copyright © 2010 toomanytribbles. this feed is for personal non-commercial use only.
mirrored at wordpress
Monthly Archive for March, 2010
a jewel, found on facebook:
Family First (a.k.a Family Fist) have launched a nationwide billboard campaign to promote the benefits of getting married.
Now the term ‘married’ under the glare of the all-seeing eyes of Family First means in the sanctity of an ordained minister – preferably one of the Protestant denominations. In the small-print of their Old-Testament beliefs you’ll also find the concept of a marriage can never extend to same-sex couples either.
Yes, indeed this ‘shacking-up’ business must stop, or the country will be on the slippery slope to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Instead what we Kiwi’s need to do is look to The Bible to get our markers on the-sanctity-of-marriage in eyes of Yahweh (he’s a well known modern god by the way, who had a hit song a couple of millennia back)
Say a section of their best-seller penned by Yahweh called Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 for example:
28: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
So any male who wants to go-out and commit rape, does so with the simple proviso he needs to marry his victim after the act(naturally all rape victims want to marry their attackers, eh) and pay her old-man a bounty.
It is clear to any good Yahweh-fearing Christian, males simply need identify their prey as being virgins, rape them, then presumably force the traumatized victim to get married in a good-Christian ceremony by a good-Christian minister, whilst her old-man counts his hush-money in the back row of the church.
That’s what that ultimate moral-code: The Bible, clearly states.
Monday afternoon I heard an interesting report on All Things Considered about a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which found an unexpected relationship between magnets and morality. According to the study, researchers were able to almost instantly change a person’s moral judgment by “delivering a magnetic pulse to an area of the brain near the right ear.”
Liane Young, a researcher in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and her colleagues “used a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, to temporarily decrease activity in an area of the brain called the right temporoparietal junction. It's near the surface of the brain, above and behind the right ear, and it seems to helps us decipher another person's beliefs.”
I’m sure many religious groups around the world, who view morality as a divine gift, will find the results of this study to be a bit disturbing considering the fact that it reinforces the mechanistic idea propagated by many secular scientists and philosophers for decades.
"Moral judgment is just a brain process," says Joshua Greene, a psychologist at Harvard University who studies moral judgment and decision-making using behavioral experiments, functional neuroimaging (fMRI), and other neuroscientific methods.
Do you think “moral judgment is just a brain process?” I do, as with all behavioral processes, but I think Green is being overly optimistic when he says that it will be hard to argue that people have, or need, a soul once something as complex as morality has a mechanical explanation.
After all, how often does factual evidence persuade the true believer to give up a disproven and untenable dogma?
Liane Young, a researcher in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and her colleagues “used a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, to temporarily decrease activity in an area of the brain called the right temporoparietal junction. It's near the surface of the brain, above and behind the right ear, and it seems to helps us decipher another person's beliefs.”
People in the study read stories designed to produce moral judgments. One such story begins with a woman named Grace putting powder in her friend's coffee. After that, the story can go in several different directions.
In one version, Grace believes she's putting sugar in her friend's coffee. But it turns out to be poison and her friend dies. In another version, Grace believes she's putting poison in the coffee but it turns out to be sugar and her friend is fine.
People who hear these stories generally forgive Grace for unwittingly poisoning her friend, says Young…and they usually condemn Grace for the failed attempt to do harm.
"We judge people not just for what they do, but what they're thinking at the time of their action, what they're intending," Young says. But, she says, a brief magnetic pulse was able to change that.This is very intriguing news but kind of creepy too. Can you imagine the implications of this technology being used by an individual, group or government to make people do things they would normally consider immoral? Of course, the possibility of science and technology being used for nefarious purposes is nothing new but I think it is a risk worth taking to ensure human progress.
I’m sure many religious groups around the world, who view morality as a divine gift, will find the results of this study to be a bit disturbing considering the fact that it reinforces the mechanistic idea propagated by many secular scientists and philosophers for decades.
"Moral judgment is just a brain process," says Joshua Greene, a psychologist at Harvard University who studies moral judgment and decision-making using behavioral experiments, functional neuroimaging (fMRI), and other neuroscientific methods.
Do you think “moral judgment is just a brain process?” I do, as with all behavioral processes, but I think Green is being overly optimistic when he says that it will be hard to argue that people have, or need, a soul once something as complex as morality has a mechanical explanation.
After all, how often does factual evidence persuade the true believer to give up a disproven and untenable dogma?
Day 2 of the week long tour rolls on. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY was awesome — big crowd, fun questions.
I even met frequent commenter Mike the Infidel!
Today, I’m in Syracuse. And you should be, too!
I promise not to mention the NCAA tournament…
Recently I attended a jazz brunch at a lovely venue with great food. The 4-piece jazz band whipped up a storm as we ate and we couldn't help following the highs and lows with the music. A few hours spent in the company of a friend - we desperately needed to catch up on our life experiences and just have a good old laugh, which we did.
The restaurant was within a busy train station and as we left we were both struck by a couple who were stood by the train with their heads together and hands holding the other's head. The embracing couple was one man crying, sobbing with his eyes closed and the other man was whispering comforting words to him. We watched this tender moment and I said, 'We need to see more of that on our streets'. My friend agreed and said, 'On the one hand I am pleased that they felt comfortable enough to ignore the bullshit that the society throws at gay people, but on the other I am scared for them.' I didn't quite understand and she explained that she was worried that someone could see them and cause them physical harm.
Isn't this world fucked up? Here are 2 people who are clearly in love, distressed about leaving each other and yet there's concern that some homophobe might decide to attack them. It is just too sad. So many things going on in the world and yet loving someone of the same sex could get you killed. Right in the centre of London someone had to feel fearful of the consequences of a same-sex embrace.
I just finished reading Half the Sky, Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn's book on what we can do to improve the status of women worldwide. One of the book's major arguments is that, despite their opposition to abortion and contraception, religious groups often do more good than secular liberals give them credit for:Religious conservatives... have [...]
wolpe and hitchens battle it out yet again, this time at john hancock hall in boston, massachusetts, on march 23, 2010. wolpe still doesn't make sense.
in 9 parts:
in 9 parts:
copyright © 2010 toomanytribbles. this feed is for personal non-commercial use only.
mirrored at wordpress
Enjoy today’s assortment! Spread some laughter around today 
Check out my previous post on nutty religious comic strips.
God’s Computer
(source)
More tooooooons after the cut
Life Before Birth
(source) In fact, go check out the entire archive of Ape, Not Monkey: “The Science vs. Religion Comic Strip”. It’s fabulous!
The Ten Commandments
(source) Yet another awesome blog/comic to follow: Bizarro by the amazing David Piraro
Lump
(source) What could be better than a comic about Jesus and Mohammad? Jesus and Mohammad eating gefilte fish.
Metro news site reports that Belgium is closer to banning the public wearing of the burka and other face coverage, typically worn by some Islamic women. A final vote will be taken on 22 April though all government parties support the proposed bill.
‘We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen,’ said Daniel Bacquelaine, who proposed the bill.
Many people are ambivalent about the full-coverage religious clothing. It seems symbolic of systematic oppression of one group within religious communities by the dominant group. To our simplistic view Islamic women are required to hide publicly their bodies so that Islamic men can control their sexual and aggressive urges. On the other hand we live in a tolerant society that encourages personal expression and the women concerned claim ‘freedom of choice’, a problematic concept within any close-knit societies or groups. The Belgium proponents bypass this concern and argue against the secrecy of hiding one’s face while in public similar to shops banning the wearing of motorcycle helmets.
Thinking about these issues becomes more complicated when religious defenders raise the banning of displaying or wearing crucifixes, kippahs, turbans, rotary club badges, and so on. Where do we stop?
Alex McCullie
On CNN today twitter-themed anchor Rick Sanchez had Catholic League chief Bill Donahue, a frequent guest on CNN, appear to defend the church in light of questions of hiding the pedophilia scandal coursing through the institution. Through his clearly agitated ramblings, Donahue tried to make the points that because A) most of those molested were post-pubescent and B) most of those molested were boys; The problem was, in fact, not an issue of pedophilia, but an issue of homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, Donahue said, but most pedophiles in the church are homosexuals.
This is where I'm going to cut off his armchair psychology and pick apart all the things that are wrong with this and what he seeks to hide.
As can be seen in the documentary Deliver Us From Evil, a fantastic and unsettling first hand account of what it's like to be a pedophile priest, pedophilia is not necessarily gender specific. That is to say, there are pedophiles out there, like Father O'Grady, who don't seek victims of a specific gender. It's a psychological disorder, not a sexuality and the sooner people realize that, the sooner people are going to stop falling for this despicable stereotype of gay molester. In fact, it's not even true that most pedophiles go after young boys. It's been demonstrated that most pedophiles seek female victims. If it's Donahue's claim that most pedophile priests take male victims, he's got to qualify that with the fact that he's only referring to reported cases. (And even that isn't backed up by any facts or numbers). But to assume that because most reported cases involve a male victim that most cases involve a male victim is like assuming that because most cases were reported after a certain year, most cases happened after that year. Now, years later, we're seeing people come out everyday and say, 'yes it was the 60's, the 50's, the 40's and I was raped by father so-and-so then.'
OK, so the misinformation put forth by this Bill Donahue character is just off the charts and seeks to put your mind in so many places that distract you from the real lesson of this scandal. That priests are not trustworthy people.
The church depends on a community that trusts it so it does everything in it's power to gain and maintain that trust. Priests, religious leaders, are often mentioned among the roll call of adults that children should be able to go to for safety, along with police officers, friends' parents, and teachers. And even these people are to be trusted with a certain dose of suspicion. Priests shouldn't be immune from the same suspicion that children are taught to apply to a friend's parent or even their own step-parents.
But the Catholic church won't ever say that. They won't ever admit that a priest is not a person qualified to babysit, to educate or to unquestioningly trust. To do so would be the most damning possible scenario for the church. They depend on family devotion. That's why sacraments are centered around family activities, stages of life, rites of passage. The church only succeeds when families allow it to be integrated into their lives So they put the focus back on an old enemy: TEH GAYZ! They're not the traditional family. It's followers for the most part don't understand them. It makes it look like an insidious evil has snuck into their precious church. Perhaps queer 'ol Satan himself. They're playing to the base. It's the Bush/Rove strategy, if you rile up those who already support you, they'll make a stronger effort to support you.
Don't ever forget it. The lesson from the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church is that these are not trustworthy people, they are not qualified and parents would be fools to leave their children in the care of these people. And that's what they're really hiding.
A DAY after the Vatican insisted that it had “diplomatic immunity” and could not be hauled into a US court to testify in a Kentucky abuse case hearing, news broke that a German bishop and close friend of Pope Ratzinger viciously beat Catholic orphans.
Bishop Walter Mixa
Bishop Walter Mixa of Augsburg is accused of flogging and beating pupils at a Catholic orphanage in Germany 30 years ago.
The Bishop, who was appointed by the Pope in 2005, is a controversial figure who has tried to explain paedophilia in the Church by claiming the sexual liberation movement must share a “significant” part of the blame.
He is said to have used a carpet beater on the bare skin of boys and girls as he screamed:
Satan is in you and I must drive him out.
Five alleged victims from the orphanage, in the village of Schrobenhausen, have claimed he also used a stick, a wooden cookery spoon and, when that broke, his fists.
Nuns of the Mallersdorf order who worked for him at the at the St Josef children’s home in Schrobenhausen also hit the children with “wooden brooms, wooden shoes, and clothing hangers,” they said.
A man who refused to be identified because he works as a teacher himself now told Germany’s Sueddeutsche newspaper:
A minimum of 50 times in one year he made me drop my trousers and beat me on my behind with a carpet beater or a stick, really, really hard.
As a young cleric, Mixa, 68, was friendly with the then Cardinal Ratzinger in Germany. He is part of a conservative group in Bavaria that has backed the Pope’s more controversial decisions.
A spokeswoman for the Bishopric of Augsburg said:
These are absurd and defamatory statements.
The orphanage has been under different management since 1999 and no complaints have been made public since Mr Mixa moved on and started to rise in the church hierarchy.
The claims came as Vatican officials drew up a three-pronged attack on attempts by American lawyers to drag Pope Benedict XVI before a court to answer questions on the priest sex abuse scandal rocking the Catholic Church.
Lawyers in Kentucky want Benedict to go before a judge to reveal what he knows of abuse claims, but the Vatican legal team is arguing that the Pope has immunity as a head of state and therefore cannot be summonsed.
They are also insisting that American bishops who oversaw abusive priests were not employees of the Vatican and that a 1962 document is not the “smoking gun” that provides proof of a cover-up.
The Kentucky case centres on determining whether victims actually have a claim against the Vatican itself, for allegedly failing to alert police or the public about priests who molested children.
It was filed in 2004 by three men who claim they were abused by priests and claim negligence by the Vatican and their lawyer William McMurry insists there are thousands of victims across the country.
And in Switzerland, where 60 allegations of paedophile priests have been reported, bishops admitted they had “underestimated” the extent of sexual abuse by clergy.
Meanwhile, we learn that a now “disfellowed” Jehovah’s Witness has been jailed indefinitely after being convicted at Hull Crown Court for 19 rapes, four counts of sexual activity with a child, six counts of indecency with a child, one sex assault and two counts of indecency with a child.
George Arthur Cockerill
Judge Roger Thorn QC told George Arthur Cockerill, 78:
You have pleaded guilty to 32 serious counts that reflect your sexual depravity …You have been the most terrible hypocrite, passing yourself off as a law-abiding member of the community and using religion as a tool of subjection to control your victims.
Cockerill was sentenced to a minimum of six years. He will not be released until the Parole Board believe he is no longer a danger. He was also ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register for life.
A spokesperson for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said:
We do not tolerate in any way that kind of behaviour. When this was brought to our attention Mr Cockerill was disfellowshipped and therefore he is no longer a Jehovah’s Witness.
Hat tip: PaulEd (Mixa) and Alan H (Cockerill)
Physicists shouldn’t look like Professor Brian Cox. He doesn’t have clouds of wild grey hair, a crumpled lab coat or even ill-fitting beige slacks. Rather, he’s a vision of gleaming skin, artfully floppy hair and extremely good teeth. And he looks about 17.
His CV’s a bit on the racy side, too. You see, he used to be a pop star — touring round Europe in a rock band called Dare. Then he joined D:Ream (yes, the D:Ream who sang Labour’s 1997 election anthem Things Can Only Get Better).
So perhaps it’s little wonder that, despite having a tendency to say things like ‘I love talking about the conservation of angular momentum’ and ‘diffraction is interesting for lots of technical reasons’, he has become something of a sex symbol.
Or that he is the new, young (he’s actually 42) face of science in Britain today.
His new BBC2 series — the five-part Wonders of the Solar System, on Sunday nights — has been lauded by critics, hailed by DJ Chris Evans as the ‘best programme I’ve ever seen’ and stars Cox marvelling at the beauty of the world around him.
One minute he’s in Alaska, the next popping up on top of a volcano in Ethiopia and 10 minutes later welling up on camera as he watches a total eclipse of the sun in Varanasi, India.
Meanwhile, fan clubs have been cropping up all over the internet drooling over ‘Prof Cox the Fox’. And thousands of women of a certain age have developed a sudden and burning interest in particle physics, tuning in each week to witness his sparkly-eyed, hand-waving enthusiasm for a subject that previously left them cold.
Professor Cox will be presenting the BHA/SPES Voltaire Lecture 2010 next Tuesday.
Recently it was asked: ”Why?” Why do we discuss with Christians?
At the moment, I do it because I enjoy it. I like the discussion; they won’t come here—so my only other choice is to go to them. The reasons have changed over the years since my initial deconversion.
I recall freshly abandoning Christianity and desiring to talk with other Christians regarding what I had discovered. Tried it in real life—epic fail. My main internet spot (iidb) was inundated with other deconverts and non-theists waiting to pounce upon any poor Christian that wandered into the lion’s den. I was one voice among too many—this was not satisfying.
Off I trotted to another forum, and thus began a pattern of discourse continuing to today. I approached it with naiveté. I thought if they only knew what I had discovered—they, too would reconsider their position. No, I didn’t expect them to immediately deconvert upon my appearance or first post. Nor my second or third. I did think they would be as interested as I was to actively engage the conversation and perhaps…just perhaps…realize there were viable and robust reasons Christianity may not be what they thought it was.
It was like discovering a new Mexican restaurant tucked behind the Post Office very few people know about, and despite its 1950’s styling, the cook is so extraordinary, one taste of his food and you could never deign to enter any other Mexican restaurant again.
Of course, I quickly discovered many theists were not as interested in the subject as I was. That it was too hard to discuss with a skeptic. That they had already made up their minds, and were sufficiently satisfied with any justification that might tend to support their conclusion. I discovered other theists that certainly did want to discuss the subject—but only in attack mode. No matter what I said, it must be wrong because of who said it—not the content.
I have continued conversations because of concern with lurkers. I certainly recall during my deconversion process (and have heard similar tales from other deconverts) lurking and lurking and lurking. Reading entire threads, and every link and every link from the link, absorbing the various positions. Ordering recommended books from Amazon or the library, and pouring over them.
Remembering those days, I can’t help wonder who might have wandered into some blog, forum or facebook note I happen to comment on, and they desire to know more about my position. It would be a shame to abandon the blog entry, when the lurker is yearning for more.
One thing I learned—if you go into these conversations with the expectation…no…the NEED…to have the person agree with you—you are doomed for disappointment. Best acclimate to such disappointment or you will have ulcers within weeks.
The other thing I learned is there isn’t one “correct” style. Think you may have been too harsh in your response? Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried nice and it doesn’t make a difference. Think your story is “too emotional?” Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried intellect, cites, books, authors, websites, etc. They still look at me quizzically and proclaim, “You deconverted because of sin.” Or the wrong intellectual reasons.
For me…now…the reasons are pretty simple. If I see a topic interesting to me—I will comment. If the person is not convinced…*shrug*…not my department. If they want to accuse me of some ulterior motive, I may ask once for a method to determine motive—but sheer proclamation doesn’t move me much.
Oh, noes!—some Christian thinks I’m wrong!
I would love to see American become less engrossed with religion. I would love to openly state “I am an atheist” only to elicit the response, “Yeah…so what?” However, after watching the tea-bag party, and the interviews with protestors over the Health Care reform; I see little intellectual pursuit in other areas to determine what is true, let alone in religious fields.
So I discuss because I want to.
At the moment, I do it because I enjoy it. I like the discussion; they won’t come here—so my only other choice is to go to them. The reasons have changed over the years since my initial deconversion.
I recall freshly abandoning Christianity and desiring to talk with other Christians regarding what I had discovered. Tried it in real life—epic fail. My main internet spot (iidb) was inundated with other deconverts and non-theists waiting to pounce upon any poor Christian that wandered into the lion’s den. I was one voice among too many—this was not satisfying.
Off I trotted to another forum, and thus began a pattern of discourse continuing to today. I approached it with naiveté. I thought if they only knew what I had discovered—they, too would reconsider their position. No, I didn’t expect them to immediately deconvert upon my appearance or first post. Nor my second or third. I did think they would be as interested as I was to actively engage the conversation and perhaps…just perhaps…realize there were viable and robust reasons Christianity may not be what they thought it was.
It was like discovering a new Mexican restaurant tucked behind the Post Office very few people know about, and despite its 1950’s styling, the cook is so extraordinary, one taste of his food and you could never deign to enter any other Mexican restaurant again.
Of course, I quickly discovered many theists were not as interested in the subject as I was. That it was too hard to discuss with a skeptic. That they had already made up their minds, and were sufficiently satisfied with any justification that might tend to support their conclusion. I discovered other theists that certainly did want to discuss the subject—but only in attack mode. No matter what I said, it must be wrong because of who said it—not the content.
I have continued conversations because of concern with lurkers. I certainly recall during my deconversion process (and have heard similar tales from other deconverts) lurking and lurking and lurking. Reading entire threads, and every link and every link from the link, absorbing the various positions. Ordering recommended books from Amazon or the library, and pouring over them.
Remembering those days, I can’t help wonder who might have wandered into some blog, forum or facebook note I happen to comment on, and they desire to know more about my position. It would be a shame to abandon the blog entry, when the lurker is yearning for more.
One thing I learned—if you go into these conversations with the expectation…no…the NEED…to have the person agree with you—you are doomed for disappointment. Best acclimate to such disappointment or you will have ulcers within weeks.
The other thing I learned is there isn’t one “correct” style. Think you may have been too harsh in your response? Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried nice and it doesn’t make a difference. Think your story is “too emotional?” Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried intellect, cites, books, authors, websites, etc. They still look at me quizzically and proclaim, “You deconverted because of sin.” Or the wrong intellectual reasons.
For me…now…the reasons are pretty simple. If I see a topic interesting to me—I will comment. If the person is not convinced…*shrug*…not my department. If they want to accuse me of some ulterior motive, I may ask once for a method to determine motive—but sheer proclamation doesn’t move me much.
Oh, noes!—some Christian thinks I’m wrong!
I would love to see American become less engrossed with religion. I would love to openly state “I am an atheist” only to elicit the response, “Yeah…so what?” However, after watching the tea-bag party, and the interviews with protestors over the Health Care reform; I see little intellectual pursuit in other areas to determine what is true, let alone in religious fields.
So I discuss because I want to.
Did you submit your 2009 income tax form yet? Do you ever wonder why it is so complex? And then there is the paradoxical situation where the government gives us tips on how to save income tax and offers "tax breaks" if we perform certain actions then provide proof. Talk about manipulation. That is the carrot-and-stick approach to controlling us that governments in Canada and around the world seem to have perfected. They want, no need your money, as much as possible NOW! But they are willing to play a game with us all and see how clever we can be at reducing or avoiding payment. Some of us even hire people to avoid payment - doesn't that seem ludicrous?The income tax in Canada was a temporary measure instituted by the government in 1917 to help finance World War I. It was so easy to put into law and so easy to keep, that here we are 93 years later and it has become a fixture of life. The government even jokes about it on their website. But most of us never really analyze what we get in return for this huge expense, maybe we should. In almost very other aspect of our lives we carefully shop around for the various goods or services that we use. There is choice, we buy this car not that one, we choose that peanut butter, not the other - choice is everywhere. Not in government "services" - someone else chooses for us but we pay. Of course they must know what they are doing, right?
About this time last year I wrote about the Fraser Institute's flat-tax proposal. You can see the tax form for individuals in the corner. It's just ten lines, simple, no loopholes. But if it were instituted it would destroy the industry built up around tax preparation, CA's, lawyers, publishers, tax preparers.....it boggles the mind. The government would have to bail them out....we don't want to go there do we? You wonder just who is the government working for, who are they protecting? Is it us?
This week Dan Mitchell of the CATO Institute released a flat tax proposal for the Americans. It's worth a look, it's good for Canada too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhUOpNve1bY
SouthernFriedInfidel said...
I see on CNN that Sarah Palin is ready to give President Obama advice on Iran. Because he's not acting strong enough and will surely lead the world to letting them get nukes and cause a "second Holocaust."
Now, I agree that ANY genocide is an awful waste of time, resources and precious lives. And all people should oppose such things without question or reservation. There's no rational reason for exterminating any group of people that I've ever heard of. We have yet to do so, however. As a species, stopping genocides has always been a matter of secondary concern -- even in the case of the Holocaust -- if it raises any concerns at all.
But what I want to know is... the Old Testament -- supposedly the holy writ of the Jewish people -- contains a detailed handbook for genocide. Supposedly a set of standing orders given by God himself. So I wonder why the Jews, of all people, would feel they should be protected from actions that their book SAYS they once carried out themselves? I mean, if their laws require that old "eye for an eye" business, should they not EXPECT a complete extinction some day?
I see on CNN that Sarah Palin is ready to give President Obama advice on Iran. Because he's not acting strong enough and will surely lead the world to letting them get nukes and cause a "second Holocaust."
Now, I agree that ANY genocide is an awful waste of time, resources and precious lives. And all people should oppose such things without question or reservation. There's no rational reason for exterminating any group of people that I've ever heard of. We have yet to do so, however. As a species, stopping genocides has always been a matter of secondary concern -- even in the case of the Holocaust -- if it raises any concerns at all.
But what I want to know is... the Old Testament -- supposedly the holy writ of the Jewish people -- contains a detailed handbook for genocide. Supposedly a set of standing orders given by God himself. So I wonder why the Jews, of all people, would feel they should be protected from actions that their book SAYS they once carried out themselves? I mean, if their laws require that old "eye for an eye" business, should they not EXPECT a complete extinction some day?
Last night, I had the opportunity to see Judy Shepard speak. What was even more meaningful is I took my own mother with me. The story of Matthew Shepard’s death is familiar and yet no less meaningful. The woman who continues to tell it and to advocate for our community on his behalf is short and soft-spoken, but she is an ally most graceful.
Judy reads the victim impact statement she read to the court over a decade ago, then shares many of her thoughts about what it means to be gay while painting a loving portrait of her son. The Matthew she describes is the kind of guy you wished you knew. It’s a shame the way his story has been twisted in years passed to paint him as some kind of meth head, but Judy reminds us that in the trial, there was no doubt what motivated the crime. It was hate.
She describes society as SIC: silent, indifferent, complacent. I found myself worrying that the college students there at Bucknell University might be pacified by the catharsis of her words—that simply feeling bad about Matthew’s death might somehow count as being a good ally. I hope they see Judy as a model, an example of what being an ally really ought to be, and not just an excuse not to be one themselves.
You are who you are and you love who you love and that’s all there is to it.
Such simple words that can have such a powerful impact on young people’s lives. One of the young men who asked a question seemed himself to be very much struggling with his own religious beliefs and sexual identity, and I can only hope Judy’s words helped him find some solace.
Judy had two calls to action: 1) Educate, educate, educate! and 2) We have to share our stories.
I couldn’t agree with her more. I’m in awe of this woman’s power and strength and so thankful that I was able to hear her story from her directly with my own mother who I love so dear. If you ever have a chance to see her, please go out of your way to do so.
Here is Judy speaking at the National Equality March in October 2009 (I was proud to march with her that day!):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=debxg9SpDIA
And if you’re curious, here’s an NPR story from October 12, 2009 about the way the Matthew Shepard story has been distorted over the years, including the 20/20 story which Judy said “should be a case study on bad journalism.”
NPR: ‘Ten Years Later,’ The Matthew Shepard Story Retold
‘Ten Years Later,’ The Matthew Shepard Story Retold
While many Christians are spending this weekend doing their Jesus thing, the Atheists, Agnostics, & Freethinkers at the University of Illinois have other plans.
They’re using the day to “raise awareness about the Roman Catholic Church and its policies on contraception.”
We will have a booth on the Quad on Good Friday to distribute information about the Church’s policies, especially those related to contraception and HIV/AIDS. The group will also be distributing free condoms.
Just over a year ago, the Pope told Africans that condoms actually help to propagate AIDS rather than prevent it. Statements like these are irresponsible and illustrate the disconnect of the Vatican hierarchy from reality. Nearly two thirds of the estimated 33 million people with HIV/AIDS live in Africa.
Since many people will already have religion in the back of their minds, I love the positive way AAF is getting people to think critically about the church and some of its more dangerous beliefs.
(Thanks to Mat for the link!)
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
