“Al-Shabaab rebels have abducted children from their homes and schools to fight, for rape, and for forced marriage,” said HRW deputy children’s rights director.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Former archbishop (ret’d) in Daily Mail
The former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey said, in an article for the Daily Mail, that the proposal to change the status of marriage ”constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history.”
The state does not ‘own’ the institution of marriage. Nor does the church.
The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have [sic] the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.
So who should? Lexicographers?
Whatever. There’s a poll, and the yes everyone should have the right to get married no matter what their sexuality answer is winning by an avalanche. Maybe that’s who gets to redefine the honourable estate of matrimony: people who vote in polls at the Telegraph.
-
Former archbish of Canterbury opposes gay marriage
Calls the proposal to change the status of marriage ”one of the greatest political power grabs in history.” Rich comeing from a theocrat.
-
Download the universe
A new website devoted to reviewing ebooks about science, with Carl Zimmer and a team of leading new-media science journalists.
-
Because Afghans have nothing more important to fret about
Because Afghanistan is so peaceful and safe and prosperous, such a paradise of equality and freedom and happiness, people there have leisure to get wildly upset and furious when some books are accidentally sent to the incinerator in a consignment of waste paper.
US and Nato forces have rushed to apologise for discarding and possibly burning copies of the Qur’an, as thousands of furious Afghans gathered to protest outside Bagram military airbase.
Some carried ancient hunting rifles and others used slingshots to pelt the outer walls of the airbase with stones for several hours, despite the bitter cold, shouting “down with America” and other slogans.
The crowd swelled to as much as three thousand, and police stationed on roads leading to the base turned back other would-be protesters from further away, according to General Mohammad Akram Bekzad, Parwan province’s police chief.
Because that’s the biggest problem Afghanistan has – a few copies of a printed book being accidentally destroyed.
-
Justin finds another consignment of atheist-bashing
One Reverend Bryan Griem, writing to the Pasadena Sun:
Look, you just read the stats: “Researchers have found that spiritual people have decreased odds of attempting suicide, and that spiritual fitness has a positive impact on quality of life, on coping and on mental health.” Atheists be damned. They will be. So I really don’t care what they think regarding these tests. I’m tired of having their constant nagging, their constant opposition against God — their evil. They contribute nothing positive in the long run. Their very name, “a” theist, means they are “against,” with a big “no” regarding America’s “creator” and “Nature’s God” (the one mentioned in our Declaration of Independence). I’m frankly sick of them. Why they are here on the In Theory cast is beyond me. It’s like saying, “I have no spiritual input because I don’t believe in the spirit. So here’s my ignorance….”
I wonder what the military puts on gravestones of atheists, a thumbs-down? Listen, all religions are protected by our laws, but atheists don’t countenance America’s documents that mention God. They don’t actually deserve rights that even bizarre religionists have. If it could be shown that people who deny God create military weakness, however small, what should commanders do when choosing a winning military?
Whee-ew. We’ll be damned. We’re evil. We contribute nothing positive. We don’t deserve rights.
Well at least he’s a civilian, so Justin can safely ignore him.
-
It’s only 50 thousand pounds
Those times when news stories read like stories from The Onion…
Like the BBC’s report of the MP who said “sorry” for not mentioning a financial interest while arguing for something that would do that financial interest a lot of good.
Conservative MP and ministerial aide Mark Simmonds has apologised for failing to make clear an interest when speaking in favour of the NHS shake-up…
The MPs’ register of interest shows he is paid £50,000 a year as a strategic adviser to Circle Healthcare.
Mr Simmonds told MPs he wanted to apologise for “inadvertently” failing to declare his interest.
He made his statement during a Point of Order. Although he had correctly declared his interest in the register of interests, he did not mention it – as MPs should – when speaking in the debates on the Health and Social Care Bill in January and March last year.
Oh, oops.
Ben Goldacre had a good time with that on Twitter.
“MP apologises for health firm interests” http://bbc.in/w4TEEq HEY DUDE! It’s easy to forget £50k…
I LOST FIFTY THOUSAND QUID DOWN THE BACK OF MY SOFA THE OTHER WEEK. srsly, we could all do it.
really, i don’t think that guy should beat himself up about forgetting FIFTY THOUSAND POUNDS. could happen to any one of us. move on. srsly.
it’s just, you know, fifty thousand pounds for advising the first private company to run an NHS hospital. that’s all. no biggy.
look, srsrly: it’s only a thousand pounds a week, twice the average wage, for “Advice”. just.. stop going on about it.
Quite right. Let’s have a little trust in the integrity of our elected officials, shall we?
-
MP apologises for failing to mention interest in health firm
I’m tho thorry, I forgot.
-
Up for a prize
Good morning girls and boys, it’s time for Monday’s entries in the “What Week-old Dead Fish Can We Throw at Richard Dawkins Today?” contest.
A big round of applause for Mary Ann Sieghart at The Independent, who wastes no time but gets to the vulgar abuse right out of the gate.
The Church of England couldn’t hope for a better enemy than Richard Dawkins. Puffed-up, self-regarding, vain, prickly and militant, he displays exactly the character traits that could do with some Christian mellowing. In fact, he’s almost an advertisement against atheism. You can’t help thinking that a few Sundays in the pews and the odd day volunteering in a Church-run soup kitchen might do him the power of good.
That’s some professional journalism, wouldn’t you say? Informative, accurate, well-documented, carefully verified, reasoned, impartial – everything you expect of a quality newspaper. It’s great to have journalists telling us exactly how much they hate hate hate this one public figure instead of frittering away their talents on actually saying something of substance. I look forward to the day when journalists start telling us about this kid who pissed them off in the third grade.
And by the way I can very easily help thinking that a few Sundays in the pews and the odd day volunteering in a Church-run soup kitchen might do him the power of good. What I really can’t help thinking is that Mary Ann Sieghart is a shameless slanderous hack who ought to be demoted to covering dog shows.
And that’s not a lazy cliché
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha – that’s a good one.
And that’s not a lazy cliché; for the power of good is what the Church in this country exemplifies. It’s by no means true of all religions at all times – far from it – but here and now we are extraordinarily lucky to have the established Church we have. The Church of England is broadly charitable, open, welcoming, tolerant, compassionate and undogmatic.
Only up to a point – and only because it is so comparatively powerless. It’s that, to the extent that it is, only because it has been forced to be – by secularism and by secular influences, mostly.
But it still has its bishops in the House of Lords. That’s still a little sliver of theocracy; it’s still a bad arrangement.
The great thing about the Church of England is that it couldn’t be less militant. If anything, people criticise it for being too meek and mild. Personally I prefer a Church that is forgiving and undogmatic…
Really? Then why the row of personally insulting labels at the beginning of the piece?
“Gently and assuredly”, said the Queen, the Church has created such an environment in this country. I like those adverbs.
See above.
-
Indy spits its share of disgusting venom at Dawkins
“Puffed-up, self-regarding, vain, prickly and militant, he displays exactly the character traits that could do with some Christian mellowing.”
-
Richard Dawkins in ‘single-celled ancestor’ shock
Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has been hit by fresh scandal today after it emerged that his ancestors were single-celled organisms who metabolised sulphur.
-
In a couple of weeks
Meanwhile…see that top banner in the right margin, the one above Rock Beyond Belief? Moving Secularism Forward? I’m a speaker at that. Orlando is kind of far away from everything except Florida, but I’m hoping some people will turn up anyway.
It’s a great lineup.
Daniel C. Dennett, Sir Harold Kroto, PZ Myers, Russell Blackford, Stephen Law, Rita Swan, Anthony Pinn, Victor Stenger, Elisabeth Cornwell, Eddie Tabash, Lionel Tiger, Ronald Bailey, Razib Khan, Jamila Bey, Sikivu Hutchinson, David Silverman, Bill Cooke, Steven K. Green, Ellenbeth Wachs, Ronald A. Lindsay, Debbie Goddard and Tom Flynn.
The following weekend I’m at QED in Manchester.
QED has a blog post about Maryam.
-
And now for some good Twitter jokes
Martin Robbins
@mjrobbins And here is The Telegraph’s Charles Moore in 2005 attacking Blair for apologizing for slavery http://tgr.ph/AeDOiuplus
So according to the Telegraph, you shouldn’t hold guilt for your ancestors’ actions, unless you’re Richard Dawkins. Neat.
David Aaronovitch
@DAaronovitchThe Telegraph attack on Dawkins for having slave-trading forebears two centuries back, is wonderfully bizarre. Mad, really.
plus
Information is invited on ancestral sins, going back three centuries, of Telegraph editors, sundry bishops and Tory politicians.
#pastsinsplus
Re Telegraph outing of past Dawkins, I have to confess to being descended from Sir Darcy O’Ronovitch of the Hellfire Club, hanged in 1782.
Mr Roger Quimbly
@RogerQuimblyAccording to Richard Dawkins, the Sunday Telegraph is descended from a newspaper.
Jonathan Haynes
@JonathanHaynesNext week in the Sunday Telegraph: how Richard Dawkins is descended from Adam and Eve, even though he calls himself an atheist!
David Allen Green
@JackofKentBonkers Telegraph article on Dawkins’ ancestors: http://tgr.ph/wvU4aq They will be saying he is descended from apes next.
plus
RT
@Crofton_Parker:@JackofKent can’t wait until Telegraph does article explaining how British royal family amassed its wealth and power.Richard Dawkins is descended from Cain, a man who murdered his own brother, it has been revealed. http://qako.me/wwz6Ft
Sir Keith de Lard@keithlard“So Richard Dawkins’ family used to own slaves?” Yup. “But not him personally?” No. “Well, that blows evolution out of the water for me.”
-
Look out, he’s got a whip
And last item on your exciting breakfast menu, all items with complimentary orange slice and sprig of mint, the Daily Mail on Dawkins as sekrit descendant of slaveowners.
Never mind, don’t get excited, it’s just the Telegraph article, reported. It does add one stupidity of its own though –
Equality groups are now calling on him to apologise for his family’s past.
Are they? Really? Groups, plural? Independently of reporters phoning them and asking for a quote? Can you name as many as one?
Plus they added an illustration.
captioned
Ancestors of Richard Dawkins are believed to have been linked to slavery
Filthy. They’re a filthy crew. We knew that, but it’s worth saying anyway.
-
Yemen: Tawakkul Karman gets death threat
The Nobel Peace laureate and pro-democracy activist received the threat in a short text message sent to her mobile phone demanding that she repent or face death.
-
Canadian government accused of “muzzling” its scientists
Speakers at a major science meeting in Canada said communication of vital research on health and environment issues is being suppressed.
-
Telegraph hit piece on Dawkins
A new low in sleaze.
-
Argumentum ad haircut
There’s a separate, unrelated hit piece on Dawkins in the Sunday Times, which I haven’t yet read because of the paywall, but a comment at RDF quotes from it, and that’s quite informative by itself.
I’ve just been reading an article in today’s (19/02/12) Sunday Times By Camilla Long. It’s the front page of the News Review section and has a photo of Richard on the front page of the section. It really is the most appalling article. The very first sentence gives a flavour of how it will go, “Richard Dawkins has an extremely unfortunate face in that he always looks angry, even when he is quite calm.” I don’t know who she met, or if she has even bothered looking at the photo that accompanies the article, but that is not a description I would recognise of Richard.
The whole article then has a series of slurs designed to belittle Richard, he has a “nibbly little voice”, he has a “thin smile”, he has a “slightly prissy manner”, he has a “crushing misanthropy”, he never just says any thing, he “retorts”, “fulminates”, “whinnies”, “shouts”, “scoffs”, “snapping”, “hoots”, “sneers”. An insinuation is made that he is “hideously pompous”, when he picks up a copy of the survey he “stalks over to the desk and snatches up a copy”. She even has a go at his haircut and the way he is dressed and his looks, saying he was “gnashing his tiny teeth” and describing him as “complete with anorak, creased tie and grey hair cut into indignant little flaps”.
Jesus Christ. Hair cut into indignant little flaps? What on earth?
There’s just no end to it. It’s disgusting.
You know…I hate the pope, as you know. I hate him with a passion – but mostly because of his office. He’s clearly not the warmest or most comparatively-liberal pope there’s ever been, but so what, however nice the occupant may be, the office itself is a monstrosity. I hate the pope, but I’ve never picked on him for his looks. Of course that’s partly because I’m ugly as shit myself so it would be unbecoming and silly to rail at other people for being ugly – but that’s really not all. The main reason I don’t do that is because I think it’s shitty. I think people who do that are shitty. I think Camilla Long is shitty and I think the Sunday Times is shitty.
-
The disgraceful Telegraph article on Dawkins
The Telegraph hit piece on Dawkins is out (as many of you already know; it’s nearly 5 in the afternoon in the UK, while it’s only a fresh-faced nearly 9 in the morning here on the west coast of the US). It’s even worse than I expected it to be, and that’s saying something. It’s vicious slavering bullshit. It’s a disgrace to journalism.
He has railed against the evils of religion, and lectured the world on the virtues of atheism.
Now Richard Dawkins, the secularist campaigner against “intolerance and suffering”, must face an awkward revelation: he is descended from slave owners and his family estate was bought with a fortune partly created by forced labour.
It’s not “awkward.” We’re all descended from people who did bad shit. Count on it. God, just think, here’s me, a feminist, yet half of my ancestors are men!! Omigod that’s so awkward; how will I ever explain it?
There is no “estate”; there’s a farm. Everybody alive now depends partly on wealth created by forced labor.
He is now facing calls to apologise and make reparations for his family’s past.
Esther Stanford-Xosei, of Lewisham, south London, the co-vice chairman of the Pan-African Reparations Coalition in Europe, said: “There is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity.
“The words of the apology need to be backed by action. The most appropriate course would be for the family to fund an educational initiative telling the history of slavery and how it impacts on communities today, in terms of racism and fractured relationships.”
Ah, Adam Lusher, that’s naughty.
What he means is, he phoned Esther Stanford-Xosei and solicited that statement from her. The way he phrases it, it looks as if “calls” are coming spontaneously (despite the fact that this article is the first anyone has heard of this “revelation” apart from Richard’s account of Lusher’s obnoxious phone calls). That’s a sneaky journalistic trick, presenting their own “calls,” or “calls” that they’ve solicited for a story, as if they were independent. That trick borders on deceit; it borders on mendacity, not to say lying. It’s technically true but highly misleading. It’s contemptible. It shouldn’t be the job of journalism to play tricks of that kind.
There’s more, in other papers. This stuff has to be bitten off and chewed one by one.
-
And another one, and more, and more
This one also from the Telegraph, by someone called Stephen Bayley (by which I mean, as you may remember, that I haven’t heard of him before, not that he’s obscure or beneath my lofty notice). It has no content, it’s just a brief volley of abuse.
…Richard Dawkins, a fanatic disguised as a scientist. And surely, in the powerful counterproductive sway of his noisy arguments, proof of the existence of God? Terrible to awake in that groggy matutinal state when things lodge in your addled brain and hear shrill, ugly, cruel arguments on the radio. Atheists seem to be very good at dogma. Dawkins seems not to understand that his own zealotry is itself a sort of religious quest. And he applies the “logic” of science, itself a fallible human construct, to a beautiful mystery. Sure, organised religion has caused appalling conflicts. But it has also caused Michelangelo, Milton and Bach. Organised atheism has produced North Korea. There is really not much more that needs to be said.
It’s dispiriting, seeing how willing and eager people are to say really filthy things about someone who doesn’t admire their religion. It’s dispiriting to see how eager the major media are to publish this kind of shit-throwing, and to commission more and more and more and more of it. It’s dispiriting to see that Andrew Brown has yet another entry, as inaccurate and intemperate and illiberal as the others. It’s dispiriting to see all this lying rage pouring out of people who should know better and published by media outlets that should do better. It’s stupid, it’s nasty, it’s coercive, it’s dishonest. It’s dispiriting.