Dan pointed out in a comment on Exodus 33 that

There a famous nineteenth century cartoon of Moses seeing God’s “back parts” that was one of those citied in the prosecution of The Freethinker for blasphemy.

Which is fabulous because I write a monthly column for The Freethinker, so I feel all connected up to blasphemous history, which is a thing I like feeling all connected up to.

I hit Google and found a Wiki page all about it: Martyrdom of a Freethinker: Blasphemy, Secularism and the Trials of G. W. Foote.

The aim of this project has been to assess the trial of G. W. Foote and his associates W. J. Ramsey and Henry Kempe for blasphemy in 1883. The tr[ia]l was instigated after Foote published the Christmas 1882 number of his magazine the Freethinker, which contained a series of ‘blasphemous’ articles and cartoons.

Dave Silverman’s jokes about God’s butt are part of the Christmas festivities in the US this year. Parallels or what?!

The Secular community produced a number of publications at this time such as the Secular Chronicle, Secular Review, National Reformer and the Agnostic Annual all with varying degrees of success. G. W. Foote was one of the N.S.S’s leading figures, becoming president in 1890, and his Freethinker[3] was the most outrageous and forward of all of these publications. Foote’s witticisms, ridicule and use of cartoons to attack the core values of Christianity, combined with the very affordable price of one penny, threw his atheistic and Secular beliefs out for the masses to absorb or be repulsed by. It was the deliberately confrontational nature of the Freethinker that would arguably lead to its author’s arrest and sentence to twelve months confinement with hard labour.

Again – this is what American Atheists does and is: it’s the most deliberately “outrageous and forward” aka provocative of all the secular and humanist and atheist organizations. It throws atheistic and secular beliefs out for the masses to absorb or be repulsed by, by advertising on billboards and talking to Bill O’Reilly, among other things. It all fits, I tell you!

On the 26th of February 1883, after two separate trials, the first resulting in a hung jury, the second passing a sentence of guilty for Blasphemous Libel, Henry Kempe was sentenced to three months imprisonment, W. J. Ramsey was sentenced to nine months and G. W. Foote as editor of the Freethinker was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour.

Which is really pretty horrifying.

The Freethinker began using cartoons early in 1882 with a series called “Comic Bible Sketches”[4] after Foote saw similar items in a French periodical. In his first indictment the image “Divine Illumination” alone earned three counts.<ref>Marsh, p. 141.</ref> The 1882 Christmas number of the Freethinker would use illustrations to their maximum effect when the series “New Life of Christ” was published.[5] The cartoons used in the Freethinker used real lines from the bible and accompanied them with a humorous illustration often taking the words at their most literal. Of particular note is the cartoon “Moses Getting a Back View” in which we see, emerging from the clouds, what appears to be God’s behind in patched trousers. An ambiguous protrusion from his rear – depending on how the reader perceives it – could be a loose bit of material or a classic example of early British toilet humour.

God’s bottom! 

 Source: https://wiki.leeds.ac.uk/index.php/File:Moses.jpg

Happy holidays.

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

They’re heckling Taslima again.

An FIR was registered against me last night. They do not like my tweets that I posted on November 6.

LUCKNOW/KOLKATA: An FIR has been lodged against controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen for allegedly hurting religious sentiments following a complaint by a prominent Muslim cleric of Uttar Pradesh, a charge which the author said shocked her.

The case was lodged at Kotwali police station by Hasan Raza Khan Noori Miyan, son of the “sajjadanasheen” of Dargah-e-Ala Hazrat Maulana Subhan Raza Khan Subhani Miyan, who objected to certain tweets by Nasreen against clerics on November 6, police sources said here on Thursday.

In the complaint, it was alleged that with her remarks against clerics on Twitter the writer had hurt the feelings of the Muslim community. (more…)

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

Oh sure. Of course. See a photo of people sending a message of solidarity to imprisoned atheists in majority-Muslim countries, a photo organized by Maryam Namazie, the founder of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and inspiration for Councils of Ex-Muslims elsewhere such as Morocco, France, North America.

In that photo we’re all holding messages we composed for the purpose. Mine said “WE ARE ATHEIST. WE ARE WITH YOU.”

See that, I say, and photoshop it for a rather different purpose.

 That’s atheist solidarity for you. I’m sure the persecuted atheists in majority-Muslim countries are very grateful.

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

Sarah Moglia has a beautiful Skepchick post on Mandela.

I lived in South Africa for half a year while studying at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. The program was entirely focused on human rights, and in every single class I took, he was talked about. My South African friends spoke about him with reverence. I mean, his nickname was “Madiba” (father) for a reason. I visited Cape Town for a few days after my exams. I was fortunate enough to visit Robben Island, where he was imprisoned for 20 years. When you arrive on the island, the entire field leading up to the first building is covered in yellow flowers. It seems odd that the scene of such terrible atrocities is now covered in such beauty. (The album of photos I took on my trip is viewable here.)

Odd, but fitting.

I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say he was one of the best people humanity has ever seen. The South African Constitution that was created during his presidency was the first constitution in the world to include sexual orientation under its anti-discrimination policies (it is widely considered one of the most progressive constitutions in the world). I know that Nelson Mandela and my experiences in South Africa have greatly shaped who I am as a person. I can only imagine how influential he has been to millions of other people worldwide. To close, I will share one of my favorite quotes of his: “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” Thank you for everything, Madiba. If you would like to send a message to Mandela’s family, you can send one here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdcWSJD2_9A

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

I hadn’t heard of Calista Springer before, that I recall. She is mentioned in a piece about homeschooling and fundamentalism (and Quiverfull and patriarchalism) in American Prospect.

Homeschooling now exists in a virtual legal void; parents have near-total authority over what their children learn and how they are disciplined. Not only are parents in 26 states not required to have their children tested but in 11 states, they don’t have to inform local schools when they’re withdrawing them. The states that require testing and registration often offer religious exemptions.

The emphasis on discipline has given rise to a cottage industry promoting harsh parenting techniques as godly. Books like To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl promise that parents can snuff out rebellious behavior with a spanking regimen that starts when infants are a few months old. The Pearls claim to have sold nearly 700,000 copies of their book, most through bulk orders from church and homeschooling groups. The combination of those disciplinary techniques with unregulated homeschooling has spawned a growing number of horror stories now being circulated by the ex-homeschoolers—including that of Calista Springer, a 16-year-old in Michigan who died in a house fire while tied to her bed after her parents removed her from public school, or Hana Williams, an Ethiopian adoptee whose Washington state parents were convicted in September of killing her with starvation and abuse in a Pearl-style system. Materials from HSLDA were found in the home of Williams’s parents.

I’ve written about the Hana Williams case here – she was murdered just an hour or two north of here – but not that horrifying item about Calista Springer.

I can’t find much about her, especially on reliable sites. A blog at CNN reported the verdict in the trial of her father and his wife (she was apparently more abducted than adopted).

Centreville, Michigan – Anthony and Marsha Springer arrived at the Centreville courtroom in green and white striped prison garb to receive their sentences from the judge, Hon. Paul Stutesman. Their daughter, Calista, died in a house fire on February 27, 2008 while chained to her bed. Soon after the fire, a long history of abuse by the couple toward Calista was revealed.

A shackled Anthony Springer spoke to the judge, apologizing for what happened to his daughter Calista, but reiterating that it wasn’t intentional and that they did the “best we could with what was available to us.” Anthony spoke about the neglect that Calista endured as a baby by her birth mother Norma Swegles. Swegles, who was present for the sentencing, muttered obscenities and was escorted out of the courtroom by the bailiff.

In his statement to the judge, Anthony Springer laid heavy blame on the Department of Human Services saying, “This system failed Calista and it failed this family and it failed seriously.”

Discipline. Another one disappears into the mist.

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

C J Werleman takes a look at libertarian atheists.

In the days running up to Thanksgiving, Walmart urged its workers to donate food to their most in-need colleagues. You know, instead of Walmart having to pay said workers a livable wage. When people ask me what libertarianism looks like, I tell them that. By people I mean atheists, because for some stupid reason, far too many of my non-believer brethren have hitched their wagon to the daftest of all socio-economic theories.

It doesn’t help when atheist luminaries publicly extol their libertarianism. Penn Jillette writes, “What makes me a libertarian is what makes me an atheist—I don’t know. If I don’t know, I don’t believe….I’ll wait for real evidence and then I’ll believe.”

Oh right, because libertarianism alone among political commitments has no kind of belief at all, it’s just an empty space.

Famed science author and editor of Skeptic magazine Michael Shermer says he became a libertarian after reading Ayn Rand’s tome Atlas Shrugged. Wait, what? That’s the book that continues to inspire college sophomores during the height of their masturbatory careers, typically young Republicans (nee fascists). But unless your name is Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), most people grow out of the, “Screw you, I have mine” economic principles bestowed by the Russian-born philosopher by the time they’re legally old enough to order their first beer.

Ha! Quite so. (One correction though – Ayn Rand was not a philosopher. She was a screenwriter and then a novelist.)

Atheists who embrace libertarianism often do so because they believe a governing body represents the same kind of constructed authority they’ve escaped from in regards to religion.

Which would be great if it weren’t for the tiny flaw that it’s completely simple-minded.

Robert Reich says that one of the most deceptive ideas embraced by the Ayn Rand-inspired Right is that the free market is natural, and exists outside and beyond government. He writes:

“In reality, the ‘free market’ is a bunch of rules about 1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); 2) on what terms (equal access to the Internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections?); 3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?); 4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); 5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on. These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t ‘intrude’ on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t ‘free’ of rules; the rules define them.”

And it’s simple-minded not to realize that.

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

I mentioned that people don’t believe me when I tell them that Catholic hospitals in the US can and do refuse to perform abortions even to save a woman’s life. Here’s one. It’s the top comment on the video of my talk at the Empowering Women Through Secularism conference in Dublin last June.

Draconisrex1

5 months ago

For a supposed Women’s Rights activist, Ms. Benson is shockingly ignorant of the state of abortion in America. In Ireland women are allowed to die, such as the case of  Savita Halappanavar. OTOH, even the Catholic Nun was on board for the woman in Arizona. Sure, the fucking idiot in a dress (Bishop) kicked up a fuss. But she got her abortion. Despite what Benson says, Catholic Hospitals can’t deny medically necessary abortions in the US.  They don’t like it.  But they must provide.

Wrong. I’m not the ignorant one here. Catholic hospitals can and do deny medically necessary abortions in the US.

I don’t blame Draconisrex for not knowing that, because as I keep saying, it’s horrendously under-reported and unnoticed. I do however blame Draconisrex for so rudely calling me ignorant without pausing to look it up, since I made it very clear – this was my opening point – that most Americans are unaware of this. Most people are unaware of it.

Here’s the video, in case you’re curious.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnpXTDxfF3o

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

The hostile amendments to that UN resolution on protecting the defenders of women’s rights did a lot of damage, as a matter of fact.

African nations, the Vatican, Iran, Russia, China and conservative Muslim states had sought to weaken the resolution passed by the assembly’s human rights committee, diplomats and activists said.

…

Fraught negotiations were held over the text.

African countries had insisted on highlighting respect for customs and traditions. Russia, Iran and China had called for language which insisted the rights defenders should follow national laws, diplomats and activists said.

In the end Norway agreed to delete a paragraph which said states should “strongly condemn all forms of violence against women and women human rights defenders and refrain from invoking any customs, traditions or religious consideration to avoid their obligations.”

African nations in turn withdrew a proposed amendment which said human rights defenders had to fall in line with “local situations,” diplomats said.

That’s pretty horrifying. More than 30 European countries, including Britain, France and Germany, backed out of the whole deal because of it.

The Vatican led opponents to references in the draft to the risks faced by those working on sexual and reproductive health and gender rights, activists who monitored the talks said.

Rights groups said the UN committee should have stood firm against the changes.

Women human rights defenders often “challenge traditional religious and cultural values and practices which subordinate, stigmatise or restrict women” when they take up gender and sexual rights, said Eleanor Openshaw of the International Service for Human Rights.

I’m so sick of Team No to Women’s Rights.

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

Sure enough. “Life News” reports defeat for “abortion activists” in the debate over the Resolution on Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders.

Under the inspired leadership of the Holy See’s Nuncio, Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, the culture of death took a significant stumble at the Third Committee of the UN in New York last week.

There are around forty resolutions crafted by this UN committee in October and November each year. The worst resolution this year was on “Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRD)” . Now to the uninitiated this resolution sounds like a fine thing. However it is just a smoke screen used by those promoting both a right to abortion and the radical homosexual agenda.

No, actually, to people who don’t want to be ruled by stunted, repressive, backward-looking ideas about the world, protecting women human rights defenders is unmistakably a good thing.

To see what the opposition said about this resolution please see a quote from the “The international Coalition of Women Human Rights Defenders” own website  :

“Also contentious were important references in the initial draft acknowledging the risks faced by those working on issues of sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights and matters related to sexuality*. [Such words are always used as a euphemism for abortion and birth control.] These references were excluded in later drafts of the resolution as a result of the opposition voiced by a number of States from Africa, Asia and the Holy See. It is regrettable and disappointing that the main sponsors and others were not able to secure specific language related to women human rights defenders working on these critical issues in the final text of the resolution.”

So there are [at least some of] the hostile amendments – tyrannical efforts to prevent women from making their own decisions about whether or not to be pregnant, and block efforts to protect people who work to defend women’s right to do that.

The African group stood very strongly together , and  introduced L-docs , which are amendments that are tabled just before the resolution is accepted. These were then accepted by the sponsor Norway as they did not want a vote , but a resolution accepted by consensus. This unusual step was taken because Norway and the EU  were not willing to accept changes of any significance during the long and protracted negotiations. So the resolution was accepted but all the bad anti-life / anti-family wording was removed.

God damn these people. It’s not “anti-family.” It’s not anti-X to want to prevent people from being forced to have X whether they want it or not and whether they want the particular version of X forced on them or not. Family is fine, but people should be able to form the family they want to form, not the one they’re forced into by unwanted pregnancies.

This very good result, was obtained for many reasons. Myself and my colleague Patrick Buckley, were there at the negotiations helping out as we usually do. Sharon Slater ( Family Watch International ) and Marie Smith ( Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues ) both did a fine job even though not in New York. The African Group held together as I heard the South African president had upset some African leaders and as a penance agreed not the split this group at the UN. Another very clever tactic of Archbishop Chullikatt was to have several Africans on the Holy See delegation. They also helped keep the African Group on side. There was  help given by Muslim countries and Russia as well.

So the pro-aborts and LGBT advocates got no advancement of their agenda at this session of the Third committee. As I have said many times before, the Holy See at the United Nations is the conscience of the world on issues of life and the family as well as many other things.

Hateful.

*Emphasis added by “Life Site”

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

The UN General Assembly has adopted the first ever resolution on the protection of women human rights defenders. What a good idea. Given the way a lot of people feel about women’s rights, they’re not going to feel all that friendly toward defenders of women’s rights. There’s an interview with Geir Sjøberg, the Lead Negotiator for Norway on this resolution.

The resolution sends a clear message that violence against women human rights defenders, including gender-based and sexual violence, can never be condoned or accepted under any circumstance. It’s unacceptable to criminalize, stigmatize or curtail women human rights defenders by violent and other means. The resolution prescribes a number of steps to be taken by States to prevent violence, violations and abuses against women human rights defenders. The resolution also urges all States to publicly condemn violence and discrimination against women human rights defenders.

There’s an item in there that the pope and the rest of the Vatican should find hard to obey, determined as they are to make women subordinate to their own pregnancies, definitely meaning even if it kills them.

The initially tabled draft resolution cosponsored by 18 Member States also contained a paragraph on the right to control and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as well as reproductive rights. The special focus on these issues from the outset, supported by a significant number of States, sent a strong message.

Which the pope and his fellow male clerics will be sure to ignore and defy. They will not permit women to have rights greater than the rights of their pregnancies.

The resolution was the subject of several hostile amendments towards the end of negotiations. What do you make of the deep division in the UN membership in this case?

The international community has sent a clear message in passing this resolution by consensus. The resolution may not be perfect, but it represents a step in the right direction, where the differences were bridged sufficiently for broad agreement on key fundamentals. This in itself is significant. It’s better to focus on what unites us than what sets us apart. The voice of the international community is stronger when united.

Differences in view displayed during the negotiations should be taken seriously, but they were ultimately not allowed to derail the process and in the end the tabled amendments were withdrawn. This indicated a will on all sides to find common ground, which is important in moving forward.

I wonder what those hostile amendments were. Catholic amendments demanding that women’s rights should always be subordinate to the rights of their pregnancies?

I’ll see if I can find out…

H/t Michael DeDora

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

Journalism? Women in journalism? Better for women than other kinds of work? Less hostile, less contemptuous and dismissive, less given to harassment?

No, that’s not how it is.

This week, the International Women’s Media Foundation and the International News Safety Institute released the results of an online survey asking female journalists around the world to detail the abuse they’ve experienced on the job. Sixty-four percent of the 875 respondents said they had experienced “intimidation, threats, or abuse” in the office or in the field. Most of the abuse was perpetrated by the journalists’ bosses, superiors, and co-workers. Forty-six percent of female journalists said they had experienced sexual harassment at work, including “unwanted comments on dress and appearance.” That harassment was also overwhelmingly perpetrated by colleagues. Twenty-one percent said they had experienced physical violence—including being pushed, pinned down, or threatened and assaulted with weapons—in the course of their work. Thirteen percent had been sexually assaulted on the job—again, mostly at the hands of co-workers.

Not so good. Not so good at all.

If you’re a female journalist, these numbers are unsurprising. Pervasive sexual harassment and violence against female reporters, editors, and writers is rarely aired publicly, but it is an open secret in the field. The majority of incidents of sexual harassment and physical assault detailed in the IMWF survey were not reported to employers; 76 percent of women who met physical violence on the job did not report the assault to police. That’s partly because bosses and cops are the ones responsible for threatening and assaulting us.

So who ya gonna call? Nobody.

That doesn’t mean that female journalists are not forthcoming about the issue. We talk among ourselves, naming names in private email threads, drinks outings, and anonymous blogs. This is our “sad coping mechanism,” as Ann Friedman put it this year. Female journalists keep these discussions at a whisper because we know the men responsible are “too professionally powerful, too entrenched to really be held accountable for their behavior.” This year, the IMWF found that men make up nearly three-quarters of journalism’s top managers and nearly two-thirds of its reporters. The percentages are roughly the same in American journalism. Some sectors, like sports writing, are almost exclusively dominated by men. In 2012, 90 percent of American sports editors were men. If we ever hope to join their ranks, it seems safer not to challenge our superiors or our prized male colleagues. Sometimes, we are harassed while applying for these jobs.

Why doesn’t that sound exactly like the skepto/atheist movement – and every other movement and line of work there is, except maybe the few that are dominated by women.

Female journalists don’t want to be abused in the course of our employment—the majority of abused journalists said the incidents had a “psychological impact” on them—but we’d also like to remain employed. Calling out these men publicly (and submitting ourselves to a “he said, she said” situation with a more powerful colleague) means that reporting the abuse could become a “defining aspect of the accuser’s professional life, very likely wrecking it,” Friedman says. The stories we tell each other may help us stay on the lookout for repeat offenders, and to be more wary of working with them—but of course, that calculation also affects our career opportunities. When most female journalists are abused, threatened, harassed, or assaulted at work, there are few outlets we can run to where we will not be forced to work with these men, or their friends and supporters.

And their friends and supporters can make your lives hell. They can, they will, they do.

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

From Gnu Atheism on Facebook:

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

See update below.

Wow. Nick Cohen talked to Nicola Dandridge about this whole “it’s ok to gender segregate university debates at the behest of theocrats” idea for a piece in the Spectator.

Why not go further? Why not segregate all lectures at universities? Or as, I said to Dandridge, why not segregate by race?

Well she replied, Universities UK cannot recommend racial segregation because Parliament has banned it – wisely it now seems.

What about speakers insisting that homosexuals sit on one side of a hall and heterosexuals on another?

Dandridge appeared to find that notion genuinely discomforting. She did not want to see gays singled out, she said. Not in the least.

‘What’s your problem with women, then?’ I asked. ‘Why should they come last?’

‘Because,’ she replied, ‘gender difference is visible.’

So there you have it. If women did not insist on growing breasts and wearing their hair long, Universities UK would treat them with greater care.

Ohhhhhhhh – so it’s quite all right to discriminate among people for reasons that are visible. Now I understand. (But then why did Parliament ban racial segregation? Just a whim? Dandridge must be mystified about that.)

As I spoke to her, I realised that she had no understanding that powerful groups segregate to humiliate their targets and to enforce their ideologies. One of the academic critics of Universities UK gave an example I had never heard of to emphasise the point.

In the 1930′s Poland began to enforce segregated seating in its universities, with Jewish students restricted to the left side of the lecture hall. This, of course, allowed lecturers to address and take questions only from the right side if they were so inclined. Polish students of all religious persuasions protested by refusing to sit down in lectures. We can only hope that modern students will also protest.

Let’s hope they do. But they will protest without the support of vice-Chancellors or the appalling leadership of the National Union of Students.

I think Nick saw that example here. He reads B&W of course.

Update December 5

Maureen pointed out a CV of Nicola Dandridge that has since been removed (but is still available in the cached version) so here it is for the record. She’s a specialist in equality. Yes that’s right.

Nicola has been Chief Executive of Universities UK since September 2009. Universities UK is the representative organisation for the UK’s universities. Founded in 1918, UUK now has 134 members and offices in London, Cardiff and Edinburgh. Its mission is to be the definitive voice for all universities in the UK, promoting the strength and success of UK universities nationally and internationally.

Nicola was previously Chief Executive of Equality Challenge Unit, the higher education agency which promotes equality and diversity for staff and students in higher education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Formerly a partner and head of equality at Thompsons Solicitors, the UK’s largest firm of solicitors acting for the trade union and labour movement, Nicola qualified as a lawyer in England and initially worked in the City specialising in industrial relations, before qualifying in Scotland and working in Glasgow for 10 years. She has published numerous books and articles on equality and the law, and has also worked for the European Commission on equality initiatives in Europe.

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