78 thoughts on “F*** religion

  1. Mordanicus says:

    That’s why in a secular society only civil marriages should have legal recognition.


  2. Ruth says:

    Well, in a secular society only civil marriages do have legal recognition. That is why he was able to remarry in a Los Vegas legal ceremony. The fact that, apparently, he is a member of a ‘good ol’ boy’ faction of Judaism is to his advantage. Legally, she could also remarry. She could walk into any civil court and get a marriage license because she is legally divorced as far as the country’s legal system is concerned.

    The fact is, if she cannot obtain the ‘get’ no practicing Orthodox Jewish man will have her. Even if he would their marriage would not be approved or acknowledged in the ‘Jewish Court’ system which is something totally separate and completely religious.


  3. aguywithoutboxers says:

    Clearly this is additional proof of the hypocrisy of followers of self-serving belief systems. They selfishly adhere to archaic practices that obviously benefit themselves. I wholeheartedly concur with your selected title here, my Nairobi brother: “F*ck religion!” Nice link! 🙂


  4. mixedupmeme says:

    I would like to think if it were I, I would say:
    “Religion, I divorce you.
    Religion, I divorce you.
    Religion, I divorce you.”
    and go on my merry way. But I know the hold of any religion on some is mightier than one’s will power.


  5. Sonel says:

    He can be so glad he’s not married to me. The bastard!


  6. You’re missing the real point here, Mak. This dude’s first wife makes the best damn matzo ball soup this side of Israel. It’s the soup he’s clinging to, not her. And since Judaism, like Islam and Christianity, was created back in the day by ignorant old men, it favors ignorant old men and says fuck you to women. Guy got 100 rabbi’s to say this was OK? Fuck that. Religion needs to be taken away from people and thrown out the way children’s pacifiers are by their mother’s when they’ve outgrown them. Religion sucks. And they 3 monotheistic misogynistic one’s are the worse.


  7. archaeopteryx1 says:

    “Last year federal prosecutors filed charges against a New Jersey rabbi whom they accuse of taking tens of thousands of dollars to kidnap and torture recalcitrant husbands refusing to give their wives a religious divorce.”

    Wow, I had no idea there was that kind of money in that! I may be looking at a career change!


  8. Arkenaten says:

    Okay, I didn’t read many comments, and maybe I am missing something here, but the question that immediately comes to the fore, is: Why the hell does the first wife wish to remain Jewish and give a shit about the religious aspect?

    Who is the more nuts?


  9. Eric Alagan says:

    If he subscribes to a religion, then by that religion’s tenets he has broken the Law – so, what are the religious authorities doing? It seems that in this case, the man is a law unto himself.

    Why is the ex clinging to something that treats women as second class?


  10. 1) This is a terrible thing to do to someone.

    2) The one-line analysis in the OP seems fundamentally flawed in its interpretation. Reading the article I got the impression he is doing this to screw over his first wife and as a ploy to get custody of his kids. He is not doing it because Orthodox Judaism or his religious beliefs demand it, hence he is not doing it “in the name of religion.” He is doing it because he’s being a jerk and using the religion to get what he wants. That’s not the same thing as performing an action in the name of his religion.

    3) To jump from where Ruth left off, it would be more than just giving up family and friends. It would be giving up her entire lifestyle!


    • makagutu says:

      He is doing it because the religion makes it possible and that is what I wrote. He’s screwing his first wife because there is a loophole in the religion that makes it possible and she can’t leave because of a religious prohibition.


      • How can a man do this to his wife, all in the name of religion?

        Uhm, no. What you wrote very clearly states the man did this to his wife in the name of his religion, implying that is his motivation for doing it. When at best certain religious traditions provided him with means to do it, but clearly it wasn’t the reason he did it (his motivation), hence your original statement is still flawed or at least very poorly worded.

        He’s not screwing his first wife because there is a loophole in the religion. He is *able* to screw his first wife because there is a loophole in the religion (addition mine).

        It’s a distinction that needs to be made between motivation versus method. If I or any other theist had made a similar statement about Stalin persecuting religion in the name of Atheism, every atheist and their mother would be all over me.with all sorts of linguistic distinctions of this sort!


        • makagutu says:

          I don’t know why we are arguing over semantics. In the linked article, the man is doing whatever he is because the religion makes it possible for him to do it. There is no other enabling thing. It is the name of religion whether it is motivation or means, religion stands accused and that is what I meant.

          Thanks for making the distinction though.

          I however don’t see where the Stalin debates comes in.


          • I am arguing semantics because I find your argument to be full of semantics. I do see it as necessary to distinguish between what motivates a person and their means when one uses the phrase “in the name of X.” Because their actions aren’t being performed in the name of X!

            Otherwise, we’re in agreement that this a crappy thing to do to someone. We’re also in agreement I imagine that at the very least (barring them not losing their religion as so many hope in this thread hope), they will at least reform the practice to allow women to initiate divorce or be able to divorce if a man acts like an idiot like this.


            • makagutu says:

              Help me understand something; where do we disagree. At no point did I say he is doing it for the religion. My intention throughout was to expose what his religion has made possible. Unless you disagree he is able to screw the first wife because of religion, I would want to know where we are in disagreement.


  11. Mélanie says:

    🙂 excellent title… yesss, I do agree with it… 😉
    * * *
    P.S. you have the same avatar photo as Paula, an Aussie blogger… 🙂


  12. Mike says:

    The title of your post should be “FUCK religion”. No asterisks needed, no shame, no respect. Just plain old FUCK.

    How is it going my Noel?


  13. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Fascinating video, which fits this topic perfectly, but first:

    “”Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what we are told. Religious dogma is doing what we’re told, no matter what is right.”
    ~ Psychologist Andy Thomson ~


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s