Exactly. I keep thinking this. If being pro-life is your central goal, saving fetuses should be way way way down on your list of priorities. Or, in my view, not on it at all, but even (for the sake of argument) if you think it is a way to save lives, it should still be near the bottom of the list.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Uh oh, Jimmy Carter is going to be in big trouble with the MRAs.
Sexual assaults, honour killings, prostitution, physical abuse – No matter where you look in our world, you will find women and girls being abused. It’s why the 39th President of the United States calls it THE biggest challenge of our times. Today, we hear from Jimmy Carter with his Call to Action and his new book in his only Canadian interview.
In the US military alone 26,000 sexual assaults took place and only about 300 actually resulted in anybody being punished. There’s an aversion to admit what goes on even in our most cherished institutions.
Well that’s because there were 25,700 false accusations of men by lying bitchez. Actually the 300 that resulted in conviction and sentence were probably mostly lies too. Right?
It’s a volatile east, west, north and south for many of the world’s women. Special crimes, special punishments and special hatreds are directed at so many women and girls.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter despairs of the mistreatment and abuse. He believes religion is often an excuse for discrimination against women.
Indeed it is; we see it every day. And the best part is, it’s such a powerful excuse – because few people like to piss off the believers, especially few people who depend on votes to keep their jobs.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
So let’s check in with the ACLU on the subject of religious interference with access to birth control. There’s Texas for instance…
Yesterday a federal appeals court upheld a Texas law that has left large parts of the state without an abortion provider. Women who already are struggling to pay rent and put food on the table for their families must now travel hundreds of miles to obtain abortion care. For many, the obstacles will be too burdensome to overcome.
For example, one woman in the Rio Grande Valley who showed up to her appointment the day the law took effect was devastated to learn that she could not have an abortion in her area. She was happily married with several children, but she could not afford another. In tears, she said that she did not have enough money to travel north and had no choice but to carry the pregnancy to term.
Triumph! Victory! Score for the people who value the fetus more than the woman whose body is incubating it. So she has several children and can’t afford another, so what, she should be forced to have that another one. God wants it that way.
How did this happen?
Despite overwhelming opposition, lawmakers in Texas passed a bill that requires doctors who provide abortion to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. That doesn’t sound too bad, right? After all, we all are concerned about women’s health. But just a quick look below the surface reveals that the law has nothing to do with women’s health and everything to do with forcing women’s health centers to shut their doors.
You might start by asking who proposed this law. Was it a medical organization? Nope. A doctors’ groups? Nope. All of the major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Texas Hospitals Association, all opposed this law. Rather, this bill came from Americans United for Life (AUL), a group dedicated to making abortion if not illegal, then impossible to get. AUL has touted restrictions like these as great ways to shut down abortion providers.
And tellingly, this law only applies to doctors who provide abortion. It doesn’t apply to doctors who provide other types of outpatient procedures, even those that carry far greater risks than abortion. But the appeals court overlooked this evidence and overlooked evidence demonstrating the devastating effect this law has on Texas women.
Because that’s what they want. The devastating effect on women isn’t an unfortunate side effect, it’s the goal.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Stephanie has a post about a town without contraception. I followed her link to get more details on the situation in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise reports:
Some Bartlesville women are taking issue with a recent directive prohibiting doctors affiliated with Jane Phillips Medical Center from prescribing contraceptives, saying the decision is not only an affront to women but could have an economic impact by driving patients away from local doctors.
Confidential sources told the Examiner-Enterprise this week that a meeting was held Wednesday to inform local doctors of gynecology and obstetrics that they can no longer prescribe contraceptives of any kind — if they are to be used as birth control.
Stephanie fills in the missing background:
Bartlesville is a town of only about 35,000 people. They have one hospital, Jane Phillips Medical Center. That hospital is part of Ascension Health, a large Catholic health care consortium, and nearly all of the OB-GYNs in town need to maintain privileges there in order to do their jobs.
Ah, one of those situations – where the Catholic church gets a monopoly on health care and uses its monopoly to refuse to provide vital services to women. The Catholic church has a monopoly on health care in Bartlesville so it’s exploiting its monopoly power to prevent women from having sex without getting pregnant. The Catholic church is using its power to deny women access to birth control – as if it were 1880 instead of 2014.
Back to the Examiner-Enterprise:
When contacted Friday, JPMC officials referred the E-E to Cheena Pazzo, director of St. John Health System Community and Physician Relations.
Pazzo offered the following statement via email:
“Consistent with all Catholic health care organizations, St. John Health System operates in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Facilities.”
The ones drawn up the the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Why are we in the US allowing Catholic bishops to control a large chunk of our health care? They are bishops. Our health care is none of their business. And by “our” I mean all of us, including Catholics. If conservative Catholics want to do what the bishops tell them to do, more fool they, but they can go ahead – but that does not mean the bishops get to impose their religious “directives” on anyone whatsoever.
This should not be happening. It’s an outrage. It’s grotesque.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
It’s not just Phyllis Schlafly who talks ridiculous crap about the futility of a “war against Nature” and disseminates that crap via the latest communications technology. There is Noah, for instance, if David Plotz describes it accurately in Slate.
Like the last Noah’s Ark movie, this Noah tells a straightforward environmental parable. Expelled from Eden, mankind has gutted and burned creation, chopping down every tree, butchering every beast, and crowding itself into black, sooty cities. Alas for mankind, the heavenly think tank only has one idea for addressing the issue: start over, with a lot fewer of us—like, half a dozen, preferably vegetarians.
Aronofsky’s message to us moderns is clear: We, too, have corrupted our world, just as the antediluvian humans (save Noah) did theirs. But the director’s public policy chops are scarcely more nuanced than Yahweh’s. He ends up condemning progress of all kinds. The movie pits Noah and his family against all the other humans of the world, led by the king Tubal-Cain. Noah and his family are rural gatherers, living gently off the fruit of the land. Tubal-Cain, by contrast, is a machine-maker and warlord who has strip-mined and clear-cut forests to build his cities. The Noah family is constantly moving further and further away from these cities, off the grid, to be alone.
The fantasy of Arcadia. Dear dear life off the grid, being alone – with no electricity, no running water, no sewer system, no way of getting anywhere beyond walking distance; no books, no food you don’t grow or hunt or raise yourself, no clothes you don’t make yourself; no doctors, hospitals, dentists; no music you don’t make yourself; no radio, no tv, no movies; no coffee houses, no libraries, no bookshops, no farmers’ markets except tiny local ones with a few staple products; no schools, no universities, no museums, no strangers to talk to and learn about, no exploration. Certainly no Internet, so no conversations with people in India or Ireland or Australia or Germany or Argentina.
In its nostalgic, unsophisticated view of the world and our place in it, Noahcollaborates in the fantasy of certain parts of the environmental movement, which believe that Earth would be healed if there were fewer of us, living further apart from each other. Yet Aronofsky has it upside down. Cities are ecologically kinder than other forms of human habitation. They foster communities and human connections, they enable the advancement of science and the creation of great art. Cities reduce population growth, raise living standards, increase life expectancy, and enhance human freedom. (See this for a great summary of why.)
A world of glowering, friendless farmers living miles and miles from one another? That may work well for a while.
It wouldn’t even work for a while if everyone did it. If everyone did it it wouldn’t work for half an hour.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
I can still be surprised. I’m surprised by the student senate at the University of Alabama. Last week it voted to kill a resolution supporting racial integration of fraternities and sororities there.
The resolution cited damage to the reputation of the university, in Tuscaloosa, after it was revealed last year that all-white sororities were denying membership to black women based solely on race.
I did not know that.
Some student senators said they were concerned the language in the integration resolution would lead to an affirmative action-like Greek system. Some asked whether traditionally black or Latino fraternities would be required to admit white students.
Others talked about political correctness gone mad, others said there goes the neighborhood, others asked if you would want your daughter to marry one, others said freedom of choice is what makes this country great, and so the sun sets on another day in exotic Tuscaloosa.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Sweet.
Via Global Secular Humanist Movement on Facebook.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The Secularist of the Year prize was awarded today, to Turkish MP and human rights campaigner Safak Pavey.
Safak Pavey is a member of Turkey’s main opposition party and sits for the Istanbul constituency. She is known for her international work in human rights, the promotion of the rights of women and minorities in Turkey, as well as humanitarian aid and peace-building.
She was also the first disabled woman elected to the Turkish parliament and, in 2012, was awarded a Woman of Courage Award by the White House for her efforts to raise awareness of the plight of those with disabilities in countries where resources are limited.
Safak has spoken out about the need for secularism and the better protection of the rights of women in Turkey, a country where the Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has said that he does not think men and women are equal. Freedom of expression is deeply threatened in Turkey, with the banning of youtube and twitter in the midst of a corruption scandal involving high government officials, and where infamously last year, Turkish pianist and composer Fazil Say was handed a suspended 10-month prison sentence for “insulting Islam”. Turkey ranks 154th among 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index.
Congratulations to Safak Pavey. I’m glad to learn of her.
You know who else got an award?
Also honoured at the award ceremony were two nominees, Chris Moos and Abishek Phadnis, both students from the London School of Economics who have, in the past year, challenged their own university and Universities UK over important and fundamental issues such as free speech and gender segregation.
Yes they have.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Mehdi Hasan interviews Sayeeda Warsi for the Huffington Post.
Given her work on Islamic finance issues, does she see herself as a Muslim minister, an advocate on behalf of Muslims within the government? “I am a British minister in the British cabinet who happens to be of the Muslim faith. I am not elected, as I keep being reminded by many right-wing blogs. I therefore don’t represent a constituency and I certainly don’t represent the British Muslim community.”
But she goes to chat with the pope as a Muslim – not someone who “happens to be of the Muslim faith” – and agree with him in opposing and hating secularism. Her religion is not a peripheral part of her job. She’s made it central herself.
Irrespective of her religion, she adds, “I hope I am a politician who understands the needs and concerns of British Muslim communities.. I grew up when, actually, no one cared about somebody’s religion; race was the issue that defined you.” But now, she says, “religion is the new race”.
And that is the problem. Race doesn’t come with putative orders from god on how subordinate women have to be. Religion does.
Within nine months of entering government, in January 2011, Warsi delivered a headline-grabbing speech in which she controversially claimed that Islamophobia had “passed the dinner-table test” and become socially acceptable in the UK.
She tells me now that she would have preferred that speech “to have been made by one of my colleagues”. Well, why wasn’t it? “I came into government when there was no acknowledgment that Islamophobia existed, no acknowledgment that we should do anything about it, no statistical evidence that it was out there.”
And now? “Now, we have Acpo [Association of Chief Police Officers] who are disaggregating religious hate crimes so we have a much clearer picture.. we co-funded a project called TellMama, which monitors anti-Muslim attacks.. we’re ensuring that this issue is brought into the training of officials.”
Wait: anti-Muslim attacks are one thing and “Islamophobia” is another. Both Warsi and Hasan are, of course, treating them as the same thing.
Then Hasan gets her to join him in bashing Maajid Nawaz.
I mention Maajid Nawaz, the former member radical Islamist group, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, who now runs the controversial counter-extremism thinktank, the Quilliam Foundation, and is said to have helped draft the prime minister’s speeches on extremism.
Should people such as Nawaz – who have been criticized by fellow Muslims for lacking grassroots support – have such influence on government policy? “It would be a worrying sign if government policies on extremism were informed by ex-extremists rather than those who’d never been extremists,” she responds. “Let’s not reward those who who created the problem in the first place.”
Score!
I think what Mehdi Hasan really dislikes about Maajid is that Maajid is now a good deal more liberal than he is. That’s why he loves to try to push him to the margins by saying things like “who have been criticized by fellow Muslims for lacking grassroots support.”
So is Nawaz – who is now a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate – the right man to be offering advice to the PM on extremism? “For me what matters is, if you are advising the government, you have to be connected to the community that you try and talk about, you gave to be respected by the community that you are talking of and I think you have to be credible within that community.” Given the Quilliam boss meets none of these criteria, is she saying Cameron should no longer listen to what he has to say? “I’m not going to comment on individuals,” is all the peer will say, proving she can be diplomatic when she wants to.
Aw. Sad for Mehdi Hasan. He so wanted her to agree with him that “the Quilliam boss” is totes outside “the community” but she wouldn’t do it.
What a transparent venomous fuck he is.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Shit just got real at Queen’s University.
Police are investigating after a man allegedly beat up a Queen’s University student who says she received threats for her support of feminist activities on campus.
Police say they haven’t dismissed the possibility the attack was a hate crime.
Danielle d’Entremont said the attack occurred late Wednesday night as she was leaving her home. In a Facebook post, she said the suspect punched her in the face repeatedly, breaking one of her teeth.
Ok but there could be some other explanation. Maybe the guy was just in a bad mood and she was the first person he saw. That can happen.
Police haven’t said whether the fourth-year student’s campus politics are linked to the attack, but she wrote that her attacker was a man and knew her name.
Well if he knew her name, that takes care of the first person he saw theory. But hey, she could totally be lying. Maybe she punched her own self in the face.
The Queen’s Journal reported d’Entremont was “actively involved in opposition” to an event hosted by the Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS) Thursday night.
The student-run club organized a talk by Janice Fiamengo, an English professor at the University of Ottawa and a former-feminist-turned-men’s-rights activist.
There was opposition; there was a motion to de-ratify the Men’s Issues Awareness Society; the motion was dismissed.
On Thursday, MIAS president Mohammed Albaghdadi wrote on the event page: “We would like to state that the MIAS condemns the recent attack on a Queen’s student, and violence in general. There have been various comments associating MIAS with this attack. Please know that these claims are unfounded and untrue. Our sincerest thoughts go out to the student who was attacked.”
How does he know that? How can he know that? I don’t know that the claims are true; how can he know that they are untrue?
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Four daughters of the Saudi king say he is keeping them prisoner, and has been for more than a decade.
Princesses Sahar and Jawaher are the daughters of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. They say they have been held in the royal compound in Jeddah for the last 13 years, and their sisters Maha and Hala are also being held in separate villas. They claim they are not allowed to travel or leave their home.
Princesses Sahar and Jawaher claim they have little communication outside of their gates – “no-one is allowed in or out.” They say the internet is their only window onto the world. Via Skype, they tell Channel 4 News they are “cut off, isolated… and alone” and that “our father, the king, is responsible.”
Their mother Alanoud Al Fayez, who is divorced from the king, first went public with their story two weeks ago, giving her first broadcast interview to Channel 4 News. Since that interview was broadcast, the princesses say restrictions on them have been tightened and they are no longer even allowed to make trips with armed guards for food, as they were previously.
They say food is now becoming scarce in their home, that they are desperate for the world to listen to their story and for someone to help.
The Saudi ambassador in London has responded to the interview…by saying “this is a private matter”.
In countries that aren’t savage theocracies, it’s against the law to imprison people. It’s not a “private matter” at all. But Saudi Arabia is a savage theocracy, so maybe there it is a private affair.
Evil bastards.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Phyliis Schlafly says teh feminists are at war with nature.
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said today in her radio bulletin that the “the peculiar ideology of the feminists” is harming boys because it is encouraging “girls to enter boys’ fields” of study and employment. Apparently, some fields are reserved for boys, who Schlafly laments now “dislike school and have less interest in attending college” due to the nefarious actions of “a powerful network of feminists.”
“The feminists are at war with Mother Nature, and Mother Nature keeps winning, so the feminists are constantly angry at what they call patriarchy,” Schlafly added.
Huh. Notice where she said it. In her radio bulletin. Radio is not natural.
Does Phyllis Schlafly cook her food?
Does Phyllis Schlafly use medicines?
Does Phyllis Schlafly brush her teeth?
Does Phyllis Schlafly drive or ride in a car?
Does Phyllis Schlafly wear clothes?
Does Phyllis Schlafly live in a house?
Does Phyllis Schlafly sit on furniture?
Does Phyllis Schlafly use a computer?
Does Phyllis Schlafly use a telephone?
Does Phyllis Schlafly take airplanes?
Does Phyllis Schlafly read books?
Does Phyllis Schlafly read?
Does Phyllis Schlafly speak language?
If the answer to any of those is yes (and I would guess the answer to all of them is yes) then Phyllis Schlafly is at war with nature! Excuse me, with Mother Nature.
Phyllis Schlafly is talking bullshit. Human beings in general are at war with nature, in the sense that we don’t just take what there is and refuse to alter it to our convenience in any way. We’ve been at war with nature for thousands and thousands of years, and a good thing to. Thanks to all the humans who’ve been at war with nature all this time, I get to type on a keyboard and by doing so talk to people all over the world. I get to cook dinner, I get to wear a wool sweater, I get to be out of the rain and cold.
And I get to speak up. Even though I also get told that speaking up is more of a guy thing, I war against being told bullshit like that, and I speak up anyway. So does Phyllis Schafly. Funny thing, isn’t it.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Ron Lindsay has a post zeroing in on the question of whether corporations, especially for-profit corporations, can be considered persons and thus subject to the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The threshold issue then is whether a for-profit corporation can claim a religious identity.
RFRA extends its protections to “persons.” Unfortunately, “persons” is not defined under RFRA, so one must rely on common sense and an understanding of the role of religion in a secular state in interpreting the scope of the statute. Also unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court appears to lack both common sense and an appropriate understanding of the distinct roles of religion and government in a secular state.
Huh. Even if “persons” is not defined under RFRA, wouldn’t it make more sense to assume it means what it seems to mean rather than something it doesn’t seem to mean? You’re a person, I’m a person, General Motors is not a person.
I’ve never understood this, not with Citizens United and not with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. But we seem to be stuck with it whether we understand it or not.
Under our constitutional scheme, religion enjoys protections from government interference— and correlatively, our government enjoys protections from religious influence (in theory)— because religion deals with otherworldly concerns, whereas government deals with secular matters. In other words, government stays out of religious matters and religion stays out of government matters because government and religion are focused on different concerns. Government can’t tell religious individuals or groups how to save souls, and religious individuals or groups shouldn’t be able to tell the government how to protect the health of women.
Of course, a religious person is free to engage in secular activities, including commercial activities. And corporations controlled by religious persons can also engage in commercial activities. However, when they do, they submit themselves to the rules and regulations of the secular state. When a corporation engages in for-profit commercial activities, it ceases to be a religious association, that is, an association focused on otherworldly matters.
But Hobby Lobby of course wants to have both – the for-profit commercial activities and the religious exemptions. Which is cheating.
In closing, one tangential observation: one couldn’t help noticing that during the argument, it was the three female justices, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor, who asked tough questions of Hobby Lobby’s attorney. One wonders if the male justices would have been more engaged in this portion of the argument if Hobby Lobby had objected to health care coverage for Viagra instead of contraceptive care.
Ah but you see Baby Jesus would never try to interfere with a gentleman’s access to Viagra.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Here’s a great event you could go to if you happen to be near Salt Lake City next weekend.
Atheists of Utah, in cooperation with American Atheists, will be hosting a mass resignation event to coincide with the LDS Church’s General Conference.
Many people confuse being “excommunicated” with resignation from the Church. Resignation is your chance to leave the LDS Church on your own terms. It’s your opportunity to let the LDS Church know that *you* don’t want to be associated with *their* false claims and bigoted views, and that you will no longer allow them to use your name as just another notch on their holy headboard.
We’re excited to announce that American Atheists President, David Silverman, is making a special trip to Salt Lake City just for this event!
While we’re ironing out all the details, please be sure to check out the links below for the more information about the resignation process, and resignation letter tips & templates.
Thanks!
Dan Ellis
President
Atheists of Utah==========================
=====
http://www.mormonresignation.com/ http://
www.lifeaftermormonism.net/ page/ resignation-from-the-mormon -church
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Wow. Color me amazed.
Lisa Wade at Sociological Images dissects an Australian tv ad for Snickers – you know, the disgusting candy bar with nougat AND caramel AND peanuts covered in chocolate, the one that pulls your teeth out as you eat it.
What’s the hilarious hook of this ad? Construction workers shouting at women – shouting things like “have a great day” and “what don’t we want? Misogyny!” Wo, cool, right? No. The construction workers are hungry, so they’re out of their minds. Hahahaha that’s so funny.
The construction workers are actors, but the women on the street are real and their reactions are authentic. The first thing women do is get uncomfortable, revealing how a lifetime of experience makes them cringe at the prospect of a man yelling at them. But, as women realize what’s going on, they’re obviously delighted. They love the idea of getting support and respect instead of harassment from strange men.
Hahahahahaha stupid bitches, so that makes it all the more hilarious when it turns out that the men are just Not Themselves because they’re hungry. Hahahahaha women, don’t you get it? EVERYBODY hates you. Everybody has contempt for you. Everybody thinks your pathetic aspirations to be treated like human beings are a huge joke.
The twist ending is a genuine “fuck you” to the actual women who happened to walk by and become a part of the commercial. I wonder, when the producers approached them to get their permission to be used on film, did they tell them how the commercial would end? I suspect not. And, if not, I bet seeing the commercial would feel like a betrayal. These women were (likely) given the impression that it was about respecting women, but instead it was about making fun of the idea that women deserve respect.
What a dick move, Snickers. I hope you’re happy with your misogynist consumer base, because I don’t think I can ever buy a Snickers bar again. What else does your parent company sell? I’ll make a note.
Have the ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gjsoSY18kg
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Here’s a thought – don’t be mean. Radical, I know, but it’s a thought.
In particular, don’t be mean by leading people to think you’re doing something they will like when in fact you’re doing something they won’t like. Don’t ask someone if you can use a photo of her in your magazine without telling her you want to use it for the purpose of mocking her, if that is what you’re planning. No, don’t do that. That’s a mean trick. That’s a mean shitty trick. Don’t play mean shitty tricks. Don’t be mean.
SELF magazine ignored this thought (which is not original to me and not new at this moment, I should point out) when it asked Monika Allen if it could publish a photo of her running a marathon in a tutu. She was excited to be asked, and said yes. SELF didn’t tell her the purpose was to mock the whole idea of running a marathon in a tutu.
The photo of Allen was featured in the issue’s “BS Meter,” which denigrated the trend of runners racing in tutus, and placed the fad in the “lame” column.
“A racing tutu epidemic has struck NYC’s Central Park, and it’s all because people think these froufrou skirts make you run faster,” the column reads. “Now, if you told us they made people run from you faster, maybe we would believe it.”
Except that isn’t why. That isn’t why Monika Allen wore a tutu to run that marathon. From the Glam Runner Facebook page:
Excited to see our tutus in SELF Magazine … but shocked to see that running tutus are classified as lame. Especially considering the fact that this picture is from last year’s LA Marathon when Glam Runner founders Tara and Monika ran together as superheroes … because Monika was recently diagnosed with brain cancer and was running a marathon in the middle of a year of chemo.
What’s Glam Runner?
Since starting Glam Runner in 2011, Allen has produced about 2,000 tutus and has donated $5,600 to Girls on the Run – a nonprofit that has a 12-week training program for girls ages 8-13 to prepare for a 5K race.
So there you go: don’t be mean.
The Huffington Post concludes:
To support Allen’s efforts to brighten up the race track, and inspire young girls to get moving, find out more information about Glam Runner here and Girls on the Run here.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Adam Deen of the “Deen Institute” (he’s the founder and executive director) (of the “institute” he bashfully named after himself) is ranting at and about Maryam Namazie on Twitter. He’s ok with ex-Muslims, you see (for the purposes of this discussion), but not with ex-Muslim extremists. What’s that? One observer suggested “the difference is between silence and speech.”
Author of Jesus & Mo obliged with an illustration.
Adam Deen (of the eponymous “institute”) offered an amendment.
I see. Normal is moving on, extremist is criticizing what you left.
I don’t accept that definition of “extremist.”
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Irshad Manji speaks up for freedom of speech and thought in Islam.
Last year, Al Jazeera aired an intense debate about Muslim reform between me and the British commentator Mehdi Hasan. Hate mail followed. So did love bombs. But I did not receive any death threats. To be sure, the reality remains that those who shatter age-old taboos within Islam do have to fear for their lives. While it is true that every religion has its extremists, in no other religion do mainstream believers routinely shrug off the murder of dissenters. This is a life-and-death difference. All the more reason for ijtihad to be revived in the 21st century.
Nowhere does the necessity of ijtihad seem more urgent than in the wars over freedom of expression. One might say that the UK led the way. More than 25 years ago, a puny hive of British Muslims demanded the death of novelist Salman Rushdie even before Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous fatwa.
Yes, but that was after India banned The Satanic Verses. The Bradford book-burning took its cue from the Indian ban. Not that I’m disagreeing with her, just mussing up the picture a little.
Earlier this year, I watched the British brouhaha over my friend Maajid Nawaz, the prospective Liberal Democrat candidate for Kilburn and co-founder of the counter-extremism outfit Quilliam. Nawaz had tweeted a cartoon called Jesus and Mo. Jesus to Mo: ‘Hey!’ Mo: ‘How ya doing?’ The end. That was it. Two top-tier prophets swapping props.
I call that catchy: two top-tier prophets swapping props.
The question is simple: can Islam be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes. The Qur’an points out that there will always be nonbelievers and that it is for God, not for Muslims, to deal with them: ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills — let him believe; and whoever wills — let him disbelieve.’ (18:29). Moreover, the Qur’an states that there should ‘no compulsion in religion’. (2:256). Nobody should be forced to treat tradition as untouchable, including traditions that result in the messed-up Muslim habit of equating our very human prophet with an inviolable idol. Monotheists are to revere one God, not one of God’s emissaries. That is why humility requires people of faith to lampoon themselves, and each other, once in a while.
But even revering one god is revering a human conception of that god. But I’ll try to stop quibbling. I’d rather have believers of the Manji & Nawaz type than the Just Follow Orders type, so I shouldn’t quibble.
For me, embracing freedom is an act of faith. Recognising the Almighty’s infinite wisdom means acknowledging my limited human wisdom. As a monotheist, I am not God. Nor am I entitled to behave as God. Hence my duty to let a thousand nonviolent flowers bloom. In short, to devote myself to Allah is to love liberty.
Ok, but you can do that without Allah. You get to the same place. And if you take seriously the idea of an “almighty” who has infinite wisdom, it seems all but inevitable that you try to figure out what that Almighty thinks, and back come the orders and limits and veils and priests.
I just can’t stop quibbling, can I.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Do legislatures these days just sit around all day looking for new and more abhorrent ways of instantiating their hatred of women?
There’s one making its way through the process in Kansas that would mandate the reporting of all miscarriages.
A bill advancing in Kansas would mandate reporting for miscarriages at any stage in pregnancy, the first step along the path to criminalizing pregnant women’s bodies. Under an amendment attached to HB 2613 — which was originally intended to update the state’s procedure for issuing birth certificates for stillborn babies — doctors would be required to report all of their patients’ miscarriages to the state health department.
HB 2613 initially sought to provide an alternative to the state’s current stillbirth certificate, which some parents believe over-emphasizes their child’s death in an emotionally painful way. Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook (R), one of the most ardent abortion opponents in Kansas, added the miscarriage reporting requirement last week. Now, the bill’s original author is withdrawing his support from his own legislation.
Nice that it’s a woman doing the hating.
…enacting additional regulations related to the end of a pregnancy threatens to turn pregnant women into suspectsin the eyes of the law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) has documented hundreds of cases of women being held criminally liable for decisions they made while pregnant, particularly if they later suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth. Anti-abortion advocates also tend to pressure states to increase the criminal penalties for violent acts that result in the loss of a pregnancy, an area that can open the door to potential attacks on reproductive rights.
According to Nash, HB 2613 fits into this broader approach.
“The whole point is to further the idea of the fetus as a person. It’s a way of establishing the groundwork for making abortion harder to get, and eventually illegal,” Nash [Elizabeth Nash, the states issue manager for the Guttmacher Institute] explained. “This is one tiny piece of that overall effort. At the end of the day, this is not the way to go to provide support for a woman who has had a later miscarriage. This doesn’t make up for the loss of a wanted pregnancy, and could also end up infringing on abortion rights.”
Which was the goal.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Charlie Klendjian says more on why the Law Society’s guidance on how to draw up Sharia-compliant wills is such a crap idea.
The Law Society has said its practice note has not changed the law. The LSS agrees with this. At no point has the LSS said that the law has changed.
So what’s the problem?
Well let’s try and understand what the Law Society is actually giving guidance on. It is giving guidance on Sharia law. Sounds reasonable, surely? Well not really, because this is no ordinary law. As the practice note states at section 1.5 when defining the terminology it uses:
“Sharia – the code of law derived from the Quran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed.[…]”
This is an important point in itself: the Law Society is giving guidance on theology, and this is simply not appropriate. The Law Society represents all solicitors in England and Wales, which means it represents solicitors of all faiths and none. It is beyond the Law Society’s remit to give guidance on theology.
I’ve seen arguments that it’s a matter of freedom: lawyers are free to give people guidance on how to draw up Sharia-compliant wills, and that freedom is a right, and a good thing.
I’m not convinced by that, but I’m probably missing something.
The Law Society is a secular organisation representing solicitors in a secular legal system. It would not and should not give guidance on the Torah, the book of Revelations, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Guru Granth Sahib, and nor should it give guidance on Islamic theology. For this reason, if nothing else, the decision to issue the practice note is utterly absurd.
That’s how it seems to me, and that’s why I asked last week if there is anything comparable to sharia that lawyers can be asked to make wills “compliant” with.
By issuing the practice note the Law Society has created an assumption, whether it intended to or not, that Sharia law is a credible and respectable legal discipline just like any other within the English legal system. Furthermore, the detailed technical provisions at the beginning of the practice note concerning domicile potentially create a misleading impression that the focus of the guidance is perhaps foreign jurisdictional issues, but this is not its focus. The focus is the application of Sharia law within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. It’s not for the Law Society to generously give Sharia law – which has the status of theology in this country – the credibility of a legal discipline within our jurisdiction.
And the Law Society is also, Klendjian later notes, abandoning more liberal Muslims by doing this.
By issuing this practice note the Law Society has enshrined into its official guidance documents a damaging assumption: it has created the assumption that Muslims are a monolithic block who are clamouring for Sharia law. It has created the assumption Muslims seek to live under inferior rules to the rest of us. As my LSS colleague Sadikur Rahman notes, this is the “racism of lower expectations”.
Many liberal and secular Muslims, within these shores and beyond, are fighting a daily battle, often quite literally, to escape the clutches of Sharia law, and this guidance sells them out in an instant. Muslims who do want to live in accordance with what they consider Sharia law are free to do so but only insofar as this is compatible with English law, be it in the area of wills and succession or elsewhere.
And it’s stomach-turning when respectable institutions affirmatively help them do that.
Having stumbled into the theology debate, by section 5.2 the Law Society folds its cards and realises it must now outsource further guidance to the experts. It calmly informs its by now bemused members that:
“Local Sharia scholars are a useful source of information and may be contactable via the client’s mosque.”
And with this the Law Society gives a ringing endorsement to Islamic scholars, some of whom will be progressive and some of whom will be anything but. When exactly did it become the Law Society’s business to bestow upon theologians some kind of quasi-legal status? Answer: on 13 March 2014.
I said that last week too! If people want guidance on sharia-compliant wills, they should get it from mosques or “scholars” rather than the secular Law Society.
In the space of just seventy two hours the Law Society highlighted the unequal treatment of women in its profession, and then it gave guidance on how to use English law to use a medieval religious code which is fundamentally contradictory to English law. What a thoroughly modern interpretation of “equality”, and how very “diverse” indeed. Or perhaps the term should be divisive.
The Law Society’s practice note on Sharia succession rules demeans liberal and secular Muslims, it demeans women, it demeans children, it demeans non-Muslims, it demeans the very term “diversity”, it demeans the equality and diversity provisions of the Solicitors Code of Conduct, it demeans solicitors, it demeans the Law Society, and it demeans the English legal system – and so it demeans every single one of us.
As a lowly member of the Law Society I ask its president – I urge him – to draw a line under this fiasco and withdraw this disturbing practice note without a moment’s delay.
Seconded.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
