ThinkAtheist Radio
listen to the most recent episode
Listen to internet radio with Think Atheist on Blog Talk Radio
Monthly Archive for June, 2010
Great video explaining what nonviolence really means in a campaign and why it works…..a must see for activists.
I LOVE ALLAH - Many who like Facebook Security like this. Why is that funny?
Cragga is a young UK producer with a couple of cracking tunes to his name.
The style is dubstep for those who aren't familiar with it.
Here's his latest remix which has some nice rave vibes to it, a bit of a builder, so I'd advise to wait for the bass to drop in:
Here's the song by which he came to my attention, a real rare bird this one:
The style is dubstep for those who aren't familiar with it.
Here's his latest remix which has some nice rave vibes to it, a bit of a builder, so I'd advise to wait for the bass to drop in:
Here's the song by which he came to my attention, a real rare bird this one:
Cragga is a young UK producer with a couple of cracking tunes to his name.
The style is dubstep for those who aren't familiar with it.
Here's his latest remix which has some nice rave vibes to it, a bit of a builder, so I'd advise to wait for the bass to drop in:
Here's the song by which he came to my attention, a real rare bird this one:
The style is dubstep for those who aren't familiar with it.
Here's his latest remix which has some nice rave vibes to it, a bit of a builder, so I'd advise to wait for the bass to drop in:
Here's the song by which he came to my attention, a real rare bird this one:
Our lives are full of important and interesting questions.
One is 'How should I make decisions about ideas?'.
Good ideas have explanatory power, and can change our ways of thinking. They prompt us to make small experiments to determine whether we can improve our ways of doing things.
Good ideas may be wrong. Good ideas that are wrong are easy to discard. Bad ideas are hard to discard even if they are wrong.
Bad ideas usually have some social element to them, which reinforces the difficulty in discarding the idea. I will use denial of climate change (AGW) as an example:
Is the world getting warmer as a result of man-made emissions? Some people don't believe that it is.
This was once a good idea, even though it was always wrong.
What is a really BAD idea is the idea that there is a conspiracy to promote AGW. This is a belief with a social element, that makes it difficult to discard.
Denialists cannot discard a potentially good idea (no AGW) when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is presented, because the social content they have added to their belief (conspiracy) makes it difficult for them to do so.
So, what is a free-thinker?
A free-thinker is a person who rejects bad ideas that will hinder them in the search for good ones.
Let us take the example of religion, which can be restrictive to free thought.
Firstly, religious ideas are not good ideas, as they do not have explanatory power.
Theists explain all events with a single explanation: God's will.
This single explanation is supposed to cover every instance of any kind. It has no explanatory value. God wants everything that does happen to happen. Does that sound circular to you?
Secondly, religious ideas are bad ideas. There are social elements included in religious ideas that make them very difficult to discard.
The major monotheistic religions all hold that non-believers will be punished for eternity after they die. This idea has social elements (consequences to the individual due to their belief or non-belief) that make it difficult to discard.
One is 'How should I make decisions about ideas?'.
Good ideas have explanatory power, and can change our ways of thinking. They prompt us to make small experiments to determine whether we can improve our ways of doing things.
Good ideas may be wrong. Good ideas that are wrong are easy to discard. Bad ideas are hard to discard even if they are wrong.
Bad ideas usually have some social element to them, which reinforces the difficulty in discarding the idea. I will use denial of climate change (AGW) as an example:
Is the world getting warmer as a result of man-made emissions? Some people don't believe that it is.
This was once a good idea, even though it was always wrong.
What is a really BAD idea is the idea that there is a conspiracy to promote AGW. This is a belief with a social element, that makes it difficult to discard.
Denialists cannot discard a potentially good idea (no AGW) when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is presented, because the social content they have added to their belief (conspiracy) makes it difficult for them to do so.
So, what is a free-thinker?
A free-thinker is a person who rejects bad ideas that will hinder them in the search for good ones.
Let us take the example of religion, which can be restrictive to free thought.
Firstly, religious ideas are not good ideas, as they do not have explanatory power.
Theists explain all events with a single explanation: God's will.
This single explanation is supposed to cover every instance of any kind. It has no explanatory value. God wants everything that does happen to happen. Does that sound circular to you?
Secondly, religious ideas are bad ideas. There are social elements included in religious ideas that make them very difficult to discard.
The major monotheistic religions all hold that non-believers will be punished for eternity after they die. This idea has social elements (consequences to the individual due to their belief or non-belief) that make it difficult to discard.
Our lives are full of important and interesting questions.
One is 'How should I make decisions about ideas?'.
Good ideas have explanatory power, and can change our ways of thinking. They prompt us to make small experiments to determine whether we can improve our ways of doing things.
Good ideas may be wrong. Good ideas that are wrong are easy to discard. Bad ideas are hard to discard even if they are wrong.
Bad ideas usually have some social element to them, which reinforces the difficulty in discarding the idea. I will use denial of climate change (AGW) as an example:
Is the world getting warmer as a result of man-made emissions? Some people don't believe that it is.
This was once a good idea, even though it was always wrong.
What is a really BAD idea is the idea that there is a conspiracy to promote AGW. This is a belief with a social element, that makes it difficult to discard.
Denialists cannot discard a potentially good idea (no AGW) when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is presented, because the social content they have added to their belief (conspiracy) makes it difficult for them to do so.
So, what is a free-thinker?
A free-thinker is a person who rejects bad ideas that will hinder them in the search for good ones.
Let us take the example of religion, which can be restrictive to free thought.
Firstly, religious ideas are not good ideas, as they do not have explanatory power.
Theists explain all events with a single explanation: God's will.
This single explanation is supposed to cover every instance of any kind. It has no explanatory value. God wants everything that does happen to happen. Does that sound circular to you?
Secondly, religious ideas are bad ideas. There are social elements included in religious ideas that make them very difficult to discard.
The major monotheistic religions all hold that non-believers will be punished for eternity after they die. This idea has social elements (consequences to the individual due to their belief or non-belief) that make it difficult to discard.
One is 'How should I make decisions about ideas?'.
Good ideas have explanatory power, and can change our ways of thinking. They prompt us to make small experiments to determine whether we can improve our ways of doing things.
Good ideas may be wrong. Good ideas that are wrong are easy to discard. Bad ideas are hard to discard even if they are wrong.
Bad ideas usually have some social element to them, which reinforces the difficulty in discarding the idea. I will use denial of climate change (AGW) as an example:
Is the world getting warmer as a result of man-made emissions? Some people don't believe that it is.
This was once a good idea, even though it was always wrong.
What is a really BAD idea is the idea that there is a conspiracy to promote AGW. This is a belief with a social element, that makes it difficult to discard.
Denialists cannot discard a potentially good idea (no AGW) when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is presented, because the social content they have added to their belief (conspiracy) makes it difficult for them to do so.
So, what is a free-thinker?
A free-thinker is a person who rejects bad ideas that will hinder them in the search for good ones.
Let us take the example of religion, which can be restrictive to free thought.
Firstly, religious ideas are not good ideas, as they do not have explanatory power.
Theists explain all events with a single explanation: God's will.
This single explanation is supposed to cover every instance of any kind. It has no explanatory value. God wants everything that does happen to happen. Does that sound circular to you?
Secondly, religious ideas are bad ideas. There are social elements included in religious ideas that make them very difficult to discard.
The major monotheistic religions all hold that non-believers will be punished for eternity after they die. This idea has social elements (consequences to the individual due to their belief or non-belief) that make it difficult to discard.
The child sex abuse scandal enveloping the Catholic church entered a new phase on Thursday when Belgian police raided a meeting of Bishops, who were meeting to investigate allegations of child abuse by clergymen in Belgium.
The police seized a number of documents and a laptop belonging to the former head of the Belgian Church, Cardinal Godfried Danneels. They also 'allegedly' searched the tomb of at least one former Cardinal in their hunt for documents. Apparantly we're supposed to be outraged by this - even the BBC's news website describes this as 'profaned the tomb'. Profaned? Surely you mean 'opened'. What is so special about the tomb of a Cardinal, as opposed to the tomb of anyone else? It seems the BBC's reporter has bought into the noxious idea that these self-serving parasitical scum are somehow worthy of automatic respect, rather than (as is more generally the case) automatic contempt. Yes, even when they're dead.
I'm personally very happy to see that at least one government is prepared to treat this outrageous, decades old cover-up as a criminal matter, and take the appropriate action. Most seem content to allow the Church to investigate its own affairs, which is akin to allowing Iran to produce its own report about whether its nuclear programme is peaceful or not. Or perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be letting a peadophile ring investigate its own members, and decide for itself whether their picture collections were just wholesome family holiday snaps.
Say the BBC:
"Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State - Pope Benedict's number two - was furious when he learned about how the police prevented the bishops from leaving the building where they had been meeting for nine hours, and took away their mobile telephones to prevent them communicating with their staff or with the Vatican."
You mean he was furious that his fellow clergymen were treated as though they were ordinary people, being investigated for covering up some of the worst crimes it is possible to commit? How awful. Poor lambs. Does he not know that it is standard practice to prevent a criminal suspect from communicating with accomplices? Rather than prevent the Bishops from leaving, the police should have hauled them down to the nick and taken their fingerprints and DNA.
So lets remember that the meeting was held to investigate allegations of child abuse in Belgium, by the Belgian clergy. Do you imagine for a second that the Church would even bother to hold such a meeting if they didn't have a huge wodge of complaints to investigate? Come on!
The BBC's report goes on to say:
"Cardinal Bertone angrily told reporters during a conference he was attending at a Catholic University in Rome that not even communist states dared to treat Church authorities and Church property in this way. He summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Vatican and handed him a formal protest note."
Why not just excommunicate him? That's what you normally do isn't it? Or perhaps you should send one of your crack team of exorcists to find out if the Belgian government have been co-opted by Satan and his demonic hordes. You superstitious, anachronistic hypocritical old fool. I hope the Belgian ambassador laughed in your face.
It is easy to see why Church figures feel a little hard done by here, but easier still to explain why they need to get over it, and wake up to the reality that they have brought upon themselves by denying these allegations for so long. For about the last 1700 years or so until very recently, the Church has done exactly what it wanted. And I do mean exactly. Suddenly it finds itself in a position where people aren't quite so fearful of its temporal power anymore, and are prepared to say occasionally 'hang on a minute, your minion has been fucking my little boy for years. Pardon me for being impertinent, but that can't be right can it?'.
For years the Church's response has been bluster, obfuscation and denial, and for the most part we've bought into their claims that it is an internal matter. In Ireland for example, it was common knowledge that Church schools were populated by wicked and sadistic old men and women, who were firmly of the opinion that the devil needed to be thrashed out of little children, and barely anyone raised a protest about this. But when it transpires that many of these old men also believed that the devil needed to be fucked out of little children too, we heard the first wimpers of protest, rising slowly to a crescendo as more and more people spoke out about the appalling abuse that they suffered. And the Church's response? We're sorry, a bit, now stop whinging and get back on your knees where you belong. Don't you know that you're a worthless little sinner and only we can save you?
Of course it's not just Ireland, and that's why the Church has a crisis on it's hands. And if there is any real justice, it will be the crisis that finally brings this disgusting organisation crashing down. Probably a bit too much to hope for though.
In the meantime, allegations of abuse keep cropping up. Millions of dollars have already been paid to shut people up in America. Claims are being 'investigated' by the Church in Germany, Spain, Italy, Ireland and several other Western countries. The Pope's last archdiocese in Germany is under investigation, and it may even be the case that the Pope himself has covered up the perversions of priests serving in his own backyard. Some infallability.
The Pope himself has been a little more cautious than Cardinal Bertone in his response to the raid by Belgian police, at least in the sense that he didn't invoke communism. In a letter to the head of the Belgian Church he said
"I want to express, dear brother in the Episcopate, as well as to all the Bishops of Belgium, my closeness and solidarity in this moment of sadness, in which, with certain surprising and deplorable methods, searches were carried out.
"I hope that justice will follow its course while guaranteeing the rights of individuals and institutions, respecting the rights of victims, (and) acknowledging those who undertake to collaborate with it"
'Surprising and deplorable methods'? Ah yes, searching Church property as they would a business or private household. How deplorable that the holy brotherhood should be treated the same as everbody else. Note also that his hopes of 'guaranteeing the rights of individuals [Bishops and Priests] and institutions [the Church]' come before 'respecting the rights of victims [defenseless and innocent children beaten, abused and violated by said individuals]'.
If there is evidence to suggest that a priest raped a child, that priest must be tried according to the temporal laws of the country where the alleged incident took place, and if found guilty, sentenced accordingly. If it transpires that his Bishop knew about the allegations against him but failed to take the appropriate action, that Bishop must be tried for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If his Archbishop knew, then so must he. And if the Pope knew? So far I don't see countries lining up to extradite the Pope, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have taken legal advice about the possibility of having the Pope arrested when he visits the UK later this year. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this idea has been met with derision and even humour. I doubt their attempt will be successful (and you could bet your soul that if they had a chance, the Pope would cancel his visit in a snap - no martyr he) but I hope this attempt will open more people's eyes to the fact that this is not an internal Church matter. It is not for the Church to decide what to do with known sex offenders, it is for the courts to decide and punish those who are found guilty accordingly.
The police seized a number of documents and a laptop belonging to the former head of the Belgian Church, Cardinal Godfried Danneels. They also 'allegedly' searched the tomb of at least one former Cardinal in their hunt for documents. Apparantly we're supposed to be outraged by this - even the BBC's news website describes this as 'profaned the tomb'. Profaned? Surely you mean 'opened'. What is so special about the tomb of a Cardinal, as opposed to the tomb of anyone else? It seems the BBC's reporter has bought into the noxious idea that these self-serving parasitical scum are somehow worthy of automatic respect, rather than (as is more generally the case) automatic contempt. Yes, even when they're dead.
I'm personally very happy to see that at least one government is prepared to treat this outrageous, decades old cover-up as a criminal matter, and take the appropriate action. Most seem content to allow the Church to investigate its own affairs, which is akin to allowing Iran to produce its own report about whether its nuclear programme is peaceful or not. Or perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be letting a peadophile ring investigate its own members, and decide for itself whether their picture collections were just wholesome family holiday snaps.
Say the BBC:
"Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State - Pope Benedict's number two - was furious when he learned about how the police prevented the bishops from leaving the building where they had been meeting for nine hours, and took away their mobile telephones to prevent them communicating with their staff or with the Vatican."
You mean he was furious that his fellow clergymen were treated as though they were ordinary people, being investigated for covering up some of the worst crimes it is possible to commit? How awful. Poor lambs. Does he not know that it is standard practice to prevent a criminal suspect from communicating with accomplices? Rather than prevent the Bishops from leaving, the police should have hauled them down to the nick and taken their fingerprints and DNA.
So lets remember that the meeting was held to investigate allegations of child abuse in Belgium, by the Belgian clergy. Do you imagine for a second that the Church would even bother to hold such a meeting if they didn't have a huge wodge of complaints to investigate? Come on!
The BBC's report goes on to say:
"Cardinal Bertone angrily told reporters during a conference he was attending at a Catholic University in Rome that not even communist states dared to treat Church authorities and Church property in this way. He summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Vatican and handed him a formal protest note."
Why not just excommunicate him? That's what you normally do isn't it? Or perhaps you should send one of your crack team of exorcists to find out if the Belgian government have been co-opted by Satan and his demonic hordes. You superstitious, anachronistic hypocritical old fool. I hope the Belgian ambassador laughed in your face.
It is easy to see why Church figures feel a little hard done by here, but easier still to explain why they need to get over it, and wake up to the reality that they have brought upon themselves by denying these allegations for so long. For about the last 1700 years or so until very recently, the Church has done exactly what it wanted. And I do mean exactly. Suddenly it finds itself in a position where people aren't quite so fearful of its temporal power anymore, and are prepared to say occasionally 'hang on a minute, your minion has been fucking my little boy for years. Pardon me for being impertinent, but that can't be right can it?'.
For years the Church's response has been bluster, obfuscation and denial, and for the most part we've bought into their claims that it is an internal matter. In Ireland for example, it was common knowledge that Church schools were populated by wicked and sadistic old men and women, who were firmly of the opinion that the devil needed to be thrashed out of little children, and barely anyone raised a protest about this. But when it transpires that many of these old men also believed that the devil needed to be fucked out of little children too, we heard the first wimpers of protest, rising slowly to a crescendo as more and more people spoke out about the appalling abuse that they suffered. And the Church's response? We're sorry, a bit, now stop whinging and get back on your knees where you belong. Don't you know that you're a worthless little sinner and only we can save you?
Of course it's not just Ireland, and that's why the Church has a crisis on it's hands. And if there is any real justice, it will be the crisis that finally brings this disgusting organisation crashing down. Probably a bit too much to hope for though.
In the meantime, allegations of abuse keep cropping up. Millions of dollars have already been paid to shut people up in America. Claims are being 'investigated' by the Church in Germany, Spain, Italy, Ireland and several other Western countries. The Pope's last archdiocese in Germany is under investigation, and it may even be the case that the Pope himself has covered up the perversions of priests serving in his own backyard. Some infallability.
The Pope himself has been a little more cautious than Cardinal Bertone in his response to the raid by Belgian police, at least in the sense that he didn't invoke communism. In a letter to the head of the Belgian Church he said
"I want to express, dear brother in the Episcopate, as well as to all the Bishops of Belgium, my closeness and solidarity in this moment of sadness, in which, with certain surprising and deplorable methods, searches were carried out.
"I hope that justice will follow its course while guaranteeing the rights of individuals and institutions, respecting the rights of victims, (and) acknowledging those who undertake to collaborate with it"
'Surprising and deplorable methods'? Ah yes, searching Church property as they would a business or private household. How deplorable that the holy brotherhood should be treated the same as everbody else. Note also that his hopes of 'guaranteeing the rights of individuals [Bishops and Priests] and institutions [the Church]' come before 'respecting the rights of victims [defenseless and innocent children beaten, abused and violated by said individuals]'.
If there is evidence to suggest that a priest raped a child, that priest must be tried according to the temporal laws of the country where the alleged incident took place, and if found guilty, sentenced accordingly. If it transpires that his Bishop knew about the allegations against him but failed to take the appropriate action, that Bishop must be tried for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If his Archbishop knew, then so must he. And if the Pope knew? So far I don't see countries lining up to extradite the Pope, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have taken legal advice about the possibility of having the Pope arrested when he visits the UK later this year. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this idea has been met with derision and even humour. I doubt their attempt will be successful (and you could bet your soul that if they had a chance, the Pope would cancel his visit in a snap - no martyr he) but I hope this attempt will open more people's eyes to the fact that this is not an internal Church matter. It is not for the Church to decide what to do with known sex offenders, it is for the courts to decide and punish those who are found guilty accordingly.
This paper finds that US states with greater levels of conservative religious beliefs have a higher teen birth rate. The statistical significance of this relationship survives controlling for mean income (more religious states tend to have lower mean income), and, of course controlling for abortion rates (if states with higher religiosity have lower abortion rates then higher teen birth birth rates would not necessarily be a surprise). Here is the graph (Mississippi is on the top right!)
The authors state "One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception". For example:
Another case of illogical beliefs resulting in very logical (and tragic) outcomes.
The authors state "One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception". For example:
Rosenbaum compared adolescents who reported taking a virginity pledge with a matched sample of nonpledgers [12]. Among the matching variables was pre-pledge religiosity and attitudes toward sex and birth control. Pledgers did not differ from nonpledgers in lifetime sexual partners and age of first sex, but pledgers were less likely to have used birth control and condoms in the past year and at last sex.So much for sex education which promotes abstinence as a viable form of contraception. And how astonishing that international aid organisations like Catholic Relief Services still see abstinence education as a key weapon in their fight against HIV/AIDS.
Another case of illogical beliefs resulting in very logical (and tragic) outcomes.
This paper finds that US states with greater levels of conservative religious beliefs have a higher teen birth rate. The statistical significance of this relationship survives controlling for mean income (more religious states tend to have lower mean income), and, of course controlling for abortion rates (if states with higher religiosity have lower abortion rates then higher teen birth birth rates would not necessarily be a surprise). Here is the graph (Mississippi is on the top right!)
The authors state "One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception". For example:
Another case of illogical beliefs resulting in very logical (and tragic) outcomes.
The authors state "One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception". For example:
Rosenbaum compared adolescents who reported taking a virginity pledge with a matched sample of nonpledgers [12]. Among the matching variables was pre-pledge religiosity and attitudes toward sex and birth control. Pledgers did not differ from nonpledgers in lifetime sexual partners and age of first sex, but pledgers were less likely to have used birth control and condoms in the past year and at last sex.So much for sex education which promotes abstinence as a viable form of contraception. And how astonishing that international aid organisations like Catholic Relief Services still see abstinence education as a key weapon in their fight against HIV/AIDS.
Another case of illogical beliefs resulting in very logical (and tragic) outcomes.
I think it’s time my blog holiday came to an end. Why is it so hard to blog in the summer? I think I’m like a pratchetterian troll; my brain slows to a sluggish crawl when it’s warm. And warm it has been, at least over the past few days. (“Warm” in Sweden is above 20 centigrade. Once you start getting closer to 30, it’s officially “hot”, and I turn into a quivering wreck, drowning in my own sweat.)
Is it just me or do they look related?
Two interesting things have happened in Sweden over the past week. The first is that Crown Princess Victoria got married to some dude from Ockelbo. The whole country turned sickeningly royalistic for a whole week before the wedding on June 19th. Those of us who tried to make some sort of point — such as how monarchy rather clashes with the idea of democracy, and how the part of the constitution that specifies that the Swedish regent has to be of the “true evangelical faith” rather clashes with that other part of the constitution that guarantees every Swedish citizen freedom of religion — were accused of wanting to spoil the fun.
Because that’s what all this was, fun. It was all about love, you see. A real-life fairytale, a princess marrying a regular dude (a personal trainer whose main notable achievement in life is having performed worse at the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test than a monkey selecting answers at random would have). A princess marrying for love, against the wishes of her father (another dude who loves chicks and cars and also doesn’t want her to become the regent, but would prefer to stick to tradition and give the crown to her younger brother). It’s beautiful and amazing and may not be criticised, not even to make valid points about the fucking constitution.
Jesus fucking christ am I glad it’s over. I can now go back to ignoring the royal house completely, which was impossible during the bloody wedding.
If kids are involved, it's ok to look silly
Anyway, thing the second: Midsummer. Although the origins of this holiday is shrouded in mystery, it is one of the few that haven’t been sequestered by the church. It remains a completely secular celebration of the fact that it’s warm enough to screw outdoors, if you don’t mind the mosquitoes and the possibility of being rained on.
Midsummer’s eve is holy in Sweden. We get usually get the whole day off, even though there is no bank holiday, just so we can journey like lemmings to thousands of adorable little cottages and dance around maypoles. And although it seems that the holiday is probably less pagan than most people think, and the maypole isn’t actually a gigantic penis-symbol but rather exactly what it looks like — a big stick decorated with birch twigs and flowers — it still thrills me that one of our most important national celebrations has remained free of a christian taint.
Now if only we would celebrate it on the actual solstice, rather than on some other day that suits society better. Of course I could feel free to celebrate it whenever the hell I want, but this year I actually went to a proper midsummer party, complete with maypole, stupid dancing, way too much booze and … well, actually, there weren’t that many mosquitoes and for once it didn’t rain.
You know what? I’m trying to rant here, but truth to tell, I had a great Midsummer and not even the royal wedding could spoil my enjoyment of Swedish summer.
Mel's enjoyment of summer
Because seriously? It’s fucking glorious.
–Mel
This weekend saw hundreds of thousands of people coming out in support of GLBT rights by attending Twin Cities Pride in Minneapolis. Non-heterosexual lifestyles are seen as offensive to certain people. There are different reasons for this. Some express that non-heterosexual lifestyles are "against Nature," others will cite religious scripture for justification of the opinion that any other form of sexuality other than heterosexuality is immoral and will result in those individuals facing an eternity in torment in the afterlife.
Twin Cities Pride rents out a large public park in downtown Minneapolis for two days at some considerable cost. To absorb this cost, they solicit donations, sell sponsorships, and sell tent space to vendors and organizations. Because Twin Cities Pride rents the whole park, they establish certain rules within the park which vendors must follow. Vendors are allowed to hand out materials, but only at the location they have rented and the organization is allowed to choose who is allowed to pay for a table and who can not.
Why is this an issue? Brian Johnson, a Christian known for protesting Pride festivals was allowed by the Minneapolis Park Board to preach and hand out Bibles at the festival in Loring Park. Twin Cities Pride attempted to prevent him from doing so by issuing an injunction against the decision by the Park Board, which was rejected. The judge's reason? What Brian Johnson was attempting to do is exercise his right to free speech, so long as he isn't disruptive. I agree with the decision. If a protester can be refused free speech at this event, what about a gay rights supporter at a Christian festival?
Brian Johnson wasn't the only protester we saw this year. John Chisham was there as well. We have seen him over the past few years at the Duluth GLBTQAI Festival. He carries a large sign with Bible quotes and preaches at will about sin. He has assistants who will stand and read from the Bible and always includes someone who video tapes his interactions with attendees at the festivals. What would you see from one of these videos? Gay rights supporters shouting, telling him HE is going to Hell, yelling other vile things and even spitting on him. This kind of video encourages Christians to give to his cause. The people who support gay rights are clearly a violent group who are anti-Christian and need to be preached to.
I should mention that I held up a "Hug an Atheist" sign next to his sign at GLBTQAI Duluth last year. What was interesting, is how upset people were getting over him just being there. Some people responded to my sign with great enthusiasm, simply because of his presence. Still others in the audience ignored both of us. Ultimately, both of us should have been ignored and eventually, we were. This is the lesson that the people at GLBTQAI Duluth have learned. Don't give him an audience. Don't yell at him and get upset.
Minneapolis wasn't used to seeing John. A crowd formed around him, of about 50 to 60 people in the afternoon on Saturday. People stood in front of him and listened to him preach while shouting back. Others held up a sign which read "Bible Humper." He had an assistant with a video camera and the audience was providing all the footage he would need. Someone shoved him, was detained and released without a ticket. If he had been ignored, he wouldn't have received the press he was seeking.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I also saw someone holding up a copy of Christoper Hitchens' "God is Not Great" while he shouted at John, as if "God is Not Great," is some sort of anti-Bible scripture.
This brings up the point of having so many religious groups at Twin Cities Pride. "Standing on the Side of Love" is a campaign from the Unitarian Universalists to "harness love's power to stop oppression." Since the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalists was only blocks away, their shirts and signs flooded the event. At some of the stages, religious benedictions were offered from religious leaders and spiritual hymns were sung. These people support gay rights and equality, but I don't think it is because of their religion. I don't support equality because I'm an atheist. I don't think someone should have to justify equality with a religious or non religious belief. I think it's great that other organizations support equality, but I do wish that we could do it together.
I had the feeling last year that the religious and political groups were trying to gain converts at gays were their market. I wouldn't wear a "Would Jesus Discriminate?" sticker because I was wearing an atheist shirt and I was irritated at the notion of using Jesus as a modern day pawn to sway people to support equality. I was less irritated this year, because I'm pleased that there are more people supporting equality and it bothers me less that people are able to find support from a familiar religious framework. I rationalized this by assuming that it would be easier for someone who is already experiencing a difficult time with a life choice to find support which is familiar than trying to tear down religious beliefs. I would rather that more Christians supported equality than inequality and discrimination. Equality as an ethic is more important to me than views on theology.
Twin Cities Pride rents out a large public park in downtown Minneapolis for two days at some considerable cost. To absorb this cost, they solicit donations, sell sponsorships, and sell tent space to vendors and organizations. Because Twin Cities Pride rents the whole park, they establish certain rules within the park which vendors must follow. Vendors are allowed to hand out materials, but only at the location they have rented and the organization is allowed to choose who is allowed to pay for a table and who can not.
Why is this an issue? Brian Johnson, a Christian known for protesting Pride festivals was allowed by the Minneapolis Park Board to preach and hand out Bibles at the festival in Loring Park. Twin Cities Pride attempted to prevent him from doing so by issuing an injunction against the decision by the Park Board, which was rejected. The judge's reason? What Brian Johnson was attempting to do is exercise his right to free speech, so long as he isn't disruptive. I agree with the decision. If a protester can be refused free speech at this event, what about a gay rights supporter at a Christian festival?
Brian Johnson wasn't the only protester we saw this year. John Chisham was there as well. We have seen him over the past few years at the Duluth GLBTQAI Festival. He carries a large sign with Bible quotes and preaches at will about sin. He has assistants who will stand and read from the Bible and always includes someone who video tapes his interactions with attendees at the festivals. What would you see from one of these videos? Gay rights supporters shouting, telling him HE is going to Hell, yelling other vile things and even spitting on him. This kind of video encourages Christians to give to his cause. The people who support gay rights are clearly a violent group who are anti-Christian and need to be preached to.
I should mention that I held up a "Hug an Atheist" sign next to his sign at GLBTQAI Duluth last year. What was interesting, is how upset people were getting over him just being there. Some people responded to my sign with great enthusiasm, simply because of his presence. Still others in the audience ignored both of us. Ultimately, both of us should have been ignored and eventually, we were. This is the lesson that the people at GLBTQAI Duluth have learned. Don't give him an audience. Don't yell at him and get upset.
Minneapolis wasn't used to seeing John. A crowd formed around him, of about 50 to 60 people in the afternoon on Saturday. People stood in front of him and listened to him preach while shouting back. Others held up a sign which read "Bible Humper." He had an assistant with a video camera and the audience was providing all the footage he would need. Someone shoved him, was detained and released without a ticket. If he had been ignored, he wouldn't have received the press he was seeking.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I also saw someone holding up a copy of Christoper Hitchens' "God is Not Great" while he shouted at John, as if "God is Not Great," is some sort of anti-Bible scripture.
This brings up the point of having so many religious groups at Twin Cities Pride. "Standing on the Side of Love" is a campaign from the Unitarian Universalists to "harness love's power to stop oppression." Since the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalists was only blocks away, their shirts and signs flooded the event. At some of the stages, religious benedictions were offered from religious leaders and spiritual hymns were sung. These people support gay rights and equality, but I don't think it is because of their religion. I don't support equality because I'm an atheist. I don't think someone should have to justify equality with a religious or non religious belief. I think it's great that other organizations support equality, but I do wish that we could do it together.
I had the feeling last year that the religious and political groups were trying to gain converts at gays were their market. I wouldn't wear a "Would Jesus Discriminate?" sticker because I was wearing an atheist shirt and I was irritated at the notion of using Jesus as a modern day pawn to sway people to support equality. I was less irritated this year, because I'm pleased that there are more people supporting equality and it bothers me less that people are able to find support from a familiar religious framework. I rationalized this by assuming that it would be easier for someone who is already experiencing a difficult time with a life choice to find support which is familiar than trying to tear down religious beliefs. I would rather that more Christians supported equality than inequality and discrimination. Equality as an ethic is more important to me than views on theology.
This weekend saw hundreds of thousands of people coming out in support of GLBT rights by attending Twin Cities Pride in Minneapolis. Non-heterosexual lifestyles are seen as offensive to certain people. There are different reasons for this. Some express that non-heterosexual lifestyles are "against Nature," others will cite religious scripture for justification of the opinion that any other form of sexuality other than heterosexuality is immoral and will result in those individuals facing an eternity in torment in the afterlife.
Twin Cities Pride rents out a large public park in downtown Minneapolis for two days at some considerable cost. To absorb this cost, they solicit donations, sell sponsorships, and sell tent space to vendors and organizations. Because Twin Cities Pride rents the whole park, they establish certain rules within the park which vendors must follow. Vendors are allowed to hand out materials, but only at the location they have rented and the organization is allowed to choose who is allowed to pay for a table and who can not.
Why is this an issue? Brian Johnson, a Christian known for protesting Pride festivals was allowed by the Minneapolis Park Board to preach and hand out Bibles at the festival in Loring Park. Twin Cities Pride attempted to prevent him from doing so by issuing an injunction against the decision by the Park Board, which was rejected. The judge's reason? What Brian Johnson was attempting to do is exercise his right to free speech, so long as he isn't disruptive. I agree with the decision. If a protester can be refused free speech at this event, what about a gay rights supporter at a Christian festival?
Brian Johnson wasn't the only protester we saw this year. John Chisham was there as well. We have seen him over the past few years at the Duluth GLBTQAI Festival. He carries a large sign with Bible quotes and preaches at will about sin. He has assistants who will stand and read from the Bible and always includes someone who video tapes his interactions with attendees at the festivals. What would you see from one of these videos? Gay rights supporters shouting, telling him HE is going to Hell, yelling other vile things and even spitting on him. This kind of video encourages Christians to give to his cause. The people who support gay rights are clearly a violent group who are anti-Christian and need to be preached to.
I should mention that I held up a "Hug an Atheist" sign next to his sign at GLBTQAI Duluth last year. What was interesting, is how upset people were getting over him just being there. Some people responded to my sign with great enthusiasm, simply because of his presence. Still others in the audience ignored both of us. Ultimately, both of us should have been ignored and eventually, we were. This is the lesson that the people at GLBTQAI Duluth have learned. Don't give him an audience. Don't yell at him and get upset.
Minneapolis wasn't used to seeing John. A crowd formed around him, of about 50 to 60 people in the afternoon on Saturday. People stood in front of him and listened to him preach while shouting back. Others held up a sign which read "Bible Humper." He had an assistant with a video camera and the audience was providing all the footage he would need. Someone shoved him, was detained and released without a ticket. If he had been ignored, he wouldn't have received the press he was seeking.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I also saw someone holding up a copy of Christoper Hitchens' "God is Not Great" while he shouted at John, as if "God is Not Great," is some sort of anti-Bible scripture.
This brings up the point of having so many religious groups at Twin Cities Pride. "Standing on the Side of Love" is a campaign from the Unitarian Universalists to "harness love's power to stop oppression." Since the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalists was only blocks away, their shirts and signs flooded the event. At some of the stages, religious benedictions were offered from religious leaders and spiritual hymns were sung. These people support gay rights and equality, but I don't think it is because of their religion. I don't support equality because I'm an atheist. I don't think someone should have to justify equality with a religious or non religious belief. I think it's great that other organizations support equality, but I do wish that we could do it together.
I had the feeling last year that the religious and political groups were trying to gain converts at gays were their market. I wouldn't wear a "Would Jesus Discriminate?" sticker because I was wearing an atheist shirt and I was irritated at the notion of using Jesus as a modern day pawn to sway people to support equality. I was less irritated this year, because I'm pleased that there are more people supporting equality and it bothers me less that people are able to find support from a familiar religious framework. I rationalized this by assuming that it would be easier for someone who is already experiencing a difficult time with a life choice to find support which is familiar than trying to tear down religious beliefs. I would rather that more Christians supported equality than inequality and discrimination. Equality as an ethic is more important to me than views on theology.
Twin Cities Pride rents out a large public park in downtown Minneapolis for two days at some considerable cost. To absorb this cost, they solicit donations, sell sponsorships, and sell tent space to vendors and organizations. Because Twin Cities Pride rents the whole park, they establish certain rules within the park which vendors must follow. Vendors are allowed to hand out materials, but only at the location they have rented and the organization is allowed to choose who is allowed to pay for a table and who can not.
Why is this an issue? Brian Johnson, a Christian known for protesting Pride festivals was allowed by the Minneapolis Park Board to preach and hand out Bibles at the festival in Loring Park. Twin Cities Pride attempted to prevent him from doing so by issuing an injunction against the decision by the Park Board, which was rejected. The judge's reason? What Brian Johnson was attempting to do is exercise his right to free speech, so long as he isn't disruptive. I agree with the decision. If a protester can be refused free speech at this event, what about a gay rights supporter at a Christian festival?
Brian Johnson wasn't the only protester we saw this year. John Chisham was there as well. We have seen him over the past few years at the Duluth GLBTQAI Festival. He carries a large sign with Bible quotes and preaches at will about sin. He has assistants who will stand and read from the Bible and always includes someone who video tapes his interactions with attendees at the festivals. What would you see from one of these videos? Gay rights supporters shouting, telling him HE is going to Hell, yelling other vile things and even spitting on him. This kind of video encourages Christians to give to his cause. The people who support gay rights are clearly a violent group who are anti-Christian and need to be preached to.
I should mention that I held up a "Hug an Atheist" sign next to his sign at GLBTQAI Duluth last year. What was interesting, is how upset people were getting over him just being there. Some people responded to my sign with great enthusiasm, simply because of his presence. Still others in the audience ignored both of us. Ultimately, both of us should have been ignored and eventually, we were. This is the lesson that the people at GLBTQAI Duluth have learned. Don't give him an audience. Don't yell at him and get upset.
Minneapolis wasn't used to seeing John. A crowd formed around him, of about 50 to 60 people in the afternoon on Saturday. People stood in front of him and listened to him preach while shouting back. Others held up a sign which read "Bible Humper." He had an assistant with a video camera and the audience was providing all the footage he would need. Someone shoved him, was detained and released without a ticket. If he had been ignored, he wouldn't have received the press he was seeking.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I also saw someone holding up a copy of Christoper Hitchens' "God is Not Great" while he shouted at John, as if "God is Not Great," is some sort of anti-Bible scripture.
This brings up the point of having so many religious groups at Twin Cities Pride. "Standing on the Side of Love" is a campaign from the Unitarian Universalists to "harness love's power to stop oppression." Since the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalists was only blocks away, their shirts and signs flooded the event. At some of the stages, religious benedictions were offered from religious leaders and spiritual hymns were sung. These people support gay rights and equality, but I don't think it is because of their religion. I don't support equality because I'm an atheist. I don't think someone should have to justify equality with a religious or non religious belief. I think it's great that other organizations support equality, but I do wish that we could do it together.
I had the feeling last year that the religious and political groups were trying to gain converts at gays were their market. I wouldn't wear a "Would Jesus Discriminate?" sticker because I was wearing an atheist shirt and I was irritated at the notion of using Jesus as a modern day pawn to sway people to support equality. I was less irritated this year, because I'm pleased that there are more people supporting equality and it bothers me less that people are able to find support from a familiar religious framework. I rationalized this by assuming that it would be easier for someone who is already experiencing a difficult time with a life choice to find support which is familiar than trying to tear down religious beliefs. I would rather that more Christians supported equality than inequality and discrimination. Equality as an ethic is more important to me than views on theology.
from the show description: “Tonight we have a return visit from Kile Jones which I’m very much looking forward to. We’re planning on discussing some select topics which will include dealing with the problem of practicality in the purely academic pursuit of philosophy, and we’ll also take on the application of humanism in education and in society as a whole.”
HEAR THIS EPISODE ON BLOGTALKRADIO
Participate in the ThinkAtheist Radio Show Group.
Visit ThinkAtheist.com
listen to the most recent episode:
Listen to internet radio with Think Atheist on Blog Talk Radio
ok, so you know i spend practically all my “free time” on twitter. actually, that’s not quite true. since i took this job back in October, i can’t tweet much during the day, draft blog posts at all, or do any of the coordination that i’d love to be doing for collaborations, and with soccer and taekwondo atop the work gig, plus spending at least some time each week with my kids, leaves me very little time for playing in the online world.
that having been said, i set this blog back up to at least serve as a reference point for our radio shows over at thinkatheist.com. so, throughout this weekend, i’ll be linking up individual shows from our new digs at blogtalkradio.com. i’ll also be seeing what i can do to preserve the old shows that we did over at talkshoe.com, either importing that RSS feed or something so that they’ll still be available after iTunes drops them for lack of input. and speaking of iTunes, i’ll be looking into what i can do to get our new radio show registered with iTunes as well.
fyi, i’ll be posting show links with the embedded show streams under the dates the shows were aired, so all previous shows will come up as prior to this date. after i’m done with all that, i’ll try to get some other content up on here, related to some of our….shenanigans….on twitter. 
peace.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
