The woman was travelling with a male friend on Sunday night when they were attacked. They were brutally beaten, stripped and thrown out of the vehicle.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
What dialogue?
The pope has his message of peace for the new year all written and typed up and translated and posted online. The pope is way ahead of the game! The pope can kick back and watch some football.
Well it won’t have been very difficult. It doesn’t break any new ground. Somebody could have put it together by cutting and pasting from previous messages of peace for the new year.
It’s not very rich in what you might call self-awareness or self-knowledge.
In addition to the varied forms of terrorism and international crime, peace is also endangered by those forms of fundamentalism and fanaticism which distort the true nature of religion, which is called to foster fellowship and reconciliation among people.
Oh? Religion is called to foster fellowship and reconciliation among people? Is it really? Does the Catholic church have a long history of that?
No, of course not. Quite the reverse…unless of course you take “fellowship and reconciliation among people” to mean “fellowship and reconciliation on our terms.” Fellowship and reconciliation provided you surrender and submit. Fellowship and reconciliation provided you join our club, and endless war and revenge if you don’t.
That’s become less popular over the last three or four centuries, so the church has gradually gotten into the habit of talking emollient fluff about fellowship and reconciliation. It doesn’t mean it though. It wants to be the boss of all of us.
In every person the desire for peace is an essential aspiration which coincides in a certain way with the desire for a full, happy and successful human life. In other words, the desire for peace corresponds to a fundamental moral principle,
namely, the duty and right to an integral social and communitarian development, which is part of God’s plan for mankind. Man is made for the peace which is God’s gift.See what he does there?
He talks in two completely different and opposing veins, as if they were one and the same. He’s cheating.
He talks in secular terms, about what human beings want and need, and then he sticks god in it, when god has nothing to do with it. Then at the end he simply gives god credit for the thing we want and need and don’t have. What tf does he mean “peace is god’s gift” – what gift?! Where is it? I mean, there’s peace where I am, and I’m very fortunate that way, but there are millions of pockets all over the world where “god’s gift” either never arrived or got smashed up lately.
He does it throughout the “message” of course. It’s what he does; it’s what they do. But it’s cheating.
To become authentic peacemakers, it is fundamental to keep in mind our transcendent dimension and to enter into constant dialogue with God, the Father of mercy, whereby we implore the redemption achieved for us by his only-begotten Son. In this way mankind can overcome that progressive dimming and rejection of peace which is sin in all its forms: selfishness and violence, greed and the will to power and dominion, intolerance, hatred and unjust structures.
Dude – how am I supposed to “enter into constant dialogue” with someone who has never given me the slightest reason to think it is there? Why is the onus on me? Why are you telling me to talk to someone who doesn’t answer? Seriously. Why are you telling me to talk to someone who doesn’t answer? Why do you call it a dialogue? You know very well it’s not a dialogue, so why do you call it that?
Yes he does. Of course he knows. Does he ever record god talking? Does he ever quote any of god’s recent sayings? He quotes putative old sayings of god’s, but that doesn’t count as a dialogue. I can quote Shakespeare, but I don’t call that a dialogue with dear Will.
It’s all a cheat. It’s just habit that makes that non-obvious to some people.
-
The pope has a fancy new hat
It’s got pictures of people on it. Carmen Miranda would be jealous. Oh and btw same sex marriage threat to peace blah.
-
Kuwait introduces death penalty for ‘cursing God and prophets’
Kuwaiti MPs approved a death penalty for Muslims who curse God, the Koran, all prophets and Mo’s wives. Non-Muslims get a minimum of 10 years.
-
A scientific pioneer and a reluctant role model
“I have not set myself up to be a role model for women, but it does seem to be more of an issue than it used to be,” cognitive neuroscientist Dr. Brenda Milner explains.
-
Epidemics of accusations
I re-read some of Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things this morning, to refresh my memory. I’ve read that and Why We Believe and the odd article here and there. I’ve never liked his writing much. It’s not bad, but it’s a little loose and lazy. Characterless. Journalistic.
I was interested to see that chapter 7 is titled Epidemics of Accusations: Medieval and Modern Witch Crazes. The modern ones are the panics about “Satanic” abuse in the 1980s and about “recovered memory” in the 90s. They’re interesting subjects and ones I’ve read a fair bit about, thanks to Frederick Crews and Elizabeth Loftus among others. It’s terrible stuff – people’s lives ruined by ridiculous beliefs about Satanic rapes that never happened and “recovered memories” of Daddy committing a murder for which he was sent to jail with no other evidence. (He was let out after more than six years.)
While re-reading that chapter I became quite…annoyed that Shermer had accused me of witch hunting. He compared me to people who put innocent people in prison on the basis of absurd beliefs.
Think about it. I said he had perpetuated an insulting stereotype about women by saying that wanting to stand up and speak about atheism and be intellectually active about it was “more a guy thing.” He said I was a witch hunter.
Not quite proportionate.
Anthony K said a good thing on Crommunist’s post A Response to Lee today.
And this is what it comes down to.
This is why the skeptical movement has been largely so unsuccessful. If Lee, or Shermer, were at all interested in the putative goals of the skeptics movement, namely to make the world a more rational place, they’d be much less interested in justifying why they think skepticism is a “guy thing”, and much more interested in making it as much an “everybody’s thing” as possible.
But of course, they’re not.
The skeptical movement has never been about outreach. It’s never been about helping to make the greater community outside the skeptics movement itself more skeptical, or rational.
It’s always been a clubhouse for those who think of themselves as smarter than average.
This is why Jenny McCarthy cleaned the skeptical movement’s clock. This is why Sylvia Browne still makes money hand over fist.
Good luck with your little guild, Shermer.
It’s all leather chairs and humidors.
-
A Facebook page named “Allah”
An Egyptian blogger wrote about Waleed Al Husseini more than two years ago, when he was arrested by the Palestinian authorities.
Palestinian blogger Waleed Al Husseini has been detained by the Palestinian authorities for creating a Facebook page named “Allah”! it was reported and shut down and Waleed created this page, that page, and that page, that is already hacked, to fight those who keep censoring his thoughts.
Waleed Khalid Hasayen is a 26 year old blogger who was arrested in the West Bank city of Qalqilya by the Palestinian authorities on the grounds of religious contempt and promoting atheism. On his blog “Nour Al Akl” or The enlightened Mind, he refuted all religious arguments – specially Islam – and he wrote long detailed posts on the fallacy of religions.
Now he’s out of jail, and at a distance from the people who arrested him, but his situation is precarious. I’m hoping we (the community) can help him.
-
So I commented under the name “James”
It’s not just mouthy atheist feminist women. It’s not just mouthy atheist feminist me. It’s not just mouthy feminist gamers, or programmers, or columnists. It’s everywhere.
Like theology, for instance, I see via Marlowe Filippov. JTB at rudetruth:
I’ve been following with some interest, given my previous interaction with the blog on the limerick thing, the conversation on Theoblogy in response to Tony’s question, “where are the women.” My first reaction to this post was positive–despite what some criticized as a prejudicial phrasing of the question–because, after all, concern about the unintended homogeneity of our communities, particularly our Christian communities, is a commendable concern. Moreover, it seemed clear from the post that Tony felt the absence of women’s voices on his blog commentary to be a lack and that he was asking for feedback to rectify what he considered a problem.
Very quickly, as the comment thread spun itself out, a couple of things became clear. The first was that many women did not feel like the comment threads were a space they could enter and be heard or respected; various reasons were offered for this. The second was that Tony was quick to defend his good intentions against these proffered possible reasons for the lack of women’s voices in the blog comments.
Since I myself had dared to enter the fray on the limerick discussion, and had been hard put to defend my (and Julie’s) critique of the limerick contest in conversation with Tony and others, including having to absorb without retaliation more than a few unconstructive and personal comments, I think the suggestion that the general atmosphere of the blog as hostile to women’s voices is pretty accurate. That’s not to suggest that this is anyone’s intention; on the contrary–it’s clearly unintentional. But it is something that can be intentionally addressed, which is what I took Tony’s post “where are the women”
to be a step toward.It is something that can be intentionally addressed – or it can be called a “witch hunt” and vigorously shouted down by furious defensive men.
JTB decided to do an experiment.
So I commented under the name “James.” And wrote exactly what I would have written as JTB. That is to say, I was myself. With a pretend penis.
And lo and behold! Not only was I respectfully engaged, I actually won agreement from someone who challenged my original comment.
As JTB, in response to my numerous comments on the limerick contest post, I was told my critique was ludicrous; that to hold my opinion suggested I lacked even a modicum of common sense; that I labored under various mistaken assumptions; that I was a buzz kill; that I was vaginal retentive (as opposed to anal, that’s for boys only?); I was even limericked about (a particularly sly dig, given the context); I was never acknowledged by name or as a colleague; and genuine follow-up questions went unanswered completely.
As James, I was addressed by name; asked genuinely critical questions; received an affirmation of the importance of my point; and when I defended my original point, received a concession from my respectful challenger.
That’s stereotype in action. It’s obviously poisonous. Yet mention of the problem – if it has the temerity to include an example – is greeted with roars of rage and wild accusations.
-
A comrade
Meet Waleed Alhusseini.
I ran a blog in Arabic called Nour Alakl. I was also active on Facebook, running a satirical page under the pseudonym of Allah. In October 2010 I was arrested in the street near an internet cafe. I had believed that I had a right to the freedom of speech and to the freedom of belief.
But in jail I was told that my online statements about religion and Islam were illegal. I was told that society didn’t accept such criticisms. I was beaten by prison guards who demanded to know who had made me write against Islam. In their minds, I could only say these things as the result of some plot, some conspiracy. That I might simply want to express my independent thoughts was alien to them.
I spent the worst 10 months of my life in a Palestinian jail, facing constant pressure to say I was sorry. I was told they had removed my blog and that I must apologise for publishing it. Even once I free I was told I should never again use the internet, nor meet the media. For months after my release I was harassed by the security services, who further interrogated me and detained me without cause. I received letters from people saying they wanted to kill me.
It’s a familiar story, but no less horrifying for that.
He’s not changing his mind though. He’s still an ex-Muslim, an atheist, a believer in human rights.
Eventually, I left the West Bank for Jordan. I obtained a visa from the French embassy. I am now in Paris, having applied for asylum. I am still awaiting an answer after six months. It has become harder and harder. From here I do have chance to blog in Arabic and in English as “Proud Atheist”. But I am now effectively in exile. I am living alone in a foreign city, cut off from friends and family. All over words.
I still do not feel safe. If I cannot stay, if I am not protected, then maybe the Palestinian authorities will arrest me again. That is my fear. I want to be active, but safety is my priority. I want the international community to care for those like me who are persecuted simply for speaking their minds, to stand against the laws in any country which limits basic freedoms of thought and expression. For we are human and freedom only means living our lives without hurting others.
When I had read that far I stopped reading and went to Facebook to see if I could find him. I could, and I did a friend request, and he accepted within seconds. This dude needs allies and friends and solidarity! Make friends with him. Maybe we can help him get asylum. I’ve already emailed people at CFI. We blew it with Alex Aan; let’s try to help Waleed Al-Husseini.
-
The Freedom of Thought 2012 report
Waleed Alhusseini spent ten months in a Palestinian jail for having kept an atheist blog.
-
Debate on Islam and evolution meets opposition
“We eventually had to give up of getting any support from student societies because it was seen as simply too controversial.”
-
Such a petty god
Alyson Miers has a good post on the “god didn’t prevent the shootings at Sandy Hook because secularism” meme.
To those of us who believe in no God at all, you’re saying that your God is an asshole. You’re telling us that making everyone worship Him is more important to God than saving children’s lives.
To those who believe in different gods, or different ideas of the same God, you’re telling them that they are part of the problem because they want their children to go to school in a non-sectarian environment. You are asking them to think there would be less violence in the world if they allowed your religious traditions to be honored in the public sphere, at taxpayer expense, above their own.
The more you think about the claim, the weirder it gets. God is that childish? Really? You want to go with that?
This is an omniscient god, don’t forget. An omniscient god would be aware of the reasons people have for favoring secularism, including our long history of religious wars and persecution. It seems odd to think that such a god would be so put out by not being invited into public school classrooms that it would simply refuse to prevent Adam Lanza from killing all those children.
It seems odd to believe in – and worship – a god who would refuse to prevent things like that out of sheer spite. Abortion is supposed to be such a terrible crime, but god letting murders and earthquakes and wars do their worst is perfectly fine.
They don’t see it that way. I know. But it’s odd that they don’t. (Well, some do, and thus you get Teresa McBains and Jerry DeWitts.)
-
God will protect your children only if you submit first
Ohhhhh lordy. Sometimes the viciousness makes my head want to explode – I can feel it trying to.
He actually does say it.
We’ve kicked God out of our public school system.
And I think God would say to us…”Hey I’ll be glad to protect your children but you got to invite me back into your world first. I’m not gonna go where I’m not wanted, I am a gentleman.
-
Atheists of Maine want you
Here’s a nice item if you want an Atheists Doing a Good Thing Just Because It’s a Good Thing thing. We need some of those right now.
Atheists of Maine jump in the freezing water to raise money for Camp Sunshine.
For those of you that don’t know, I have waded in the icy waters of our ocean to benefit Camp Sunshine for the past two years. This year, I’m mixing it up a bit: I’m looking to form a team to take the plunge with me. My goal is 10 people, including myself. That means you.
The minimum per person is $100 but last year I was able to raise over $700 with only $100 of it being my own. The goal I’ve set for the amount of money we raise is $1,500 which is entirely within the realm of possibility so I’m hoping to over deliver!
Camp Sunshine supports children with life threatening illnesses and their families. The camp has the distinction of being the only program in the nation whose mission is to address the impact of a life threatening illness on every member of the immediate family—the ill child, the parents, and the siblings. Since its inception, Camp Sunshine has provided a haven for over 30,000 individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds.
You can join in, or you can donate.
So with that being said, I know you’re excited to join me in this years Polar Dip! Well wait no longer! Send us an e-mail at atheistsofmaine@gmail.com and you will be sent an invite where you’ll be able to make your own profile and join the official team.
Not one for frigid waters and just want to donate? That is just as important and don’t worry if it’s just a dollar, every amount helps. Just go to the Team Page and click on the big blue “Donate” button on the top right corner and it’ll guide you through the steps to donate with your debit or credit card.
The date is February 9, 2013.
-
Michael Shermer was not quoted inaccurately
Shermer’s unleashed a lot of assholes on me (because I didn’t have enough of them before). I’m getting pretty tired of people saying I lied, I must say. I did not lie. I quoted Shermer accurately.
“Atheist Revolution” is pretty shameless about calling me a liar.
In his response, Shermer notes that he was quoted inaccurately and out of context.
He was not quoted inaccurately. That is not true. I don’t consider it out of context either, but that of course is always debatable. But inaccurately, no. I’m tired of people calling me a liar.
And he takes the additional step of pointing out the problems with some of
Benson’s more common tactics regarding labeling those with whom she disagrees as
sexists and misogynists.I didn’t label him a sexist or a misogynist.
Did Michael Shermer make a sexist comment, and if so, does that make him a sexist? And most importantly, should his comment – whether it strikes you as potentially sexist or not – reduce his worth in the atheist and skeptic communities to zero?
What’s that got to do with anything? I certainly didn’t say his comment reduced his worth to zero. My article was about the stereotype, not about Shermer. I devoted one paragraph to Shermer.
Yes, it appears that this is the plan. Shermer’s contributions can now be dismissed and all because he made a comment that looks like it could be sexist in nature when presented without the context in which it was made. But even that
is not enough. Shermer deserves to be haunted to his grave, as nothing more than a social Darwinist douche and a “dipshit.” And what of Ophelia Benson herself?
She’s decided that labeling Shermer a sexist is not sufficient. He’s also “an anti-feminist.”
That tweet was yesterday, after he’d done several anti-feminist tweets. I “decided” that he was being an anti-feminist jerk because he had apparently been so annoyed by the responses critical of his post that he felt the need to talk a lot of libertarian bullshit about feminism.
And then one of the comments…
Note that the original interview, or whatever it was, happened in August. So, I agree about the manufactured outrage. I think there are people out there that are constantly trying to stir up controversey in the A/S community for no other reason than to pump their own egos. It’s shameful.
I wrote the column in August. I didn’t write it four days ago in order to stir up controversy, I wrote it in August as part of a column for Free Inquiry.
Talk about inaccurate…
-
The need for extreme care
So here’s a zany suggestion – people should stop cutting off bits of infants’ penises in the comfort and danger of their own homes.
The trial of nurse Grace Adeleye who carried out the circumcision on Goodluck Caubergs heard that up to three children a month are admitted to the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital because of bleeding after home-based
circumcisions.That’s a beautiful old tradition. Don’t you think it’s beautiful?
Manchester-based solicitors JMW are currently investigating a separate case of a family from West Sussex who claim their son was left in “excruciating pain” after a home circumcision.
The doctor involved in the case said the redness and swelling her son experienced was a normal part of the healing process.
So he’s in pain! So what! It’s a beautiful old tradition. Shut up about the redness and swelling.
About five days after the circumcision she said the swelling on her son’s penis started increasing and he was in “excruciating pain”.
She said she took him to her GP who prescribed antibiotics for an infection.
The mother said she contacted the doctor who performed the circumcision who said she should wait three weeks for the skin to heal.
Her doctor said: “In my leaflet and at the time I went to do the circumcision I did explain redness and swelling is normal in healing, that it will go away in two weeks but it can happen.”
So the baby’s in pain for two weeks! So what! It makes God happy.
Melissa Gardner, a specialist medical negligence solicitor at JMW, said: “Given the impact on their child, the family has significant concerns about the way the procedure was conducted.
“While it is too soon to know what the long-term effects will be, this case highlights the need for extreme care when performing circumcisions.”
Wait wait wait wait, I have a fabulous idea, I’m so glad I thought of it –
Don’t cut the infant’s penis at all.
Isn’t that perfect? No need for extreme care, because no cutting of the penis!
I think it will catch on.
-
That’s not exactly religious freedom…
Mystifyingly, the UK government is going to make it illegal for the Church of England to perform same-sex marriages.
The Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages, the government has announced.
Other religious organisations will be able to “opt in” to holding ceremonies, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said.
But she added that the Church of England and Church in Wales had “explicitly” stated strong opposition and would not be included.
Labour said the exemption for the established Church was “disappointing”.
I can’t even make sense of that. The government is making it illegal, yet it’s an exemption. What? And the government is making it illegal because the churchs had stated strong opposition?
It gets worse.
Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had “explicitly stated” their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would “explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples”.
She also said: “I am absolutely clear that no religious organisation will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, and I would not bring in a bill which would allow that.
“European law already puts religious freedoms beyond doubt, and we will go even further by bringing in an additional ‘quadruple legal lock’. But it is also a key aspect of religious freedom that those bodies who want to opt in should be able to do so.”
It’s a matter of religious freedom therefore the government is making it illegal for particular churches to do it.
So “religious freedom” here is taken to mean the government passing a law that the Top Bosses in the national church like, which will make it impossible for rebel churches to disobey the church’s Top Bosses.
That’s a funny understanding of religious freedom, if you ask me.
This is a good one –
Sir Tony Baldry, who speaks for the Church of England in Parliament, said: “For the Church of England, the uniqueness of marriage is that it does embody the distinctiveness of men and women.
“So removing from the definition of marriage this complementarity is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.”
Oh noes! Now there will be not one social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged – !! The horror!
But sure there will. Atheism. Gaming. Needlepoint.
-
A holy God in judgment
Mike Huckabee knows why that guy shot 20 children and 6 adults in that school. It’s because atheism.
“We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools,” Huckabee said on Fox News, discussing the murder spree that took the lives of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown, CT that morning. “Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?”
“[W]e’ve made it a place where we don’t want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability — that we’re not just going to have be accountable to the police if they catch us, but one day we stand before, you know, a holy God in judgment,” Huckabee said. “If we don’t believe that, then we don’t fear that.”
He said those suffering from a crisis from faith should look to God in the community’s response to the violence. But he added that “Maybe we ought to let [God] in on the front end and we wouldn’t have to call him to show up when it’s all said and done at the back end.”
Oh really? Is that right? Well speaking of front end, what about your pal God? What’s God doing on the front end? Why didn’t God make that guy decide to train for a marathon instead? Why don’t you blame the shit God instead of blaming the victims? You callous theocratic piece of shit.
-
Huckabee explains school shooting
“We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?”