It’s just a way the delusion serves itself. Believing in a God who cannot fail, where apparent failure only signifies some greater mystical truth and meaning we ‘can’t understand’. When you really think about it that way, it isn’t difficult to imagine all the possibilities available for damaging lives. The Neumanns are just one extreme.

Imma let you finish, but Julius Malema is the biggest douchebag of 2009, hands down.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, the whole world knows the story (or should I say ongoing saga) about Caster Semenya and Athletics South Africa, and the gender-testing debacle that occurred almost immediately following the 18 year olds record-breaking gold medal win a couple of weeks ago.

The incident induced a flurry of controversy, both over the subject of gender as well as the rules regarding gender abnormalities on the sports field. Most tragically of all, it thrust a young women into the center of a world-wide furor during whatt was supposed to be one of the most uplifting moments of her athletics career – and then humiliated her with it’s insensitivity by revealing the very personal results of tests – tests that should never have been demanded in the first place – to virtually the whole world before she herself ever had a clue of the outcome.

Whether or not Caster should have been allowed to participate as a woman in athletics is not the real problem at hand – or at least, it shouldn’t be primarily. The problem is the way in which this issue was handled by the people in charge, and then, with the resulting mayhem, the way it’s been handled by the public and officials since. It’s been an embarrassment to South Africa, and to most people with hearts the world over who would like to think humanity has come a little further from pointing at figures and shrieking “But you can she’s a girl!”

By now most people have heard that Caster actually underwent gender testing before the race that scored her her gold win, as well as Athletics South Africa boss Leonard Chuene denial, then admission to the allegations. What does this mean? Plain and simple, Chuene lied, and his lie cost an innocent young person their humane privacy and decency. ASA were well aware of the gender anomalies present in Caster’s makeup, and had to know what the outcome of this could be. Yet she was allowed to perform in the race, with ensuing predictable chaos. His excuse for the lie? He was trying to ‘protect’ Caster, and could not deny a promising South African participant the opportunity to take home gold.

The inherent selfishness present in this decision, I should like to think, is obvious to all. Yet ASA has failed to fire Chuene for his blatant show of muddled ethics and lack of foresight (really, what did he think was going to happen when Caster hit the winner’s podium? Within seconds of her advancement in the race, rumours were already flying rife) and now South Africa’s political equivalent of Kanye West, Julius Malema, is once again, against all odds an rumour of sanity, making news headlines with his cries of support for Chuene.

What the fuck Malema has to do with anything is really anyone’s question, but as things go, clearly he will remain the posterchild for South Africa’s political arbitrariness and failure in this period of history, as far as I am concerned. The very idea that he has a headline position today for threatening to ‘mobilise society’ against Nedbank, one of the larger sponsors of ASA who have retracted their support following the negative publicity surrounding the ASA, is too asinine to be true. I check the calendar. No, it is not April 1st. It’s just Julius, and the South African media making the most of a monkey. Oh gawd, I said the ‘m’ word. I am a racist bitch with white-supremacist aspirations. Oh wait – that’s right – I’m not white. A little like how Chuene’s lies, and Nedbanks withdrawal from the sponsorship role, have little to nothing to do with racism or the racist agendas Malema is convinced every non-ANC supporter (out to subvert the new black leadership, of course) harbours.

Too asinine to be true, but the evidence is there nonetheless – as if we could ever forget Malema’s threat in a similar vein, earlier this year, that time against fast-food fried chicken franchise Nandos, for their tongue-in-cheek advert involving a familiar puppet. Malema seemed convinced then that he somehow had the power to mobilise an entire country against a fast-food outlet merely on the premise of his own offense – and now he’s extended his mighty arm as the president of the ANCYL, poised to slap Nedbank with national shunning executed by his subjects – I mean – all South Africans. In fact – he will mobilise us to do just that.

Either this guy has the most serious case of narcissicism visibly present in a public figure at this moment in time, or any moment now, someone is going to jump out from behind a palm tree and yell ‘jokes on you!’ – and we will all be relieved to discover that he really is just an idea for comic relief gone horribly, horribly wrong, and behing the scenes intelligent people have actually been making a difference that counts. I promise you, all will be forgiven.

But meanwhile, it seems we are resigned to ever-more cries of ‘racism’ everytime people have an objection to the decisions made by people who should have known better in the first place. And the saddest part is, that for all his swollen-chested bleating about ‘that poor girl’ Malema has managed to take advantage of publicity to berate the South African public for having their ‘racist agenda’ behind every thought he doesn’t agree with, instead of actually making a difference in Caster Semenye’s life. We are still waiting for ASA to provide her with the money promised.

Meanwhile, Julius gets airtime. And that, as far as I am concerned, is the clearest sign of What The Fuck Is This Country Coming To. Apparently I shouldn’t take Malema so seriously, but perhaps my rage is misread. I am not surprised that people like Malema exist in our country, but what really gets me livid is the amount of media coverage people like him get. Of course, this entire post serves as an ironic tribute to that. Still, if anything, I want to make it clear. He is not an ambassador for my country, or myself.

Atheist Blogger threatened

Mark at Proud Atheists is known for saying it the way he sees it, and it seems he’s attracted something more than the usual spitting fundie in response to a post about the blogs first anniversary:

Gabriel Tanejo
godisalmighty@yahoo.com
70.90.175.14
Submitted on 2009/09/20 at 6:39pm

Yes, happy first and LAST anniversary.

Your sins are too mighty to repent for, our Father will send you all to hell when you die! I will hack into this website and destroy it; and find your personal information too, so I can blow up your house—but your destiny is so fucked up that I don’t know why I would bother! I may, however, hunt down your friends and family and slaughter them—that would cause you great pain, would it not? I have gotten signs from God that approve of doing this to all fucking atheists! Someday you may find a gun at your head, or cyanide in your drink, or a grenade in your home—but I will kill you, make no mistake! The sooner you go to your eternal punishment, the better!

Full story at Proud Atheists.

Mark has tracked down the sender’s IP address (available at post above) and called the FBI.

Our own ‘Animal farm’: News24

Our own ‘Animal farm’: News24: MyNews24: YourStory.

The country’s youth, especially white youth, must defeat racism and defy stereotyping, the ANC has said following the UFS’s announcement of fully integrated residences. After hearing about these comments made by the ANC about the white youth of South Africa I felt a sudden sense of urgency to express myself on this platform. The way the ANC criticise racial stereotyping and then use this stigma to hold the white youth responsible and accountable for the majority of racism reeks of prejudice and in essence is unconstitutional.

So in other words, the white youth must stop their racist attitudes and delusions of grandeur entrenched in them by their neo-Nazi forefathers. According to the ANC racism is our fault, we apparently invented it and we are the only racists in South Africa. A comment like this is racist in itself and totally indicative of the ANC’s rampant hypocrisy and racial stereotyping. They keep power by constantly magnifying our differences.

Wayne G.

(Click link above to read the rest of this article)

I couldn’t agree more with this guy. I can think of a few more young South Africans who aren’t white who would agree with him (I’m one of them). The racist matrix in which everything South African seems to be drowning is driving the younger generation crazy. It’s take 15 years after apartheid for the truth to come to the surface in such a raw manner: Racism in South Africa is anything but dead. It’s a pity since our country has had so much support and pride from the rest of the world as well as within it’s borders for what is known as one of the greatest turnarounds in history, only to be shown up for weakness 15 years later.

Here’s the truth, world: Mandela and his comrades – black, white, Indian, coloured and everything in between – fought a great fight to give this country a chance to be a model of humanity and peace, but complacence, an inability to move forward and a huge sense of entitlement based on victim-mentality (passing from generation to generation) has made us, and the efforts of our forefathers into a mockery. I have flown the South African flag with pride for many years as people predicted our doom and downfall, so it’s a bitter pill to swallow, saying that this year I have been anything but proud of South Africa. I wish it weren’t so.

I can say with confidence that I don’t only speak for myself here, but for a lot of young South Africans tired of this destructive culture that is lingering around like a nuclear fall out, infecting everything it touches. We are the average Joe in the street living next door to each other, talking normal talk, watching our kids play together, mourning our loved ones killed by violent crime, working together, learning each others names and slowly integrating naturally because deep down we all know it is the normal thing to do. We don’t need to be reminded about what colour we are, we can see for ourselves. All racial stereotyping does is magnifies our differences and alienates us further. The media should take responsibility and stop reporting the differences and embrace the similarities we as a nation share.

Hear hear.

The Bro-mance.

I’ve always found men’s contact-sport to be a little, er… homoerotic. Straight male friends reading this, don’t drop your rugby ball just yet – I’m not saying if you play contact sport, then you’re gagging for some other man-on-man action – but that it occurred to me it probably seems this way (and not just to me, mind you) because physical contact between men is (mostly) such a awkward issue.
Pats (thumps) on the back are ok. A quick, thumping hug accompanied by a hrrumph of happiness is acceptable between good friends. High-fives. Fist-bumps. That sort of thing. Being a girl who’s spent a lot of time surrounded by guy-friends, I’ve more than once experienced the above (along with the enlightening topics of conversations guys have when there are no women in their presence, or they’ve forgotten you’re a woman. I don’t know which is more frightening…), much to the detriment of my shoulders, head and ribs.

You might be wondering what prompted this line of thought, and this is it.

A gallery of pictures of the South African Springbok rugby team frolicking on the beach. And before you think this is some strange type of girl-porn thing, know that when I clicked the link on the news website, it took me straight to the sport section.

I have good reason to believe at least one of the men in that picture are quite, quite straight (not that sexual orientation has very much to do with sexual curiosity or even desire). I’m new to the rugby world, so if someone is married etc. don’t hold this thought spark against me. It’s just a very jovial portrait of physically expressed man-love. In the non-romantic way. Is this because it’s more comfortable to do this under the cover of sport?

I heard a comedy short on the radio the other day. Peter Russell talking about being a Canadian Indian travelling to India for the first time – he thought he was ‘really Indian’ until he arrived in Bombay and realised just how different his cultural upbringing was. He was amazed (and offended) to see ‘grow-ass men holding hands and walking down the street’. I myself am not sure if the hand-holding he saw was a cultural thing or just a couple out for a stroll but right here on South African soil it’s pretty commonplace to drive by a pair of young black men holding hands and walking down the road. It really is a cultural thing, though of course that’s changing.

The recent popularisation of the term ‘bro-mance’ has put the sweet spin on male friendships, but hearing a friend from New-Zealand describe plans between two platonic male friends as a bro-date gave me a whole new insight into the culturally sensitive issue of male bonding and physical contact, in a geographical context. I cannot bring myself to imagine a heterosexual South African male ever comfortably referring to dinner plans with a friend as a bro-date – except maybe under duress, while waving around a hunk of steak, roll of boerewors and six-pack of Black Label beer.

So, from my mostly male readership, I’m wondering – where are you from, and what’s acceptable or at least common displays of affection and friendship between men there? Would you ever use the terms ‘bro-mance’ or ‘bro-date’ seriously, or even light-heartedly?

Humanity, Religion, Service and Selfishness.

Religious groups like to claim the PR for acts of service to mankind – and surely too, it’s true that in the aftermath of a disaster, churches and other religious bodies come to the rescue as often the only bodies outside dedicated relief groups. But to be honest, the church is at large a social organisation. It exists for the people by the people, regardless of chosed doctrine, or perhaps in some measure because of it.

I know too many people who serve humanity ‘out of love for God’ without proselytizing, to say that the churches humanitarian efforts are not in any way altruistic, at least on an individual basis. That being said, the motivation of a few individuals cannot override the purpose of a churches involvement in social welfare – and that is to spread a message about their God. When a church can help the despondent without taking advantage of every opportunity for religious PR, even within their own ranks, when a church can help people without the special privilege of lowered/non-existent taxes, then I will admit that at least that church is attempting to live their beliefs without enforcing them in return for aid.

The truth is that any doctrine of service that gets it’s motivation from an idea of predeterminisation, destiny, election and the special love of a powerful God, is selfish.

Selfishness as a tool for survival in the evolving world as well as our day to day endeavours is essential. That the church institution has survived so long, is not a sign of divine appointment but of it’s inherent human-ness. It is selfishness. To understand this, all we need to do is look at the the heart of churches: “We are here to serve the community, and God.” But who are the community? And who does ‘God’ serve? Perhaps the most baffling display of this wilful ignorance in the pursuit of doctrine, is the charismatic/evangelical church’s notion of a humorous God whose displays of personal, individual affection often comes at the expense of one or many other human-beings (ironically, all ‘Gods children’).

It is selfish because it says ‘God has got a plan for me, not to harm me but to prosper me. To woo me, to love me, to advise me and comfort me. And make a way for me, and bless me, because I love Him.” Me. Me. Me. And for some reason, not the other 100 000+ starving Africans who may or may not go to church on a Sunday.

A woman described the way her boss insisted she work on a day she had specifically taken leave for to attend a special family function. After making it difficult for her to go, she agreed to come work on her day off the moment she got back from the function. When she returned to work, however, it transpired that all the facilities and machinery at the work place were out of order, and all staff and customers had been sent home. Apparently this is the humorous side of God, in showing his love for his child – giving her the day off, and teaching her boss a lesson, by depriving and inconveniencing other people of their plans and requirements. And all marvel and titter at the homely nature of God’s love.

When I hear stories like these, I wonder how it’s possible for someone to believe in a loving God who wants to save all people. It only makes it more clear that when it comes to creating the image of God, man does so in his own. It appears God is as selfish as the rest of us. And quite frankly, that makes sense to me in a world that depends on some level of selfishness for survival.

But really, none of this should be the point. The point is that acts of service ultimately benefit ourselves, and that’s why we do them. To help another person in need is to gain a sense of purpose, of value, of some moral or emotional satisfaction, regardless of the motivation we delude ourselves with. Helping someone else gives us a sense of satisfaction because in order to survive, as individuals and as a species, we need cohesion and empathy. We should help others because we want to – yes, it’s selfish, but its honest.