Another horrible news item from Pakistan – Dawn reports that a US-based doctor in Pakistan to do humanitarian work was murdered as he visited an Ahmadi cemetery.

The doctor was in Pakistan on a short visit to do voluntary work at the Tahir Cardiac Hospital, a private institution that he himself helped build a few years back.

And that’s his reward.

The Wall Street Journal has more.

An American doctor of Pakistani origin was shot dead in central Pakistan by unidentified gunmen on Monday, police said, in an attack that appeared to target him because of his membership in the minority Ahmadiyya religious community.

Dr. Mehdi Ali, 50, was walking with family members in the town called Chanab Nagar, also known as known as Rabwah, in the Punjab province, at around 5 a.m. when two gunmen on motorcycles shot and killed him, police official Tariq Warraich said.

Good old religion, motivating outgroup hatreds for thousands of years. Thank you, religion; that’s so useful.

The Ahmadiyya community’s spokesman, Saleem Uddin, said Dr. Mehdi, an Ohio-based cardiologist, had arrived in Pakistan on Saturday for a week of volunteer work at the Tahir Heart Institute, a hospital run by the community.

“He was a gentle, charitable man with no enemies. We don’t know who could have done this, but everyone is aware of the campaign against our community,” Mr. Uddin said. “They have killed someone who came back to Pakistan to help the people here, regardless of their faith.”

Mr. Warraich, the police official, said there had been no threats to Dr. Ali or the Tahir Heart Institute recently. However, another police official in Chanab Nagar, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said extremist organizations regularly distributed fliers against the hospital.

“We often see pamphlets and posters that say it is against Islam to be treated at this hospital because it is run by Ahmadis,” the police official said.

Dr. Ali is survived by his wife and three sons. His wife, his wife’s cousin, and one of his sons were walking with him when he was killed, said police and community members.

That’s so sickening, and heart-rending. Dr Mehdi does a good thing, so fanatics tell everyone not to make use of that good thing because of a trivial meaningless religious difference, and for good measure they murder Dr Mehdi.

People, do good things, not bad things.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

This is a good one…

Sophie Rose @SophieT_UK · May 25

#YesAllWomen because the media present men as people but present women as sexual objects pic.twitter.com/UeQ0CMT9xd

Now of course that could in theory be a misleading because unrepresentative selection of Rolling Stone covers. It could be that a representative selection of Rolling Stone covers would show an equal number of men posing with strategic clothes left off and a seductive facial expression, and an equal number of women head and shoulders face front with shirt on looking thoughtful/sullen. That could be, in principle. But in reality?

You be the judge.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Laurie Penny has an angry piece in the New Staggers about misogyny and the rush to deny that misogyny makes any difference to anything.

This is not the first time that women and unlucky male bystanders have been massacred by men claiming sexual frustration as justification for their violence. In 1989, 25-year-old Marc Lépine shot 28 people at the École Polytechnique in Quebec, Canada, claiming he was “fighting feminism”. Fourteen women died. In 2009, a 48-year-old man called George Sodini walked into a gym in the Pittsburgh area and shot 13 women, three of whom died. His digital manifesto was a lengthier version of Rodger’s, vowing vengeance against the female sex for refusing to provide him with pleasure and comfort. Online misogynists approved.

“When men kill women, the underlying reason is almost always an unfulfilled psychosexual need . . . to men celibacy is walking death, and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable fate,” wrote “Roissy in DC” of the Pittsburgh killing, as reported by Jezebel in 2009.  “At least it is implied that feminism is to blame and he is taking a last stand,” said another. “I had been waiting for this (almost thinking I had to do it myself) and I am impressed. Kudos.”

The ideology behind these attacks – and there is ideology – is simple. Women owe men. Women, as a class, as a sex, owe men sex, love, attention, “adoration”, in Rodger’s words. We owe them respect and obedience, and our refusal to give it to them is to blame for their anger, their violence - stupid sluts get what they deserve. Most of all, there is an overpowering sense of rage and entitlement: the conviction that men have been denied a birthright of easy power.

And it is what it is. It’s not something else. It’s absurd to be in denial about it. When people create public rage-rants about X set of people and say they’re going to kill X set of people and then immediately go out and kill some of X set of people, it’s not delusional or “ideological” to connect the rants and threats with the killing.

Why can we not speak about misogynist extremism – why can we not speak about misogyny at all – even when the language used by Elliot Rodger is everywhere online?

We are told, repeatedly, to ignore it. It’s not real. It’s just “crazy”, lonely guys who we should feel sorry for. But as a mental health activist, I have no time for the language of emotional distress being used to excuse an atrocity, and as a compassionate person I am sick of being told to empathise with the perpetrators of violence any time I try to talk about the victims and survivors. That’s what women are supposed to do. We’re supposed to be infinitely compassionate. We’re supposed to feel sorry for these poor, confused, vengeful individuals. Sometimes we’re allowed to talk about our fear, as long as we don’t get angry. Most of all, we mustn’t get angry.

We have allowed ourselves to believe, for a long time, that the misogynist subcultures flourishing on- and offline in the past half-decade, the vengeful sexism seeding in resentment in a time of rage and austerity, is best ignored. We have allowed ourselves to believe that those fetid currents aren’t really real, that they don’t matter, that they have no relation to “real-world” violence.

I haven’t. I haven’t allowed myself to believe that at all, and I don’t believe it. I don’t think it is best ignored; I think it’s best challenged and defeated, including driven underground if that’s possible. No, I don’t think it’s “healthier” to let it expose itself so that people can argue with it; I don’t think that’s how it works. I think the more it “exposes itself” the more recruits it gets and the hotter the rage gets. I think the whole thing needs to be fucking stopped, by shame and lost jobs and ostracism and every other social tool in the arsenal.

We have been told for a long time that the best way to deal with this sort of harrassment and violence is to laugh it off. Women and girls and queer people have been told that online misogynists pose no real threat, even when they’re sharing intimate guides to how to destroy a woman’s self-esteem and force her into sexual submission. Well, now we have seen what the new ideology of misogyny looks like at its most extreme. We have seen incontrovertible evidence of real people being shot and killed in the name of that ideology, by a young man barely out of childhood himself who had been seduced into a disturbing cult of woman-hatred. Elliot Rodger was a victim – but not for the reasons he believed.

Misogyny is nothing new, but there is a specific and frightening trend taking place, and if we’re not going to accept it, we have to call it by its name. The title of the PUA bible belies the truth: this is not a game. Misogynist extremism does not exist in a mystical digital fairyland where there are no consequences. It is real. It does damage. It kills.  And this is no longer a topic where abstraction is anything approaching appropriate.

But…still we are told to shut up about it. Even by some women.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

There’s a nice article at The Humanist about the Women in Secularism conference.

Lindsay’s opening remarks stressed CFI’s commitment to equality and added that “stirring up trouble…is how we advance as a movement.” A panel of writers and bloggers discussed online activism and the power and pitfalls of a viral hashtag like #bringbackourgirls. While some criticize the passing along of a Twitter hashtag as superficial activism, panelists saw it as using one’s privilege to elevate the voices of the less privileged (in that case raising awareness of the missing Nigerian school girls).

Moderated by Lindsay Beyerstein, the panel included Soraya Chemaly, Amy Davis Roth, Zinnia Jones, and Miri Mogilevsky in one of the best discussions of the conference. A successful panel can happen as if by magic sometimes, but I think really relies on an integration of expertise, personal experience, and articulation. That chemistry was working here as the panelists discussed online campaigns they’d led or been part of and the backlash they endured as a result.

…

Chemaly, a media critic and activist, made sharp points, one being that websites should see the comments to articles as part of their content and moderate responsibly or consider abolishing the comments section altogether, as Popular Science has done. After presenting a talk on gender and free expression (“It’s not that women talk too much. People expect us to talk less”), she led a panel on intersectionality and humanism with Jones, Mogilevsky, Heina Dadabhoy, and Debbie Goddard.

Does intersectionality—examining intersections between forms of oppression—spell mission creep for humanist organizations? Certainly people who join groups seek unity. For atheist and humanist organizations, anti-religious topics achieve that, but does discussing things like immigration, racism, and—yes—sexism disrupt it?

My view? Yes, it can, but what are ya gonna do? It’s inevitable, that kind of disruption. Why? Because when you work in a group for awhile, if you’re one of the kinds of people who gets more or less politely shoved aside, you end up noticing. That can’t be helped, nor should it be. Unity is good, but not always at the expense of equal treatment. (I say “not always” because there can be emergencies, when it may be reasonable to postpone equal treatment concerns.)

Erm ok warning for inclusion of erm complimentary reference to dear Self but I can’t help it because of all the others. (“Seasoned” is a lovely euphemism for “ancient”; I’ll have to use that more.)

If day one was driven by younger secular women working largely in the digital trenches, day two was carried by the more academic and seasoned rabble-rousers. Barbara Ehrenreich, Rebecca Goldstein, Ophelia Benson, Taslima Nasrin, Susan Jacoby, and Katha Pollitt made an all-star cast of secular women writers in discussing their own exits from the religious traditions of their childhood, their thoughts on why women are so polite when it comes to religion, and even delving boldly into the conundrum of multiculturalism. Joining them were former charismatic minister Candace Gorman, Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s Sarah Jones, Huffington Post Associate Editor Mandy Velez, Jezebel columnist Lindy West, and American Atheists’ managing director and The Citizen Lobbyist author Amanda Knief. (Comedian Leighann Lord performed at the evening banquet, which, unfortunately, I had to miss).

I’m not going to lie; that second sentence makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, however absurd it may be.

Other notable quotes from WIS III:

“[When considering Muslim feminists] I used to think, why are you trying to fix this mess? Just leave it! But now I realize their value in de-fanging religion. I view them with admiration as they try to fix the hot mess I left behind.” – Heina Dadabhoy

 “I have no respect for any religion.” –Taslima Nasrin

“There are bigger problems facing woman than Internet trolls, but who will continue to write about those women if female bloggers are driven off the Internet?” –Lindy West

“The degree to which [religions] aren’t dangerous to women is the degree to which they have been infiltrated by secularism.” –Susan Jacoby

I wrote some of those down too.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

There’s a police officer in Tulsa, Oklahoma – an officer officer, a captain – who thinks he has a “duty to proselytize” – even in uniform, even on duty – anyone who doesn’t have the same religious beliefs as his. Huh. I would think he has a duty not to, because separation of church and state. If there’s any branch of government you don’t want proselytizing you, it’s the police or the military.

Fortunately, a federal appellate court saw it the same way. The ACLU explains:

In 2011, the Islamic Society of Tulsa organized a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day to show its gratitude for protection provided after threats to its mosque. As part of its longstanding community-policing initiative, the Tulsa Police Department requested some of its officers to attend, as they had for hundreds of other outreach events hosted by various religious organizations over the years.

One officer – Captain Paul Fields – refused, however, claiming his attendance would pose a “moral dilemma.” Even when in uniform, Fields argued, he had a “duty to proselytize” anyone who doesn’t share his Christian beliefs. Despite his supervisors’ assurances that no one at the event would be required to participate in any religious observations or express or adopt any beliefs, and despite their offers that he send a subordinate in his place, Fields wouldn’t follow orders.

In a unanimous decision yesterday, a federal appellate court rightly found Captain Fields’s claims to have no merit, agreeing with the Tulsa Police Department and theACLU. Though certainly entitled to his own deeply held beliefs, as a police officer, Captain Fields is bound to serve all members of the community, regardless of their faith.

Including, I might add, no faith at all.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another screenshot. Must stop with all these screenshots. But…

This is from the comments on the Ex-Muslims of North America Facebook page’s posting of the New York Times article. It explains things so neatly…

Zubair Changaiz

shoot them all who leave islam

no concept of Ex Muslim or parallism, those people who leave islam there is no place in islam just shoot them

Hos Loftus Thanks for shooting down the “Islam is the religion of peace” and “there is no compulsion in Islam” crap!

Sam Al-Nahi Yeah, this must be that Muslim peace and serenity I keep hearing about.

Zubair Changaiz yup i know islam is the religion of peace and we muslim love humanity but those people who left islam are called “murtad” and there is clear cut order “shoot them”

Ok

It’s Peace But. It’s Love Humanity But. It’s Those Who Leave My Religion Are Not Human And.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

To my surprise – I’m always surprised, no matter how repeatedly I see these things; I seem to be incurably naïve – I’m seeing people on Twitter complaining about “radical feminists” making connections between Elliot Rodger’s noisy explicit hatred of women and his murder of some women. It turns out it’s “selfish” and “grandstanding” to make this connection, even though Elliot Rodgers made it himself.

Steve Zara @sjzara

I see a really important question – can the extremely common harassment of women be enabling of violence? I have no idea.

Miranda Celeste Hale @mirandachale

@sjzara Plus, the #YesAllWomen thing is a fear-mongering stunt that encourages women to see themselves as perpetual victims. Fuck that.

Steve Zara @sjzara

@mirandachale My particular concern is that it’s grandstanding fuelled by tragedy.

Miranda Celeste Hale @mirandachale

@sjzara Exactly. People who take advantage of a tragedy in that way are extremely selfish. It’s heartbreaking to see, really.

“Grandstanding fuelled by tragedy”? What does that even mean? People are making the connection between noisy misogyny and violence to…show off? Why would that be the case? How would that work?

Am I “grandstanding” for instance when I pay a lot of attention – public, blog post and social media attention – to the kidnapping and enslavement of schoolgirls in Nigeria by a violently misogynist group of Islamists? Is that “grandstanding”? Is it grandstanding to make a connection between Boko Haram’s misogynist theocratic views and its actions?

And what is “extremely selfish” about making a connection between misogyny and violence? What is even a little bit selfish about that? I don’t see it; I can’t see it.

These aren’t the scruffy pseudonymous photoshoppers, these are serious people, yet here they are fretting (or raging) about the “grandstanding” and “extreme selfishness” of people who see a connection between pervasive misogyny and an incident of violence against women.

It’s baffling.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

There’s also a good article in The Bell Jar on Elliott Rodger and his hatred of women and misogyny in general.

He was an active member of the “PUAhate, an online forum (which has been down since the shootings) dedicated to “revealing the scams, deception and misleading marketing techniques used by dating gurus and the seduction community to mislead men and profit from them.” And just to clarify, they’re not revealing these scams because of how vile and misogynistic they are, but rather because these men have tried these techniques and still failed to trick women into sleeping with them. These are men who both feel entitled to have sex with women and also blame all women everywhere for not fucking them. See, they want to have sex with a woman because that’s what they deservejust for being dudes, but they also hate women for withholding what they view as rightfully theirs. And I mean, boy do they ever hate women. The PUAhate forum has, according to an article on The Hairpin, threads with titles like “Are ugly women completely useless to society?” and “Have any hot women ever committed suicide?”

Most men like that don’t kill women. I bet most of them don’t treat women very well though.

Last night, shortly before going on his killing spree, Rodger posted a video on YouTube to serve as his manifesto. In it, he declares that he’s a 22 year old virgin, and then goes on to say:

‘College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun and pleasure. But in those years I’ve had to rot in loneliness. It’s not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me. But I will punish you all for it,’ he says in the video, which runs to almost seven minutes.

‘I’m going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoilt, stuck-up, blonde slut that I see inside there. All those girls that I’ve desired so much, they would’ve all rejected me and looked down on me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them,’

‘I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one. The true alpha male …’

Once at a book group, years ago, we asked about the roots of misogyny, and a guy there gave exactly that explanation. He gave it as one who experienced it that way, too, which was slightly unnerving.

This is what the Men’s Rights Movement teaches its members. Especially vulnerable, lonely young men who have a hard time relating to women. It teaches them that women, and especially feminist women, are to blame for their unhappiness. It teaches them that women lie, that they cheat, trick and manipulate. It teaches them that men as a social class are dominant over women and that they are entitled to women’s bodies. It teaches them that women who won’t give them what they want deserve some kind of punishment.

We need to talk about this. The media, especially, needs to address this. We live in a culture that constantly devalues women in a million little different ways, and that culture has evolved to include a vast online community of men who take that devaluation to its natural conclusion: brutal, violent hatred of women. And I don’t mean that all these men have been physically violent towards women, but rather that they use violent, degrading, dehumanizing language when discussing women. Whose bodies, just as a reminder, they feel completely entitled to.

It’s not a good arrangement.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Simon collected posts by Elliot Rodger on the Bodybuilding.com forum in a Storify. Rodgers is the guy who shot a bunch of people in Santa Barbara because nobody liked him and because women are shit. Be warned.

Women don’t deserve rights. They are evil, sadistic beasts who whore themselves out to degenerate men and ignore the men who actually deserve them.

I’m tired of seeing losers with hot chicks Seriously, today at my college I saw this short, ugly Indian guy driving a Honda civic, and he had a hot blonde girl in his passenger seat. What on earth is up with that?!?!? I would climb mount Everest 10 times just to have a girl like that with me. I drive a BMW coupe and I’ve struggled all my life to get a girlfriend. What’s wrong with this world? Does anyone else get disturbed and offended when you see sights like this? Someone make sense of this ridiculousness.

Well, it makes a good point. It’s been my life struggle to get a beautiful, white girl; while that guy seemed to get one to hang out with him easily, despite having a worse car and being less white than me. I deserve her more. She should be in my passenger seat.

No hot blonde in his car, so out come the guns.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

So now I’ve looked at it.

This is what it is; it is this.

Policy Recommendations on Tax Policy

[an image of a tax form with a pen lying across it]

The same tax rules should apply to all non-profit organizations, whether religious or secular. Because of separation of church and state, government should not provide tax loopholes to religious organizations, or excuse them from the disclosures that non-religious organizations must make.

Find an overview of our public policy recommendations touching on:

• Tax Loopholes for Religious Organizations

• Political Endorsement from the Pulpit

That’s it, that’s what there is. There’s nothing more. That’s their resource for us on the subject of policy on tax policy.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

So you go to the Global Secular Council’s Issues section, which it has seven of which.

Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Education
Health and Safety
International
Military
Tax Policy

Already that looks odd, because how can constitutional law be global? And are they pronouncing on tax policy for the whole world? And the global military? And if they’re global, isn’t is all supposed to be international, so why is there an International section?

So we’ll look at them.

Constitutional Law

Uh oh. Bad start. The image, for one -

I recognize it. Lots of people will recognize it. It’s not global. It’s Murkan.

And the first paragraph -

The first freedom protected by the Bill of Rights is the right of every American to a secular government that does not subscribe to religious beliefs or prohibit citizen engagement in private religious practices. It is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A religion having many members, or an action being popular, provides no constitutional argument in favor of entangling religion and law.

Guys guys guys guys – what are you thinking? This is strictly American; United Statesean. Have you completely forgotten that you called yourself global? This is not global.

It’s also, frankly, not interesting or useful. Why do we need this new thing to teach everyone the alphabet? We’ve already got lots of secular and atheist lawyers. We don’t need to start at the beginning.

They tell us to go look at their recommendations.

Find an overview of our public policy recommendations touching on:

-a menu of six items. Ok, I pick The Free Exercise Clause. What do I get? Three short bland paragraphs. Guys guys guys guys the subject is bigger than that, more complicated than that, more interesting than that. What on earth is the point of this supposed to be?

And, as I mentioned, it’s entirely American. There’s nothing global about it.

This gets more embarrassing the more I look at it. It’s like the “Brights” fiasco blown up into a whole pseudo-”Council” thingummy.

Ok going back a step what do we find under the “Issue” where they do turn their attention to the “global” – the Issue called “International.”

Policy Recommendations on International Issues

Freedom of religion, belief, and expression are fundamental American values. They are enshrined in the Constitution and echoed in international human rights law. As a leader in the international community, the U.S. should actively participate in global efforts to protect these vital freedoms.

That’s it. That’s all there is. I swear; I’m not making it up. You can see for yourself. Well there is a graphic of a world map, so at least we can see that they know there’s a world outside the US.

I wouldn’t mind if they’d just set up a blog for themselves. Of course not! I think everyone should have a blog. But they tell us they’re YOUR RESOURCE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY. This isn’t much of a resource center. They tell us they’ve got a lock on the smartest people in the world to do this thing. They tell us they’re global.

Nope, nope, nope, nope.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Global Secular tweeter is still saying opposite things from one tweet to the next – on the one hand it’s trying hard, it means well, it’s acting in good faith, it’s in earnest – on the other hand it calls me “my dear @OpheliaBenson” and “Ms Ophelia.”

On the one hand it’s totally answering our questions, on the other hand it favorites a tweet telling it to ignore criticism because it’s utterly baseless and obsessive.

Miranda Celeste Hale @mirandachale

@SecularCouncil I wouldn’t bother trying to reason w/those who are currently attacking you. Their criticism is utterly baseless & obsessive

Matt Penfold @mattpenfold_UK

@mirandachale@SecularCouncilDo you really want to be admitting that lack of racial and national diversity is not something to worry about?

Secular Council @SecularCouncil

@mattpenfold_UK@mirandachale Said it was something to worry about, several times. And, that we are working on it!

But then why favorite a tweet urging you to ignore critics and saying, untruthfully, that the criticism is utterly baseless & obsessive?

At this point I wouldn’t “follow” these “leaders” out of a malodorous swamp full of hungry alligators and mosquitoes.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The New York Times religion reporter Mark Oppenheimer did a big piece yesterday on ex-Muslims at Women in Secularism 3. 

Anyone leaving a close-knit belief-based community risks parental disappointment, rejection by friends and relatives, and charges of self-loathing. The process can be especially difficult and isolating for women who have grown up Muslim, who are sometimes accused of trying to assimilate into a Western culture that despises them.

“It was incredibly painful,” Heina Dadabhoy, 26, said during a discussion called “Women Leaving Religion,” which also featured three former Christians and one formerly observant Jew, the novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. “My entire life, my identity, was being a good Muslim woman.”

That was a great panel – it was a week ago, Saturday morning, before the one I was on, about multiculturalism.

There are few role models for former Muslims, and although the religion’s history contains some notable skeptics, very few of them are women. Today, Muslim feminists like Irshad Manji and Amina Wadud advocate more liberal attitudes toward women in Islam, but neither has left the faith. And many atheists resist identifying with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-American (by way of the Netherlands) whose vehement criticism of Islam is seen, even by many other atheists, as harsh.

One group that seeks to bridge that gap is Ex-Muslims of North America, which had an information table in the exhibition hall. Members of the group, founded last year in Washington and Toronto, recognize that their efforts might seem radical to some, and take precautions when admitting new members. Those interested in joining are interviewed in person before they are told where the next meeting will be held. The group has grown quickly to about a dozen chapters, in cities including Boston, Chicago, Houston, New York and San Francisco.

One of the group’s founders who was at the conference, Sadaf Ali, 23, an Afghan-Canadian, said that she had once been “a fairly practicing Muslim.”

But she was a rebellious child – but she also struggled with depression and thought the Quran would help.

But as a university student, her feelings began to change.

“As I started to investigate the religion, I realized I was talking to myself,” Ms. Ali said. “Nobody was listening to me. I had just entered the University of Toronto, and critical thinking was a big part of my studies. I have an art history and writing background, and I realized every verse I had come across” — in the Quran — “was explicitly or implicitly sexist.”

Quickly, her faith crumbled.

And now she is free.

The members of Ex-Muslims are adamant that they respect others’ right to practice Islam. The group’s motto is “No Bigotry and No Apologism,” and text on its website is inclusive: “We understand that Muslims come in all varieties, and we do not and will not partake in erasing the diversity within the world’s Muslims.”

But they are equally adamant that it is still too difficult for Muslims inclined to atheism to follow their thinking where it may lead. Whereas skeptical Christians or Jews can take refuge in reformist wings of their tradition, religious Muslims generally insist on the literal truth of the Quran.

“I would say it’s maybe 0.1 percent who are willing to challenge the foundations of the faith,” said Nas Ishmael, another founder of the Ex-Muslims group who attended the conference.

It was thrilling to meet them all, with Taslima as the magnet.

I talked to Mark Oppenheimer on the phone yesterday, about a different subject.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Still working hard to build ties with the secular community…or something…

Matt Penfold @mattpenfold_uk 1h

@secularcouncil Of the 7 “issues” on your website only one is not about the US. Does only the US matter ? And do you know what global means?

Secular Council @SecularCouncil

We think we know what global means, @mattpenfold_UK: Our resource breadth. You’re right, though; our home base and starting focus is the US.

Ophelia Benson @OpheliaBenson

Your what? What does “resource breadth” mean? A Global Council is one that acts globally.

Secular Council @SecularCouncil

@mattpenfold_UK And we will, my dear @OpheliaBenson, we will! The Tweeters can’t stop us.

So much for the beloved “secular community” eh – if we ask our “thought leaders” questions, they will blow us off as mere pesky Tweeters.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti is back, after almost ten years.

The last time I was at the Birmingham Rep, I was advised by West Midlands police to leave the building. Protests against my play Behzti (Dishonour) were becoming increasingly heated and I was told I was in danger. I arrived home in London, and hours later a police officer called to inform me of a threat to abduct and murder me. I laughed in disbelief. He didn’t laugh; he told me to get out of my flat.

The next day, after a huge demonstration outside the theatre, the Rep pulled the play. I was devastated. As the author I felt strongly that I had placed myself in the firing line, that I could and should endure the venom of the protesters. But when the Rep cancelled Behzti, it shattered me.

All because her play made “the Sikh community” look less than perfect.

My experience showed me that freedom of expression is precious, both as a gift and a right. When it is taken away, there is nothing left but abject, depressing silence. The only way of filling the void is to create anew. If artistic institutions honestly want brave work, then they must do as artists do – overcome fear in order to say what others cannot and will not, whatever the cost.

I passionately agree with the principle but have no idea if I would be able to perform it in practice. Hats off to Bhatti.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I was going to move on today, so as not to be a big mean ol’ bully to the Global Secular Council, but then I read yet another of its Twitter responses to me and found that moving on would not be possible.

It was alternating between rebuking me for judging them “by the color of their skin” and saying they are working hard on diversity. Well that’s unclear. What do they mean by “working hard on diversity” if it has nothing to do with “the color of their skin”? “Diversity” is simply a (very stale by now) buzzword used for the purpose of avoiding the mention of race (aka “skin color”) or sex or national origin etc etc. The Twitter account seemed to want to have it both ways – to sneer from a great height at talk of “skin color” while still patting itself on the back for “working on diversity.” (Then there’s a separate question of why it didn’t do this “working on diversity” before it went live instead of after – a question I also asked and got no real answer to.)

So I asked.

@SecularCouncil Which is it? You hate judging by skin or you work hard on diversity?

Secular Council @SecularCouncil 15 h

Both! They are not mutually exclusive. We hate exclusion or hate based on skin-color. We love inclusion across the board.

Ophelia Benson @OpheliaBenson 15 h

So you’re accusing me of exclusion or hate. On what grounds?

Secular Council @SecularCouncil 15 h

Nope! Not accusing you of anything, except poor word choice in describing what you don’t like about our Council members.

Ophelia Benson @OpheliaBenson 15 h

What’s wrong with it? I said you need to add “some people who are NOT pale US/UK males” – point being that’s not global.

Secular Council @SecularCouncil 14 h

We already discussed our use of the word Global, Ophelia, and we’re still very sorry it offends you.

See why I had to give up the idea of leaving the Global council alone? That reply is so clueless, so rude, so patronizing, so off the mark, so petulant, so stupid – that leaving it alone just isn’t an option.

This is our “movement” too after all. It’s our “community” too. Ridiculous clueless arrogant shit like this gives us all a bad name. If we all look the other way they’ll just keep at it.

But cheer up, there’s also a bonus hilarity.

Ophelia Benson @OpheliaBenson 15 h

Do you have a list of approved euphemisms?

Audra LA @Audra_LA 14h

Are you serious? Pale is not a slur and accurately describes your lack of diversity.

Secular Council @SecularCouncil 14h

We already discussed our use of the word Global, Ophelia, and we’re still very sorry it offends you.

Corvus Whiteneck @CorvusWhiteneck 12h

“We love inclusion across the board” … unless we’re talking about a publicity photo. @OpheliaBenson

Secular Council @SecularCouncil 11h

Unfortunately, you can only take photos with people who are currently at dinner with you.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha really? That’s the only time and place you can take photos? I did not know that!

No, I’m kidding, that’s wrong. Secular Council is wrong. You can take photos at other times and in other situations. Especially publicity photos. Especially especially publicity photos for your shiny new Global group that you’re setting up. You know what you can even do? You can arrange to do that photo specially. You can do it not as part of dinner with some of your pals, but as a special appointment that you set up and meet because it’s that important.

But clearly this is part of their problem. Their idea of who this Global Council should be is…their pals. The people they have dinner with. The gang. Oh and then it turns out they’re mostly men and they’re all pale and they’re not Global…and it turns out a few people ask them rude questions about that…so it turns out they have to do something about that before more people notice…but surely while they scurry to do that it will help to explain that they simply set up their Global Council with people they like to have dinner with. That way everyone will understand, surely. Surely.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)