sábado, outubro 30, 2010

Hoje existem apenas 300 baleias francas do atlântico norte e 99% das baleias azuis já foram eliminadas. Estes majestosos gigantes estão ameaçadas de extinção e seu caso está sendo usado como exemplo repetidamente. Mas na realidade, um terço de todas as formas de vida no planeta estão à beira da extinção.

O mundo natural está sendo esmagado pela atividade humana, poluição e exploração. Mas existe um plano para salvá-lo - um acordo mundial para criar, financiar e implementar áreas protegidas cobrindo 20% das nossas terras e mares até 2020. Agora mesmo, 193 governos estão reunidos no Japão para enfrentar esta crise.

Nós só temos 3 dias até o fim desta reunião crucial. Especialistas dizem que os políticos estão hesitantes em adotar um objetivo tão ambicioso, mas que um clamor público mundial poderá fazer a diferença, mostrando aos governantes que os olhos do mundo estão sobre eles. Clique para assinar a petição urgente e encaminhe este email amplamente - a mensagem será entregue diretamente para a reunião no Japão:

http://www.avaaz.org/po/o_fim_das_baleias/?vl

Ironicamente 2010 é o Ano Internacional da Biodiversidade. Os nossos governos já deveriam estar caminhando para "uma redução significativa da taxa atual da perda da biodiversidade". Eles falharam repetidamente, cedendo para a indústria e trocando assim a proteção das espécies por lucros limitados. Nossos animais, plantas, oceanos, florestas, solos e rios estão sufocando sob fardos imensos de super-exploração e outras pressões.

Os seres humanos são a principal causa desta destruição. Mas podemos reverter a situação - já salvamos espécies da extinção antes. As causas do declínio da biodiversidade são vastas e salvá-la vai exigir uma guinada das promessas vagas, sem clareza de quem financia a proteção, para um plano ousado, com fiscalização rigorosa e financiamento sério. O plano de 20/20 é justamente isto: os governos serão forçados a executar programas rigorosos para garantir que 20% das nossas terras sejam protegidas até 2020, e para isso aumentar drasticamente o financiamento.

Tem que ser agora. Em todo o mundo o quadro está cada vez mais sombrio - há apenas 3.200 tigres na natureza, os peixes dos oceanos estão se esgotando e nós estamos perdendo fontes de alimentos ricos para a monocultura. A natureza é resistente, mas temos que prover espaços seguros para ela se recuperar. É por isso que esta reunião é fundamental - é um momento decisivo para acelerar ações baseadas em compromissos claros para proteger nossos recursos naturais.

Se os nossos governos sentirem a pressão esmagadora do público para serem corajosos nós podemos convencê-los a aderirem ao plano de 20/20 nesta reunião. Mas para isto vamos precisar que cada um de nós que está recebendo esta mensagem, faça-a ecoar até chegar na convenção no Japão. Assine esta petição urgente abaixo e depois encaminhe-a amplamente:

http://www.avaaz.org/po/o_fim_das_baleias/?vl

Este ano os membros da Avaaz tiveram um papel fundamental na proteção dos elefantes, defendendo a proibição da caça às baleias, e garantindo a maior Reserva Marinha do mundo nas Ilhas Chagos. Nossa comunidade tem mostrado que podemos definir objectivos ambiciosos - e vencer. Esta campanha é a próxima etapa na batalha essencial para criar o mundo que a maioria de nós em todos os lugares querem - onde os recursos naturais e das espécies são valorizados e o nosso planeta está protegido para as futuras gerações.

http://www.avaaz.org/po/o_fim_das_baleias/?vl

Com esperança,

Alice, Iain, Emma, Ricken, Paula, Benjamin, Mia, David, Graziela, Ben, eo resto da equipe da Avaaz

Leia mais:

Estudo revela risco de extinção enfrentado por diversas espécies animais
http://g1.globo.com/jornal-nacional/noticia/2010/10/estudo-revela-risco-de-extincao-enfrentado-por-diversas-especies-animais.html

Sob risco de colapso
http://www.estadao.com.br/estadaodehoje/20101027/not_imp630350,0.php

Planeta precisa dobrar área continental protegida para conservar a biodiversidade
http://colunas.epoca.globo.com/planeta/2010/10/25/criar-mais-areas-protegidas-e-o-caminho-para-conservar-a-biodiversidade/

Brasil rejeita acordo parcial sobre biodiversidade
http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/vidae,brasil-rejeita-acordo-parcial-sobre-biodiversidade,630071,0.htm

quinta-feira, outubro 21, 2010

There are 100,000 Bushmen in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Angola. They are the indigenous people of southern Africa, and have lived there for tens of thousands of years.

In the middle of Botswana lies the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, a reserve created to protect the traditional territory of the 5,000 Gana, Gwi and Tsila Bushmen (and their neighbours the Bakgalagadi), and the game they depend on.

In the early 1980s, diamonds were discovered in the reserve. Soon after, government ministers went into the reserve to tell the Bushmen living there that they would have to leave because of the diamond finds.

In three big clearances, in 1997, 2002 and 2005, virtually all the Bushmen were forced out. Their homes were dismantled, their school and health post were closed, their water supply was destroyed and the people were threatened and trucked away.

They now live in resettlement camps outside the reserve. Rarely able to hunt, and arrested and beaten when they do, they are dependent on government handouts. They are now gripped by alcoholism, boredom, depression, and illnesses such as TB and HIV/AIDS.


Bushman boys playing, Kaudwane.
© Survival

Unless they can return to their ancestral lands, their unique societies and way of life will be destroyed, and many of them will die.

Although the Bushmen won the right in court to go back to their lands in 2006, the government has done everything it can to make their return impossible, including banning them from accessing a water borehole which they used before they were evicted; without it, the Bushmen struggle to find enough water to survive on their lands.

The Bushmen launched further litigation against the government in a bid to gain access to their borehole. A hearing was held in June 2010 but the judge later dismissed their application.

At the same time as preventing the Bushmen from accessing water, the government has drilled new boreholes for wildlife only and allowed safari company, Wilderness Safaris, to open a tourist camp in the reserve.


Bushman man.
© Survival

The Kalahari Plains Camp was opened after Wilderness Safaris entered into a lease with the government. However, the lease made no provisions for the rights of the Bushmen on whose ancestral lands the camp sits, nor were they consulted about the venture.

While Bushmen nearby struggle to find enough water to survive on their lands, guests can sip cocktails by the camp’s swimming pool.

In addition, the government has:
Refused to issue a single permit to hunt on their land (despite Botswana’s High Court ruling that its refusal to issue permits was unlawful),
Arrested more than 50 Bushmen for hunting to feed their families,
Banned them from taking their small herds of goats back to the reserve.

Its policy is clearly to intimidate and frighten the Bushmen into staying in the resettlement camps, and making the lives of those who have gone back to their ancestral land impossible.

Camisetas p/ ateus:

http://www.zazzle.com.br/ate%C3%ADsmo+presentes
http://www.zazzle.com.br/ateu+presentes
http://www.avernusrecords.net/ateus

http://www.avernusrecords.net/ateus

quarta-feira, outubro 20, 2010


The Ayoreo
Bulldozers move in on isolated Indians' heartland

The Ayoreo-Totobiegosode Indians live in the Chaco, a vast expanse of dense, scrubby forest stretching from Paraguay to Bolivia and Argentina.

Their territory has been bought by land speculators and ranchers and is now being rapidly cleared.
Of the several different sub-groups of Ayoreo, the most isolated are the Totobiegosode (‘people from the place of the wild pigs’).

Since 1969 many have been forced out of the forest, but some still avoid all contact with outsiders.

Their first sustained contact with white people came in the 1940s and 1950s, when Mennonite farmers established colonies on their land.

The Ayoreo resisted this invasion, and there were killings on both sides.

In 1979 and 1986 the American fundamentalist New Tribes Mission helped organise ‘manhunts’ in which large groups of Totobiegosode were forcibly brought out of the forest.

Several Ayoreo died in these encounters, and others succumbed later to disease.

Other Totobiegosode groups came out of the forest in 1998 and 2004 as continual invasions of their land meant they constantly had to abandon their homes, making life very hard. An unknown number still live a nomadic life in the forest.

The greatest current threat to the Totobiegosode is a Brazilian firm, Yaguarete Porá. It owns a 78,000 hectare plot in the heart of their territory, very near where uncontacted Ayoreo were recently sighted.

Yaguarete plans to bulldoze most of it to create a cattle ranch – this will have a devastating effect on the Indians’ ability to continue living there.

While the Botswana government is denying the Kalahari Bushmen access to their own water, Wilderness Safaris has opened a luxury tourist lodge on their land, complete with bar and swimming pool.


Tell Wilderness Safaris that you won’t be going on holiday with them while their lodge is on Bushman land without permission and the Bushmen are being denied water, and that you won’t holiday in Botswana at all until the Bushmen are treated with respect.



http://www.survivalinternational.org/wilderness?utm_source=Survival+International&utm_campaign=12f70141c1-E_news_Oct_201110_18_2010&utm_medium=email

segunda-feira, outubro 18, 2010

Is Science a Religion?

by Richard Dawkins
This article was first published in the January/February 1997 issue of The Humanist (Vol. 57, No. 1).

Richard Dawkins was educated at Oxford University and has taught zoology at the universities of California and Oxford. He is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His books about evolution and science include The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and most recently, Unweaving the Rainbow. This article is adapted from his speech in acceptance of the 1996 Humanist of the Year Award, from the American Humanist Association.



It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven — and not just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially trained theologians to deescalate the going rate in virgins.

Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.

One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.

Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn't alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end.

Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around — because science would completely collapse if it weren't for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence. (As James Randi has pointed out, this is one reason why scientists are so often fooled by paranormal tricksters and why the debunking role is better played by professional conjurors; scientists just don't anticipate deliberate dishonesty as well.) There are other professions (no need to mention lawyers specifically) in which falsifying evidence or at least twisting it is precisely what people are paid for and get brownie points for doing.

Science, then, is free of the main vice of religion, which is faith. But, as I pointed out, science does have some of religion's virtues. Religion may aspire to provide its followers with various benefits — among them explanation, consolation, and uplift. Science, too, has something to offer in these areas.

Humans have a great hunger for explanation. It may be one of the main reasons why humanity so universally has religion, since religions do aspire to provide explanations. We come to our individual consciousness in a mysterious universe and long to understand it. Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it's just bad science. Don't fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false.

Consolation is harder for science to provide. Unlike religion, science cannot offer the bereaved a glorious reunion with their loved ones in the hereafter. Those wronged on this earth cannot, on a scientific view, anticipate a sweet comeuppance for their tormentors in a life to come. It could be argued that, if the idea of an afterlife is an illusion (as I believe it is), the consolation it offers is hollow. But that's not necessarily so; a false belief can be just as comforting as a true one, provided the believer never discovers its falsity. But if consolation comes that cheap, science can weigh in with other cheap palliatives, such as pain-killing drugs, whose comfort may or may not be illusory, but they do work.

Uplift, however, is where science really comes into its own. All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe — almost worship — this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics. The fact that the supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't diminish the awe. Quite the contrary. The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise.

Now, as I say, when it is put to me that science or some particular part of science, like evolutionary theory, is just a religion like any other, I usually deny it with indignation. But I've begun to wonder whether perhaps that's the wrong tactic. Perhaps the right tactic is to accept the charge gratefully and demand equal time for science in religious education classes. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that an excellent case could be made for this. So I want to talk a little bit about religious education and the place that science might play in it.

I do feel very strongly about the way children are brought up. I'm not entirely familiar with the way things are in the United States, and what I say may have more relevance to the United Kingdom, where there is state-obliged, legally-enforced religious instruction for all children. That's unconstitutional in the United States, but I presume that children are nevertheless given religious instruction in whatever particular religion their parents deem suitable.

Which brings me to my point about mental child abuse. In a 1995 issue of the Independent, one of London's leading newspapers, there was a photograph of a rather sweet and touching scene. It was Christmas time, and the picture showed three children dressed up as the three wise men for a nativity play. The accompanying story described one child as a Muslim, one as a Hindu, and one as a Christian. The supposedly sweet and touching point of the story was that they were all taking part in this Nativity play.

What is not sweet and touching is that these children were all four years old. How can you possibly describe a child of four as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? Would you talk about a four-year-old economic monetarist? Would you talk about a four-year-old neo-isolationist or a four-year-old liberal Republican? There are opinions about the cosmos and the world that children, once grown, will presumably be in a position to evaluate for themselves. Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I mean about mental child abuse?

Looking now at the various things that religious education might be expected to accomplish, one of its aims could be to encourage children to reflect upon the deep questions of existence, to invite them to rise above the humdrum preoccupations of ordinary life and think sub specie aeternitatis.

Science can offer a vision of life and the universe which, as I've already remarked, for humbling poetic inspiration far outclasses any of the mutually contradictory faiths and disappointingly recent traditions of the world's religions.

For example, how could children in religious education classes fail to be inspired if we could get across to them some inkling of the age of the universe? Suppose that, at the moment of Christ's death, the news of it had started traveling at the maximum possible speed around the universe outwards from the earth. How far would the terrible tidings have traveled by now? Following the theory of special relativity, the answer is that the news could not, under any circumstances whatever, have reached more that one-fiftieth of the way across one galaxy — not one- thousandth of the way to our nearest neighboring galaxy in the 100-million-galaxy-strong universe. The universe at large couldn't possibly be anything other than indifferent to Christ, his birth, his passion, and his death. Even such momentous news as the origin of life on Earth could have traveled only across our little local cluster of galaxies. Yet so ancient was that event on our earthly time-scale that, if you span its age with your open arms, the whole of human history, the whole of human culture, would fall in the dust from your fingertip at a single stroke of a nail file.

The argument from design, an important part of the history of religion, wouldn't be ignored in my religious education classes, needless to say. The children would look at the spellbinding wonders of the living kingdoms and would consider Darwinism alongside the creationist alternatives and make up their own minds. I think the children would have no difficulty in making up their minds the right way if presented with the evidence. What worries me is not the question of equal time but that, as far as I can see, children in the United Kingdom and the United States are essentially given no time with evolution yet are taught creationism (whether at school, in church, or at home).

It would also be interesting to teach more than one theory of creation. The dominant one in this culture happens to be the Jewish creation myth, which is taken over from the Babylonian creation myth. There are, of course, lots and lots of others, and perhaps they should all be given equal time (except that wouldn't leave much time for studying anything else). I understand that there are Hindus who believe that the world was created in a cosmic butter churn and Nigerian peoples who believe that the world was created by God from the excrement of ants. Surely these stories have as much right to equal time as the Judeo-Christian myth of Adam and Eve.

So much for Genesis; now let's move on to the prophets. Halley's Comet will return without fail in the year 2062. Biblical or Delphic prophecies don't begin to aspire to such accuracy; astrologers and Nostradamians dare not commit themselves to factual prognostications but, rather, disguise their charlatanry in a smokescreen of vagueness. When comets have appeared in the past, they've often been taken as portents of disaster. Astrology has played an important part in various religious traditions, including Hinduism. The three wise men I mentioned earlier were said to have been led to the cradle of Jesus by a star. We might ask the children by what physical route do they imagine the alleged stellar influence on human affairs could travel.

Incidentally, there was a shocking program on the BBC radio around Christmas 1995 featuring an astronomer, a bishop, and a journalist who were sent off on an assignment to retrace the steps of the three wise men. Well, you could understand the participation of the bishop and the journalist (who happened to be a religious writer), but the astronomer was a supposedly respectable astronomy writer, and yet she went along with this! All along the route, she talked about the portents of when Saturn and Jupiter were in the ascendant up Uranus or whatever it was. She doesn't actually believe in astrology, but one of the problems is that our culture has been taught to become tolerant of it, vaguely amused by it — so much so that even scientific people who don't believe in astrology sort of think it's a bit of harmless fun. I take astrology very seriously indeed: I think it's deeply pernicious because it undermines rationality, and I should like to see campaigns against it.

When the religious education class turns to ethics, I don't think science actually has a lot to say, and I would replace it with rational moral philosophy. Do the children think there are absolute standards of right and wrong? And if so, where do they come from? Can you make up good working principles of right and wrong, like "do as you would be done by" and "the greatest good for the greatest number" (whatever that is supposed to mean)? It's a rewarding question, whatever your personal morality, to ask as an evolutionist where morals come from; by what route has the human brain gained its tendency to have ethics and morals, a feeling of right and wrong?

Should we value human life above all other life? Is there a rigid wall to be built around the species Homo sapiens, or should we talk about whether there are other species which are entitled to our humanistic sympathies? Should we, for example, follow the right-to-life lobby, which is wholly preoccupied with human life, and value the life of a human fetus with the faculties of a worm over the life of a thinking and feeling chimpanzee? What is the basis of this fence that we erect around Homo sapiens — even around a small piece of fetal tissue? (Not a very sound evolutionary idea when you think about it.) When, in our evolutionary descent from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, did the fence suddenly rear itself up?

Well, moving on, then, from morals to last things, to eschatology, we know from the second law of thermodynamics that all complexity, all life, all laughter, all sorrow, is hell bent on leveling itself out into cold nothingness in the end. They — and we — can never be more then temporary, local buckings of the great universal slide into the abyss of uniformity.

We know that the universe is expanding and will probably expand forever, although it's possible it may contract again. We know that, whatever happens to the universe, the sun will engulf the earth in about 60 million centuries from now.

Time itself began at a certain moment, and time may end at a certain moment — or it may not. Time may come locally to an end in miniature crunches called black holes. The laws of the universe seem to be true all over the universe. Why is this? Might the laws change in these crunches? To be really speculative, time could begin again with new laws of physics, new physical constants. And it has even been suggested that there could be many universes, each one isolated so completely that, for it, the others don't exist. Then again, there might be a Darwinian selection among universes.

So science could give a good account of itself in religious education. But it wouldn't be enough. I believe that some familiarity with the King James version of the Bible is important for anyone wanting to understand the allusions that appear in English literature. Together with the Book of Common Prayer, the Bible gets 58 pages in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Only Shakespeare has more. I do think that not having any kind of biblical education is unfortunate if children want to read English literature and understand the provenance of phrases like "through a glass darkly," "all flesh is as grass," "the race is not to the swift," "crying in the wilderness," "reaping the whirlwind," "amid the alien corn," "Eyeless in Gaza," "Job's comforters," and "the widow's mite."

I want to return now to the charge that science is just a faith. The more extreme version of that charge — and one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalist — is an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people. Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We're content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don't kill them.

But I would want to deny even the lesser charge of purely verbal zealotry. There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.

To Gianna & Giangiu(seppe),
A very nice and interesting couple coming from one of the most beautiful and culturally rich cities in the world.

You guys are amongst the most experienced globetrotters that I’ve ever met. It’s truly amazing all the traveling that you have made!
I’m so sorry that we were not able to provide for you all the comfort that you expected (something that that has nothing or very little to do with my guiding work). But, concerning our main goal – observation of wild life with the jaguar on the top of the wish list – I think that you cannot complain …
I have to thank you for all the great moments that we spent together. You were very kind and generous with me.
Gianna, I fail to understand how on Earth do you manage to do so many things and be successful in all of them!

To Tanya, Richard and Travis


I must say that this year I’ve been really lucky with the majority of the people that I had the privilege to guide in Pantanal and some other amazing places vibrant with wildlife.
Tanya is a great birdwatcher; and the boys enjoy the most through the lens of their photo equipment.

This family are so passionate/ enthusiastic about the wild life; intelligent; well red ; educated - your good manners are exceedingly (you should do workshops about that for parents over here); kind and incredibly generous! (I O U big time!...)
You now how to savor whatever nature reserves for you.
With such spirit, the journey bade fair to be a happy one, and I think that we all met our goals.
I had lots of fun with you guys and we saw lots of memorable things together.
If you intend to come back, please do so from the last week of July to the third week of August. Then, the concentration of birds over here it’s absolutely mind blowing!
Thanks for everything!
Take care and have fun in a conscious way!

domingo, outubro 17, 2010



COITADO DO PADRE MILICIAS.. TENHO MESMO PENA DA SUA POBREZA E.NÃO É
PARA MENOS, COMO "LIDA" COM MUITOS POBRES
Padre Vítor Melícias... reformou-se... pobreza franciscana !!!

Tirem as vossas conclusões!!...


.«Pagamento de serviços....».


Vergonhoso...







Mais um pobrezinho...






Padre Melícias com pensão de 7450 euros

O padre Vítor Melícias, ex-alto comissário
para Timor-Leste e ex-presidente do Montepio Geral, declarou ao
Tribunal Constitucional, como membro do Conselho Económico e Social
(CES), um rendimento anual de pensões de, e só,

104 301 euros .

Em 14 meses, o sacerdote, que prestou um voto
de obediência à Ordem dos Franciscanos, voto de pobreza a que a Ordem
Franciscana obriga, tem uma pensão mensal de 7450 euros. O valor desta
aposentação resulta, segundo disse ao CM Vítor Melícias, da
"remuneração acima da média" auferida em vários cargos.

Com 71 anos, Vítor Melícias declarou, em 2007,
ao Tribunal Constitucional um rendimento total de 111 491 euros, dos
quais 104 301 euros de pensões e 7190 euros de trabalho dependente.
'Eu tenho uma pensão aceitável, mas não sou
rico', diz o sacerdote.

Melícias frisa que exerceu funções com
'remuneração ligeiramente acima da média", que corresponde a uma
responsabilidade na Misericórdia de Lisboa, no Serviço Nacional de
Bombeiros.


E eu a julgar que esta gente praticava o "
espírito de missão " e o "trabalho de voluntariado"???!!!

quinta-feira, outubro 07, 2010

Brasiu imbeciu

A assustadora ascensão (numérica, não espiritual) dos evangélicos no Brasil tem provado a sua superioridade em relação aos católicos por estar a conseguir arrastar a mentalidade predominante para a cloaca da indigência intelectual e espiritual que a Igreja Católica instituiu na Europa medieval e exportou nas caravelas. (Será que os clérigos que conseguiram combater com sucesso o movimento renovador católico conhecido como teologia da libertação ainda não perceberam que o tiro lhes saiu pela culatra?)
Claro que tal só é possível devido à tremenda ignorância supersticiosa (oscilando entre o moralismo sectário e a hipocrisia cavilosa) que atrofia as mentes da maioria dos brasileiros, bem como o seu espírito de rebanho e fascínio pueril pelos espectáculos da fé.
Até Marina Silva, a candidata (derrotada à partida) à presidência da república brasileira, que, nestas eleições, deveria primar pela difusão de mensagens ecológicas honestas e alternativas (se são realmente sustentáveis, já é uma outra estória...), perdeu-se na sua cruzada evangélica contra os homossexuais.
Dilma, a candidata de Lula (sendo, por isso, a favorita) que pretende industrializar e capitalizar cada cm2 deste país (a tal que foi até Copenhaga declarar, ante os líderes políticos mundiais e cientistas, a seguinte pérola de sapiência: o meio ambiente é um obstáculo aos desenvolvimento sustentável...), na sua típica arrogância, à boca das urnas, disse algo do género: esta vitória nem Jesus Cristo ma tira! Como seria de esperar, tal provocou a ira dos cristãos. Entre estes, os que se acham cultos, ficaram muito contentes consigo mesmos por serem capazes de invocar a desbotada/ costumeira referência admonitória ao desastre do Titanic.
É assim que os brazucas pretendem se tornar em breve uma das grandes potencias económicas mundiais - deve ser à conta da chamada teologia da prosperidade...

quarta-feira, outubro 06, 2010

http://godisimaginary.com/video2.htm



http://godisimaginary.com/video5.htm


Please help spread the word

Transcript

the Bible is repulsive. The Bible is so repulsive that it has no place in a modern, civilized society.

Example 1

The vast majority of Americans believe that God exists, that Jesus is his son, and that God himself gave us the Bible and the Ten Commandments. In fact, Supreme court Justice Antonin Scalia has said that "Ninety-nine percent of Americans believe in the ten commandments." He has also said, "What the commandments stand for is the direction of human affairs by God."

If 99% of Americans believe in the ten commandments, how can the Bible be repulsive? Let's take the fourth commandment as an example. It says:

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. [Exodus 20: 8-9]
This, supposedly, is the word of God, the almighty ruler of the universe.
Now think about this. Wal-mart is open on the Sabbath. And so is Target. Best buy is open on the Sabbath. And so is Circuit City. Home Depot is open on the Sabbath. And so is Lowes. In fact, millions of businesses in America have employees working on the Sabbath. Even Christian Family Bookstores has employees working on the Sabbath.

What should we do with all of these people who are breaking the fourth commandment?

In the Bible's book of exodus - the same book that contains the ten commandments – the Bible tells us what to do with everyone who breaks the fourth commandment. Exodus 31 verse 15 tells us exactly what to do:

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
That's right. The Bible commands the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath, and we should obey. Right? This means we have to kill tens of millions of Americans.
Should we line these tens of millions of Americans up and shoot them?

Should we put them in giant gas chambers?

I think we can all agree that the thought of killing millions of innocent Americans is repulsive. A book this repulsive has no place in our society.

And make no mistake about it - the bible really means what it says. It fully intends to be repulsive. In Isaiah 40 verse 8 the Bible says:

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever. [Isaiah 40 verse 8]
The Bible says the same thing in 1 Peter 1 verses 24 and 25. And in Psalm 19:7 the Bible says:
The law of the Lord is perfect.
Since the laws of the Bible are perfect, they should never change.
And then there is this. In Matthew 5 verse 20 Jesus says:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:20
According to Jesus, we must follow the laws of the Bible.
Do you believe that we should kill millions of innocent people because they work on the Sabbath? If not, do you want a book this repulsive to be quoted in public? Read to children? Used in our courts of law?

Example 2

The Bible wants us to kill most people in America. For example, the first commandment says, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." What are we supposed to do with everyone who doesn't believe in God? We are supposed to Kill them. Deuteronomy chapter 17 says that we are supposed to stone non-believers to death.

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky… Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. – Deut 17:2-7
In 2 Chronicles 15:12-13:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. - 2 Chron 15:12-13
Deuteronomy 13:13-19:
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases…you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 13:7-12:
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods …do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. - Deut 13:7-12
What if you take the name of the lord in vain? Leviticus chapter 24 verse 16 says:
Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. – Lev 24:16
The Bible is quite clear. We must kill everyone who does not believe in God. There are approximately 30 million people in America who do not believe in any God. There are tens of million more who believe in gods other than the God of the Bible. The Bible commands that we kill them all.
And keep in mind that the word of the Lord lasts forever, and the law of the lord is perfect.

Think of this as a Christian Jihad. The idea of killing tens of millions of people because they don’t believe in God is repulsive.

Example 3

If you curse your father and mother you are to be killed:

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:9
Example 4

If you commit adultery you are to be killed:

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10
Example 5

If you happen to be homosexual you are to be killed.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:13
So let’s review: God commands us to kill:
Everyone who works on the Sabbath
veryone who does not believe in God
Anyone who curses father or mother
Everyone who commits adultery
Everyone who happens to be Homosexual
According to the Bible, we need to kill tens of millions of innocent Americans. The idea of killing this many innocent people is repulsive. The idea that people would walk around carrying a book that demands the death of tens of millions of innocent people is repulsive.
Example 6

Here’s another example of the Bible’s idiocy. Rebellious teenagers should all be killed as well. Here's what the Bible says in Deuteronomy chapter 21:

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall ... say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. - Deut 21
Think about how many American teenagers need to die.

Example 7

In Matthew 18 verses 7 through 9, Jesus speaks:

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. - Matthew 18:7-9
This verse is repulsive on three levels:
It is repulsive because Jesus is such an idiot here. He is completely wrong.
It is repulsive because it demands that people maim themselves.
It is repulsive because the entire concept of “hell” is repulsive.
Jesus is an idiot. Cutting off your hand or gouging out an eye accomplishes nothing. If you are having a problem with unproductive behaviors, what you need to do is talk with a counselor or see a therapist. Self-amputation is absurd and repulsive. Jesus dispenses advice that is completely useless, and recklessly dangerous as well.
Example 8

The Bible’s absolute sexism is well known, and it is repulsive. Here are two examples:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. - 1 Corinthians 14
And:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. - 1 Tim 2
We can find dozens of verses that are just as sexist. The Bible’s sexism is both ridiculous and repulsive.
Example 9

The Bible fully supports slavery. In fact, the Bible has been used in many cases, including the American civil war, as an authoritative justification of slavery. Here are three examples.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life. - Leviticus 25:44
Also:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. - Exodus Chapter 21:20
Also:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity. - Titus 2:9
You can see that, according to the Bible:
Buying and selling slaves is fine.
Beating slaves is fine.
Slaves are to show entire and true fidelity.
If you are an intelligent person, you know that he entire idea of slavery is repulsive.
Example 10

The Bible is riddled with repulsion. Take, for example, this verse:

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. - Isaiah 13
Or this:
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. - Hosea 13
Or this:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - Numbers 31
You get the picture. The Bible is repulsive.
You have seen ten graphic examples of repulsion in this short video. You can find hundreds of verses like these throughout the old and new testaments. You find Racism, sexism and bigotry gallore. The deaths millions of innocents are chronicled in page after page of this appalling book. There is no question that this book is repulsive. It has no place in a modern, civilized nation.

We currently use the Bible throughout American society. We do that, in large part, because most Americans have never read the bible and have no idea how disgusting it is.

We read from this book at weddings and funerals.
We force people to put their hands on this book in court.
We find copies of the Bible in nearly every hotel room in America.
The Bible demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath. The Bible commands us to kill teenagers who drink too much. The Bible empowers us to enslave people of other nations. The Bible commands that we oppress women and kill people who happen to be homosexual.
A book this repulsive has no place in our society. It is time for the intelligent, thoughtful people of this nation to acknowledge this simple fact and act on it.


Would you like to learn more?

Please Visit WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com and GodIsImaginary.com.

segunda-feira, outubro 04, 2010


A palhaçada contraditória do mito de Jesus Cristo

FILHO CHAMADO DE CORAGEM DE DEUS
"E eu [Jesus] vos digo , meus amigos, não temais os que matam o corpo, e depois disso nada mais podem fazer. " (Lucas 12:4)

"Então pegaram em pedras para lhe atirarem , mas Jesus se ocultou e saiu do templo ... " (João 8:59)

" Depois destas coisas, Jesus andava pela Galiléia . pois não queria andar pela Judéia, porque os judeus procuravam matá-lo " (João 7:1)

Um caso de faça como eu digo , não como eu faço!


O Príncipe da Paz
? " Cuidais vós que vim trazer paz à terra Eu [Jesus] te dizer : Não, mas antes dissensão: . Porque daqui em diante estarão cinco divididos numa casa: três contra dois e dois contra três " (Lucas 12:51-2 )

" Não penseis que eu [Jesus] veio para trazer paz à terra : Eu não vim trazer paz, mas espada. " (Mateus 10:34)

"... porque todos os que tomarem a espada perecerão pela espada . " (Mateus 26:52)

" ... e ele que não tem espada , venda a sua capa e compre uma ". (Lucas 22:36)

E pensar que esses delírios são supostamente os dizeres de alguns chamam de um príncipe da paz .


FAMILIARES
"Porque eu [Jesus] vim pôr em dissensão o homem contra seu pai, ea filha contra sua mãe, ea nora contra sua sogra . E os inimigos do homem serão os da sua própria casa. " (Mateus 10:35-6 )

" Se alguém vem a mim e não odeia seu pai , e a mãe, esposa e filhos , e irmãos, e irmãs, sim, e também à própria vida , ele não pode ser meu discípulo. " (Lucas 14:26)

" Honra teu pai e tua mãe ... " (Mateus 19:19)

"E a ninguém chameis de pai na terra ... " (Mateus 23:9)

domingo, outubro 03, 2010

"Não importa se os animais são incapazes ou não de pensar. O que importa é que são capazes de sofrer." -Jeremy Bentham

" Aqueles que dizem se preocupar com o bem-estar dos seres humanos ea preservação do meio ambiente deve se tornar vegetarianos só por isso . Seriam , assim, aumentar a quantidade de grãos disponíveis para alimentar as pessoas em outro lugar, reduzir a poluição, economizar água e energia , e deixar de contribuir para o desmatamento de florestas. "
"Quando os não vegetarianos dizem que " os problemas humanos vêm em primeiro lugar "Eu não posso deixar de me perguntar o que exatamente é que eles estão fazendo para os seres humanos que os obriga a continuar a apoiar a exploração, desperdício brutal de animais de fazenda . "
Peter Singer, Libertação Animal


"O erro da ética até o momento tem sido a crença de que só se deva aplicá-la em relação aos seres humanos." - Albert Schweitzer

sexta-feira, outubro 01, 2010



A ciganice de Sarkozy

Ricardo Araújo Pereira; 26 de Agosto de 2010

A crise económica que o mundo vive é complexa, e não é fácil apontar com exatidão o momento em que terá principiado, mas o governo francês já identificou os seus responsáveis: são os ciganos.
A descoberta não terá apanhado ninguém de surpresa.
A bem dizer, todos sabíamos do papel que os ciganos desempenharam no descalabro financeiro norte-americano e, subsequentemente, mundial. O conselho de administração do banco de investimento Lehman Brothers era integralmente constituído por ciganos.
Uma das razões da falência do banco foi, aliás, o facto de os seus administradores só pegarem ao serviço à tarde. De manhã estavam na feira, a vender T-shirts de contrafacção.
Bernard Madoff, cuja tez morena é bem reveladora de ascendência cigana, confessou ter planeado o seu esquema fraudulento ao som dos Gipsy Kings. E subprime é um termo do dialeto cigano que significa "ai, Lelo, vamos conceder empréstimos imobiliários de alto risco até provocar a insolvência de três ou quatro grandes instituições financeiras".
Ninguém sabe bem a razão pela qual os gregos elegeram um governo de ciganos, mas o facto é que eles estão lá, a fazer crescer a dívida externa e a arrastar a Europa para a falência.
E Sócrates, não sendo cigano, é, no entender de muitos, um ciganão.
Creio que é óbvio para toda a gente que a crise económica é mundial precisamente porque os ciganos, sendo nómadas, conseguiram levá-la a todo o lado.
É mais do que natural e justo que o governo francês tenha perdido a paciência com os prejuízos que esta etnia tradicionalmente ligada à alta finança tem provocado e, por isso, como costuma suceder em França com os estrangeiros que não têm categoria suficiente para representar a seleção francesa de futebol, os ciganos foram recambiados para o seu país de origem. País esse que, neste caso, é a Roménia - que faz parte da União Europeia.
É azar: os ciganos, que são um povo sem fronteiras, têm algumas dificuldades para circular na Europa sem fronteiras. Ainda
assim, um povo tão habituado a ler a sina deveria ter adivinhado que isto da livre circulação de pessoas iria ser prejudicial para quem é nómada. Era mais que óbvio.
Não ignoro que a medida de Sarkozy tem sido criticada, mas apenas pelos radicais de esquerda do costume. Como o Papa.
A verdade é que os ciganos só trazem problemas.
Recordo que o cigano mais famoso de sempre era estrela de cinema. Chamava-se Charlie Chaplin.
Se bem me lembro, era raro o filme em que ele não arranjava problemas com a polícia.
Aquilo está-lhes no sangue