This is in response to a comment I received from Rich Flowers a couple days ago regarding a post I made a few days ago about young earth creationists. Flowers writes:

It’s so easy to demagogue and ridicule the young earthers. Why don’t you come after us mainstream Christians who believe that much of the Bible is reconcileable (sic) with science? That God created evolution?

In the first place, I think it’s a stretch to suggest that belief in God-inspired evolution is kosher among mainstream Christians. For support of this, see my post on an official Darwin Day and the general pushback in the United States against giving Charles Darwin the recognition he deserves, particularly given the number anti-science, young earth lawmakers sitting on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and indeed, in Washington generally. For instance, here is the anti-science Georgia Rep. Paul Broun:

All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.

It’s a sham that this guy is in anyway remotely associated with the word science, much less is a member of a committee to that end.

And then, there is this data from Gallup in 2010, suggesting that four in every 10 Americans, not just Christians, believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago. Consider the following table:

Credit: Gallup

This shows that among believers who attend church frequently, 60 percent believe in the young earth proposition, while only 31 percent of people in the same group think evolution was guided by God. Not surprisingly, 31 percent of people who rarely or never go to church believe in an evolutionary process independent of any god. So, the link between “mainstream Christians” and a theory about God-guided evolution is far from concrete.

That said, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the following are true: the Bible, Christianity and evolution. What are the implications? The argument from Christianity on how these are compatible may go something like this: the Bible claims that for God, a day is like 1,000 years, so an indeterminate amount of time could have passed between the six individual days of creation, allowing the millions of years necessary for human evolution to take place. Further, in Genesis 1:24, God doesn’t appear to just speak the animals and plants into existence, but says “let the earth bring forth” the animals, which seems to partly suggest that some other process may have been at play in the creation of biological life. Of course, that theory is shot down when we consider man’s creation, since the Bible is clear that God breathed life into man “out of dust.”

But we can go further. Evolution holds that man and every other modern species developed by slow degrees by the process of natural selection from simpler forms. The Bible, on the other hand, tells the narrative that man, although he fell in the garden, is the exalted species above other animals and can achieve redemption and eternal life if he believes in Jesus. Man is also the only species with a soul. Notwithstanding the fact that the concept of a “soul” has no basis in science, since everything that makes us who we are, along with all of our memories, are products of the brain and genetics. Christianity also maintains that man is eternal, with some people spending eternity in hell and some in heaven. There is also no basis in science to believe this is true either. When we die, we lose consciousness and our brains simply shut off. There have, of course, been reports of near death experiences, but there is strong reason to believe that these are hallucinatory in nature⁽⁽¹⁾⁾, largely a result of lack of oxygen to the brain.

Let’s ignore these details and still maintain that man evolved by God’s plan. At what point in the human evolutionary process did God arbitrarily decide to confer a soul on the species? Five million years ago? Two million? One hundred thousand? Three thousand?

Finally, Flowers said in the above quote that he thinks that “much of the Bible” rights with science, but of course, how can one dismiss certain parts of the Bible that may not right with science (i.e. the existence of women sorcerers) and accept other parts. Either the Bible is infallible and inspired by God or there are certain parts of it we can’t trust. And if there are certain parts we can’t trust, how can we trust any of it? It is here that Christians will roll out the Holy Spirit for what believers call “divine discernment.” Well, if we’re talking about Christianity reconciling with science, we might want to reconsider a spirit who has the unique capacity to transmit information to the brains of millions of humans at once.

In any case, here are some details we can’t trust from the Bible:

• In Genesis 1:11, plants are ludicrously made on the third day before there was any light.
• In Exodus 9:24, a bunch of Egyptians are killed by fire raining down from the sky. Some versions soften the language to say “lightning,” but the KJV lists it as hail and fire.
• Leviticus 11:13: Bats are not birds.
• Human don’t live, and never have, to be 100s of years old. Some suggest that this was a translation miscue. If so chalk that up to another way in which this all-powerful God allowed his one and only written communication with humans to get garbled.
• There is no evidence that there was ever any firmament encompassing the earth, as written in the KJV. Even the ancient Greeks knew that. Again, later versions of the Bible have softened this language to make it sound less fraudulent.

I could go on and and on (Here’s more), but believers must ask how they work out which parts of the Bible to believe as authentically coming from God and which parts may have been errors made by man. Yet, if the Bible is supposed to be inspired directly by God, why does it contain these errors in the first place? Certainly an all-powerful God would have been capable of making a book perfectly reconcilable to science, even if his ancient scribes didn’t understand what they were writing. Surely, they didn’t understand the logistics of a burning bush or fire raining down from the sky, why would it have been a stretch to preempt Darwin and mention evolution or even germ theory or string theory?

1. Britton, Willoughby B. and Richard R. Bootzin. “Near-Death Experiences and the Temporal Lobe.” Psychological Science. Vol. 15, No. 4, April 2004, 254-258.

                          

Now there was a man that dwelt in Babylon, and his name was Joakim: And he took a wife whose name was Susanna ... a very beautiful woman, and one that feared God. Daniel 13:1-2

Now Joakim was very rich, and had an orchard near his house. 13:4

There were two of the ancients of the people appointed judges that year … These men frequented the house of Joakim.
Susanna ... walked in her husband' s orchard … And the old men saw her ... walking: and they were inflamed with lust towards her … And they watched carefully every day to see her. 13:5-10

On one hot day, Susanna went into the orchard to take a bath. And, as usual, the old men were hiding there to watch.

It fell out, as they watched a fit day, she went ... to wash herself in the orchard: for it was hot weather.
And there was nobody there, but the two old men that had hid themselves and were beholding her. 13:15-16

When the dirty old men saw Susanna, they ran to her and said, “We’re in love with you. Let’s have sex.”

The two elders arose, and ran to her, and said: Behold the doors of the orchard are shut, and nobody seeth us, and we are in love with thee: wherefore consent to us, and lie with us. 13:19-20

If she refused, they would claim to have witnessed her having sex with a young man.

But if thou wilt not, we will bear witness against thee, that a young man was with thee. 13:21

After hearing that, Susanna started screaming and both elders did likewise.

With that Susanna cried out with a loud voice: and the elders also cried out against her. 13:24

When the everyone heard the screaming, they came to see what was up. And the old men accused Susanna of having sex with a young man.

The two elders rising up in the midst of the people … said: As we walked in the orchard alone, this woman came in with two maids, and shut the doors of the orchard, and sent away the maids from her. Then a young man that was there hid came to her, and lay with her. 13:34-37

They all believed them and condemned Susanna to death.

The multitude believed them as being the elders and the judges of the people, and they condemned her to death. 13:41

But then, just at the last minute, the Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy, whose name was Daniel.

And when she was led to be put to death, the Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy, whose name was Daniel. 13:45

Daniel, with the help of the holy spirit, knew just what to do. Interrogate each of the old men separately.

Daniel said to the people: Separate these two far from one another, and I will examine them. 13:51

So that’s what he did. 

Daniel asked the first old guy, under pain of being cut in two, “Under what tree did you see the Susanna and the young man conversing?”

So when they were put asunder one from the other, he called one of them, and said to him ... if thou sawest her, tell me under what tree thou sawest them conversing together. 13:52-54a

He answered, under a mastic tree.

He said. Under a mastic tree. And Daniell said: Well hast thou lied against thy own head: for behold the angel of God having received the sentence of him, shall cut thee in two. 13:54b-55

Then he asked the second old lecher the same question.

And ... he commanded that the other should come, and he said ... tell me, under what tree didst thou take them conversing together. 13:56-58a

He answered, “Under a holm tree.”

And he answered: Under a holm tree. And Daniel said to him: Well hast thou also lied against thy own head: for the angel of the Lord waiteth with a sword to cut thee in two, and to destroy you. 13:58b-59

When the people heard that, they all screamed, blessed God, and killed the two dirty old men, presumably by cutting each of them into two pieces -- just as Daniel said under the inspiration of the holy spirit.

With that all the assembly cried out with a loud voice, and they blessed God And they rose up against the two elders ... and they put them to death. 13:60-62

And Daniel, who was already great, became even greater in the sight of all the people from that day forward.

And Daniel became great in the sight of the people from that day, and thenceforward. 13:64

Just to be clear. My stance as a pro-feminist man does NOT follow from the fact that I am an atheist. Even if I became a philosophical deist overnight, I would maintain the same stance. Let’s not oversellMere atheism what mere atheism entails. None of which is to deny that actual religions can be used to provide false rationales for some abhorrent views.

That’s a bit of a mess, so let’s unpack it. I find interesting because my pro-feminist stance does follow from the fact that I am an atheist; perhaps we ought to recognize that there is more than one way to be an atheist, something I’ve been saying for a long time, and apparently Blackford and I are very different kinds of atheist.

There are some peculiarities in that statement. There is also more than one way to be a feminist, so announcing that one would still be feminist if they were a “philosophical deist” is both trivial and irrelevant: irrelevant because no one denies that there are religious positions that are compatible with feminism, and trivial because Blackford selected as an alternate a philosophy that’s about as close to atheism as you can get. I think we’d have a very different answer if he had speculated about an overnight conversion to Southern Baptist, or Amish, or conservative Muslim. As he notes at the end, there are religions that would impose abhorrent views that are incompatible with feminism. So about half of his comment is empty noise that contributes nothing to his thesis.

The interesting part is this: that “mere atheism” does not entail feminism. I both agree and disagree.

The agreeable side is that if we assume he means “mere atheism” the simple position that no gods or supernatural forces exist, then it’s true that that does not directly promote feminism. We could have a hypothetical atheism that postulated other, non-divine phenomena that contradicted feminism. For instance, a libertarian atheism that rationalized virtual enslavement of half the population to serve the other half, which just happened to recognize that it was easier to maintain the existing patriarchal framework, rather than going to all the trouble of inverting it. Or we could imagine a scientific atheism on a world with extreme sexual dimorphism, where the female sex was significantly smaller brained than the male sex. Or we could postulate a solipsistic or psychopathic atheism, in which an individual atheist considered members of the complementary sex to be resources to be exploited.

Blackford says he is pro-feminist (and he lives on this planet), so presumably none of the above scenarios apply. So why would an atheist be feminist?

In my case, the absence of a god invalidates all truth claims by revelation and all the traditional authority of holy books. It creates an epistemic gap, which I suppose someone could fill with just about anything: whim, utility, emotional needs, dice-rolling, whatever. I have no idea how Blackford explains cause and reason, but I know how I do: by an acceptance of natural causes which can be examined empirically and by experiment…by science. I also concede that where I can’t apply science in evaluating human motives, I use empathy and the principle of equating another’s condition with my own.

My atheism entails using those methods to resolve ethical decisions, for instance. That’s my toolkit. My atheism has stripped me of the tools of dogma and authoritarianism (and good riddance).

So now my atheism compels me to confront the question of the status of women by evidence and empathy. And what answer do both of those give? That women are my equals. That they share all the attributes of humanity that I have; there is no deficit in the quality of the experience of being a woman vs. being a man. That I cannot make assumptions about the capabilities or desires of a person on the basis of their sex.

This same reasoning applies whether I apply it to sex, to race, to class, or religious belief. My atheism requires me to be egalitarian because the evidence of our common humanity demands it. My reliance on that evidence is not independent of my atheism, but of course people who are not atheists can also share that same appreciation of others; the difference is simply that my form of “mere atheism” which is driven by naturalism means I have no other recourse, no other way of justifying my interpretation of the world.

But then, I don’t need any other mechanism — it seems to me that science and love of my fellow human beings is more than sufficient argument to guide the entirety of my life. And those are necessary axioms that I am compelled to accept by my atheism, even if there could exist alternate axioms that would also fill the gap left by the absence of gods.

It’s just that those alternate axioms, those other atheisms, also make one a jerk.

It looks like Ken Ham and Dr. Georgia Purdom found out that I sent atheists to their “Answers for Women” conference. (We know this because they don’t link to the site and their comments are closed…)

Purdom doesn’t want to respond to the claims Louise and Kate made in their post, probably because it’s hard to defend slides like this:

But she felt the writeup consisted of unfair attacks on Creationists:

I have decided not to go through their post point by point and expose error because that would take an enormous amount of time. Much of what they said consisted of ad hominem attacks or arguments that lack substance relevant to the topic and therefore do not warrant a response.

There are no ad hominem attacks (or known errors) in the piece. All Kate and Louise did was say how the Creation Museum was definitively and scientifically wrong.

The only correction we’ve had to make to the article — one we made as soon as we found out about it — was updating the number of people who work at the Museum who have PhDs from secular universities. We said two. The number’s actually higher.

Ken Ham, who refuses to link to this site so his readers can judge the writeup for themselves and didn’t even notice that we fixed our comment about the PhDs several days ago, is also trying to make a mountain out of a molehill:

… after the conference, an “interesting” blog appeared on a well-trafficked atheist blog. Two women, both atheists, had attended the conference in an “undercover” manner — with an obvious agenda. Now, at the beginning of their commentary, these women expressed that they were “jumpy” and afraid when they arrived at the Creation Museum. Why? What exactly were they afraid of? I’ll get to that in a moment.

…

… it was actually quite humorous to read what these two women wrote about how scared they were — they portrayed their visit almost as if they were undercover agents in a communist country hoping they wouldn’t be discovered for fear of some horrible reprisal.  It was just ridiculous stuff to read.

No one was worried about getting kicked out. And while Kate and Louise didn’t announce their atheism out loud, they weren’t hiding it either.

Ham went on as if he’d never even read the post (which is very likely):

They made fun of the attire of attendees at the conference, indicating that they had to wear skirts and couldn’t wear shorts.

Lies. The only mention of clothes came when Kate said she went to the hotel lobby in shorts, felt out of place when she realized the other conference attendees at the hotel were wearing long skirts, and went back to change her clothes. She wanted to blend in; she wasn’t making fun of them.

Actually, I believe these atheists were “scared” because they felt the guilt of why there were really there at the conference.

…

I believe [the atheists came to the conference] because they know we have such powerful message. Plus Satan wants to do all he can to try to undermine us.

Oh yeah. Sure. Totally. You got us there.

I asked Louise if she wanted to respond to the “substantive” points Ham and Purdom made and she wrote this:

Ham incorrectly stated why we were scared to be there. It wasn’t because we were “undercover” or we felt “guilty.” It was because they had a bomb-sniffing dog and security everywhere. Really, if Ken Ham doesn’t feel safe walking unescorted around his museum, why should we?

I challenge Ken Ham (who was not present at this event) to accurately describe or write about the event. Despite his assumption that our blog post was partially written before entering the museum/conference, it was not. Yes, we entered with expectations; some were exceeded, some were met, and several fell short. (For example, I expected every conversation with attendees to reference how great God is and was surprised to find that not to be the case.)

The misinformation, demonization, and outright disdain they showed toward anyone who isn’t a “Creationist” or “Christian” came shining through at the conference. Ken Ham may say, “Why are they so worried about us?” I would flip the question back to him. We were only two females who respectfully attended a conference and wrote about it. Atheists and “Nones” comprise less than 30% of the population while the majority of Americans call themselves “Christians” and nearly half the country believes in Creationism.

So why are you so worried about us?

I can answer that.

It’s because atheists know how to refute Creationist propaganda. When we showcase their soundbytes and materials through our scientifically-minded filters, they come out looking like ignorant fools who cling to their Bible in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They’re afraid that carefully sheltered, home-schooled children are going to find our critiques of them. They’re afraid those kids will start asking tough questions. They’re afraid the kids will start to doubt their displays. The only solution they’ve come up with is pretending to play the victim when we point out how wrong and silly it all is.

Green Party

There are 40 people on one side of a road. There is one person on the other side of the road.

A bread truck pulls up and the driver gives the one person — standing there alone (perhaps impatiently tapping a Gucci-loafered foot and checking his Rolex) — 40 LOAVES OF BREAD. Then the driver gives the group of 40 people, in varying states of dress and hunger, ONE LOAF OF BREAD to share among themselves. He drives off.
~ Jill Stein, paraphrased from a workshop in NYC 3.23.13

Dr. Stein used this scenario to illustrate how the top 1% of our citizenry controls 40% of the wealth of this country. The bottom 40% controls only 1% of the wealth.

Also of interest:

KPFA Ralph Nader interview
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/83373

Lawrence O’Donnell’s The Last Word:
“Candidates talk drugs, climate, indefinite detention at third-party debate”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/#49545259

“I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it,
than for what I don’t want and get it.”
~ Eugene V. Debs

That is exactly what I did!

Related articles

• American-Style Fascism (mathaba.net)
• Only way for Green Party to get into debate: Get arrested (VIDEO) (timesunion.com)
• Jill Stein vs. ‘Too Lateness of America’s Fate-ness’ (correntewire.com)

Scroll down to see how Ian McEwan has annotated this copy of his novel. The annotations are in text format at the bottom of the page

Related articles:

1. Jamy Ian Swiss at the Orange County Freethought Alliance conference May 4, 20
2. BHA mourns the death of Ian Breach, former Guardian Journalist and Humanist Celebrant

A boulder-sized meteor slammed into the moon in March, igniting an explosion so bright that anyone looking up at the right moment might have spotted it, NASA announced Friday.

Related articles:

1. Farthest Star Explosion Yet Revealed by Hubble
2. NASA’S Kepler Discovers its Smallest ‘Habitable Zone’ Planets to Date

More than half of Australia's parents are worried about the safety of childhood vaccines, a survey has revealed, prompting concerns that a shift in support for vaccination could lead to reduced coverage rates and outbreaks of disease.

Related articles:

1. Number Of Early Childhood Vaccines Not Linked To Autism
2. “What, Me Worry?” Distorting Climate Change Data

Cognitive scientist and philosopher Daniel Dennett is one of America's foremost thinkers. In this extract from his new book, he reveals some of the lessons life has taught him

Related articles:

1. HARDtalk: Daniel Dennett – Philosopher and Cognitive Scientist
2. Daniel Dennett on conflict between religion and science

When Gage Pulliam saw that his high school had plaques with the Ten Commandments on them in every classroom, he wasn’t sure what he could do about it, so he told the Freedom From Religion Foundation. At the time, his name wasn’t known to the public. But after identifying himself on this site, Gage has shown himself to be a brave activist, speaking to news crews about why he supports church/state separation and letting the public know that he’s not anti-Christian; he’s just pro-equality.

Now, the FFRF has awarded him with their first “Strong Backbone Student Activist Award,” worth $1,000:

Gage Pulliam, the student who blew the whistle on his school’s disregard for the Constitution (via Facebook)

A New York FFRF member who prefers not to be named endowed the “Strong Backbone” award. The donor sent FFRF the $1000 contribution as his own “80th birthday present,” specifying the award should go to a high school student who has “showed uncommon strength in standing up for his or her freethought sentiments.”

Gage is well-deserving of the award and I’m hoping it also inspires other students in his situation — students who see Christianity being promoted in their schools in an illegal way — to alert a real higher power to the injustice.

According to this report, the faithful queued at a Singapore court overnight and packed the public gallery to show support for the accused who prosecutors say diverted the congregation’s funds into “sham” investments to advance the career of aspiring star Ho Yeow Sun, popularly known as Sun Ho, who was voted Singapore’s “least admired personality” in 2012.

City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee, right, and his pop singer wife Ho Yeow Sun, also known as Sun Ho, at a preliminary court hearing last year. ST PHOTO: ONG WEE JIN

The church with affiliates in neighboring Malaysia and other countries is one of Singapore’s richest and biggest, with membership of more than 30,000. It is known in the region for staging large-scale, elaborate services resembling pop concerts which are conducted by Ho’s husband, Kong Hee.

Ho is not on trial but turned up in court Wednesday dressed in a black leather jacket, skinny pants, stiletto boots and sporting streaky blonde hair and grey contact lenses. Her husband chatted confidently with his lawyers. Kong is charged with conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust.

Also charged are church pastor Tan Ye Peng, church members Chew Eng Han and Lam Leng Hung, and accountants Serina Wee Gek Yin and Sharon Tan Shao Yuen. The six, who have yet to say how they will plea, could face prison terms ranging from 10 to 20 years.

The prosecution’s opening statement ridiculed the contention of church leaders that pop music was a tool of evangelism that would help spread God’s message. It said Ho recorded and launched secular music albums to influence people:

Who would never choose to step foot into a church to listen to a preacher.

Investments by the church in two companies, Xtron Productions and Firna, were in substance fake transactions that were orchestrated by the accused who were all involved in the planning and financing of Ho’s music career, according to prosecutors.

State media reported that 24 million Singapore dollars ($19 million) was channeled through Xtron and Firna and another S$26 million was misappropriated to cover up the initial sum.

Prosecutors allege that the falsification of church accounts occurred in 2009.

Singapore’s media have painted Ho, who is in her early 40s, as an aspiring superstar who hoped for international fame to help spread her church’s influence. She collaborated on a song and raunchy music video China Wine with rapper Wyclef Jean in 2007 – you can see it here – and attended the 46th annual Grammy Awards ceremony in 2004. But accusations of impropriety and public disdain have since rained down on Ho, her ambitions and the church.

Ho was reinstated as executive director of City Harvest Church on Monday by the Commissioner of Charities after a review found she had not contributed to mismanagement of the church.

A former church accountant testified Wednesday how she had been instructed to take care of Xtron’s accounts because it didn’t have its own accounting department

Except for the clutter, the room is surprisingly tidy and undamaged. You atheists really have no idea how to trash a hotel room, do you?

Daniel is back with another montage of some of the awful things done in the name of God over the past month:

(via ConversationWithA)

Alicia Gali: Rape Victim Who Was Jailed For Being Assaulted in UAE Tells Her Story

Those familiar with the Steubenville case or the Rehtaeh Parsons suicide are aware of the backlash against rape victims in contemporary society. Another rape victim, Alicia Gali, has recently come forward to describe her experience in a foreign prison as result of rape.

In 2008, Gali, then a 27-year-old Australian woman, was hired as the manager of the Starwood Le Meridien Al-Aqah Beach Resort, Fujairah, spa and beauty salon in the United Arab Emirates.  One night, after having her drink spiked in the employee bar, she awoke in her room, naked, covered in bruises, with four broken ribs. Reports were made during the night in response to her screams. Guards who entered the room saw her unconscious and three naked, male hotel employees in her room.

When Gali reported the assault, reportedly neither the Australian Embassy nor the hotel offered her assistance, an accusation the hotel denies. After seeking medical attention, she reported the assault to the police, which she did not know entailed admitting to illicit sex, a crime under United Arab Emirates law. According to UAE law, proving rape requires four adult male witnesses to the sex act who will affirm that it occurred. She also confessed to consuming alcohol, which is illegal without a license. Gali signed a confession in Arabic, which she did not understand.

She was sentenced to eleven months in prison for illicit sex and one month for alcohol consumption. Two rapists received twelve-month sentences as well, also for illicit sex; the third received thirteen months. After eight months in prison, which she described as “appalling” and a “nightmare,” she was pardoned. Her rapists were released on the same day.

And there you have it. There is no long complicated explanation to it: Islam is a rape culture. There are no involved sociological explanations, no wishy-washy bullshit watered down moral relativism to invoke.

Islam is a rape culture.

No ideology can lay claim to being ‘civilized’ when such inequities, such injustice, such horrific discrimination is visited upon someone simply because of their gender.

All religion is evil, but Islam is by far the most barbaric.

It’s gotta go.

Till the next post, then.

Kent Hovind’s PhD thesis is circulating again, thanks to wikileaks and blogs like Leaving Fundamentalism. This thesis for a doctorate in Philosophy of Christian Education was submitted to Dr. Wayne Knight of Patriot Bible University, pictured right.

It’s bad.

Oy.

Folks like Adam Benton have been picking out favorite quotes. It’s hard to know where to stop with a thesis that begins “Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida.”

What’s interesting is that Hovind seems to believe that evolution has always been with us. It’s basically a religion, started by Satan – literally – that has spread around the world and influenced nearly all non-monotheistic religions. I think he gets this from Henry Morris’ The Long War Against God, which basically makes that claim. Anyway, as evidence – or just to fill pages – Hovind goes through world history and world religion to classify ideas as godly or evolutionary.

And of course the whole thing is written like Hovind was talking to school children. We get sections like this: “Aristotle was the tutor to a man named Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great was the leader of the Greek Empire of the Third Century B.C. He spread the teachings of Aristotle all around his empire.”

Can you say “Hellenization” boys and girls? Good, have a candy.

Or consider this section:

The five major Eastern religions that developed during this time were Hinduism, Confucianism, Zoroasterism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Because of the atheistic and pantheistic philosophies of these religions, and the lack of importance placed on God, the entrance of communism into these countries was very simple. When the evolutionary doctrine was taught in these countries, the people did not have to change their religion in order to include it. Evolution and communism blended in fine with the Eastern religions. In about 1895, a man named Yen Fu translated Thomas Huxley’s book into Chinese. That was probably the turning point in China. It led the way for communism to take over so many of the oriental countries.

It’s just fractally wrong.

That is a weird and impolitic message to send to attendees. It was especially weird to hear that on day one, and then to watch Melody Hensley, the person who did the organizational work to set up the meeting, make fundraising pitches at the evening reception on both days. Melody definitely stands behind the purpose of this event, there’s no doubt about that at all, but we’re simultaneously getting this bizarre vibe that CFI, as represented by Lindsay, does not like this feminist stuff, and would rather that we all went away and the MRAs who are crowing about his talk were here instead.

Who is he supporting? The people who actively invest in this meeting and CFI, or the jerks who lurk on the internet and rage at women all day long with no commitment to any cause besides hatred, and are openly hoping to see the meeting fail?

What has also caused all these people to lose confidence in Lindsay is that today, he posted a complaint against Rebecca Watson, who is here both as a speaker and as a sponsor of attendees here, comparing her to a propagandist for North Korea, and blathering misconceptions about his odd understanding of the idea of privilege and asserting that there is an effort to silence men (he’s very resentful of the idea that men might be expected to be silent long enough to listen to the experience of minorities). Or rather, he’s unhappy with the hyphenated entity Myers-Watson (really, we aren’t married, not even close), because he also posted a tirade against me for stating that shutting up and listening, that is, paying attention to and respecting the experiences of the underprivileged, is an appropriate strategy for learning about and responding to the concerns of people outside your class, sex, and race. Which, I thought, was the goal of this conference.

A lot of people are extraordinarily irritated by this effort by the head of CFI to undermine a CFI-sponsored conference. That’s why this one tired old man was listening to a crowd of annoyed conference attendees packed into his hotel room at 2am complain about mismanagement and loss of confidence in the administration of CFI. Attendees who paid $250 each, plus transportation and hotel costs, to listen to big names in feminism and secularism talk, and who got that plus a director who seemed more interested in appeasing an obsessed gang of manic, moronic anti-feminist spammers who’d been flooding the twitter feed (a strange corruption of the usual use of conference hashtags that I’ve never witnessed before) and countering the purpose of the conference.

I was put in the unusual and awkward position of having to reassure these attendees that CFI really was a great organization (something the head of CFI should have been doing, right?) despite the apparent opposition of the man in charge…a man who had just posted a bitter complaint about me on the web. I had to remind them that the woman who was specifically in charge of this conference, Melody Hensley, was on their side, and supported the cause of women in secularism despite the apparent intransigence of her boss.

I’m only here as an attendee myself, yet here I am having to defend the organization. I have no reputation as a diplomat, yet here I am trying to put out the fires that the CEO of the organization himself has enflamed. What kind of screwed up mess is this?

OK, I give up. I’m going to bed to get a couple of hours of sleep. Let’s hope Ron Lindsay wakes up and realizes he’s just blown up what ought to be a great success for CFI (the speakers here have been phenomenal) and turned it into a colossal PR disaster, and tries to change course. If it’s not too late already.

Do you or how do you speak about religion or lack thereof around your children? Do you encourage atheism directly in your household or do you encourage the little minds to be open? I am curious to know how other atheist parents deal with the subject around little ones. Share your stories, please!

Toni

Related articles:

1. How To Introduce Your Atheist Partner To Evangelical Parents
2. Atheist in Politics

What does the U.S. Constitution -- specifically the First Amendment -- really say about the separation of church and state?

Related articles:

1. Satan, Separation and Absurdity: Texas Gov. rallies ‘Christian Warriors’ to scale church-state ‘Iron Curtain’
2. On Guard in Oklahoma: When Defending Church-State Separation in a Challenging Area, Diversity is a Plus

Cole Withrow, a high school senior from North Carolina, brought guns onto school property two weeks ago.

It was an accident, he told school authorities. They were unloaded and in his car after a weekend skeet shooting trip. He only noticed when he went to his car during the school day to grab his bookbag and a drink.

In response, Liberty University and Harding University (both ultra-Christian schools) offered Cole a scholarship. (Because Jesus loved his guns.)

This week, Withrow admitted (PDF) he knew the guns were in his car. He never went back to his car. He lied to administrators about that. He apologized for letting misinformation spread. He pled guilty to misdemeanor in court.

In response, Liberty University’s Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr. says he will still offer Withrow the scholarship:

Cole Withrow and Jerry Falwell, Jr. (via Liberty University)

“In a radio interview a couple of weeks ago, I was asked if Liberty would still assist Cole if he was convicted of the felony. I said yes. We knew that Cole might be convicted of a felony. We also knew that he might have to publicly take the blame, whether he was at fault or not, in order to have the charges reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor. That’s how the criminal justice system works, especially in high-profile cases like this one, and I believe that is exactly what happened here,” Falwell said. “I personally believe that Cole was forced to admit to more than he really knew.

Our criminal justice system is a great big conspiracy against conservative, gun-toting Christians, after all.

(Thanks to Scott for the link)

A debate by Afghan MPs about beefing up a law to prevent violence against women has been halted amid angry scenes.Parliament's speaker ended the debate after 15 minutes after traditionalists called for the law to be scrapped.

Related articles:

1. No prayers in Egyptian Parliament but daily prayers in Westminster Parliament
2. The NPR third-party candidate debate

(In response to this post)

After adopting military cast-off and anti-Muslim crusader retired Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, the Family Research Council is taking special interest in publishing their own special spin on military policy. They recently published a list of offenses against Christianity and their own FRC. But, not surprisingly, they got some facts wrong. Unlike their own list which has no references at all and expects a simple faith-based acceptance of their claims, you’ll find below short references to confirm the stories for yourself.

Of the 15 points most are false, a few are differences of opinion about military policy, and precious few are real and appropriate restrictions on the rampant proselytism going on in our military. No one is out to get the religious freedoms of Christians or other god-beliefs (nontheistic beliefs aren’t so fortunate), but what FRC seems to be seeking the special privilege to spread anti-gay, anti-choice, political and exclusively fundamentalist Christian beliefs using our military and on the backs of our military men and women. I hope we can see other Christians stepping up to denounce this rhetoric and set the record straight.

From the alarmist FRC call to action, with MAAF response and references in quotes:

“The aggressive anti-Christian actions of the Obama administration are real, documented and escalating. We must STOP anti-Christian actions like these:
1. January 2010 — Department of Defense orders removal of tiny Bible references on military scopes and gunsights.

True and appropriate. Unfortunately not enforced. Many evangelical Bible versus were on rifles just last month.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijicon_biblical_verses_controversy

2. June 2011 — The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burials at National Cemetery.

False. One VA director told volunteers they couldn’t insert their religion into other people’s funerals. VA relented for the most part. Policy is not enforced.

http://militaryatheists.org/news/2011/07/religious-groups-criticize-houston-va-for-respecting-families-wishes/

http://militaryatheists.org/news/2011/09/arlington-cemetery-confirms-secular-policy/

3. August 2011 — The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory because it is based on a philosophy of St. Augustine.

False. Explicitly religious-based war theory rejected in favor of just Just War theory.
http://gizmodo.com/5826972/what-is-the-air-forces-jesus-loves-nukes-nuclear-missile-program

Related articles:

1. Family Research Council Ignores Reality while Defending Jerry Boykin
2. Exploiting Tragedy: Family Research Council seeks to politicize office shooting

Richard Treadgold, New Zealand climate pseudosceptic and blogger

I have often got into heated debate with this guy – my main concern being his willingness to effectively accuse honest climate scientists, include New Zealand scientists, of scientific fraud. He also has a bad habit of misrepresenting climate science and climate scientists on his blog Climate Conversation Group. I have often raised with him his moral obligation to apologise for such misrepresentation and accusations (see Apologies would be nice).

Without result. But now he has apologised for recently misrepresenting local climate scientist Dr James Renwick (see Hide sticks it to Renwick,  Renowden a scaring warmist,  and  Renwick blames drought on man-made global warming, which has been now changed to Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought).

In his post today, Climate porkies from TV One, Richard actually says (and we have to get this on record):

“I apologise to Dr Renwick for misquoting him so badly — that is, over a statement so disastrously incorrect.”

So, good on you, Richard.

This whole incident started with Richards thoughtless endorsement (Hide sticks it to Renwick) of a snakey NBR article by failed NZ ultra-conservative politician Rodney Hide (see Faith, not facts, drives global warming) and I won’t rehash the time line here (read my posts “Incontrovertible” is it, Rodney?,  Confusion and distortion – has global warming stopped?   and  Pseudosceptics are at it again – misrepresenting and attacking climate scientists for details).

Richard admits he wrote his misleading posts “after reading the transcript and studying the video,” but the final blow for him seems to be Renwick’s email which “politely confirmed that he never blamed the drought on global warming: “This is just not so.””

I believe the transcript and video were extremely clear and am surprised Richard’s apology only came after personal confirmation from Renwick  (see transcript at Lack of govt leadership on climate change – Renwick, and video of interview at Q+A: Corin Dann interviews Dr James Renwick).

Mind you, some other climate pseudosceptics are more resistant than Richard. On of the commenters on Richards blog responded to Renwick’s confirmation by accusing him of “splitting hairs.” And one faithful climate change denier on twitter I debated  refused to take the video and transcript as evidence – instead claiming that the offending claim had been made while the camera wasn’t running, or had been edited out. Poor soul.

I am also aware that local climate change pseudosceptics will have not qualms twisting Renwick’s confirmation into another misrepresentation. Some of the commenters on Richard’s blog already seem to be doing so. Renwick’s confirmation – that he never declared global warming had directly caused our recent extreme drought and that there was no other explanation -  to mean he claims that global warming will play no role in future extreme weather events. Richard himslef comments:

“. . it’s useful to have his firm statement on record that weather events are not caused by global warming. Everyone and his dog has been looking around at this warm record or that storm and saying that’s global warming, we’re all doomed. It will be handy to slap them with Renwick’s authoritative statement.”

Let’s be clear, the current scientific thought is that while one can never prove a direct link to specific events, global warming will probably increase the frequency of such extreme weather events in the future. Renwick made this clear in the interview – read the transcript Richard.

Meanwhile, I hope Treagold’s ethical chickens really have come home to roost for good – there are still a few apologies outstanding. For example his egregious  claim that NIWA scientists had manipulated New Zealand temperature data to create evidence for warming (see  his infamous article “Are we getting warmer yet?” and my posts New Zealand’s denier-gate and Painted into a corner?).

However, let’s celebrate this rather rare event – a scientists getting an apology foir their misrepresentation.

There’s a few other New Zealand bloggers who should take note and start thinking about their own ethical obligations.

Similar articles

On Friday, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life released its analysis on the religious affiliation of immigrants to the United States.

When it comes to legal immigrants who are religiously unaffiliated — atheists, agnostics, and those who may be spiritual-but-not-religious — the estimates are pretty steady:

In 1992, an estimated 130,000 new permanent residents had no religious affiliation. The estimate for 2012 is 140,000.

Since 1992, the U.S. has admitted nearly 2.8 million religiously unaffiliated legal permanent residents. By comparison, the U.S. population in 2010 included more than 40 million people with no religious affiliation.

And where are they all coming from? Mostly from the Asia-Pacific region:

More than half come from countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including China and Vietnam. About a quarter come from nations in the Americas, such as Mexico and Canada. Another significant share of unaffiliated immigrants were born in Europe, although that percentage has decreased since 1992.

Nearly two-thirds of all immigrants are Christians — no surprise there — but it’s a slight decrease from 20 years ago. The percentage of Muslims and Hindus, though, has gone up, offsetting the percentages.

Pew is careful to note that these numbers are all estimates based on government statistics and self-identification surveys of new immigrants.

Much like with the increase in Hispanic atheists, the results suggest that the atheist community at large would be wise to reach out to people who fall outside our traditional demographics, people who may not believe in God but have no outlet for their thoughts on religion.

Image from “I, Robot”, 2004, 20th Century Fox

Why is it that people continually point at the inexplicable, the undefinable and the unprovable when talking about the incredible uniqueness that humans hold among the animal kingdom? Any fool can see that humanity has taken a place in the world that no other animal could hold, due to the many seemingly unique qualities we display, and the degree to which we display them; We can communicate in intricate and specific terms, we can manipulate our world to change it to our wants and needs, and we display an unmatched propensity for inventiveness and shared learning. We have built our own world up from the harsh and natural world our forefathers found themselves in many centuries ago, and we continue to build from these meagre beginnings with an aptitude and tenacity unwitnessed in any other species on earth. In this sense, we are a special case, and we are all too aware of this. We know we are special, but we deny what it took to get us here.

We are only as advanced as we are because of the centuries of thought and evolution that have brought to this point, and this point is by no means a “destination” or “end-state”. When describing humanity, many fall into the trap of removing ourselves from the world, a false dichotomy of “the natural world” and “the human world”. This is understandable, given that we do display so many seemingly unique traits as a species, but it is very misguided thinking, and has caused all manner of problems in our current world. Once we remove the veil of our superiority as a species from the picture, once we look inside our own past, once we understand that the journey from “lower animal” to “higher animal” is a long and slow process, then we can understand what it really means to be a human in our current world. When this process is misunderstood, or in some cases, denied, we invent ways to explain our existences, we create extra baggage in the form of invisible and inexplicable phenomena to fill these gaps. Like the opposite of Occam’s Razor, we pile on unnecessary and imaginary complications to explain ourselves, simply because we lack the understanding of who and what we are, needlessly complicating the process of what I see as quite simple. What and who we are is much more simple, and at the same time more complex, than any mystical or superstitious thinking may have you believe.

And it is both beautifully poetic in its simplicity, and amazing in its complexities, but in no way necessitates or implies the need for supernatural intervention.

In order to see this, we need to take a step back, and look forward from the past to where we are now. All aspects of humanity can be explained when we look at where we came from, and it doesn’t require the intervention of an invisible all-powerful agent to help us along. As this is a blog and not a 100,000 word essay, I will only touch on the major ideas in this journey, but as you will see, most if not all of the mystical thinking about humanity’s place in the cosmos can be explained through gradual change, through adaptation, and through a hundred centuries of thinking and discovery. I will start with a common misconception about humanity, then attempt to explain in a way that shows that the supernatural is either unnecessary or absent in the process. The points below are human-centric in nature, and go a long way toward showing us just how selfish humanity is.

Morality

The emergence of the idea of morality is easily explained, if one is willing to accept that people have a want and need to be well. We are intelligent enough to realise that our own well-beings depend on the well-beings of those who surround us. We are social animals, and therefore depend heavily on our societies to thrive and flourish, so it is in our best interest to do what maintains others, not what destroy others. Morality is just a name for treating others in a caring and sufficiently constructive way for the whole of a societal group to perpetuate. However what is known as “morality” is so often bound up with individual judgement that the whole idea of morality today is basically a bankrupt concept. The term has been hijacked and loaded with personal ideals by those who see the actions of others as abhorrent, and could have only ever come to this stage via the guiding hand of religions an personal politics which seek to impose their own ethics and loaded moralities upon others.

Genesis

The idea of “genesis”, or a spontaneous coming into being, is what was used by thinkers of a bygone age to describe where humanity came from. It was the best they could come up with at the time, having limited knowledge and limited access to the world around us. We now know that humanity, or anything else on this planet, didn’t just spring into existence, but is the result of billions of years of gradual change and adaptation.

It is tempting therefore to ask within this framework “When did the first human appear?” assuming again that things just popped, fully formed, into existence. Of course, with gradual change and adaptation, every stage of development is different from the one that precedes it, and the one which follows. The first human therefore, is impossible to identify, because we are still changing and evolving.

In short, there was no genesis, definitely on in the biblical sense, and in an evolutionary sense, humanity emerged slowly and gradually from previous life-forms.

The Soul

Humanity is obsessed with itself. We are self-aware, and able to change and adapt to our surroundings, and also to make changes to our surroundings to suit us. We are also intelligent enough to realise that we will all die, and cease to be among those who love us, and those who we love share the same fate. A combination of our self-obsession, and the obliteration of self due to mortality, leads us to wish for eternal life, because the other option seems so uncomfortable that we’d rather not think about it. To deal with the ultimate futility of life, we have invented the idea of the soul. This soul represents our inner life-force, our uniqueness, and ultimately ourselves, but is intangible and eternal. And people fight tooth and nail to try and prove its existence, even if this “proof” is only wishful thinking.

The idea of soul only emerges because of our inability to deal with our own death, and the deaths of those around us. It is a coping mechanism to deal with the uncomfortable reality of the ultimate fate of all living creatures on this planet, and the food-chain which sustains it. In order for one individual to live, others must die. Once one comes to terms with the realities of life and death on this planet, the idea of the soul is only useful as a way to bend the wills of others to do the bidding of theologians and their mega-corporations, the religions. It is also a political tool which utilises the idea of eternal reward and punishment to motivate people into action against their neighbours.

Without the soul, the Abrahamic idea of heaven and hell falls to pieces. Without an eternal soul, there is nothing within these religions that relate to humans, and little value but a couple of guiding ideas that are of little relevance in a self-aware society like the one we live in today.

Empathy

As witnessed in what we call “upper primates” such as chimpanzees and gorillas, empathy is not unique to humans. Empathy is the ability to sense in others feelings and emotions, as well as the propensity within us to “feel” them also. Pain of others is reflected in our brains as pain to ourselves, therefore we tend to avoid painful situations without having to experience them ourselves. When we see someone stub their toe, our “mirror neurons” kick into play, and we empathise with the person who is in pain. We also comfort them, because in our minds we felt what they felt. Empathy is key to human evolution, because, as social animals, we learn mistakes from others rather than having to go through the learning of pain ourselves. This is a key to human societal evolution, for we have built up societies to best suit the needs of the group, not the self.

Society

Our societies have evolved because of a combination of the above series of human traits. We have constructed our societies in a way that suits the individual within the group, and therefore the group as a whole. Although much of modern society is geared toward the profits of the few, the basis for this society came from an ability to see and assess what is best for a group and work collectively  toward this. Along the way we have developed cultures and religions, specific to our geographical location, and diverse due to the separation of groups to these geographical areas. The evolution of societies, much like the evolution of language, is a good metaphor for the evolution of species in this way.

God

As I have said in the past, the notion of god is simply a way to fill the gaps in our knowledge in a way that satisfies our curiosities, at leas in a superficial way. However, the notion of a god with purpose, a god which oversees our daily toiling, and a god that punishes and rewards us for our actions, is the single most selfish thing humanity has ever devised. It’s easy to plea the case for god once one removes humanity from the context of nature, and even easier when a person claims they have a soul with which god will chose its destiny. Despite the arguments of contingency for god (i.e. that in order for the universe to exist, god is necessary), the arguments for a personal god (i.e. “I know god exists because I can feel his influence” ), or even the human-centric view that god has created the universe specifically for us, there is no evidence for this existence except for ignorance of facts.

With our current knowledge of the universe, and the continual growth and accumulation of evidence about the way the universe works, we see more and more that humanity is just one of many possibilities that the reality of this universe has to offer. We are special, at least insomuch that we are the only acutely self-aware species on this planet, but this self-awareness has had the tendency to centre ourselves as the “purpose” for this world, and with such grandiloquence as to be embarrassing. It’s time we grew up and saw our true place in this universe, one of fragile and fortunate circumstances, not as the spoilt child of an omnipotent all-seeing father figure.

Dr. Robert Sapolsky discusses his work as professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University and as a research associate with the Institute of Primate Research at the National Museum of Kenya. His enviable gift for storytelling led the New York Times to print, "If you crossed Jane Goodall with a borscht-belt comedian, she might have written a book like A Primate's Memoir." Dr. Sapolsky's account of his early years as a field biologist. He is sure to dazzle and delight with tales of what it means to be human.

Related articles:

1. Oldest Evidence of Split Between Old World Monkeys and Apes: Primate Fossils Are 25 Million Years Old
2. Why Humans Took Up Farming: They Like To Own Stuff

It’s easy to forget sometimes that evolution is always a work in progress. We contemplate the eye or look upon an oak tree, and ask, how could they be any better? Somehow, in those moments of awe, we forget about detached retinas and sudden oak death. The evolutionary race is not in fact won by the perfect, but by the good-enough. And it just so happens that one of the best illustrations of evolution’s mediocrity is unfolding in front of us right now.

Related articles:

1. My 4 years old daughter fears death. How can I explain it from an atheist point of view?
2. Suicide, age and poison

Statistics: Posted by SouthernFriedInfidel — Sat May 18, 2013 8:24 pm — Replies 1 — Views 34

Several decades ago, Edward Lorenz noticed something seemingly minor: his computational weather models yielded very different results if he changed the input variables only a tiny bit. Lorenz published a paper on this topic in 1963 and that led to the modern field of chaos.

Related articles:

1. Don Wildmon says America chose ‘Chaos’ by Re-Electing Obama
2. Perkins: Hate Crime Laws are a Sign of ‘Chaos in America’

What I think now is that even if Lindsay hadn’t said those objectionable things that so thrilled the Misogyny Brigade, he would have been wrong to speak at this event anyway. He objected to being told to “shut up and listen” and instead asserted his privilege as the head of the organization to lecture at the attendees…but shutting up and listening in this case was exactly what he needed to do, and speaking in the opening session was an extraordinarily impolitic thing to do instead.

It is perfectly legitimate to tell someone to shut up when you’ve heard their voice in a thousand variants many times before, and you need some small space in which to express yourself, too. This conference should be that space for the many who have been shushed.

A new national study shows that while Canada remains overwhelmingly Christian, Canadians are turning their backs on organized religion in ever greater numbers.

Related articles:

1. What are the potential functions of a secular group, and how do I get one organized?
2. If religion makes you happy, why are people turning away from it?

According to this report, the cost of the royal commission investigating abuse claims could reach $500-million.

The figure was revealed by barrister and lobbyist Bryan Keon-Cohen at a legal conference in Victoria, where – in an “explosive” speech –  he likened the Catholic Church a gang of common criminals.

Barrister Bryan Keon-Cohen

He said the Church saw itself as above the law and resisted governmental responses to child sex abuse.

Dr Keon-Cohen, the president of community lobby group COIN (Commission of Inquiry Now), said the church’s own mechanisms for investigating abuse, such as Towards Healing and the Melbourne Response, were insufficient and objectionable.

They seek to replace due process of civil and criminal law, while not being open for public scrutiny and accountability.

Dr Keon-Cohen said the church’s refusal to recognise assault as a crime first and not merely a sin amounted to it putting Catholic doctrine before the law of the land.

(This) places these officials … in the same smelly bed as outlaw motorcycle gangs, the mafia, drug cartels and people smugglers..

In the speech at the Australian Lawyers Alliance Victorian State Conference yesterday, Dr Keon-Cohen also said wealthy organisations should help pay for the royal commission where it could be proven they were responsible for offences.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse had already cost $22 million by April and was expected to run long past its current deadline of December 2015, Dr Keon-Cohen said.

He estimated it could cost “in the order of $500 million” based on the reported $50 million bill for the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.

In budget papers delivered earlier this week, the Victorian government allocated $434.1 million over four years for the wide-reaching inquiry.

The royal commission should explore whether organisations it was investigating could help cover the cost, Dr Keon-Cohen said.

I suggest that the [inquiry] be required to examine a further source of funds, ie wealthy organisations found, on the evidence, to have substantially contributed, due to their derelict practices, to the sexual abuse scandal.

Such contributions should reflect their assets and “degree of culpability”, he said.

Institutional cover-ups of the primary crime, the criminal assault, constituted a second level of abuse, Dr Keon-Cohen said.

Such callous disregard for the victim’s plight …amounts to not merely rank hypocrisy, but a second round of abuse.

Chief executive officer of the Church’s Truth, Justice and Healing Council Francis Sullivan said the Church had put in place procedures in the mid-1990s designed to prevent sexual abuse and to ensure past victims and survivors were treated with dignity and respect.

These improvements and procedures will be built upon as we learn more from victims and survivors who come forward to the Royal Commission and as the Council undertakes its own research and policy development.

Meanwhile, it is reported here that the Catholic Church in the UK will benefit massively from a tax break granted by the Government. The move will give it an extra £3-million a year.

It’s genuinely bizarre. If you thought the #wiscfi hashtag was a corrupt mess before the conference, it’s even worse now. It’s representative of the endemic bigotry against women that even atheist/skeptic cons don’t get this degree of malicious nastiness from their opponents.

It didn’t help that the opening remarks (by a bearded white guy, no less) were basically a high five to the people trolling the con — Ron Lindsay tut-tutted the attendees for using the concept of privilege to shut down conversations with…who? The thugs who hate the whole idea of Women in Secularism? It was the most inappropriate, uninspiring, wrong-headed conference opening ever. The director of CFI trolled a conference built by his own organization, and offered words of encouragement to the people trying to disrupt it!

All I can think is that he decided to make all the other talks look good by starting off on the lowest note he could. He shouldn’t have bothered, all the talks on the first day were excellent. Oh, you aren’t here? We’ve got three people from FtB live-blogging it all.

Jason/Miri/Kate covered the first panel, on faith-based pseudoscience. The panelists discussed the ways medicine in particular is undermined by quackery, and to give the True Skeptics™ conniptions, specifically addressed how religious lies contribute to the problem.

Jason/Kate covered Amanda Marcotte’s talk on how feminism makes better skeptics. She mainly talked about how patriarchal assumptions corrupt decision-making, highlighting, for instance, the opposition to Plan B, which cannot be attribute to rational decision-making at all, but is entirely faith-based. And when you look at the agenda of the theocrats of the religious right, it’s appalling how much of it is all about controlling women.

Jason/Miri covered Rebecca Goldstein’s talk on religion, humanism, and moral progress. She covered the philosophical and historical theme of “mattering”, of struggling to live a notable or even extraordinary life. Humanism is the only attempt to make lives matter that has progressed to including everyone.

Check in with those guys throughout the day as they take on the job of representing the conference accurately to the world — you sure won’t find that on twitter, which is worrisome. I wonder if other groups will organize to bully other events by disrupting their twitter feeds? Nah, only defending the rights of women seems to generate that much hate.

A group called Reach America released a video last month called “The Thaw” — because “Christianity is being ‘frozen’ out of the… public square” and it’s time to fix it! — in which young Christians talk about how they are being persecuted for their faith:

Their questions are completely absurd (“Why can’t I pray in school?” “Why do they teach every other theory in science except Creation?”) and I was tempted to refute them…

But then I saw that Dusty had done it already far better than I could. Plus, his response channeled my inner monologue exactly… plus or minus 32943294 swear words:

Dusty, be my friend. I like you.

(Thanks to Ed for the link!)

• a reflective life is valuable
• attempts to lead a moral life are good
• awe can be felt by looking at the world
• it is important to look for peace and love
• forgiveness, generosity and kindness should be nurtured
• even when things are bad, we should try to find some good or inner peace
• the patterns of relatedness in the universe are dazzling
• we should sacrifice for our family and friends
• we should not limit our kindness to only our loved ones
• we should limit our pride and greed from harming others

The list goes on. For you see, God is huge — well, if that is what they mean by “G-o-d” or any equivalent. But if, by “God” they mean:

• I can affect the health and well being of others by praying to Him/Her/It
• He rewards those who believe in him and punishes non-believers
• He is a being who wrote a book that tells us exactly what is right and wrong
• My present life is more meaningful than yours because I believe in him and you don’t
• History and my life is controlled by Him, so I should relax and just accept things.
• We should not question what He tells us
• I will preferentially associate and support with those who agree with my beliefs in Him only if they label them with my sounds and stories, otherwise I will avoid or fight them

Well, then, I don’t believe in their “God” (or whatever sound they use to label it) and will fight that particular belief.  Sure, I can believe in the first list but I have no need to try and tuck it all into one package and call it “God”.

But what if the sound “God” for them is a mix of items from both of those lists? Well, then I will try to fight the bottom list items (and any tools they use to strengthen them) and support the top list items and hope they do the same for me.

The question is, what do I do with the sounds “g-o-d” which they are attached to and can’t seem to understand how they are really using the word?  We could do the same analysis with the word “Freedom”, “Democracy”, “Family” and more, but let’s stick to “God” today.

It’s one thing to find a Bible in your hotel room since hotels are privately-owned businesses.

But why would there be one in a rented cabin at a state park?

That’s what Ed Buckner, the former American Atheists president, wanted to know after finding one at Amicalola Falls State Park in Georgia. It’s not that he was offended so much as he didn’t see how it was legal for a Christian book to be offered in a taxpayer-funded place.

“I think government entanglement with religion is a very dangerous thing,” he said in a telephone interview Thursday. “When you go into a state park cabin and the only piece of religious literature there is a Protestant Bible, that suggests the government’s endorsed that particular perspective.”

Initially, officials removed the Bibles from all the state parks — angering many Christians in the process — but this week, Governor Nathan Deal ordered those Bibles back into the rooms because he argued they were perfectly legal:

Gov. Nathan Deal

“These Bibles are donated by outside groups, not paid for by the state, and I do not believe that a Bible in a bedside table drawer constitutes a state establishment of religion,” he said. “In fact, any group is free to donate literature.”

Well, we can take issue with whether the fact that they were donated makes them legal… but did the Governor just say any group can donate literature that would appear in state-owned cabins?

Fantastic. American Atheists is on it:

“We appreciate the governor’s invitation to place atheist books in the cabins and look forward to providing visitors with the opportunity to learn more about atheism when they visit Georgia’s beautiful state parks,” said Managing Director Amanda Knief.

…

“American Atheists does not believe the State of Georgia should be placing Bibles or atheist books in state park cabins; however, if the state is going to allow such distribution, we will happily provide our materials,” said President David Silverman.

Books to be donated include “Why I Am Not A Muslim,” by Ibn Warraq, “Why I Am An Atheist” by Madalyn Murray O’Hair, “god is not Great,” by Christopher Hitchens, and “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.

What’s Deal going to do now? Either he has to allow the distribution of atheist books in state parks, remove all religious and non-religious books from them, or brace himself for a lawsuit.

Either way, Ed did the right thing by alerting officials to this promotion of Christianity and the Governor just stuck his foot in his mouth by trying to pretend like this wasn’t Christian privilege in action.

Christians in the Quiverfull movement believe in giving up all forms of contraception and accepting as many children as God gives, both as a sign of obedience to God and in a bid to ensure the future of the faith.

Quiverfull ideology also advocates a return to “traditional” roles in the home, where women are wife and mother first of all. They are their husband’s “helpmeet”, designed to support him as head of the household and primary breadwinner.

The programme features one woman who tested her faith in Quiverfull to the limit  – Vyckie Garrison, a mother of seven. Once a cornerstone of the Quiverfull movement in the US, she left in 2008. Her No Longer Quivering is described as a “place for women escaping and recovering from spiritual abuse”.

Garrison suffers from a rare bone condition that made pregnancy dangerous. Her husband had a vasectomy after baby number three. But after reading several Quiverfull authors, her ideas and the vasectomy were reversed.

Garrison continued to get pregnant against all medical advice, almost dying with the birth of her last – and seventh – child. But for a true believer, dying in childbirth is supposedly a noble act, she says.

I really believed that I wouldn’t die unless God willed that I die, and if he did then I would accept that, because obviously he’s the smart one, and has the big picture and knows the whole plan.

The programme appears to omit the tragic case of Andrea Yates.

Andrea Yates pictured with her husband Rusty and four of their five chiildren that she drowned in 2001

Yates , A Texas mum suffering from a severe untreated psychosis and post partum depression, was drawn into the Quiverfull movement at the insistence of her husband Rusty, who in turn was under the spell of a fire and brimstone preacher named Michael Woroniecki. In 2001 Andrea Yates drowned all five of her children in a bathtub, and to this day remains in a mental hospital.

Woroniecki, according to this report, was a sharp-witted, sharp-tongued, self-proclaimed “prophet” who preached a simple message about following Jesus but who was so belligerent in public about sinners going to hell (which included most people) that he was often in trouble. He even left Michigan, to avoid prosecution.

He denounced Catholicism, the religion with which Andrea had grown up, and stressed the sinful state of her soul.

He also preached austerity, and his ideas were probably instrumental in the way the Yateses decided to live. As Andrea had one child after another, she took on the task of home-schooling them with Christian-only texts and trying to do what the Woroniecki and his wife, Rachel, told her.

In one letter to Yates, Woroniecki said:

You are evil. You are wicked. You are a daughter of Eve, who is a wicked witch. The window of opportunity for us to minister to you is closing. You have to repent now!

Later, Yates stated she had considered killing the children for two years, adding that they [Woroniecki and her husband] thought she was not a good mother and claimed her sons were developing improperly. She told her psychiatrist:

It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren’t righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell.

She also told her psychiatrist that Satan influenced her children and made them more disobedient.

The Womb as a Weapon will be broadcast on the BBC World Service on 18 May at 19:32 GMT. Listen back via BBC iPlayer radio or download a podcast.

Hat tip: Agent Cormac

Of all the places Camp Quest is needed, Kansas City may be at the top of the list. This year marks the camp’s first year of existence and they’re preparing one hell of an awesome adventure for the campers:

Camp Quest Kansas City is a place for fun, friends and freethought for kids ages 8 through 17. We provide a traditional sleepaway summer camp experience with a wide range of activities, including sports, crafts, games, swimming and campfires.

In addition to traditional summer camp activities, Camp Quest offers educational activities focused on critical thinking, ethics, scientific inquiry, philosophy and comparative religion.

They could use some help so that they can offer as many opportunities as they can to the kids, so please consider donating a little something to them. And if you live in the area and think your child would enjoy the experience, it’s not too late to sign them up!

I’ve never met anyone who went to a Camp Quest and came away unhappy. Same with the counselors, who always tell me how much of an amazing experience it was for them. Seriously, send your kids there. It’ll be a worthwhile investment in so many ways.

Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, has decided to skip this Monday’s commencement ceremony at Boston College (a Catholic university) because the chosen speaker, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenney, supports abortion-rights legislation in Ireland.

The Prime Minister (called a Taoiseach in the Irish governmental system) is working to draft legislation protecting doctors from prosecution for performing abortions when a mother’s life will be endangered for any reason, including threat of suicide. He has insisted all along that the bill being debated in Ireland’s parliament does not actually change existing abortion laws; it merely “provides certainty” for doctors who need to know they will not be punished for deciding to perform life-saving abortions.

It was this kind of certainty that was missing in the case of Savita Halappanavar, who died from an infection after doctors refused to remove her miscarrying fetus so long as it still had a heartbeat. Fear of prosecution led doctors to await the fetus’ natural death before removing it, at Savita’s expense — a decision that is considered at odds with the principles of patient-centered obstetrics.

Nonetheless, Archbishop O’Malley sees fit to boycott the commencement in protest of the Taoiseach’s work to clarify abortion laws, noting that abortion is “a crime against humanity” in the eyes of the Church. He notes that:

Since the university has not withdrawn the invitation and because the Taoiseach has not seen fit to decline, I shall not attend the graduation. It is my ardent hope that Boston College will work to redress the confusion, disappointment, and harm caused by not adhering to the Bishops’ directives. Although I shall not be present to impart the final benediction, I assure the graduates that they are in my prayers on this important day of their lives, and I pray that their studies will prepare them to be heralds of the Church’s Social Gospel and ‘men and women for others’, especially for the most vulnerable in our midst.

He means fetuses, of course, and seems to ignore the likelihood that Savita Halappanavar, in her last moments, was probably pretty darn vulnerable.

Interestingly, O’Malley’s response has apparently angered the Irish government, who thought they had reached an arrangement with the Archbishop: O’Malley would skip the ceremony, but give a plausible reason not related to the Taoiseach’s pro-choice views, deftly avoiding the kind of publicity that would lead to major pro-life protests outside the commencement hall.

It’s hard to imagine that Boston College isn’t similarly peeved; after all, by publicly condemning Enda Kenny’s legislative efforts, O’Malley has boosted the likelihood of uncomfortable confrontations at an event that’s meant to celebrate students’ academic achievements. Nonetheless, the school’s administrators have chosen an even-handed response, observing that, while they will miss the Archbishop’s presence, they look forward to hearing the Taoiseach’s commencement address.

A Devil in God's House

• Director L'Tisha Vaughn
• Writer: L'Tisha Vaughn
• Stars: Samara Smith

The documentary is about clergy sexual abuse. The victim, now 34, is unable to press criminal charges, so she opted to tell her story of abuse as a child via a documentary.

The film is produced by Tiny Production, which looks like a worthwhile community venture too.

TPAC’s Can I Live Project invites Chicagoland youth to create original & positive staged & filmed works from Plays, Poetry & Spoken-Word, Dance Productions, Music Videos, Public Service Announcements and much more!!!! Check out our Tiny Production Works page to see works by TPAC students all across the city!!!!

How can you not love TPAC?

For decades, scientists have believed our ancestors took up farming some 12,000 years ago because it was a more efficient way of getting food. But a growing body of research suggests that wasn't the case at all.

Related articles:

1. Do humans need junk DNA? This carnivorous plant doesn’t
2. In Brief: Fossil links humans and monkeys

James Croft and Greg Epstein, both of the Humanist Community at Harvard, just signed a book deal to write The Godless Congregation:

The past few months have demonstrated that there is an increasing desire among religious “nones” for new forms of community which fulfill the human need for fellowship, support, civic engagement, ethical inspiration, and existential exploration. The Houston Oasis, the Sunday Assembly, and the Secular Hub in Denver are three such congregations: the sign of a trend toward greater organization among the nonreligious, showing that godless congregations are possible and that people want them.

I love the idea. There’s value in community for those who want it — and I suspect a lot more of us want it than we think. Only now are we starting to see some options pop up.

Yes, people are going to complain that an “atheist church” makes no sense or that it’s too much like religion, but that’s a very narrow-minded way of looking at it. There are so many people who don’t believe in God but remain in their church because of all the benefits it offers — community, moral education, childcare, a “spiritual rejuvenation” if you will. You don’t need God for any of that, and the atheists who are starting these “congregations” are only adapting the good parts of church while leaving behind the myth. There’s potential for abuse, but it hasn’t happened yet.

I appreciate David Hayward‘s take on Pastor Mark Driscoll‘s fake apology:

… when you instruct me on how or when I am supposed to laugh, you’ve already lost. I don’t care how long or biblical your instruction is.

Damn right.

This is a guest post by Brian Dooley.

***

Star Wars isn’t as good as it’s supposed to be. The stiff acting is often a match for the poor scripting. The once-groundbreaking special effects are no longer breathtaking. Many of the plot points — suspension of disbelief notwithstanding — don’t hold water.

But that’s not to say I’m not a fan. I love Star Wars. I always have. For as long as I can remember, I’ve been an unrepentant Star Wars geek with unbalanced tendencies toward anyone who begins to speak poorly about the Holy Trilogy or kindly about Episodes I, II, or III. I’ve spent the last 30 years as a Star Wars fanboy. I’m not even sure how I ended up married to a woman who had never even seen the films.

I’m also formerly Christian.

Though I stopped believing in God well over a decade ago, there was a time when I considered entering the ministry, or at the very least teaching in a Christian school system. Not to belabor the point, but I was entrenched in the system. Now, I am proudly atheist, and strongly anti-theist to boot.

So why bring all of this up? Because Star Wars isn’t perfect. And it wasn’t until I began looking at the films from a post-Christian perspective that I realized that. The truth is I’ve known this for a while but I could bring myself to admit it until now.

My Star Wars worship has been virtually analogous to my Judeo-Christian upbringing. Here’s how:

Scriptures/Mythology

• For all of their socio-cultural value, the core mythologies are merely an echo of the numerous mythologies preceding them (Mithra, Horus, and Ra; meet Westerns, Cinema Serials, and Joseph Campbell).
• There is a schism between people who follow only the Old Testament (Episodes IV, V, and VI) and those who embrace the Old and the New (I am a Star Wars Jew; the prequels are abominable).
• The agreed upon scriptures have been retranslated, redacted, appended, and retconned by men in power in order to maintain control and achieve personal gain.
• Different sects value different translations and interpretations of the core scriptures (I am a Star Wars Hasidic Jew, as the purest form of Star Wars is the unedited version where Han shoots first and Jabba is only in Return of the Jedi).
• Fanatic adherents and scholars are constantly searching for clues, artifacts, and heretofore unknown texts and materials.

Community

• Loyalty to a chosen dogma creates bonds of trust and friendship in subsections of larger communities and societies.
• There are frequent formal and informal gatherings of community members.
• There is ceaseless discussion and debate within passionate communities over minutiae and errata.
• A wealth of supplemental materials is constantly being produced, including stories both in and out of canon, retellings of favorite tales, and children’s versions. This exposes as many people as possible to the sagas and helps perpetuate a strong community (and, of course, ongoing income for the leaders).
• There is a reverence held for the people most directly involved in the creation and maintenance of the mythology (Lucas being the Pope — at once worshiped and reviled. See also: Ford, Fisher, Williams, and Hamill).

Mindset

• While believing their chosen path to be harmless and peaceful, devotees are often severely judgmental and dismissive of anyone who doesn’t share the same affinity for the subject matter.
• Adherents will fiercely defend their chosen dogma, often with emotional, baseless recitations of common retorts (“The acting is supposed to feel like a B-movie! It’s a tribute!” or “God works in mysterious ways! It’s not supposed to make sense!”).
• There is a dogged unwillingness to release the grip on the worship of the religion, even after facts are made evident.

These last few strike me the hardest. Even with my anti-theist bent, I have lived the bulk of my life denying the simple, harmless fact that Star Wars isn’t perfect. I have defended its perfection to countless people, including my wife, and have been angry at people for not seeing things my way (again, my poor, unindoctrinated wife) that I’ve stopped speaking to them altogether for periods of time.

As much as I’m not proud of this, it brings me to the biggest revelation of the whole argument.

Giving up on something you’ve loved so much and for so long that it has become a part of your daily existence is hard. There are some of you who might not have ever loved Star Wars in the fanatical (possibly unhealthy) way that I did (and still kind of do). But if you have anything in your life that you hold dear in this way, then you know — if even in a small way — how frightening and deflating it can be to realize that it’s all an illusion.

Maybe, just maybe, some of the folks out there — the ones fighting the hardest to cling to their traditional beliefs — are scared. Maybe you can be the one to give them A New Hope.

***

Brian Dooley is the lead of a content marketing team, a loving father, and a doting husband. When not doing those things, Brian loves to read and write, brew beer, geek out, and start businesses.

It’s the critique of the so-called “deficit model” many of us have been dancing to for decades. The deficit model, if you’re lucky enough not to have come across the term, assumes science has the knowledge the public are deficient in, and that many of our social ills will be solved if we all listened to the experts. It’d be a nice idea maybe if science, the media, policy or people were that simple, but they’re not (I talked about similar issues in my Radio Four piece on scientific literacy last year).

Oh, no…it brings back cranky memories of those annoying rounds of argument with Mooney and Nisbet, who loved to slam us with sneering rebukes that we’re true believers in the Deficit Model, and don’t you know, everybody rejects that model nowadays.

And I’d just, what, say what, I what? I’m right here, why are you arguing with that caricature? Look, I’ve spent decades battling creationists, giving them the actual facts in the face of their distortions, and I know they heard me, and I know they’re not so stupid they couldn’t comprehend what I was saying, and yet they’ll be back the next week saying the same lies. I know that there’s more to getting people on the side of reason then calmly stating the evidence while equipped with a Ph.D. I don’t know anyone who subscribes to this “deficit model” of which you speak.

Here’s the model I actually accept; let’s call it the Obstacle Model. Everyone has a whole collection, to varying degrees, of obstacles that interfere with effective progress: for instance, there’s poverty, and racism, and sexism, and religion, and authoritarianism, and ignorance. Focusing on just one without paying any attention to the others means you won’t get very far. Every good educator knows that teaching is a multi-dimensional problem.

Correcting ignorance has a rather critical role to play in the solution. I think the other factors I listed are more important in giving people the will and capability to make decisions, but addressing an intellectual deficit is essential in giving them the power to decide how to decide; without it, you’ve got a blundering herd of enthusiastic incompetents.

But ignorance also has a special place because it’s the one thing teachers are commissioned to address, so if you’re interested in deprecating expertise, finding a straw man like the “deficit model” to set on fire is a handy tool to knock those scientists and educators down a peg. It’s also a useful bludgeon if you’re a sociologist and want to assert your authority over those puffed-up boffins (not that I think most sociologists have an inferiority complex, but some of the dumbest things ever said about science come out of the mouths of sociologists).

You want examples? Alice Bell continues by citing sociological analyses of the scientific establishment.

The deficit model sticks around partly because it feeds scientists’ social status, implicitly underlining their powerful position as people who get to define what counts as important, true, reliable knowledge. Stephen Hilgartner put it well back in 1990, saying such top down approaches implicitly provide the scientific establishment with the epistemological right to print money. Something we don’t appreciate enough though is that also serves the handmaidens of the deficit model – science communication professionals, less powerful scientists, many science “fans” – offering them some social status by association. Play into a game of hierarchies, and even if you don’t get to the top, you get to climb a bit. Pierre Bourdieu, in his classic sociology of the university campus, Homo Academicus, talks about the way students are happy to submit to the idea that they are inferior to senior academics because doing so earns them subsequent admittance to a distinguished club of graduates. I think we can see similar patterns at work in terms of the way academic ideas are shared outside of universities too.

O My Fellow Scientists, do you feel like you have the right to print money? Here we are in an occupation with relatively limited recompense — we tend to be solidly middle class, which is very nice, but not much more — and we had to spend much of our youth in training, which from a purely economic point of view, represented a tremendous loss in earning potential. Deferring getting an entry level job because you spent a decade in graduate school and post-doctoral positions isn’t sound financial sense. Are these critics even aware of how many scientists get thrown into the churn of the unending provisional appointments? Somehow, though, we always get this criticism from creationists and other outsiders that we’re in it for the big bucks, as if we’re investment bankers or oil company executives.

O My Fellow Scientists, do you feel like you have high social status? I certainly don’t. Scientists are not particularly well-regarded in the communities I live in, except among ourselves; I follow politics, and scientists certainly don’t play much of a role there. Except when they’re trying to fill knowledge deficits (which is constantly trivialized by these critics of the deficit model), scientists are treated as awkward nerds with no social skills at all — the archetype we see flaunted on shows like The Big Bang Theory. You’re very confused if you think Sheldon is regarded as having high social status. He’s a pretentious clown.

O My Fellow Scientists, do you scorn your students and think of them as your inferiors? Maybe some do; I certainly don’t. I’m in this teaching position because I respect and enjoy the company of students. I identify with my students.

And here’s the thing: that hierarchy? Definitely a mixed bag. I remember being a student, and my professors were pretty much just like me, except with added obligations. Graduate school was wonderful — they had to order me to wrap up and get the thesis done. I tried to keep my post-docs going as long as I could stretch them out, because every step up the academic ladder meant less playing in the lab, more uncertainty (where am I going to get a job?), and more teaching and administrative responsibilities. If I had my druthers, I’d still be a grad student.

Even now, I’m dragging my heels about getting promoted to full professor, despite the nudges from my unit head. Promotion would mean a little more money (but I’m not in this job for the money!) and additional responsibilities in campus-wide governance. Why should I do that? Because I’m a good citizen of my university, not because I have some illusion that it will let me lord my superiority over others.

But OK, Bell does salvage the article in the end.

Less cynically, top down models also stick around because scientists do, genuinely, have special ideas and information to share. We pool our resources to allow a few people to cut themselves off and become experts in particular subjects. We do this so that they might feed back their knowledge and we can, collectively, try to make a better world. We should listen to them. As David Dickson wrote in 2005, factual reporting of science can be socially empowering for audiences. It’s worth remembering this. Political systems of scientific advice in government are built partly for this reason too, to make best use of scientific expertise. I don’t want to throw the baby out with bathwater, and lazy critique of science is not just silly, it can be dangerous (if you’ve never read Merchants of Doubt, do).

Yes, that is the way it works. I’m glad to see a realistic perspective on the matter — now if only everyone would realize that most scientists share this same view, and that this deficit model crap is a sociological contrivance intended to take a back-handed slap at expertise.

Catholics split on proposed gay Boy Scouts change (RNS)
As the BSA decides this month whether to allow openly gay boys into its program, Sefranek is among those who say the controversial move would cause him to quit the venerable Scouting program.

Christian leaders seek to overcome polarization (RNS)
Twenty-five top Christian leaders gathered in the U.S. city with perhaps the worst reputation for civil discourse Wednesday (May 15) and committed themselves to elevating the level of public conversation. Meeting in a row house three blocks from the U.S. Capitol, the group spanned the Christian spectrum, and included officials from liberal churches and the most conservative of interest groups.

The Other I.R.S. Scandal (Friendly Atheist)
However, there’s another scandal that’s been taking place at the IRS and it’s gone completely under the radar. Last October (and years before that, too), on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” more than 1,500 pastors endorsed a candidate for President during church in complete violation of the law. They did it openly and proudly, people documented them doing it, the material was sent to the I.R.S. … and nothing happened.

Science & Religion
Human cloning breakthrough prompts religious objections (RNS)
News that scientists had for the first time recovered stem cells from cloned human embryos prompted dire warnings from religious leaders who say the research crosses a moral red line and could lead to designer babies.

States
(Kentucky) High School Principal Encourages Christian Teachers to Teach Creationism and Proselytize to Students (Friendly Atheist)
Hibbard and other speakers told the teachers present that it was perfectly acceptable under Kentucky law to teach biblical creationism in addition to evolution in science classes, and he suggested future meetings with biology teachers to craft curriculum.

(Mississippi) The Young Women Who Are Speaking Out Against the Mandatory Christian Assembly at Their Public High School(Friendly Atheist)
According to the American Humanist Association, even when students tried to leave the Performing Arts Building so they wouldn’t have to listen to the preaching, they “were harassed by a principal and told to sit down.” The Appignani Humanist Legal Center of the AHA sent the school a complaint letter (PDF). After not hearing back from the administration, they filed a lawsuit (PDF) against the school, in which the extensive and jaw-dropping details about the assembly are listed in full.

International
(Israel) Tzipi Livni Defends Women’s Egalitarian Prayer at Western Wall (Jewish Forward)
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni told Religious Affairs Minister Naftali Bennett on Wednesday night she would not support changes to the law governing the holy sites that he is promoting to limit the activities of Women of the Wall. Livni told Bennett that such amendments required the justice minister’s approval.

(China) Chinese Police Beat Monk to Death Over Banned Cassettes (Radio Free Asia)
A Tibetan monk found in possession of recordings of speeches by exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama has been beaten to death by Chinese police, according to Tibetan sources.

(Saudi Arabia) Saudi religious police leader says Twitter will send you to hell (BBC)
The head of Saudi Arabia’s religious police has warned citizens against using Twitter, which is rising in popularity among Saudis. Sheikh Abdul Latif Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh said anyone using social media sites – and especially Twitter – “has lost this world and his afterlife”. Twitter was the platform for those who did not have any platform, he said. Earlier, Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti, the kingdom’s most senior Muslim cleric, had dismissed Twitter users as “fools”.

Christianophobia (Christian Science Monitor)
British journalist Rupert Shortt documents and examines the persecution of Christians around the world – a problem of which many Westerners are unaware.

Friday Fun
Florida candidate for mayor “endorsed by Jesus Christ” loses election; calls opponent “Luciefer” (God Discussion)
From the former candidate’s Facebook page: “I will say that I AM GIVEN ONLY 55 VOTES FROM ALL THE BALLOTS THAT WERE CAST FOR ME. Well, I am strong & I can take it. REMEMBER THAT I AM NOT ALONE. I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN WOMAN. NOT ONLY I AM COVERED UNDER THE BLOOD OF JESUS…I AM SWIMMING IN IT. MY JESUS HAS CONTROL OVER MY LIFE & THE TITLE OF MAYOR DOESN’T DEFINE WHO I AM AS A PERSON. NORTH MIAMI CHOSE “LUCIEFER” OVER JESUS.”

Religion
My Take: What Tsarnaev gets wrong about Islam (CNN)
Tsarnaev’s quote seems to be based on the idea of a global Muslim community, called the ummah, that has always been aspirational. The Tsarnaev brothers clearly felt that they were being marginalized, and the fact that they did not belong to an American Muslim community further reinforced that belief. So the brothers turned to the idea of the ummah, a historical fiction that has not existed in practice in all of Muslim history. Muslims are too varied to connect to one way of being a community.

Related articles:

1. SCA’s Morning Read 5/14/13
2. SCA’s Morning Read for 5/16/13

Recently, I read two articles about dying for a cause. The first, on these pages, by Sally Quinn, addressed the Dalai Lama’s lack of compassion for not criticizing the self-immolation of more than 100 Tibetans since 2009 to protest China’s occupation of Tibet.  The second article concerned 813 Italians who were just declared “saints” by the Catholic Church because they chose death in 1480 rather than convert to Islam. 

Related articles:

1. Italy orders Vatican to pay tax on its commercial property
2. Martyrdom of the privileged

Download your free copy at http://www.amazon.com/Duck-Blood-Soup-Caldarium-ebook/dp/B00AGOISEU/

(From TONMO, on a page about raising captive cuttlefish)

The other day, I posted a story about a former Pensacola Christian College student who had awful recollections of the school’s fire drill policy:

Of course PCC isn’t known for really caring much about fire safety anyway. For years the rule has remained on the books that all female students must be in “proper” attire before they leave their rooms for a fire drill. If you happen to be sleeping in pajama pants, you must take the time to put on a skirt before you try to escape the flames. If you should perish then at least you’ll know you died for the cause of not tempting the fire fighters to lust after you.

It seemed pretty unbelievable, so I sent an email to PCC asking them what their actual policy was in the case of a fire. Did they really require proper attire?

This was the response I got back:

Yes, we ask the girls if they can to grab knee length shorts or a skirt to quickly change in to. Once students exit the building they have to stand so far away from the building.

Seriously…? I had to write back.

But come on, in the case of an emergency, isn’t the first priority to get out of the building? When I was in college, if you were in the shower when a fire alarm went off, you would theoretically just have to go outside in your towel!

So maybe that policy is the hope, but if there’s a real fire, none of that really matters, right?

I got another response from the college:

Yes, the priority would be to get out of the building as quick as possible. The closets are right by the door on their way out of each room so it would be possible to be modest on their way out. A robe would even be fine.

*Sigh*

So it’s true. In the case of a fire at Pensacola Christian College, the first priority is to dress appropriately. The second priority is getting out of the building as quickly as possible. No matter how they phrase it, that’s their mindset.

Or maybe getting out is the third priority. I was too afraid to ask when students were supposed to pray.

After my last post, some commenters referred to a 2002 fire at a girls’ school in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Because they were not wearing proper religious garb, the girls were instructed to head back into a burning building. 15 girls died in the fire; who knows how many lives could have been saved if safety, not modesty, was the first priority.

I understand why PCC wants students to adhere to strict faith-based rules, but not when it could come at the expense of their own lives.

The Census results were first released in December 2012, and overall show that the percentage of people ticking ‘Christian’ in response to the question ‘What is your religion?’ has declined from 71% of the population in 2001 to 59% in 2011. At the same time, the number ticking ‘no religion’ increased from 15% to 25%. This change followed on from the BHA’s Census Campaign, which encouraged the non-religious to tick the ‘no religion’ box in order to help counteract the leading nature of the question – which assumed that respondents have a religion and (in its position on the form) encouraged respondents to record people to respond based on their upbringing, not belief or practice.

Among other points, the new data shows that the number of UK-born Christians decreased by 5.3 million since the 2001 Census, but Christianity’s overall decline was slowed as this was topped up by 1.2 million Christian immigrants. At the same time, the number of UK-born people with no religion increased by 5.8 million and the number of immigrants with no religion increased by 0.5 million.

The results also showed a particular decline in the number of Christians among young people, reinforcing that Christians are generally much older than those of no religion. 39% of those with no religion are under 25 while 42% are 25-49. These figures are 26% and 31%, respectively, for Christians.

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented, ‘The new analysis confirms that the future for the UK is a non-religious one. Most young people are non-religious and the religious proportion of the population is only being topped up by older people whose religion is generation-related rather than age-related and patterns of immigration which are unlikely to continue. Our social institutions, public policy and the way we think about our society and national identity has to catch up with this massive cultural shift.’

Notes

For further comment or information please contact BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson on 07534 248596 or at andrew@humanism.org.uk.

Read today’s findings: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/index.html

Read the BHA’s comments from the initial release of the results last December: http://humanism.org.uk/2012/12/11/census-results-show-huge-shift-in-cultural-identity-from-christianity-to-no-religion/

Visit the Census Campaign website: http://census-campaign.org.uk/

View our analysis of the results: http://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/census-2011/census-2011-results/

Read other surveys and statistics on religion or belief: http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-surveys-statistics

The British Humanist Association is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. It promotes a secular state and equal treatment in law and policy of everyone, regardless of religion or belief.

The post New 2011 English and Welsh Census figures on religion released appeared first on British Humanist Association.

Related articles:

1. Census results show huge shift in cultural identity from Christianity to no religion
2. Surge of support for census ‘No Religion’ campaign

The Apostasy Project, starting by the UK-based Rationalist Association, is kind of like the Clergy Project for all those leaving their faith:

If you are questioning your faith or wanting to leave your religion you need help and support. You may be leaving behind family, friends and community, but where are you going and how do you get there? The Apostasy Project will help by offering guidance and resources and direct access to others who have been through the same experience. When you doubt your faith it can feel like you have nowhere to turn. The Apostasy Project will fill this gap, and offer reliable information and, more importantly, a sense of community. The project is not about criticising religion but supporting the right to choose what you believe.

If you’d like to help them build up resources and a network of advisors, consider donating to the cause.

(via Pharyngula)

Their victims – vulnerable schoolgirls – were plucked from the streets and care homes to be drugged, raped and sold into prostitution in the university city of Oxford.

Judge Peter Rook warned them:

You have been convicted of the most serious offences. Long custodial sentences are inevitable.

Two sets of brothers, Akhtar Dogar, 32, and Anjum Dogar, 31, and Mohammed Karrar, 38, and Bassam Karrar, 33, were convicted along with Kamar Jamil, 27, Assad Hussain, 32, and Zeeshan Ahmed, 27.

The seven convicted members of the Oxford paedophile ring

Fighting broke out in the dock at the Old Bailey after two other defendants  – Mohammed Hussain, 25, and a man who cannot be named for legal reasons – were cleared. Zeeshan Ahmed struck out at Mohammed Hussain before being bundled out of the dock by officers.

After the verdict, former Labour MP Ann Cryer faced criticism for blaming the Oxford paedophile ring on “cultural practices imported” from Pakistan.

Thames Valley Police Chief Constable Sara Thornton warned about making generalisations about the men’s background, saying similar abuse can happen “across the community”.

But Cryer, who has campaigned on child grooming issues, said:

It’s cultural practices that have been imported into this country from Pakistan and we must not lose sight of that fact. We can’t just turn a blind eye to it.

Speaking on a BBC Five Live phone-in, Cryer claimed there was a “very paternalistic culture in Pakistan,” saying not many women had voted in the recent elections there.

She went on to claim that Pakistani communities in the North of England had:

Imported the view that women are not worth much and therefore they do not care too much about what happens to them.

Her views were criticised by the next caller, who said:

It’s shocking that you could demonise an entire culture with the behaviour of a few evil individuals from that culture.

There was also a backlash on Twitter, with many users criticising presenter Nicky Campbell for failing to challenge her.

But the most damning imdictment of Islam’s role in this horrible case came from Dr Taj Hargey, a MUSLIM community leader and imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation. Writing in the Daily Mail, he said:

The fact is that the vicious activities of the Oxford ring are bound up with religion and race: religion, because all the perpetrators, though they had different nationalities, were Muslim; and race, because they deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as ‘easy meat’, to use one of their revealing, racist phrases.

Indeed, one of the victims who bravely gave evidence in court told a newspaper afterwards that ‘the men exclusively wanted white girls to abuse’.
But as so often in fearful, politically correct modern Britain, there is a craven unwillingness to face up to this reality.

He added:

Moreover, reputable studies show that around 26 percent of those involved in grooming and exploitation rings are Muslims, which is around five times higher than the proportion of Muslims in the adult male population.

To pretend that this is not an issue for the Islamic community is to fall into a state of ideological denial.

But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

The OTF, boiled down, states that you should evaluate your faith from the outside. As Loftus puts it, “The only way to rationally test one’s culturally adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider, a nonbeliever, with the same level of reasonable skepticism believers already use when examining the other religious faiths they reject.”

So, in short, the OTF is nothing more than the golden rule: You should treat your own religion exactly as you treat other religions, and evaluate your beliefs using the same criteria that you use to evaluate others’ beliefs. It’s a sound and powerful argument. Granted, stepping outside oneself and one’s own upbringing is one of the most difficult things to do. Still, do we really need an entire book to explain it?

Answer: no, but we do need an entire book to defend it. Loftus’ first couple of chapters describe the OTF and the thought process behind it. His last two chapters work through the OTF and explain some of the implications. But half of the book is Loftus responding to critics.

Loftus is a magnet for apologists, so he’s got quite a rogues gallery of people to work through. He does a good job of condensing arguments that likely took up long comment threads on one blog or another, but there’s still a lot of ground to cover.

All this does leave me with a problem. The natural audience for this book are people like myself who are stuck in to the world of apologetics and counter-apologetics. This new work gives us a nice handbook where all the likely moves of the debate are spelled out. People who avoid these debates – known in the trade as sane people – might be better off sticking with Loftus’ shorter description of the OTF in the collection The End of Christianity.