Author: Ophelia Benson

  • If you start now to let women drive, let them go wherever they want…

    So, Nawwaf, tell us why you think women should not drive – or rather, tell us why you think “we” should not “let” “them” drive.

    If you start now to let women drive, let them go wherever they want, let them do whatever they want, we will be in the same position some day. Then Saudi Arabia will be like New York.

    It’s not good for some girl to show her body, wear very short skirts. This
    is not about Saudi Arabia, it’s about Islam. We’ve got a generation who were
    raised watching Gossip Girls and other series. They only want to be
    like that, dress like that, drive like that. It’s not about need.

    Now it’s driving. After five years it will be taking off the abaya, after 10 years they will ask to be allowed to wear short skirts. This is how it’s going, that is how I feel.

    Because we are we, and we get to decide what they are allowed to do. They are just they, so they don’t get to “go wherever they want”; they have to get our permission for everything.

    I believe it will hurt our community. I understand the US traditions and I
    respect them so other people, outsiders, need to understand our traditions and
    respect them.

    Our traditions – not theirs, of course. We decide and permit, they ask and obey.

  • Israel: a victory for separation of state and religion

    “Israel is the only country in the Western world in which Jews don’t have freedom of religion.”

  • Why “we” should not let “them” drive cars

    “If you start now to let women drive, let them go wherever they want, let them do whatever they want, Saudi Arabia will be like New York.”

  • The barmaid cites the Dunning Kruger effect

    In telling the boys they don’t know enough to realize how little they know.

  • Israel court grants request to register ‘without religion’

    “The court granted legitimacy to every person to live by their conscience in this land.”

  • A ruling of historic proportions

    This is huge.

    After brief deliberations on the eve of last week’s Rosh Hashanah holiday, a Tel Aviv judge ruled that Israeli author Yoram Kaniuk could register his official religious status as “without religion.”

    “Freedom from religion is a freedom derived from the right to human dignity, which is protected by the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom,” Judge Gideon Ginat of the Tel Aviv District Court wrote in his unusual ruling.  

    …

    “This is a ruling of historic proportions,” Kaniuk said to Haaretz yesterday, with audible emotion. “The court granted legitimacy to every person to live by their conscience in this land, in ruling that human dignity and freedom means a person can determine their own identity and definition. In this way I can be without religion but Jewish by nationality. I am so thrilled,” Kaniuk said.

    In May Kaniuk asked the court to order the Interior Ministry to allow him “to be liberated from the Jewish religion” by changing his “religion” entry in the Population Registry from “Jewish” to “without religion.” The ministry had refused his earlier request.

    In his petition, Kaniuk explained that he had no wish to be part of a “Jewish Iran” or to belong to “what is today called the religion of Israel.”

    A historic step. Well done Judge Ginat.

  • Humanism as the Next Step for Nigeria

    A conference introductory speech delivered by Leo Igwe at the National Humanist Convention at Vines Hotel Durumi, September 23 2011.

    Fellow humanists, and dear friends of humanists,

    I want to join the Chairman in welcoming you all to this historic meeting. For a long time we at the Nigerian Humanist Movement have longed to bring our convention to Abuja. We have desired before now to get our politicians to understand that there are Nigerians who are openly, proudly and publicly non-religious and non-theistic. We have longed to register our presence here at the Federal capital territory and to get the politicians and people of this country to understand that Nigeria is not just a country of Christians, Muslims and traditional religionists alone; that in this vast and diverse nation, there are citizens who are non-believers and who call themselves by different names – atheists, agnostics, rationalists, freethinkers, skeptics, brights, naturalists etc; that there are Nigerians with unconventional, unorthodox and non conformist views about religion; and that these Nigerians exist and should be treated with dignity and respect.

    But, friends, lack of funds and limited local active contacts here in Abuja have hampered our efforts to realize this dream. But this year, we decided to take the bull by the horns and make the dream of bringing humanism to Abuja a reality. Thanks to the support of the International Humanist and Ethical Union and the Gay Humanist Charity, the Pink Triangle and some of you humanists here present, others around the world who couldn’t make it to this event, the bull has not flung us away. We have kept this date with history. I can proudly say that as from today, humanism has come to stay in Abuja, never to depart.

    Distinguished colleagues, this convention is being held in a year that marks the 15th anniversary of the Nigerian Humanist Movement. When I started NHM in 1996, most people including my family members thought I would not succeed. They thought I would get burnt out after a while, and NHM would pack up. Most thought it was a waste of time and energy, that I was just hitting my head against a wall, that NHM would not survive.Their thought was that a movement that promotes reason, freethought and critical thinking had no future in this country; that it would not and could not thrive.

    But Friends, today I can say that we have proved them wrong. We have survived amidst so many odds. NHM is 15 years old and still counting. And I want to thank all of you who have, over the years, worked, sacrificed, volunteered and contributed your time, energy and money to ensure the growth and survival of our Movement. I hope we will continue to work together to get NHM going and growing for the next 15 years and beyond.

    Dear Friends, as you know we are meeting at a time of so much fear, uncertainty and apprehension. We are gathering here at a period when most Nigerians fear for their lives, for their security and for their future. When I arrived Abuja a few days ago I sent a message to inform friends that I had arrived, and one of us living here replied saying ‘Welcome to the city of fear’. Yes, fellow humanists, Abuja has become a city of fear. Nigeria has become a nation of fear, and Nigerians a people crippled by fears. I guess most Nigerians have been living in fear before now – at least the fear of the unknown, the unseen and of the incomprehensible, or the fear of God which a misguided scriptural writer identified with the beginning of wisdom. The fear of terrorists or of terrorist attacks is just a new addition to the stockpile of fears killing and crippling our nation and its people. What a shame!

    Ladies and gentlemen, we are meeting here at a time of mourning and tears, at a time many families are weeping and grieving the loss of their loved ones across the country beyond. As you know, in August, a bomb blast at the UN building left at least 21 people dead and many more injured. The mindless shooting of innocent citizens continues in Bornu state. There is still no end in sight to the bloodletting in Jos. In the past 6 months, over 200 people have been slaughtered, including family members murdered while sleeping at night.

    Friends, may we rise for a minute in honour of those who lost their lives to these mindless killings and attacks. The names and ideologies of those who perpetrated or masterminded these vicious and atrocious acts will live in infamy.

    The general belief in our society is that the dead are resting in peace. Ladies and gentlemen, in this country both the living and the dead will not know any peace until this killing spree stops and those who planned, carried out or masterminded such killings and attacks, including their sponsors and financiers, are exposed and brought to justice. There will be no peace till local authorities stop this blame game and rise up to their duties of protecting Nigerians and Nigeria.

    We shall not know peace until the root causes of religious fundamentalism and terrorism are identified and addressed. We shall know no peace until the armed gangs give up their weapons and destructive ideologies including the superstitious belief in an afterlife with virgins in the elusive and illusive paradise, and adopt a civil, rational and non-violent way of making their agitations and registering their demands.

    Friends, how can we know peace in this country when the hands of Anwalu Abubaka and Lawalli Musa could be amputated on October 8 in Zamfara state for stealing a bull – in a state where corrupt officials who abuse their office and abuse children are moving about freely. How can we live in peace when in Bauchi state, Adama Mamuda and Ibrahim Shehu Ganye are languishing in jail because a local witchcraft-believing magistrate misapplied and misinterpreted the law and convicted them for ‘practicing’ witchcraft. We cannot know true peace when most people in our society still believe strongly that their problems, poverty and misfortune are caused by witchcraft and black magic. I mean how can we live in peace when our children, women and elderly persons are still branded witches and wizards, tortured, incacerated or killed as Europeans did centuries ago. We shall not have peace when witch hunting is condoned, not condemned, in our courts, mosques, churches, homes, streets and communities, and witch hunters like Helen Ukpabio have not been brought to justice.

    We shall know no peace till these fake priests, pastors, prophets, witch doctors, sheikhs, imams, alfas, marabus who kill, torture, maim, oppress, decieve, exploit, extort money and abuse poor, ignorant, guilible folks in the name of religion are brought to book. We can only know peace when we begin to teach our children to know that religion is not by force, that religion is by choice; that they are free to profess any religion or belief; free to change their religion, free to criticize religious dogmas or to renounce their religion. We shall know some peace in this country only when we begin to realize that religious teachings are human teachings.They are not eternal truths which we cannot question.

    The holy books are products of certain times and circumstances – ancient, fearful and ignorant times and circumstances. Religious doctrines are subject to revision in the light of reason, science, common sense and human rights. We shall not know peace till we abandon superstition and embrace science, till we begin to question dogmas and encourage critical thinking in all areas of human endeavor; till we stop ritual killing and human sacrifice and discard this irrational belief that money can be made and one’s fortune can be enhanced through ritual sacrifice, and the use of juju and charms. We shall not have peace till our government begins to uphold the equal rights of all persons regardless of religious belief or unbelief, sex or sexual orientation, social origin and birth status. Our government should strive to abolish the death penalty and stop supporting homophobic legislation and resolutions locally and internationally

    We shall not know peace until we commence the projecting of realizing a New Age of Reason and Enlightenment in this country, and in this continent.

    Fellow humanists, many people across this country and across the world are looking up to us and to meetings like this to spread the message of reason and free inquiry and usher in an era of postive and progressive change, hope and light. That is why we have invited distinguished scholars and activists to lead the debate and help us generate ideas. We have invited an eminent scholar and philosopher to make a keynote presentation and set the tone for this conference. One thing about our keynote speaker which I find interesting is that he argued for secular and critical thinking-oriented education decades ago when there were few Nigerians who could do so, and some of what he thought many years ago is still applicable, useful and relevant to us today. So friends join me in welcoming Prof T Uzodinma Nwala to this event. There is another scholar and scientist who is here to stimulate us. Part of the tragedy in our country is that we have and produce scientists who are not scientific and who do not encourage scientific thinking. We have intellectuals but lack an intellectual culture. Our philosophers are theosophers.

    Part of the reason for our national underdevelopment is that our country is filled with superstitious scientists. But we have here today a professor and scientist with a passion for scientific rationality. He is not like them. I got to know him through one of his writings on science in Africa. He is not just a scientist but also a popularizer of science and a promoter of scientific thinking. He has spoken at our past conferences in Ikenne and Benin. Please join me to welcome Professor Steve Okecha to this event. Also to lead the discussion is Dr Jide Akeredolu who was our world humanist day lecturer in 2008. His briliant and well argued article on Why I am a Rationalist, published in the Guardian in 2009, remains one of the best articles I have read in the local dailies.

    We have another guest here today. He is a British citizen living in Ghana, and visiting Nigeria for the first time. Tomorrow he will make history. He will become the first non-Nigerian to deliver NHM’s world humanist day lecture. Please join me in welcoming Mr Graham William Edward Knight to this event and to our country Nigeria(a nation of fear!) Permit me to recognize other guest speakers……………..

    As you can see in the program we have speakers from different organisations and institutions who will handle other topics. I must underscore the fact that we did not invite our speakers because they are humanists or because they subscribe and agree totally with the humanist outlook. No, not at all. At the humanist movement we often say that we are like minds we do not share similar views. We humanists cherish free and independent thought.

    So we invited our speakers based on the fact that they espouse thoughts and ideas, or work on issues which are of interest to us at the Nigerian Humanist Movement.

    And these are the thoughts, ideas and issues we need to discuss, debate and deliberate upon in the next two days as we explore the theme, Humanism as the next step. Once again welcome to this humanist feast of ideas.

    I wish you all very fruitful and stimulating deliberations.

  • A man generally cannot know

    Someone called “bluejohn” suggested yesterday that I should engage with James Onen of Freethought Kampala on the subject of Rebecca Watson and elevators and sexism. I replied that I already had.

    I had a discussion with James at Facebook, but we fundamentally disagree. I don’t think more discussion (on this subject) would be productive.

    (What we disagreed about is that his view is: men have the right to ask women [politely] for sex, even if they are total strangers and it’s out of the blue, and it’s akin to racism to make a social or moral rule saying they shouldn’t do that. My view is: women’s right not to be pestered in that way trumps men’s right to invite stranger women to have sex.)

    That was that, but I saw this morning that James had flagged up his recent FK post on the subject on Abbie Smith’s thread (the one full of “cunt” and “fucking bitch” and all the rest of the thoughtful, non-sexist vocabulary), so I read/skimmed it. The core claim that I disagree with is there, so…I’ll say why I disagree with it. (Facebook is a crappy venue for a complicated discussion, which is another reason I didn’t pursue the one with James there.)

    James starts with something PZ said back in July:

    There is an odd attitude in our culture that it’s acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them. Also as liberal, enlightened people, of course, we will graciously accede to their desires, and if they ask us to stop hassling them, we will back off, politely. Isn’t that nice of us?

    It’s not enough. Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior.

    James responded:

    Unwanted pressure? Unwanted?

    Here is where the problem lies: a man generally cannot know until after attempting the proposition that it was unwanted. Not only that – it is, after all, also possible for a proposition to be unwanted at first but for the recipient of the proposition to change her mind after persuasion.

    …

    This basically means you can’t really tell if your advance is unwanted unless you actually make your move first, and even when the person seems initially reluctant, she can still be persuaded to take you up on it and can later find herself having fun. That said, there is an interesting debate to be had here about what degree of persuasion one might say is acceptable.

    Yes, it is at least formally true that you can never tell if an advance is unwanted unless you make it. However it is also true that requests for friendship or conversation or sex or similar levels of intimacy from total strangers are not generally wanted, for fairly obvious reasons: we don’t know you. Friendship and conversation and sex are for people we know at least a little. In some situations this can mean just 5 minutes of chat, but it means that. It doesn’t mean a man walking up to a woman and making an invitation. This rule that James calls “arbitrary” makes it possible to walk around in the world without being constantly subject to interference from strangers. The end of that rule would mean women would not have that freedom until they hit age 40 or so.

    Human interaction is complicated thing. I would be curious to see how feminists would propose to delineate between scenarios like these, and those in which the offer was completely rejected despite attempts at persuasion – in such a way that the determination that the advances were completely unwanted can be made prior to actually making the advance. Can it be done? Is it possible to establish a meaningful and consistent default position on the matter? I highly doubt it – there is simply too much ambiguity.

    I wouldn’t propose to delineate between them. I would say I don’t care about delineating between them, because I don’t want strangers “persuading” me to do what they want in the first place. Here’s what you do: if it’s a situation where you can flirt with the person first, then there’s your opportunity for persuasion. Seize it. If it’s not – then that’s just too bad. That’s one person you’re not in a position to invite to have sex with you. You can, of course, and as James says you have a “right” to – it’s not illegal. But you shouldn’t. It’s rude, it’s vulgar, it’s intrusive, it’s self-absorbed, it’s obnoxious…and it’s sexist.

    The solution to such ambiguity is simple – as a way forward, women who attend atheist-skeptic conferences that are absolutely certain they don’t want to be hit on should wear a clearly visible “do not proposition me” sign on their backs. If not, maybe a colour-code can be designated for such women by the event organisers – let’s say, red – and then it could be announced that all women wearing red clothes should not be propositioned or approached by strangers. But will they do this? Most probably not. They will, in all likelihood,  protest that it should not be incumbent upon them to make clear to others not to hit on them – yet at the same time they want to be in a public conference where human beings, the highly sexual creatures they are, are freely interacting.

    I don’t think they can’t have it both ways. Feminists need to take responsibility for the things they are asking for. Either visibly label yourself as unapproachable, or expect that during the course of a conference a person who takes an interest in you might proposition you, as it is their right to do so. It is also your right to decline such an offer. If you have a problem with this, then just don’t attend these conferences. And its as simple as that.

    Just stay at home, in purdah, in other words. “Simple” indeed.

    Now…maybe there is some room for maneuver here. Maybe James is thinking of a conference as the equivalent of 5 minutes chatting – as a kind of introduction in itself. I’ve been thinking about the street (or it might be a bus, or the supermarket) in what I’ve said. But even with a conference-as-introduction – as I’ve said before, an invitation for coffee in the afternoon is one thing, while the same in an elevator going up at 4 in the morning is quite another. Given that that’s the invitation in dispute, there’s still probably not much room for maneuver.

     

     

     

     

  • Welcome to the neighborhood

    It’s a good neighborhood here at Freethought Blogs. There’s a lot to read, a lot to learn, a lot to talk about. I’ve barely scratched the surface so far.

    This morning I was belatedly reading Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker article about Michele Bachmann, and there was, in the section on Bachmann’s inaccurate account of her Iowa history –

    In fact, Muskego is a town in Wisconsin, the state where Bachmann’s forebears,  the Munsons, settled in 1857, twelve years after the manifesto was written.  Then, in 1861, they moved west, to the Dakota Territory, near present-day Elk  Point, South Dakota. That is where, according to the family history that  Bachmann relied on, they encountered the awful winter and the flooding and the  drought and what the text calls “grasshoppers.” The Munsons seem to have been  part of the group that established the first Lutheran church in the Dakota  Territory, but there were already Lutheran congregations in Iowa when they  arrived there, in late 1864 or early 1865. As the author and historian Chris  Rodda has pointed out, the story chronicled is not quite one of superhuman  perseverance on the frontier; rather, it’s the story of a family fleeing to the  relative safety and civilization of settled Iowa.

    Chris Rodda is right next door, a fellow FTB blogger. See what I mean? Good neighborhood!

    She’s the Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and her stuff is fascinating. Don’t expect any posts from me for awhile, I’ll be too busy reading.

    Check her blog tomorrow. Srsly.

  • Summing up

    In the final chapter of Braintrust, “Religion and Morality,” Patricia Churchland is doing an exegesis of The Euthyphro.

    The pattern of questioning strongly hints, however, that whatever it is that makes something good or just or right is rooted in the nature of humans and the society we make, not in the nature of the gods we invent. There is something about the facts concerning human needs and human nature that entails that some social practices are better than others, that some human behavior cannot be tolerated, and that some forms of punishment are needed. [p 196]

    That second sentence makes a nice summing up of the book, and it’s also what Sam Harris was trying to say but didn’t.

     

  • Brevity is the soul of wit

    Oh how cute – one of the “I really really hate Rebecca Watson” crowd has made a fake Twitter account in order to do a lot of stupid self-implicating tweets as if by Rebecca. Oh haha that’s so funny – what’s next, emptying a pail of garbage in her bed? Locking a skunk in her bathroom? Putting a bomb under her car?

  • Lulu is right

    I read a very fun item yesterday, thanks to a reader who sent me the link. It’s on a site called, with disarming simplicity, Atheism is False. It has a long list of names under the title “Answering Critics”; I look forward to reading each one, because they should be entertaining. ”Answering Critics” is an oddly misleading title, since it implies that each item actually answers critics when in fact, judging by the one I’ve read so far, each item disagrees with people who wrote something that has nothing to do with Atheism is False or its author, David Reuben Stone. The one I’ve read so far is about Me, and my essay in 50 Voices of Disbelief. It’s not very convincing.

    Benson’s brief discussion is misplaced from the very beginning.  Benson claims that the definition of “God” includes the belief that God is a supernatural being about whom no one knows anything (p. 23).

    No, that’s not quite right, I say that’s a tacit part of the definition of god. The claim is also, of course, slightly facetious, in the way the whole essay is. I think that aspect may have escaped David Reuben Stone’s notice. He goes on earnestly to explain that I have it all wrong.

    In response, there is no reason to accept that all theists believe that no one knows anything about God.  Quite the contrary.  Most theists appear to claim to have knowledge of the nature of God, at least to some extent.

    Oh I know that – I know most theists appear to claim to have knowledge of the nature of God, at least to some extent. Notice all the qualifications, and how they inadvertently agree with exactly what I said (or implied): people claim to have knowledge about god, sort of, but in fact they don’t. That.was.the.point.

    Benson fails to respond to the compelling basis for justification of theistic belief as outlined in my latest updated defense of theism in David Reuben Stone (2010), The Loftus Delusion: Why Atheism Fails and Messianic Israelism Prevails, Morrisville, NC: Lulu Press.

    I laughed when I read that, but figured it was a mistake in phrasing – he didn’t actually mean to say I failed to respond specifically to his latest updated defense of theism. Reading on, though, I realized he meant exactly that. He’s right: I failed to respond to it, on account of how I hadn’t read it. (Not surprisingly, since I wrote the essay in 2008.)

    …the Benson quote in the above paragraph might even more accurately be interpreted such that Benson chooses to reject God not due to insufficient evidence, but due to Benson’s frustration that God has chosen to reveal Himself with a measure of hiddenness.  It’s like this: “God, you didn’t do what I wanted you to do, so even though you exist, I reject you anyway.”  In response, it’s not our place as creatures to tell the Creator what to do or how to do it.

    Oh yes it is. That too is my point. Yes it damn well is. Yes if god made us and made everything the way it is, it damn well is our place to tell god, “hey this sucks in a million ways, you fiendish bastard.” This business of saying “god is god because god is god and we have no right to say the service stinks” is slavish and anti-human, and I despise it. Stone’s response is the very idea I’m attacking.

    Also, is God really hidden?  It could be that God is actually maximally revealed, given the nature of the reality of our world.  In fact, my ACPO metaphysics establishes that all physical events (including all physical events described by the laws of physics) not caused by human persons are caused by God.  It folows that we see evidence of God’s existence every day, with every rising of the sun, with every falling rain drop, with every beat of one’s heart.  God’s existence is plainly evident to those willing to see it.  Sadly, light has gone out into the world, but those who are evil choose to reject that light and remain in darkness.

    One, sure, it could be, but there’s no reason to think so, and plenty of reason not to. And nothing follows from a “could be” like that, so it certainly doesn’t follow that we see evidence of God’s existence every day, with every fart of the dog. Two, note that he called me evil.

    Benson assumes God makes no personal appearances (p. 25).  No proof of this claim is provided.

    Benson assumes God sends no authenticated messages (p. 25).  Again, no proof is provided.

    Burden of proof, amigo.

    Benson thinks it is “too convenient” that a limited measure of knowledge of the nature of God could be possessed by those who do not fully understand God’s ways (p.25).  In response, there is no reason to presuppose a possibly existing God would not choose to reveal Himself such that a limited measure of knowledge of the nature of God could be possessed by those who do not fully understand God’s ways.  Thus, we should not immediately reject this possibility because it is “too convenient”.  Rather, we should investigate the nature of the case for possibly existing Gods who might choose to provide divine revelation in this way.  Benson’s “too convenient” response is a poor excuse for failing to properly analyze the case for theism as justified in my latest book.

    That’s the part where I realized he really did mean I hadn’t responded to him, specifically, not just to claims that he and others make. So something I said is a poor excuse for not responding to something written after I wrote the piece in which I didn’t respond. (Plus the part about not responding because I’d never heard of him or his book.)

    Benson refers to lack of evidence for God’s existence (p. 26), but fails to respond to my case for theism. Thus, we may conclude that Benson’s analysis is now obsolete and unjustified.

    HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    I love that.

    (And who’s “we,” bub?)

    We may agree with Benson that it is good to reject a God who wants us to reject proper methods of critical inquiry (p. 26).  However, the case for theism may be made consistent with this rejection.  That is, we may establish the existence of God via critical inquiry.  So, Benson has failed to justify rejection of theistic belief.

    Benson claims a possibly existing God has no right to blame people who reject theism (p. 27).  In response, proponents of Benson’s position now have no right to blame God for a lack of theistic evidence, given their knowledge of my case for theism justified in Stone (2010).

    Wheee!

    See why I look forward to reading more?

  • Why Are British Muslim leaders silent about Nadarkhani?

    Nothing from the Muslim Council of Britain. Nothing from the Federation of Student Islamic Societies. Nothing from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

  • Are Christians really being persecuted in the UK?

    Or are they simply being asked to follow the same anti-discrimination laws, and
    professional codes, that govern everyone else?

  • Mehdi Hasan on Iran’s death sentence on Youcef Nadarkhani

    The silence from the world’s Muslims – especially the UK’s usually voluble Muslim organisations and self-appointed “community leaders” – has been shameful.

  • Happy Blasphemy Rights Day

    Nobody throw any stones until I blow this whistle…

  • What to do with an infant with breathing difficulties

    Oops.

    Prosecutors claimed Shannon Hickman never sought prenatal care when she was pregnant with David, who was born two months early at his grandmother’s home and died less than nine hours later when he had trouble breathing. He was born with a bacterial infection and underdeveloped lungs.

    Medical experts for the prosecution testified that the baby had a 99 percent chance of survival if his parents had sought medical care. But prosecutors claimed the couple never considered taking the baby to the hospital.

    Was their face red, eh?

    Actually no; they didn’t trip and fall and forget what you do with a sick infant, they omitted the trip to the hospital on purpose.

    Dale and Shannon Hickman, both 26, are members of the Followers of Christ Church, which has a history of rejecting medical care for congregants’ children and relying instead on techniques such as prayer and anointing the sick with oils.

    “Techniques” that don’t work.  ”Techniques” that aren’t actually techniques.

    Five other church members have been convicted in Clackamas County for crimes related to the rejection of medical care for their children, said Greg Horner, chief deputy district attorney.

    It’s a mark of respect for God, you see – rejecting medical care for your children.

    Dale Hickman testified that he didn’t call 911 once he realized his infant
    son was ailing “because I was praying.” Shannon Hickman said that as a woman in the church, she must defer to her husband.

    “That’s not my decision anyway,” she testified. “I think it’s God’s will
    whatever happens.”

    That’s a touching and illuminating example of the blessings of patriarchy. Remember Doug Phillips?

    We’re not talking about Lord as in the Creator, but your earthly head. And one that you have to follow, even when he makes bad judgments. Are you ready to do the most vulnerable thing that a woman ever can do and submit yourself to a man, who you are going to have to follow in his faith, who is incredibly imperfect and is going to make mistakes? Can you do that? Can you call your husband ‘Lord’? If the answer is no, you shouldn’t get married. [Quiverfull p 3]

    See? Shannon Hickman was doing the right thing. Her husband didn’t say “we have to take this baby to the hospital” because he was too busy praying, and that was a bad judgment, but she has to follow him because he is The Man, so her submissive act in letting her infant die of clogged lungs was a holy thing.

  • Oregon couple found guilty in faith-healing trial

    A couple who prayed and rubbed olive oil on their dying infant rather than seek medical care was convicted Thursday of manslaughter.

  • Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen

    Using the internet and an online magazine called Inspire, Awlaki encouraged his
    followers to kill lots of people.

  • Life for Saudi women is a joke

    In 18 months a Saudi woman can be a member of parliament – providing that her male guardian allows her to and she finds a man to drive her there.