I came, I hovered, I rejected.
Apparently, in the spirit of “political correctness gone mad” or somesuch moronic ballyhoo, a teacher from a school in Seattle, Washington, USA has decided that egg-shaped containers often given as gifts at this time of year, and often known by the rather sober moniker “easter eggs”, are henceforth to be called “spring spheres” by her pupils.
That’s according to an article from fundietastic outlet CBN.com, anyway, who are obviously up in arms about “easter” being taken away from Jesus, who is of course the origin of the egg/confection combination, probably by having left them behind in his tomb as incontrovertible yet tasty proof of his having being there. Or something.
And—obviously—she’s not a maths teacher, otherwise she’d know that they’re spring ovoids not spheres. The silly ninny.
Note to self: buy chocolate.
Last night saw BBC2′s first screening of a new documentary from Gonzoesque broadcaster Louis Theroux following the further exploits of the infamous Phelps family and their cohorts, the insane bigots behind the God Hates [insert pretty much anything] campaigns, America’s Most Hated Family in Crisis.
Theroux has once before courted Phelps et al. In 2007 he presented the documentary The Most Hated Family In America which was most likely the first time that many in the UK had been exposed to the biblical wingnuttery of the Westboro Baptist Church (who easily manage to put the biblically-inspired antics of our home-grown fundie cause célèbre, Stephen “Birdshit” Green, in the shade) and it made for television that was tragic, hilarious and not a little frightening.
Before airing, this new documentary was primed in an article by Theroux, who explained:
Normally I don’t do follow-ups. But I’d made an exception in this case because of an e-mail I’d received from one of the fire-breathing young zealots I’d interviewed on my first trip, announcing she’d left the church. She cited our conversations as one of the influences.
She had now changed her life, found a boyfriend and had zero contact with anyone still inside the church, including her family. A little research revealed that several others I’d met on my first visit were also now apostates. This included Steve’s own daughter, Lauren.
Intriguing.
Of course, the WBC thrives on publicity, no matter what the content of that publicity says. Criticism and opprobrium are—to them—seen as validation and vindication (as a prototypical example of an extreme christian persecution complex) that they must be doing it right. Theroux continues:
Some have asked why the Phelpses allowed us back in having seen the first film. They were in their own weird way fans, seeing our original effort as (I think) basically fair – and more importantly regarding it as part of their destiny to have their message widely heard and then rejected.
The Phelpses picketed the funeral of Albert Snyder’s son and he is battling them in court
For the broad mass of humanity to go to hell, they must have first been exposed to the gospel and failed to heed it. Our programme had been seen by millions around the world. In my own way, I had a part in the divine plan. And so I’d made my way back to Zion, as they like to call their block of houses on a suburban street in Topeka, for a week-long stay.
I didn’t see the show (and—let’s be frank—it is a show) as it was being transmitted as I was too busy arguing in the pub (vodka + foreign policy and ethics + a philosopher + an evolutionary psychologist = interesting conversations) but it’s available on the BBC’s iPlayer (available until Sunday 10th April 2011) so I’ll be watching it at some point today.
For those of you outside the UK, some enterprising soul has liberated it from the pearly clutches of Auntie Beeb and put it up onto a public video site, details of which you will find at Unreasonable Faith.
Enjoy.
Infallible: the fragrance for men who never need to admin they're wrong
How on earth did I miss this?
Source: Newsthump
I think I now understand what’s “new” about “New Atheism”.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of diatribes against “New Atheism” in the various print and Internet media. For the past few years, I’ve rallied against this epithet, mostly because in those articles I saw nothing that reflected myself nor my peers: I saw only caricatures and straw-men.
The complaint nominally centres about the fact that “New Atheism” isn’t as ‘serious’ as the classical atheism of our forebears: Locke, Hume, and the others that broke through the ‘sacred circle’ necessarily took religion as seriously as the theists themselves.
But after reading Christopher Hitchens’ recent article on Slate, Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks., I’ve come to realise something: those that make such complaints are not now primarily concerned that we don’t take their claims seriously, it’s that we’re no longer even pretending to take their claims seriously.
Of course, they say that we’re being “unsophisticated” about their particular claims, but how seriously can we take them before we simply have to give up trying to pretend to understand that, somehow, 1+1+1=1 or that flying horses were less rare 1,400 years ago than they are nowadays, and compare it to listening to the one-sided conversation of a young child having a tea-party with their imaginary friend?
We’ve noticed that engaging with them and treating their ideas as if they were worthy of serious contemplation simply bolstered their position, it gave them a level of credibility they didn’t deserve. So those within the “new atheism” have moved beyond discussing the topic on their terms, and using their language to do.
We’ve become “outspoken” and “disrespectful”, we censure them for their false and supercilious claims to be the arbiters of “morality”, pour boiling scorn on their supernaturalistic yarns, laugh at the farcical pomp of their rituals, while at the same time calling their leaders bigots and liars when indeed they are. We use our influence in our societies and communities to reject or—even better—reverse their pretensions to control how we steer our lives and superintend our bodies, and generally treating them like the spoilt children they ape.
We no longer show them the deference they assume is due their insubstantial ideologies, we’re no longer afraid, and that terrifies them. The worst thing for them is not being conspired against, persecution is sustenance; it’s being made irrelevant. If they want their ideas to have respect, they can earn it just like everyone else.
So: fuck yes, I’m a “new atheist”.
But I’m still not going to capitalise it.
The ever vigilant—and some might say aptly but generically named—DAILY MAIL REPORTER brings us another startling revelation about the fight for the hearts and minds of the UK’s children:
The Daily Mail: Children as young as four to be educated in atheism
Yes, they said “in”… [sigh]
Anyway, it is The Daily Mail, so we can safely assume it’s probably a lie from the get-go, but let’s just actually see if that’s the case:
School pupils aged just four are to be taught atheism in a move schools hope will equip them to be ‘citizens of the world’.
Education bosses in Blackburn with Darwen, Lancashire, have radically restructured the RE [religious education] syllabus to accommodate non-religious beliefs.
Youngsters will continue to learn about the six major faiths – Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism – but they will also be taught humanism, the belief that there is no God or Gods, and that moral values are founded on human nature and experience.
Ah, so it’s not atheism, it’s humanism
then, that well-known non-religion that has the belief that there is no God or Gods [sic]
.
Teaching four-year-olds about religion is good, but about people not having any religion: shocking! Someone call The Daily Ma— oh you almost had me there… And, unlike the religions mentioned, they won’t be taught about humanism, they will be taught it: as if it’s fact, as if some people really have no religion. They will have it forced down their sweet little throats, whether they like it or not, gawd bless ‘em and their cotton-polyester blend socks.
So, why is this being introduced?
The new syllabus was drawn up after reviewing the 2001 census results, which revealed that, although the borough has representatives from all of the six major faiths, there were more than 10,000 people who stated they did not follow a religion.
At its launch Dot Thomson, Blackburn with Darwen school improvement officer, said: ‘I would not describe the syllabus as radical but it is disassociated from what went before in Blackburn with Darwen.
‘This is the first time we have given respect for non-religious life stances.
‘It is an important area. We expect this year’s census to show the diverse faiths and beliefs in the area and we need to reflect this when teaching RE in schools.’
An actual use for census data? I guess the British Humanist Association’s census campaign was onto the right track, after all. And, by given respect for
, they of course mean “even mentioned”. But still, it only took ten years. It seems that things are looking up for us UK atheists/yoomanists!
The local spokesbeards have to have their tuppence-worth of lip-flap—it wouldn’t be a real Mail article without it. First up is local-muslim-godbotherer-in-chief Salim Mulla:
We believe it is important to have faith values whether that is Christian, Islamic or any other religion …
The values are very, very important. I don’t think the non God aspect should be introduced into the curriculum.
I don’t think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that’s how it should stay.
The non-faith beliefs send a wrong message to the children and confuse them.
Well, of course he does, it’s his bloody job to get people to cower on rugs to his god. Local christian-flavoured godbotherer Kevin Logan was a little more welcoming:
It is quite a change but it is completely right to recognise atheism and humanism.
They are religions like any others. It is just that people worship man instead of a god.
I am certainly not worried about Christianity. It can stand against any belief and come out in a good light.
More religionists, like millions—if not billions of their co-theistic brethren, that just don’t have a clue.
Hope springs, etc.
However (and I’m admitting to utter astonishment here) for all the bigotry, stupidity and fabrications that The Daily Mail usually embodies and espouses, the fact-box on that page, “What is humanism?”, is probably the most accurate thing I have (or will) ever read there. I have no doubt they stole it from somewhere else, but I suppose that almost counts as research, right?
Still, it’s not the worst Mail article ever, but then it’d need to be pretty damned awful to compete in that particular race.
Oh, and I while I’m on the subject, I must take time to pimp istyosti, which is essential if you don’t want to give the Mail and others of that ilk any added value by linking to them. There’s a damned fine Google Chrome extension, but it can be used without it too by copying and pasting a link into the box on the istyosti home page. Sod them and their ad revenues.
And, while I’m in a pimping mood, why not check out the Planet Humanism blog aggregator (joining info). :-)
Protected by the blood of Jesus
Somehow I reckon a sturdy locked door, a fairly modern CCTV system or possibly a rottweiler would be a better ‘protection’ system. Or perhaps just some menacing-looking pensioner armed with nothing but the pictured hatstand and a lusty grin.
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
— Revelation 12:11 (KJV)
Yeah, I have no idea what it’s supposed to mean either. Something about suicidally hitting someone with a dead sheep?
Someone I follow on Twitter posted this link, with the warning “Dear fellow atheists, know thy enemy”: The Catholic’s Guide to Atheists.
Intriguing.
So I read it. And I found it fairly interesting, humorous and irreverent (… you must remember that atheists are just like you and me, except that they eat small children for breakfast. (Kidding, kidding. They prefer them for lunch.)
) although there’s the obvious I-used-to-be-an-atheist-but-Jesus-is-my-homeboy sort of stuff, which just washed right over me.
It wasn’t until I got to the third point, the negated claim [t]hey [atheists] are well-versed in Catholic doctrine
that I took exception.
And no, it’s not because I know a lot about catholic doctrine; I don’t. No, it was the conclusion of the point that surprised—and somewhat irked—me.
I find that when misconceptions like this [irrelevant—to an atheist like me—minutiae about their dogma] are cleared up, my atheist friends are pleasantly surprised at how fair and reasonable Catholic doctrine is.
Really?
Really?
[This is my incredulous face, right here—use your imagination.]
Catholic doctrinal attitudes to family planning are “fair and reasonable”? Catholic doctrinal attitudes towards homosexuals are “fair and reasonable”? Catholic doctrinal attitudes to justice for sexually and physically abused children are “fair and reasonable”? Catholic doctrinal attitudes to women and their reproductive health are “fair and reasonable”?
I can tell the difference between those ordinary folk that call themselves “catholics”, and the dogma that comes from the ostentatious-but-comically-behatted-and-befrocked sexless talking-heads in their gold-bedecked palaces in Rome. The former may indeed be—for the most part—reasonable people, but the bigoted, supercilious pontificating of their ‘bishops’ and ‘popes’ are anything but “fair and reasonable”.
No atheist I know—and I know a lot of ‘em—think catholic doctrine comes anywhere even close to this.
And you were doing quite well up until that point.
Jennifer Fulwiler, you’ve got to try harder.
It looks like Deepak Chopra doesn’t actually have the monopoly in misappropriating the word “quantum” and applying it to woo.
Now there’s something called “Quantum Jumping“. (The Google search link is there because I refuse to give wingnuts ad revenue directly).
“What’s Quantum Jumping?”, I hear you ask. Thankfully, they’ve kindly explained it for us (for certain definitions of the word “explain”)…:
Quantum Jumping is the process of jumping into parallel dimensions, and gaining creativity, knowledge, wisdom, skills and inspiration from alternate versions of yourself.
This happens through a phenomenon known as “thought transference.” You see, although the solidity of our world seems indisputable, Quantum Theory suggests that our physical reality is nothing but a very elaborate mirage. A super-hologram of information and energy. A Matrix.
The chair you’re sitting on, your computer, your house, your car, everything that exists around you, is an illusion.
So then how do we see, touch, feel, and smell the things that surround us if none of it really exists?
The answer is that all physical matter is the result of particles vibrating at a certain frequency. A frequency that if you alter, change or amplify in any way, you change your physical and current reality.
We all know from physics class that if you increase the vibrational frequency of water particles through heat energy, you create steam and if you slow them down by removing heat energy, you create ice. And just like heat, our thoughts too are energy.
Emphasis as original.
This astounding knowledge can be yours, for the low-low price of the surrender of your faculties to vacuous crap. Oh, and most likely a lifetime of spam in your inbox.
Don’t forget to thank my other selves in those parallel universes. If they’re anything like me, at least one of them is bound to like a decent cup of coffee.
I never saw this the first time around, and an older post over at Why Don’t You Blog? reminded me to do a search on Google.
This episode of Channel 4′s Dispatches deals with autocratic christian fundamentalist fanatics campaigning against the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill (amongst other things) in the UK in 2008. ((They failed. The Bill received Royal Assent in November 2008.))
Unfortunately, as with a many a YouTube video, it’s annoyingly chunked into ~10′ segments so I’ve embedded the first part here and provided links to the other three.
Caution: it contains scenes of extreme bigotry, YECism, child indoctrination and all-round asshattery. Oh, and everybody’s The Daily Mail‘s favourite rent-a-christofascist-twat, Stephen ‘Birdshit’ Green. You have been warned.
Channel 4′s Dispatches: In God’s Name (part 1/4)
I love watching the Atheist Experience tv show (from the Atheist Community of Austin) or indeed listening to the podcast version: it gives me a window into the religiosity of the USA—something that both utterly fascinates and horrifies me—in a way where I can at least comprehend the language, if not the culture, behind it, but the most recent episode that I just watched live (I believe it’ll be episode #702 by the time it reaches the archives) featured Ray Comfort for almost the entire hour.
An entire hour with Ray Comfort. I thought it was going to be a lot of fun. It wasn’t.
It was painful. Pitifully so.
As much as hosts Matt (Dillahunty) and Russell (Glasser) tried to explain to him where he was mistaken, illogical or just downright wrong, the entire episode has left me feeling not insignificantly stupider than I was at the start.
Or perhaps I’m just tired, seeing as it’s almost midnight here in the UK.
Either way, I expected it to be funny, charming, tragic and not a little stupid, but there was too much stupid for even me to want to ever have to willing wade through again.
Sorry, guys, but if you do another show like that then I think I’ll have to give that one a miss.
Apparently it’s possible.
I was reading an article over at The Christian Post, “Growing Intolerance for Christianity in U.S.“, which contains an interview with a certain Brannon Howse (never heard of him but then I don’t run in fundie circles), who is absolutely convinced that not only are christians persecuted in the USA, so much so that if they’re not being persecuted, then they’re Doing It Wrong (with appropriate support by cherry-picking from his scripture to impress those already convinced, of course).
In one question, Howse was asked by The Christian Post‘s interviewer:
Are you saying everyday Christians, students, business people, and homemakers as well as clergy should be expecting bias, intolerance or hostility in all areas of life including civil government, education, economics, public policy, and family?
His reply is, in my opinion, a wonderful example of the paranoia and persecution complex that’s almost ever-present in christianity:
Actually, if an individual who claims to be a Christian is not experiencing intolerance or persecution – being called names, belittled, marginalized, or characterized because you stand for sound theology – you should examine yourself to make sure you are a Christian. [sic]
We are then presented with a link to a video, “10 hallmarks of a Christian“. It’s presented by Howse in TediousVapidVision, just in case you needed to be forewarned.
Tim Minchin does it again. NSFW. Or catholics.
State-supported exemptions to the laws of England and Wales based on a biblically-justifiable “deeply-held” christian conviction
| Biblically-justifiable action |
State-supported exemption
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Slavery |
no
|
|
| Poligamous marriages |
no
|
|
| Marital rape |
no
|
|
| Death penalty for… | ||
| infidelity |
no
|
|
| homosexuality |
no
|
|
| rape |
no
|
|
| being raped |
no
|
|
| blasphemy |
no
|
|
| prostitution |
no
|
|
| witchcraft |
no
|
|
| kidnapping |
no
|
|
| apostasy |
no
|
|
| parental disrespect |
no
|
|
| Discrimination against… | ||
| cross-dressers |
no
|
|
| witches |
no
|
|
| other ethnic groups |
no
|
|
| other religions/no faith |
yes
|
|
| homosexuals |
yes
|
|
Hmmm…
