Kansas pastor Fred Phelps and his family run Westboro Baptist church totally hates your face, oh and the rest of you too. And they don’t just hate you. They pretty much hate everybody. If you are not familiar with the shenanigans of the vitriolic hate-spewing-sign-holding clan watch the video below. I really recommend you check it out cuz it’s creepy. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Did you see that? Did you see his kids? Did you see the little one sing at the end? They don’t even know what or why they hate. They just hate because that’s what they have been raised to do.
So in a nutshell, the big news of the day is that the family of a dead soldier sued the Phelps after they picketed their dead sons funeral with signs that said things like, “God hates soldiers” and “You’re in hell.” The family originally won an 11 million dollar settlement for invasion of privacy and emotional distress but the Phelps first negotiated the settlement down to 5 million and then had the case overturned on appeal. So now the family of the dead soldier is appealing that decision and the case is now going to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am a strong supporter of first amendment rights but I also don’t think these people should have the right to further their opportunistic hate-filled agenda at the cost of bereaving families. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides.
What do you think? Should the Phelps have the right to have their angry religious protests at funerals? Or is telling them to hit the road going to jeopardize our first amendment rights?
The Afternoon Inquisition (or AI) is a question posed to you, the Skepchick community. Look for it to appear Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays at 3pm ET.
Well. There's another paper out discussing science blogs, which is a good thing, I suppose. I just find the conclusion a bit disappointing. Bora has an exhaustive dissection, and both The Panda's Thumb and Cosmic Variance have briefer (they'd have to be! Bora got loquacious) discussions of the topic.
Where the author loses me is with this summary.
To become a tool for non-scientist participation, science blogs need to stabilize as a genre or as a set of subgenres where smaller conversations may facilitate more meaningful participation from members of the public. Science bloggers need to become more aware of their audience, welcome non-scientists, and focus on explanatory, interpretative, and critical modes of communication rather than on reporting and opinionating.
We don't need to 'stabilize' on anything: the virtue of this medium is unfettered diversity. Pharyngula is not to everybody's taste (really!), but is just right for some others — the wonderful part of the science blogosphere is that we have so many different ideas bouncing around out here. Why, there are even people who disagree with me!
I also think I am pretty aware of my audience, and if you look at the comment threads here, they aren't just scientists. This is the gladiatorial arena of the science blogosphere, and we don't restrict attendance to the prissy ol' patricians — everyone likes a good bloody rhetorical battle now and then. I know my readers like it when the bestiarii take on those animals, the creationists, and they also like the gladiatorial competitions between equals. And then we often break into homilies and tutorials. If that isn't appealing to a wide audience, I don't know what is.
I can't help but think that the author had some preconceptions about how a science blog should be (which usually means antiseptic, pure, aloof, esoteric, and technical) and found that they are rarely that way at all. And was a bit disappointed.
Here Proffit! One of Vilks' roundabout dogsFour men and three women have been arrested in Ireland over a plot to kill Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist who drew pictures of dogs with the head of Mohammed.
Vilks had a $100,000 bounty put on his head in 2007 by mythical al-Qaida leader, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. An extra 50% was offered if he was “slaughtered like a pig” by having his throat cut.
According to The Independent report, some of the seven are Muslim converts.
The BBC, with impeccable impartiality, points out that it is only media reports which state that the arrested are Muslims
though a police statement did not confirm this.
Well, it’s true – they could be Mormons. Or dog lovers.
I just got my hands on a very interesting book for the younger set: it's aimed at kids in grades 5-8, and it's a description of the life and work of a real live scientist, someone who does both field and lab work, and studies development and the effects of environmental toxins on reproduction. The man is Tyrone Hayes at UC Berkeley, and the book is The Frog Scientist(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), by Pamela Turner. It's excellent stuff — it humanizes the scientist and also does a very good job of letting kids see what scientists actually do in their research, and why they're doing it. If you've got a young one who's thinking about being a scientist when she or he grows up, you might want to grab this book as a little inspiring incentive.
Plus it has lots of fabulous photos of frogs. You can't go wrong.
One other thing: the School Library Journal is having a battle of the books, with a poll to bring a book up into the final round of voting. There's a shortage of science books in the listing: there's The Frog Scientist, and another one about Darwin, Charles and Emma, but otherwise, while the other books may be very good (I have heard good things about The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate, and it's not because it has the word "evolution" in the title), there isn't much in the way of kid's books on science. If you're familiar with any of these, vote!
That is so sad. To live a half-century in denial, to be so steeped in self-loathing that you build a career on stamping down people just like yourself, and to only now wake up and confront the truth…assuming he lives into his 70s, that's an admission that two thirds to three quarters of your life was spent living a lie.
This one life is all you've got, Roy. Live it by being true to yourself.
The Philippines has a problem with a rising number of AIDS cases every year, and members of the government have been promoting a sensible response: Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral has sponsored a program that distributes free condoms, for instance. You can guess who opposes prophylactics, though.
"The condom business is a multimillion dollar industry that heavily targets the adolescent market at the expense of morality and family life," said Bishop Nereo Odchimar, president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. He called fidelity and premarital chastity "the only effective way to curb the spread of AIDS."
The Catholics have informed Cabral that she has "one foot in hell." How sweet. They are also actively campaigning against any politician who promotes birth control.
I'm so sorry that the Philippines is so deeply afflicted with forces for insanity and irrationality, but at least they've got brave people like Esperanza Cabral standing up for what is right.
Read the comments on this post...
Last night as I was leaving a pizzeria in Downtown St. Pete, I ran into a small group of people around Florida Governor Charlie Crist who was campaigning for a US Senate run. So, I walked over waited a moment to gain his attention and shook his hand. As we were shaking hands I asked him if he really believes that the letters he sent to Jerusalem prevent hurricanes from hitting Florida.
His smile immediately dropped and he replied "Who's more powerful than God." That wasn't really an answer so asked him again to which I got a similar reply. While this was happening one of his people put a "Charlie Crist for US Senate 2010" sticker on me. Then when I told Charlie that I did not believe in God he turned beat red and ripped the sticker off of my chest. He did a 180 to start shaking other peoples hands, and turned to scream over his shoulder that he feels sorry for me.
Do you think there are any 'militant' atheists out there in the leadership of our movement who would react in the same way if a Baptist or a Catholic or a Muslim came up to shake their hands? Not one.
Last week, I reported on the forthcoming grand opening of the New Life Academy in Hull, a fundamentalist Christian private school which will use the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum (something the school's website cheekily claims is "OFSTED approved", even though OFSTED doesn't "approve" curricula).In that post, I quoted a passage from an ACE science textbook, which pertained to the existence, or not, of the Loch Ness Monster:"Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."Informative stuff, I'm sure you'll agree. I was reminded of this this morning when I read this San Francisco Chronicle article, from the Associated Press, about the textbooks used by home-schooling parents in the US. Home-schooling is extremely popular with fundamentalist American parents, who see it as a useful way of avoiding exposing their children to corrupting influences, such as science. But as the article points out, not all parents who home-school do so for religious reasons, and some of those have been shocked to find that the bestselling home school science textbooks tend to have an anti-scientific bias. For instance, we learn that in Biology: Third Edition, from Bob Jones University Press (a quick Google shows Bob Jones is a fundamentalist college in South Carolina), the introduction states the following:"Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling. This book was not written for them."And then later in the book, young biologists are told that "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."When the majority of the 1.5 million Americans who receive home-schooling doing so because of their parents' religious views, that's a lot of children deprived of a proper science education. I'd be interested to know if there's a similar situation here in the UK.
A letter from NSS President Terry Sanderson, published the comments section of The Freethinker, reveals that Harry “Toon Leaver” Taylor deliberately set out to be prosecuted by leaving irreligious cartoons in the prayer room at Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport.
Sanderson reveals that Taylor approached the NSS with the cartoons with a view to publicising his case. He is, apparently, a “difficult man to deal with.”
While we have every sympathy with him, we cannot say that he has innocently become ensnared by this law. He set out to deliberately challenge it. We would like to support him in some way, but, as I say, this doesn’t seem to be what he wants.
We will do our best to ensure that his case has the highest public profile we can manage, but our main energies have to be aimed at changing the law.
Hats off to Toon Leaver Taylor, a man willing to go to jail for his principles.
(Thanks to Stonyground in the comments)
I'm glad I won't be looking for a date while I'm in Australia. Although now I'm a little concerned that if I get a little beer froth on the moustache, I might drive the ladies wild.
She's as funny as a clown's pratfall, but she's also as fascinating as a head wound. I hope she'll vanish from the public discourse, but here I am, at the same time gawking over her latest inanities.
Remember how she was caught looking at really trivial notes written on her hand? She's got a new excuse. God does it, too, and if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for Sarah. It's in the Bible, in Isaiah 49:
15Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. 16Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me. 17Thy children shall make haste; thy destroyers and they that made thee waste shall go forth of thee.
This is one of those stories where God tells the poor oppressed Israelites that he really does love them, and will take care of them, and will deal with their malefactors appropriately. And in Old Testament terms, "appropriately" means in as grisly a fashion as possible.
25But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children. 26And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
That Jehovah. Keeps track of his loved ones by scribbling their names on his apparently very large hands, and punishes their enemies by making them eat their own flesh and drink their own blood.
And if that isn't enough Palin stupidity for you, look at this: she hates that socialist health care, but she admits that she would regularly hustle across the border to take advantage of Canadian health care. I think it's really cool that she so willingly identifies herself as a parasite, a thief, a hypocrite, and a good Christian.
Now…can we have Canadian-style health care put in place here in America? It's good enough for Sarah Palin, so it must be good enough for God, so it must be the right thing to do.
On Saturday in Melbourne, I'm going to be giving a talk on the incompatibility of science and religion. Now what happens? Another eruption of those accommodation arguments, and I've got this big pile of stuff I could say right now, but I'm going to hold it in, so it's at least a little bit fresh for the end of this week. Until then, read Larry Moran, who has it covered.
I am particularly appalled that Larry's comments contain that hoary old chestnut, "science can't explain love," with the bizarre claim that "No scientist that is also a decent human being subjects all her/his beliefs to scientific scrutiny." I think otherwise. There is a naive notion implicit in that statement that scientific scrutiny is somehow different from critical, rational examination. I'd argue the other way: no decent human being should live an unexamined life. Read the comments on this post...
The world's most famous atheist and evolutionist spoke to a sell-out audience at the Sydney Opera House about his new book and joined us to talk about the evidence for evolution.
Have you heard the one about the theoretical physicist and the archbishop?
Last night saw an evenings conversation between theoretical physicist and Faraday Prize recipient Jim Al-Khalili (a man who sparked my own fascination in physics with ATOM – an excellent 3 part documentary, the first part of the first episode can be found here) and Dr. Rowan Williams, academic and the current Archbishop of Canterbury. As head of the Anglican Church, you’d expect the Archbishop to perhaps provide an insightful contribution to any debate pitting religion against science. In this respect, you’d be disappointed. You would find an approachable and intelligent human being though; and most importantly, one with a sense of humour. The Archbishop is a shining example of the kind of Christianity, and religion more generally, that even the most militant atheist would find hard to pick a bone with over a great range of issues. The sinister nature of a figure like Ratzinger is, thankfully, absent.
The ‘nicety’ of the conversation (an interview in essence) was added to by Al-Khalili’s reluctance to push the Archbishop when he slipped into poetic language to try and answer difficult questions. It was apparent from Al-Khalili’s manner, he was uncomfortable with many answers given in response to questions of miracles, divine intervention etc. When asked to comment on the rise of creationism, the Archbishop rightly disregarded it as nonsense. But his account of the supernatural, which religion demands a certain degree of belief in, was equally nonsensical.
A God, postulated the Archbishop, who is constantly “anxiously fiddling” with His creation, suggests He did a botch job in the first place. A clearly logical and fairly uncontroversial statement. But Dr. Williams also argues for a God that’s “bubbling” under creation, occasionally bursting through and causing miraculous events. “That’s not the same thing as tinkering with the works?” asked Al-Khalili. Of course not, replied the Archbishop. Once this logical void had been brushed over, the Archbishop continued with his ‘bubbly-god model’. In an interview with Richard Dawkins (whose name came up often), the Archbishop offered a similar argument which Dawkins was less reluctant to voice his concerns about (to view this, watch this video from about 29 mins 50 secs until 32 mins 59 secs) .
As well as this questionable lyricism, the Archbishop uttered comments on morality which, under examination, reveal a deep suspicion of humanity. Al-Khalili put it to the archbishop that his “moral compass” was perfectly in tune without the need of God or gods. Williams questioned how that moral compass could be set in the first place. Why is it even there at all? Now, although Williams denied that he was advocating a 'God of the gaps' earlier on, he seemed to be doing just that. We don’t know why we have “moral compass” so God must have done it. No, in fact. There are many fascinating evolutionary explanations of altruism that don’t rely on commandments or grand tinkerers. The belief that humanity wouldn’t know right from wrong without a God is theistic fatalism. Quoting Etty Hillesum writing of the Nazi Occupation of Amsterdam, the Archbishop said “somebody’s got to take responsibility for God”. This statement is revealing in more ways than the Archbishop considered.
There was a great deal more content to this talk I haven’t offered my thoughts on, and it’s all worth a listen. I’ll post a link to the event as soon as I find one.
I could have continued the last edition of the unstoppable thread with the hot topic of the moment — race — but thought maybe promoting another controversial subject would fill up the thread far too quickly. So the other subject people were talking about is my birthday.
Gee, people, I'm not that old. IT ISN'T MY BIRTHDAY TODAY. Do I look 53 or something?
My birthday is tomorrow. I'm celebrating it by folding myself up into a narrow little airplane seat and sitting there for 19 hours. And then spending a week and a half in Australia with spasms.
This is how we spend all our birthdays after the 50th, in case you young whippersnappers had no idea.
In this examination, Eric Stockhausen covers the difficulties in the spectrum of first amendment rights in regard to religion; from offensive but legal, to illegal, and presents his opinion on some recent news.
Lately there has been a lot of news where the freedom to express ones religious views has been at the forefront. With the growing importance of such issues, I think it would be prudent to review some cases which have gotten onto atheist websites.
Exhibit A: Settlement clears way for Kerrville Cross
In my home state, Texas, a non-profit organization called The Coming King Foundation is putting up a 77 foot huge metal cross near neighbourhoods and access to Interstate 10. Not only would this be near residents but everyone would have to see it, on those grounds residents litigated against the foundation. This cross offends residents because A) Giant crosses remind people of lynching and other terrible connotations B) Crosses tend to give the message that God owns this land (Columbus-esque). C) Not everyone is Christian and the community does not want to give outsiders the wrong idea. D) A giant metal cross is just bad taste! I believe this Christian organization has the right to free speech, this clearly being an example of symbolic speech. These Christians have the right to offend people, but there is the clear problem of visual pollution (many people have to see it). So if atheists have the right to put up billboards that offend Christians, should Christians have the right to offend atheists? On a case to case basis it is really hard because from the perspective of a Christian who gets offended at the smallest reference to atheism on a public street corner, it can get fuzzy about whether or not the majority have the right to censor someone based on offence. I personally think that the law gives precedent to protect the foundation’s free speech no matter how much I disagree with their message. If there was a good way of deciding what constituted as visual pollution (aside from obscenities), I would have a different opinion on the legality of the foundation’s cross.
Exhibit B: Federal judge rules teacher can display patriotic banners mentioning 'God'
This time in California, a judge ruled that is was unconstitutional for a school to censor a teacher who had banners with Christian nationalistic messages. (See here)
One should really read the opinion the Judge gave. It really goes into detail of why the judge would protect such banners. These are obviously offensive to my atheistic tastes and I disagree with the mixing of God and country. The teacher is being unprofessional by putting his religio-political beliefs on display. The biggest problem is that they are all quotes of things that already have national protection. The judge referenced the Michael Newdow case where the Supreme Court decided that the Pledge of Allegiance recognizes the importance of God in the history of the United States. Though I disagree with both the Supreme Court’s ruling and belief on the importance of God, I can hardly blame the Judge. I suggest reading the Judge’s opinion and forming your own.
Now the important problem with this case is ‘Christian Privilege’. If the teacher had something like “Are you moral without God? Millions are!” or the like from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, it would have probably been censored because atheistic speech is very limited. This is an unacceptable double standard. I want atheist teachers to have equal protection under the law. If that means personal, political and religious views are prohibited for public school teachers because it is an abuse of power given to them by the government in order to teach kids, so be it. If the sign had said “In Jesus We Trust”, I would think it would be censored too because it is not politically correct enough for the classroom since it implies we believe in Jesus. People realize the importance of political correctness a little bit better when something is restated in a way that makes them understand the atmosphere in which it is presented. Implying Americans believe in Jesus excludes the Jewish Americans and implying Americans believes in God makes Atheist Americans a second class. I’ve gone through some commonly used rhetoric, make your own decision on the case.
Until the wall between church and state is repaired, we will just have to deal with things like Prop 4 on the GOP ballot in Texas (scroll to the bottom).
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
When I interviewed Scientology defector Marc Headley for our January issue, I suggested it may be open season on the Church of L Ron Hubbard, with the work of online protest group Anonymous and the testimonies of former members helping to break down the wall that has long surrounded the fiercely litigious cult.Then a story in the Washington Post last week suggested the Church was fighting back – it has hired a trio of respected investigative journalists to compile a report on the practices of the St Petersburg Times, the Florida newspaper renowned for its fearless coverage of Scientology's activities, the most recent example being last year's "Truth Rundown", a powerful exposé of the endemic violence at the heart of the Church's operations. The investigative trio is headed by Steve Weinberg, who used to run Investigative Reporters and Editors, a body dedicated to “improving the quality of investigative reporting”. Weinberg told the Washington Post he was paid $5,000 to edit the study (“I could certainly use the money these days”) but denied he was compromising his principles by taking it on, saying he “tried to make sure it’s a good piece of journalism criticism, just like I’ve written a gazillion times.” For his part, St Petersburg Times' editor Neil Brown doesn't seem too concerned, saying “I ultimately couldn’t take this request very seriously because it’s a study bought and paid for by the Church of Scientology,” but still, perhaps it isn't time to declare open season just yet.Having said that, the latest journalistic exposé of the Church's mistreatment of its workers comes right from the top, with Saturday's New York Times featuring a piece on Christie King Collbran and her husband Chris, the latest ex-employees to the blow the whistle on the culture of violence, repression and negligible wages. It also features quotes from Headley, the film director Paul Haggis, who left last year, and former high-ranking official Marty Rathbun, who was at the centre of the St Petersburg Times report.Interestingly, we learn towards the end of the piece that Christie King Collbran is still a Scientology believer – she just doesn't support the way the Church is run by top boss David Miscavige (who is named by many defectors as tyrant-in-chief). This is an intriguing element emerging from the testimonies of ex-Scientologists, with several claiming that they stand by the teachings of L Ron Hubbard, beleiving it has been corrupted by Miscavige. That's the position of Rathbun, who provided the foreword to Headley's book. It's incredible, given the experiences they simultaneously recall in their testimonies, and something I'd be fascinated to read more about.
I got so sick of dreary beancounting communications 'experts' telling me that we need to avoid fighting creationists … because the magical drone of framing was going to make everyone happy and persuade the jebus-loving ignoramuses that evolution was good. There are signs that these parasites are moving on now — to climate science.
Oh, great. Here's a potentially greater material problem for us than even the sad state of science education, and now the good-haired knob-polishers are moving in to dispense their advice of indolence and tone. Dot Earth has an exchange between Matt Nisbet and Randy Olson on tactics. Nisbet does his usual blame-the-scientists routine, arguing that we out to lie back, shut up, and let the Expert Communicators smooth over public sentiment. Randy Olson is basically fed up with the faceless, passionless passivity that these guys insist is the scientist's only allowed role.
I wish it were as simple as just analyzing the situation endlessly and eventually coming up with some cool and subtle strategy where nobody ever had to get dirty. But I'm afraid there's going to be a lot more Climategates in the near future.
I wish I could say I'm pleased to see these useless weasels have been drawn away from the science education problem, but it seems they've just decided to plague another science issue that needs strong activism, rather than feel-good puffery.
There was this young child at a Catholic pre-school who was kicked out because his or her parents were lesbians. Now people are protesting, because that's not what Jesus would do (I won't quibble over their justifications — Jesus probably would have told the mob to stone the perverted parents to death — it's OK that they're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons). And the local newspaper runs a poll.
Yes
43.98 %
No
40.32 %
I'm not sure
1.443 %
I don't care if they protest or not
14.24 %
For additional amusement, the good Reverend at the Catholic church at the center of this issue has a novel excuse for his actions.
"If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad," Breslin said on his blog. "We don't want to put any child in that tough position."
Isn't that sweet? It's for the good of the child that they evict them, so they don't hear the cruel condemnations the church will give their parents.
Jerry Coyne has unearthed a few maggoty tidbits about Rod Dreher, the Templeton director of communications. It seems the Templeton Foundation has been padding his credentials a bit, claiming that he is a 7-time nominee for a Pulitzer Prize. Dreher? A Pulitzer? Has the prize become that worthless now?
Only it turns out the operative word in that phrase is "nominee". Anyone can be a nominee: heck, somebody could write a letter nominating me for a Pulitzer, which, if the committee has any standards at all, would go nowhere. Much like Dreher's nominations.
The real revelation, though, is much more amusing. Dreher had one of those Templeton Fellowships, and toddled off to England to learn about the intersection of faith and science. Here's his short summary of the experience:
The truth of the matter is that I turned up in Cambridge knowing a lot about religion, but not much about science. What I saw and heard during those two-week seminars, and what I learned from my Templeton-subsidized research that summer (I designed my own reading program, which compared Taoist and Eastern Christian views of the body and healing) opened my mind to science. It turned out that I didn't know what I didn't know until I went on the fellowship.
Rod Dreher is completely ignorant of science. I'd like to know how doing a compare-and-contrast essay between two clueless aboriginal superstitions gave him any exposure to scientific thinking at all. Gosh, I think I'll go read a book about organometallic chemistry to open my mind to Zoroastrianism. Read the comments on this post...
I'm flying off to Australia tomorrow! Unfortunately, I'm leaving Mary behind — she's got a job, you know, and needs to continue slaving away to keep me in the style to which I am accustomed. But she's not bitter about it, no, not at all. See? She sent me this cheery little ditty about the Australian fauna!
38 journalists at Politiken, the newspaper that shamefully apologised for reprinting a Motoon, have raised their objections to the actions of their chief editor.
In a letter printed in Saturday’s paper, they say:
The settlement gives the impression that we regret our journalism, something for which there is no basis for whatsoever.
As it turns out, the Saudi law firm which claimed to be acting on behalf of 94,000 descendants of Mo are actually just a father and acting on their own. As Berlingske reports:
The lawyer wrote that he’s working for thousands of Mohmmad’s descendants, who feel insulted by the papers reprinting the cartoons, and that they asked him to turn to the papers and ask for an apology.
As it turns out, Faisal A Z Yamani and his wealthy father Zaki Yamani, took the initiative on their own. In April 2008 they wrote on an Arab chat-forum that they will sue for themselves, so that the editors will be punished.
The revelation that Faisal Yamani is a con artist prompted Conservative integration spokesperson Naser Khader to demand that Politiken’s chief editor make yet another apology:
The reality is that it’s this family’s own initiative to raise their profile. I actually think that Tøger Seidenfaden should officially apologize to the Danes for his naivety.
As well as lying about who he was representing, the tricky Mr Yamani has also put a dishonest spin on the nature of the apology in a press release, making it look like Politiken had conceded a lot more than they actually did:
We thank God for our success in reaching a settlement with the Danish Newspaper which has recognized its mistake, apologized, and indicated not to reoffend Muslims and their Prophet (peace be upon him).
In fact, Politiken were quite explicit in insisting that they retain the right to reprint the cartoon. So it is hard to figure out what Yamani means when he says they “indicated not to reoffend Muslims and their Prophet”.
To sum up: a Danish newspaper was conned into making a cringing non-apology by a dodgy law firm who subsequently misrepresented the apology as something much bigger than it actually was.
And all because of a cartoon:
(Hat tip Islam in Europe and The Comics Reporter)
Taner Edis thinks Gary Bouma is right about secularism and that Russell Blackford is wrong. I think Taner is mostly wrong that Russell is wrong that Gary Bouma is wrong. Still with me?
Coyne was quoted in this article on homeschooling, which brought in an unexpected surge of email, including some rather nasty words from the Christians.
This one crosses religious boundaries — it will get me in trouble with some atheists, even. What is one act that will turn many a respectable citizen of Western society into a gibbering denialist?
I deactivated Google Voice last week because the service usurped my voicemail and translated my messages to text (badly), yet these messages were for Kay, Karina, or Carol.
People often mistakenly hear my name as Carol. This isn’t just an accent issue, this happens to me in Australia, and the US.
Sometimes I just go along with it…sometimes I correct them and they don’t remember anyway…
I also know a Nick who’s known as Mick and a Matt known as Max.
I thought I’d tell the Skepchick readers a little about my ongoing thesis research, which I’ve been working on for about a year and a half now. I was trying to think of the best way to explain my thesis research to a general audience, and I remembered that I already had! Last fall a few of the wonderful science writers here at Woods Hole Hole Oceanographic Institution (where I’m a grad student) put together an audio slideshow about my research. A print article related to this slideshow should be coming out sometime this spring, so I’ll be sure to post a link after it’s been published. My thesis research (as I’ll probably blog about in the future) is a little more complex and specific and far less likely to “save the world” than this slideshow suggests, but this is the general idea of the research project I’m working on.
Sorry for a somewhat shameless plug for my research, but there are pretty pictures of the Omani desert. Also, I’d suggest an accompanying drinking game: drink every time I say the word “fascinating.” I hope you enjoy!
Ben goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 6 March 2010
If the media were actuarial about drawing our attention to the causes of avoidable death, your newspapers would be filled with diarrhoea, Aids, and cigarettes every day. In reality we know this is an absurd idea. For those interested in the scale of our fascination with rarity, one [...]
According to an ABC News report, Professor Gary Bouma has used a conference at the University of Sydney to attack secularists and atheists as a source of social division.
In the wake of Geert Wilders’ visit to the House of Lords today, the New Humanist blog has a scoop about Leeds University Students Union cancelling an Atheist Society event which was due to screen Fitna prior to a debate about the film.
With classically Orwellian reasoning, the SU decided five days before the event that the show must not go on because it contravened the university’s “freedom of expression” policy.
The Atheist Soc are in talks with the Union in an attempt to make them see reason.
Good luck with that.
Hi everyone! Guess what? I’m posting again on human timescales. I have tried and failed (at least twice) in the past to regularly post a “Geology Word of the Week.” Third time is a charm, let’s hope! I’ll do my best to post a geology word of the week every Friday. I think I tried before on Mondays… Fridays might be better as it’s easier to justify procrastination at the end of the week.
This week’s geology word of the week is actually a phrase: volcanic bomb.
def. volcanic bomb:
A rock that forms when lava is thrown up into the air and cools very quickly. Volcanic bombs have characteristic shapes that they take on when they turn and twist in the air as they cool. They are often tear-drop shaped with a long tail. To be called a bomb, the tephra (another potential word of the week… this basically refers to material ejected by a volcano) must be greater than 64 mm in diameter. Tephra 2-64 mm in diameter is called volcanic lapilli while tephra smaller than 2mm is called volcanic ash.
Here are some neat pictures of volcanic bombs that I stole from the interwebs. I apologize if these pictures are a little cut off- eventually (*cough* when I finish grad school), I’ll stop being too lazy to re-size images.
I am the proud owner of a volcanic bomb which I picked up from a volcano in California near Mono Lake. I acquired this rock during a geology field trip I went on as an undergraduate. After the field trip, I brought this rock to my parents’ house. My mom wouldn’t let me bring such a large rock inside the house, so I put it in my mother’s flower garden, where it still sits (next to some delightful pegmatite samples), certain to confuse future generations of geologists who will wonder where there are volcanoes in New Hampshire.
I was not the only one to pick up a volcanic bomb during this trip to California. We actually collected several, and we wrapped them in sleeping bags and put them in plastic coolers so that we could transport them back to New Hampshire safely. Just to make the coolers look as sketchy as possible for the TSA folks, we wrapped duct tape randomly around the coolers to keep them closed.
Just a hint (for a certain geology professor and everyone else): when transporting volcanic bombs via air travel DO NOT refer to the rocks as volcanic bombs. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the words “volcanic” and “bomb” should never be uttered within an airport and certainly not in combination.
Here’s a (somewhat stylized through tricks of memory and artistic license) conversation that almost landed the entire geology field trip in a questioning room at the Las Vegas Airport:
**********
TSA official: What’s in the coolers?
Naive geology professor: Oh, those are our volcanic bombs!
TSA official: Your WHAT?
Naive geology professor: Volcanic bombs. They’re great examples, very large bombs… that’s why the coolers are so heavy.
TSA official: Sir, I need to see your passport please.
Quick-thinking geology student: What Prof. Naive meant to say is that these are scientific rock samples from X volcano in California. We’re going to take them back to our college so that we can use these specimens as classroom examples. Would you like me to show you the samples? That are really beautiful rocks.
TSA official: Beautiful rocks? You mean these coolers are full of rocks?
Naive geology professor: Yes! Beautiful examples of volcanic bom–
Quick-thinking geology student: Yes, rocks. We’re geologists. We’ve wrapped the rocks in sleeping bags so that they don’t break. If they break it would ruin some really great scientific samples for very important scientific research.
TSA official: You’re worried about the rocks breaking? So you wrapped them in sleeping bags?
Naive geology professor: And duct tape! So many uses for duct tape. I hope you don’t want to see the bombs because the duct tape is hard to–
Second quick-thinking geology student: I’d be happy to open the cooler, sir. Let me just get the tape off…
TSA official: Okay, I’d like your group to step aside. We’re going to have to hand search all your luggage.
First quick-thinking geology student (Muttered under breath to second quick-thinking geology student): Don’t let Prof. Naive say anything else… ask him a question about crystallization phases or something…
**********
Well, we did make it through security eventually and didn’t miss our flight. Again, let me repeat: do not use the phrase volcanic bomb in the airport. Fortunately, this incident happened several years ago before security became so crazy. I think today we would end up in the questioning room for sure.
That’s the word for this week… stay tuned for more geological tidbits!
If you've been reading this blog today, you might have seen that I've been engaged in a strong debate on the post below about the merits of right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who's in town today to show his anti-Islam film at the House of Lords.Funnily enough (perhaps they'd been reading my earlier post, I don't know), just this afternoon I received an email from the secretary of the Leeds University Atheist Society telling me about how Leeds University Students' Union banned the society from screening Fitna at an event. The screening had been organised as part of an event entitled "Fitna: The Big Debate", which was to consist of a screening, followed by a debate on the issues it raises. So the motives for screening the film can't be called into question – this was not to be a one-sided event, and you can't really debate something if nobody has seen it. In this respect, the case is reminiscent of what happened with Jytte Klausen's book The Cartoons That Shook The World, the book about the Danish Muhammad cartoons in which the publisher Yale refused to include the Danish Muhammad cartoons.But try telling that to the Leeds Student Union authorities, who told the Atheist Society that this attempt to hold a reasoned debate about a controversial issue contravened the University's "freedom of expression policy", which reads as follows:“[the university] tolerates a wide range of views, political as well as academic, even when they are unpopular, controversial or provocative” and “the University has an explicit duty in law to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers. This duty includes a responsibility to ensure that the use of University premises is not denied to any individual or group on the grounds of the belief or views of that individual or any member of that group or on the grounds of the policy or objectives of the group.”As the Atheist Society's Norman Ralph said:“The entire situation is ridiculous. The university campus should be a bastion of free speech where we can openly debate controversial issues. Failure to do so only leads to a rise in extremist views."It certainly looks like a huge own goal by the student union, and also by the student Islamic societies who were apparently behind the complaints. Rather than taking the opportunity to argue against the pernicious implications made about Muslims in Fitna, they have chosen to close down free debate. As another member of the Atheist Society, Nicola Jackson, points out, it risks making people "think they do have these [extremist] views and are just trying to limit the people that know."This is an interesting story to come up, given the time I've put in to arguing against Wilders' views today. Just before the email from the Leeds students came through, I'd put my arguments against Fitna in a comment on the previous blog post. It seems appropriate to repeat them below, in a slightly tidied up version. Basically I think the film is a repulsive and misleading piece of propaganda, and it is essential that it (and by extension the political views of Geert Wilders) is challenged. But people can't do that if they haven't seen it.So congratulations to Leeds Student Union for closing down what would no doubt have been a very challenging, but ultimately a very constructive and positive, debate.Here's what I wrote about Fitna earlier:"The implications the film makes are wrong. It is a typical piece of propaganda, which explores a complex issue entirely from one side, in the crudest manner possible. There is not a single point in the entire 17 minutes where an alternative viewpoint is offered. If this was a documentary on TV, it would be slated for this. Even a polemical journalist, if they are any good at what they do and have confidence in what they're saying, would acknowledge counter-arguments.So Fitna is nothing but crude propaganda. And let's look at what it's saying. The most obvious criticism, and one that's been said in many, many places, is that it's a standard piece of cherrypicking. You could sit down and make the same thing with a Bible. Throughout the film, every Muslim we see is an extremist, from the terrorists, through the preachers, to the young girl who says she hates Jews. Not one bit of the film recognises that not all Muslims think like that. The implication of the film is that all Muslims are extremists, or potential extremists, or at the very least acquiescent in extremism. This is false.And the big implication of Fitna is that Muslims are taking over the Netherlands and Europe. There is a scene headed "The Netherlands in the Future", which implies that one day in the future, Holland will see Saudi-style executions, stonings etc. To support this view, Wilders uses graphs of demographic statistics, and implies that the Muslim population in Holland and Europe is growing exponentially. The future bar for Europe grows until it is off the screen, implying that the Muslim population will continue to grow until it is in the majority. (Wilders' political statements also imply this). In this, Wilders is certainly wrong. Demographic projections suggest the Muslim population of Europe will be at around 10-15 per cent by 2050. It is common for those who talk of Eurabia to misrepresent demographic data."
Sorry for the quiet sound. I’m investigating wtf is up with that.
Thanks to Jeff for the transcript:
Let’s talk for a minute about the awesomeness of bloggers. Particularly in the case of Simon Singh, who I’ve mentioned before both here on Youtube and on Skepchick. Simon Singh is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association because he called their treatments “bogus”, particularly referring to their treatments of infants for things like colic. Yeah, they manipulate baby’s spines thinking they can cure things like colic.
The BCA claimed that they had evidence to back up these treatments, but instead of presenting that evidence they sued Simon, hoping that he would just fold because they have more money. He didn’t fold, and now he’s spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in English courts trying to defend himself.
But the BCA didn’t just pick on Simon. I mean, they thought they were just picking on Simon. But the blogging community, the community of skeptics and scientists, stood up for Simon in a really cool way. First of all, they immediately mirrored Simon’s article, “Beware the Spinal Trap”, the one he’s being sued over. It’s now found all over the Internet. You can google it and see it on any one of dozens of web sites.
The other cool thing that bloggers did was: google every member of the British Chiropractic Association, look up their website, and find any dubious claims the were making and then reporting them to the Advertising Standards Authority. And now one out of four chiropractors is under investigation for making false or misleading statements on their website. One out of four, that’s 25%. Chiropractors are now spending hundreds of thousands of pounds just to defend themselves, which is pretty friggin amazing!
Eventually the BCA did offer what evidence they had, which turned out to be 29 citations. And within 24 hours of them posting these citations, bloggers ripped them to shreds! They found that 10 of the papers cited had nothing to do with chiropractic treatment, and several of them weren’t even studies. And the remainder were just poor quality.
Sop good job BCA! You thought you were just suing one single science writer. But instead, what you were actually doing was tanking all of chiropractic. It’s almost like you’re on our side.
Doctor’s sued over dangerous autism treatment – “The father of a 7-year-old Chicago boy who was diagnosed as a toddler with autism has sued the Naperville and Florida doctors who treated his son, alleging they harmed the child with “dangerous and unnecessary experimental treatments.”
First off ladies and gentlemen, do you have your tickets to NECSS? It’s April 17th in New York City and I’m a-gonna be there, along with James Randi, DJ Grothe, George Hrab, and the rest of the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe crew! Get your tickets nao.
COTW!
(Reminder: vote for your favorite comments by logging in, clicking the little grey arrow by their comment, and writing “COTW!” somewhere in your response.)
This week’s Comment o’ the Week goes to agashem, who calmly responds to Jenny McCarthy thusly:
Can I just say that the quote “My science is Evan.” makes not one whit of sense? I have been pissed off that no one interviewing this woman has told her that that sentence is meaningless and could she explain herself more clearly. It irks me that since she is portraying herself as a fierce mommy warrior nobody calls her on statements like that. ARRRRGGHH (BTW I know she has made many more silly statements but this one really gets me. It’s as nonsensical as saying “My cat is my physics.”)
Runner-up goes to Imrryr for inventing a useful new god:
@Amy: Procrastinatius (the Roman god of procrastinating) will be most pleased by this sacrificial offering of your time that you’re making today. Just don’t bother to call on Him for any favors in return, He’s always really slow to respond for some reason.
overturned on appeal. So now the family of the dead soldier is appealing that decision and the case is now going to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Subscribe
OPML