Monthly Archive for September, 2011

How much is the Greek Church worth?





It's an interesting question, but like many Churches while there is one person on top, the actual grassroots are spread quite widely and not all legally bound together.
I think the suggestion of the church owning property worth up to 700 billion euros is a bit extreme.

Google has let me down in this case, and I suspect there may be a language issue as well when it comes to questioning the Greek Orthodox Church,  the best information I found written here:-
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2784142/posts

"Money sometimes makes fools of important persons, but it may also make important persons of fools." - Walter Winchell

Occupy Wall Street: Let the co-opting begin

As an assortment of unions voice support and celebrities pop up to cheer them on, the "Occupiers" think themselves to be gaining in a groundswell. Hardly . . . they're about to be drowned. Related articles:
  1. “Occupied” Wall Street?
  2. Wall Street Journal Exposes Egregious Tax-free Housing Privileges for Clergy
  3. A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United?


Whether it’s God or The Bomb

“Whether it’s God or the Bomb,
It’s just the same,
and it’s only fear under another name.”
- Max Q – 1989

For the whole of human history, there are examples of people who would like to have control over others. Some do it for the increased fighting power of numbers, while others may do it simply to keep themselves and their institutions safe from dissidence from their peers. This also can have the added effect of bringing people together under a banner with some kind of feeling of kinship, as we see in nationalist movements, religions, war movements, political parties etc. But whatever the reason for the need for power over people, the most effective tool to bind people under one power is fear.

Political and military leaders use fear to motivate the people of their constituency to move as one against another group, an idea, or a perceived common threat. It is best if they can use some kind of looming threat from outside, one that threatens the ranks of people from afar, because it is easier to spin propaganda about something if the person your are spinning it to is ignorant of the facts. Examples of this in current society can be seen everywhere.

Here in Australia, the fear of “invaders” illegally entering our waters by boat currently  seems to be powerful enough to make or break a political party’s chances of reelection (even if the facts show that less than 2000 people arrived here by boat in 2009, and the numbers fluctuate around that figure, hardly a threat to Australian society.) All it takes if for one person  with a political agenda and a loud media voice to make spurious claims about whatever the threat may be, and the rumours abound about just how horrible the threat actually is. And the less tangible the source of the fear, the easier it is to distort the facts surrounding the fear.

The idea that the “Christian majority” will be overrun by jihadist Muslims and that our “Christian” way of life is at threat is motivation enough for people to be fearful, but this is nothing new. Of course the numbers above show that this is not possible, but regardless of the truth, fear of outsiders is something primal, something that is part of humanity at its core. Once upon a time, the fear of outsiders helped humans to protect their tribe from other outside tribes who wished them harm, in this day where the tribal boundaries are blurred, this xenophobia is used as a way to create fear and insecurity.

The Cold War, which sprung up after World War II, when the Soviets and the Americans realised that their one-time allies were a potential threat, was used as a political tool for nearly 50 years, and it fostered feelings of looming peril for people worldwide in the form of nuclear destruction. In the USA this fear reared its head in many ways; McCarthyism, the Red Peril, political witch-hunts, the Reds under the Bed, informing on your neighbours, trust nobody etc. After 9/11 the same fear could be seen worldwide, with “Be alert, not alarmed” campaigns, and a motivation to go to war in the Middle East. Fears arising from the Cold War and 9/11 are somewhat justified. The nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union was real, and there are currently people who wish to do harm to the people of the West. But there are always people who will use this to their advantage, propagating fear in the people. A scared population is more easily controlled.

But this is not a political discussion. This goes much deeper than just politics.

Politicians are mere amateurs at the game of fear mongering when compared to the fear tactics used by religions. The whole of the doctrines of Christianity and Islam are based around the premise of fear. And the thing they fear most is not only an invisible fear, but an unprovable and unfalsifiable hypothesis; if you don’t do what the books and leaders say, your soul will burn in hell for eternity.

This is not just some dream someone came up with, nor the inspired word of God. This group of fears (for this one simple idea leads into a myriad secondary and tertiary fears) is actually very carefully crafted in such a way to control people, and not by the divine words of God, but by the decree of military leaders. Emperor Constantine was leader of a great dynasty when he ordered the council of Nicaea where the books of the current-day Bible were decided with the exclusive purpose of bringing the people under Constantine together under the banner of one solid version of Christianity (and thereby giving Constantine a much more coherent and powerful military force). Likewise Mohammad was a besieged warlord when he dictated his words to a scribe, and did so from the perspective of a man trying to rally troops behind him. Whether either of them truly believed in the words they compiled or wrote is irrelevant, both the Koran and the Bible were written not as a way to offer the invisible soul a “way out”, but as a powerful umbrella proclamation over mankind to control their actions, and to increase the numbers of their hordes as an easily controlled and malleable entity to be reckoned with.

People claim that their religions are about love compassion and peace, but the underlying message is one of toeing the line, obeying the laws of these books, under the threat of eternally burning in the pits of hell. Eternity is a long time, and because the idea of a soul springs from our own understanding of consciousness (the only thing we ever know and experience in life), the weight of what is apparently at stake is staggering to the average person. The threat of hell is like the atomic bomb of religion, a deterrent against questioning the “ultimate authority”, and very very handy for motivating people, especially in times of hardship. After all, if one follows the doctrines to the letter, the reward is living forever in eternal peace, right?

When one is aware of the potential power of fear, the way it is used to gain political and military power, and way fear is propagated in society, it paints a very different picture of the history of the world than the one we are shown in the history books. From this perspective, I hope it allows people to see much deeper than just the story on the surface, and maybe ask why political and religious campaigns exist, what their real intended outcome might be, and whether the fear they foster is justified.

“Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.” – Bertrand Russell

the bolshoi simulation

at bolshoi cosmological simulations:

'the bolshoi simulation is the most accurate cosmological simulation of the evolution of the large-scale structure of the universe yet made (“bolshoi” is the russian word for “great” or “grand”). the first two of a series of research papers describing bolshoi and its implications have been accepted for publication in the astrophysical journal. the first data release of bolshoi outputs, including output from bolshoi and also the bigbolshoi or multidark simulation of a volume 64 times bigger than bolshoi, has just been made publicly available to the world’s astronomers and astrophysicists.'

on vimeo



via boingboing


Battle of the Billboards

I just received an amusing email from One News Now regarding a billboard battle in Toledo, Ohio. Here it is in its entirety:

Obviously, both churches are wrong, since non-existent beings are unable to bestow gifts, blessings, curses or anything else upon anyone. That being the case, the conflict can’t really be about whether a god approves or disapproves of homosexuality. What it’s really about is whether particular people approve or disapprove of homosexuality. Some people see nothing wrong with homosexuality, and others view it as more disgusting than vomit. But all of them believe their god has something to say about it. At least, that’s what they say. But what if some of them are just using their god as the scapegoat upon which to pin their own preferences? I find both of these possibilities plausible and wouldn’t be surprised if both mindsets are actually at play in the politics of religion and homosexuality.

The email closes with a link to a poll. If you’ve ever checked out a One News Now poll, you’ll know that the options tend to be skewed toward a “correct” point of view. This poll is no different:

Anyone who doesn’t agree with any of these options is unable to vote. Of course not. Fundies don’t need input or feedback from anyone who doesn’t live inside their little bubble. After all, what could they possibly learn from the likes of me? So, I’m not upset that there’s no room for opinions like mine in their poll. My exclusion reminds me of why billboard battles like these are fun: it’s immensely amusing to sit back and watch the godbots eat their own.

– the chaplain


Filed under: religion, sex, society

This is Why I Love When Ex-Christians Speak Out

At a recent talk for the Center for Inquiry Michigan, the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Dan Barker described Christian beliefs in a pitch-perfect-and-yet-kinda-disturbing sort of way:

Imagine you are strolling down the sidewalk and a man excitedly calls you over to his front porch to share some “great news,” Protestant minister-turned atheist author Dan Barker asked his audience on Wednesday.

The man’s got a gruesome torture chamber in his basement, Barker said, but you don’t have to go down there. Instead, you can come over, hug the man’s son, say you love him and you can all move in together in the attic and tell them how great they are forever.

“Isn’t that great news?” a sarcastic Barker asked the crowd…

Thrilling. And totally creepy.

There was also this insightful nugget:

“I didn’t realize it at the time, but salvation is an attempt to solve a problem of its own making — sin is just a concept from the teaching, like a doctor running around cutting people with a knife in order to sell them a Band Aid.”

Beautifully put :)

Dan’s book Godless is full of wisdom like that, as if you needed another reason to pick it up.

Evolutionary Psychology Crap in New Scientist

 
Here are the opening paragraphs of an article published in the most recent issue of New Scientist [Domestic violence gets evolutionary explanation].
What can evolution tell us about domestic violence? Two researchers in the US suggest such violence has ancient origins and that establishing evolution's role could help to better identify those at risk. Others argue that the research makes simplistic assumptions, and warn that some people will interpret the research as an excuse for violence.

Each year more than 500,000 women in the US alone report to the police violent attacks by current or former male partners. There is a reason why domestic violence is so widespread, says David Buss, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas in Austin: it carries a selective advantage, tied with reproductive success. In other words, men who are violent are trying to make sure that their partner has his child and not another man's.
Let's think about this for a minute.

In order for violence against women to have a selective advantage there has to be an important genetic component. Let's imagine a time back in hunter-gather days when there were two groups of men who differed in their violence-against-women alleles. One group was kind and considerate toward their female companions. They treated them with respect. The other group treated women as property and often beat them in order to prevent imagined infidelity. Somehow the violent group managed to mate more frequently and/or have more children than the kind group so the allele for kindness and respect was eliminated from the population.

Lots of things had to happen in order for this scenario to play out as the evolutionary psychologists imagine. For example, women had to prefer to have children with men who would beat them. (Or maybe they were forced to mate with the violent men.). Furthermore, there had to be no consequences for the men who beat their mates. The other members of the group had to tolerate that behavior even if they found it repulsive.

If the scenario is correct then most men—including you and I—have to carry the violence-against-women allele since it was selected in the past. This seems very strange since most men don't beat their wives.1 I guess we have learned to suppress the genetic urge. But why would we do that if it's a selective advantage to engage in domestic violence?

There's something seriously wrong with evolutionary psychology. And there's something seriously wrong with respectable science magazines who promote this crap.

There's also something seriously wrong with men who engage in domestic violence. They are assholes who deserve very little sympathy from the rest of society. I suspect they got no sympathy in ancient hunter-gather societies either. There is no gene that makes you act like an asshole. That's all due to nurture and it can be changed if we put our minds to it.


1. At least I think this is true. When was the last time you beat your wife or girlfriend?

Young Earth Creationism in the 21st Century

 

We discussed Young Earth Creationism in our last class. As most of you know, the Young Earth Creationist believes that the universe was created about 10,000 years ago and that all modern species (or kinds) were created simultaneously at that time. This view is compatible with the Genesis story in the Bible.

How is it possible for someone in the 21st century to ignore all the scientific evidence supporting an Earth that has been around for 4.5 billions years and an universe that is even older? We tried to come up with the most common ways that Young Earth Creationists can rationalize the obvious conflict.

The most obvious explanation is that they are completely unaware of the massive amount of scientific evidence that conflicts with their belief. In other words, they simply don't see a conflict between science and their religion because they have never been taught proper science. I suspect this is true of the vast majority of Young Earth Creationists.

But there's a subset of them who know the science. They have to come up with some sort of explanation that makes their position compatible with the findings of science. We identified two sorts of explanation that seem to apply.

1. Reject the scientific evidence as unreliable and try to discredit scientists. This path gives rise to talking points about the errors in carbon-14 dating and the fact that atheist scientists are blinded by their "religion."

2. Rely on faith and revelation as superior paths to knowledge. This means that the scientific "evidence" must be wrong even though the flaws aren't obvious. It must be wrong because it conflicts with God's word and there's no more reliable indicator of truth than the word of God.

(Sometimes the superiority of faith leads to the conclusion that God must have deliberately created an Earth with the illusion of age. It's not clear why God did this but we are not in a position to question God's wisdom in this matter.)

The BioLogos Foundation has, until recently, promoted theistic evolution. This worldview tends to accept scientific evidence as much as possible. Theistic Evolutionists, for example, are perfectly happy with a 4.5 billion year old Earth.

This emphasis on Theistic Evolution seems to be changing as Jerry Coyne points out in a recent article on his blog website: Templeton-Funded BioLogos cleans house, promotes young-earth creationist, begins slide into irrelevance. BioLogos now has a video promoting a Young Earth Creationist named Aaron Daly [A Young Earth Creationist Perspective].

Watch the video and see if you can figure out how a seemingly rational person can believe in something that is totally discredited by science.


The Blasphemy Delusion

If you have not seen "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", firstly welcome to Earth, we are not as bad as we seem, please don't kill and eat us. And secondly, the Patty Cake sub-plot is a great illustration, whether it was intended as such or not, for the offence of Blasphemy.
This clip (http://youtu.be/Wo6mq5z6yQE?t=2m44s 2:45 mins to 4:20 mins) shows the leap to judgment the audience and Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) make about the Patty Cake plot.



We hear the words Patty Cake and assume, from our previous experience alone, that it is a metaphor for 'sex'; that Jessica is doing the dirty on Roger with RK Maroon.
Yet, we discover, ALL the sexual liaisons between the assumed adulteress and her lover were only in our heads, only our misinterpretation of the hard facts supplied and misjudgement thereby.
It's exactly the same with blasphemy, ALL the offence takes place in the head of the observer.
If you've not seen the film, some kind body has uploaded it to YouTube.


Happy Blasphemy Day to one and all.
 

Hey, I've just thought, isn't the simple fact that we have a day called 'blasphemy day' indicative of the oppression we, who cannot see The Emperors New Clothes(god) endure in this world that is bursting with religious of 'peace'?

Also,

Is really possible to give offence?
Surely it's only possible to take offence?
 
This is one of the Too Many Questions

TRUE PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!


Rick and the robot

A man walked into a very high-tech bar. As he sat down on a stool he
noticed that the bartender was a robot. The robot clicked to attention
and asked, “Sir, what will you have?”

The man thought a moment then replied? “A martini please.”

The robot clicked a couple of times and mixed the best martini the man
had ever had.

The robot then asked, “Sir, what is your IQ?” The man answered “Oh, about 164.”

The robot then proceeded to discuss the theory of relativity,
inter-stellar space travel, the latest medical breakthroughs, etc…

The man was most impressed. He left the bar but thought he would try a
different tack. He returned and took a seat. Again the robot clicked
and asked what he would have? “A martini please.”

Again it was superb. The robot again asked “What is your IQ sir?”

This time the man answered, “Oh about 100″. So the robot started
discussing NASCAR racing, the latest basketball scores, and what to
expect the Dodgers to do this week end.

The guy had to try it one more time. So he left, returned and took a
stool…. Again a martini, and the question, “What is your IQ?” This
time the man drawled out ” Uh…… bout 50″.

The robot clicked then leaned close and very slowly asked,

“A-r-e…
y-o-u-r…
p-e-o-p-l-e…
r-e-a-l-l-y
g-o-i-n-g…
t-o…
n-o-m-i-n-a-t-e…
R-i-c-k….P-e-r-r-y?

Check out Humor Blogs.


Filed under: elections, humor, political campaigns Tagged: Intelligence quotient, Rick Perry, Robot

Explaining Logic

Glenn Hendrickson, in his essay Christianity Explains Logic, makes what I consider a shockingly bold claim. Hendrickson claims that the Christian worldview alone accounts for the laws of logic.[i] I’ll begin by directly quoting Hendrickson’s formulation of the argument:

 

1. All we experience is grounded in the laws of logic.

2. The Christian worldview alone adequately explains and accounts for the laws of logic.

3. Therefore, all we experience cannot be explained or accounted for outside of the Christian worldview.

 

I will keep this short and sweet, and even go beyond the scope of his argument. I will show that no form of theism has an advantage over atheism in explaining the laws of logic, Christianity included. The laws of logic actually require no explanation, which makes (2) false, which means we should reject the conclusion.

Have you ever asked a Christian to explain why God exists? You probably received an answer that God’s existence requires no external explanation. God exists necessarily. I want to point out that this actually is a valid response if God’s existence is in fact necessary. It would mean there was never a time when God did not exist and there is no possible world in which God does not exist.

When we say something requires an explanation, it is because it could have been otherwise. If my wife comes home early, I might ask, ‘What are you doing home early?’ The only reason this question makes sense is because it could possibly have been otherwise. Things that exist contingently require an explanation of their existence. Things that exist necessarily do not.

Now, are the laws of logic contingent or necessary? The laws of logic are uncreated and exist necessarily.[ii] They could not have been otherwise. Let’s see how this relates to the earlier argument:

 

4. The laws of logic are necessary.

5. Things that exist necessarily do not require an explanation of their existence.

6. Therefore, any worldview that recognizes this adequately accounts for the laws of logic.

 

Premise (6) renders the earlier premise (2) false. Short and sweet.

 

[This post is part of the series Why Christianity is False]


[i] I would actually say there are two arguments in this essay. Dismantling the first, though, will make dismantling the second unnecessary. If the atheist can account for logic just as well as the theist, then we are acting in a coherent manner in our daily lives.

[ii] I’m assuming here that by “laws of logic” Hendrickson is referring to things that fall under modality de dicto (see Plantinga’s important work The Nature of Necessity).

Similar Posts:

Why Christianity is False (Index)

The author of Common Sense Atheism, Luke Muehlhauser, began a counter-apologetics project called ‘Why Christianity is False.’ This project’s goal was to specifically respond to each essay in the series ‘Why Christianity is True,’ hosted by Brian Auten of Apologetics 315.

Unfortunately for those of us who enjoyed this series by Luke, he decided to pursue other projects. I wanted to see this series completed, so I suggested that a group of atheist bloggers could tackle this series of essays, lessening the burden on any one blogger. Foxhole Atheism will be teaming up with two other blogs to accomplish this: Soul Sprawl and Answers in Genesis Busted.

This page will serve as an index to the series on my own site that I will update as the response essays are completed. Comments are welcome. Enjoy!

 

Completed:

 

Forthcoming:

Similar Posts:

FFRF Responds to the Public School’s ‘Christian’ Book Fair

A couple weeks ago, I posted a picture from reader Jessica that showed Christian books being sold at her daughter’s Wichita, Kansas public school book fair:

This was especially surprising, given that Scholastic — the company sponsoring the book fair — doesn’t even carry religious titles… so how did they get there?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation wants to know and they sent a letter (PDF) to the district yesterday.

… it is assumed that a faculty member in charge of organizing the book fair went out of his or her way to specifically obtain this Christian material and offer it for sale to the children. it is our further understanding that no material from any other non-Christian religion was offered for sale to the children, nor was any freethought or atheist material made available…

This type of favoritism seems a far cry from showing sensitivity to the diversity of beliefs represented by Riverside Elementary students. It is inappropriate to plant sectarian literature in a book sale targeting a captive audience of young public school students.

Now we wait to see how the District responds…

Anderson Cooper’s Reddit Jailbait Hit Piece

Having the fortune of actually knowing a lot about the subject of internet speech and site management, I found myself flaring up with anger many times while watching this segment. I guess while Anderson Cooper isn't saving children in the streets of Haiti, he's busy being a lazy sensationalist journalist. Oh wait.



In the video, Anderson Cooper and his panel of know-nothings make the following arguments: reddit is in the wrong for allowing stuff like pictures of scantly clad teens and photos of dead bodies to be posted on their site. One panelist thinks it is a borderline first amendment issue that jailbait is allowed. The suggestion is made that reddit is implicitly encouraging its users to post pictures without permission from their owners. Very little is mentioned about the entirety of reddit, which is a phenomenal site for many reasons and a tremendous force for good. It is said that reddit is wrong to call themselves a haven for free speech.

Let me get a couple things out of the way:

1) I am not advocating the posting of jailbait or pictures of dead bodies.

2) Saying that something is borderline is like saying that you know it's not a crime, but you're going to do your damnedest to make it seem like a crime.

Okay, let's get down to it.

Welcome to the internet. Welcome to the human fucking race. Half-naked teens and pictures of dead babies have been around for ages. At least reddit hasn't built its reputation on such things like other sites have. Before reddit, there was 4chan (still is, actually). Before 4chan, there was Rotten. Waking up in 2011 to these things existing on the internet is the equivalent to being born yesterday. I want to see a segment decrying Motherless, which is a far worse offender. Is it wrong to allow such things to be posted on your site? It's certainly not illegal, so leave your opinions at home where you left your dignity. You know what I do when I see a web page that shows things I'm not interested in? I leave. Aiming an entire hit piece at a site because a couple sections (out of THOUSANDS) are offensive is ratings pandering and it is not good journalism.

Here's a very important piece of legal information that I would expect two legal contributors to know about: a website that allows unmoderated user contributions and does not actually host any of the posted media cannot be held responsible for the actions of its users. I know this because I've been running forums for over a decade, so believe me when I say that I am very intimate with what can and cannot be done on the internet. reddit never asserts that they do not have control over their posters; they simply do not interfere with site activity as a matter of policy because of the equilibrium that they've established. Erik Martin's quote about the site being a platform and not an editorial site should be all someone needs to hear in order to nod their head and back off. The fact that one panelist admitted to never having heard of reddit before was telling; one wonders if he knows anything about the social side of the internet at all. He knows not of what he speaks.

If Anderson Cooper suggests that these pictures are being stolen from someone's Facebook page, shouldn't the target be Facebook? Of course not, this is a hit piece! Cooper also brings up reddit's claims to do good, as if it is ironic that they also allow jailbait photos. The editor responsible for his words has his priorities dead wrong. There is a reason why the first amendment is the first point on the Bill of Rights. It is the most important aspect of a democracy and it should be immutable. Being one of the world's largest platforms for unhindered free speech is the single most important contribution reddit makes to the online community. Challenging the pillar of free speech because some folks are offended only speaks to how far the media has fallen. It speaks to the fear in everyone's eyes. It is cowardly and cheap. This, and I haven't even begun to mention all of the various good deeds that reddit and its community inspires.

Yes, a community full of mouth-breathing perverts has the ability to do great things when they're motivated! If you know what the phrases "random acts of pizza" or "today you, tomorrow me" mean, then you're probably already aware of some of the good things that go on in the vastly more popular areas of reddit proper. Great amounts of donations are raised by the reddit community when disasters happen. Down and out users are helped every day by random strangers. There is a suicide watch subreddit. There are subreddits devoted to the spread of education, the promotion of science, and the influence of human rights. Sure, there is porn and gore, too, but does that make it a bad place? I should know better than most that these things are not indicative of bad people. In the early 2000's, I raised a community from a few thousand perverts looking for naked pictures into what its users considered to be the best place on the internet to have a civilized discussion at the time. "Come for the porn, stay for the conversation" was the motto. Shame on anyone who would discount the whole thing because they were offended by only a small bit of it.

Happy Teacher’s / Blasphemy Day! Dedicated to the constant pursuit of knowledge

In Taiwan, teacher’s day was last week on September 28th; but “World Teacher’s Day” is on October 5th. In between the two (today, September 30th, 2011) is “Blasphemy Day International.”

A good teacher, like a good blasphemer, is willing to question assumed notions, admit he doesn’t have all the answers, challenge authorities and received knowledge, and teach his students to do the same.

blasphemy day sponge bob
sponge bob crucified for teacher’s day

 What is Blasphemy Day International?

(From the Facebook page) “Free speech is the foundation on which all other liberties rest. Without having the right to express our opinions, however unpopular, those willing to use political clout, violence, and threats will stifle dissent, and we must all suffer the consequences of this. As George Bernard Shaw quipped, “Every great truth begins as a blasphemy.”

The UN, rather than standing up for free speech, has given in to pressure from Islamic nations and has proposed a resolution to essentially ban criticism of religion. In its pursuit of “tolerance” for religion, this resolution wants to strip everyone, everywhere, of their freedom, even their obligation, to criticize what they oppose. Unlike one’s political affiliation or favorite sports team, religion demands – and has been granted – unique immunity from criticism since its very inception. Labeling anything deemed critical “blasphemy”, religions have effectively defined the boundaries for what can and can’t be said about them. We propose we knock down this barrier and break this spell. Religion is no more undeserving of criticism than anything else, and if people’s insecurities are upheld as a reason to stifle the expression of the equally sincere feelings of others, and indeed, the pursuit of truth itself, we will have forsaken our ideals in favor of one-sided and entirely undeserved sympathy. As Richard Dawkins noted,

“Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities but not to other kinds of sensibilities. If I say something offensive to religious people, I’ll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for too long.”

International Blasphemy Rights Day is a day of protest against this UN Resolution, and against any attempt to stifle free speech. Please join this group. Whatever your beliefs – unless you’re a raging, pro-censorship fundamentalist – the UN resolution, and laws against blasphemy, are an offense to humankind.

Check out the blasphemy day facebook page



Incoming search terms:

“Don’t be that guy!” ads target offenders not victims

Rebecca Watson’s “Elevator Guy” debacle over the summer highlighted a problem women and men need to deal with, not just in atheist circles but across our communities. I just learned this week that there’s an anti-rape ad campaign going on in Canada and posters hanging up in men’s rooms of bars and other places are inadvertently following in Watson’s footsteps here. I heard about it on CBC on the drive home from work one day and a quick poke of the interwebs finds me an article about the launch of these ads in Edmonton back in November. Chloe writes for Feminsting and her source is an article that no longer exists via her link, alas.

In a series of posters, it addresses the legal reality that a woman who is extremely drunk, or even passed out, cannot consent to sex. With messages like “just because she isn’t saying no… doesn’t mean she’s saying yes ”and“ Just because you’re helping her home… doesn’t mean you get to help yourself,” the campaign targets “opportunistic offenders,” as Edmonton Police Superintendent calls them. According to the Vancouver Sun:

The three advertisements were chosen after focus-group testing showed the messages were clearly understood by, and resonated with, young men.

Campbell said she hopes the “graphic” and “blunt” messages make a real difference in educating young men and reducing sexual assaults.

A friend of mine dropped a tweet on Facebook yesterday about Saskatoon’s Premier Fine Wines, Spirits & Specialty Foods Festival going on now. Cammi noted,

Just left the wine premiere festival. great time, not sure how I feel about a rape whistle as a keepsake though.

Too bad she didn’t mention which booth provided it, or if it was something being given to women on their way in. I wonder what guys would have been getting.

I’ve never been raped. I’m starting to feel incredibly lucky because I can say that. A random check of statistics on sexual assault led me to some grim numbers.

Of every 100 incidents of sexual assault, only 6 are reported to the police
1 – 2% of “date rape” sexual assaults are reported to the police
1 in 4 North American women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime
11% of women have physical injury resulting for sexual assault
Only 2 – 4% of all sexual assaults reported are false reports
About 50% of sex assaults occur on dates
60% of sexual abuse/assault victims are under the age of 17

And it goes on.

I’ve certainly been in positions where, had the company been different and less respectful of my right to consent, I’d be counted in those numbers. I’ve been stupid in bars ever since I was old enough to legally be in one. That’s 19 in Saskatchewan. I’m 37 now. Maybe “lucky” doesn’t begin to cover…

Chloe thinks this campaign shows promise.

This kind of approach is the only kind that can truly end sexual assault. After all, in the words of Karen Smith of the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, “as long as society directs prevention strategies at women, we all stop looking at what the real problem is – the perpetrators.”

I’m going to hold off on the applause for a bit yet. I don’t really know how ads like this will impact behaviour. Will they be taken to heart by the jerks truly in need of the lesson, or will they just freak out the inept, geeky flirters and result in a lot of lonely hearts going home defeated before they even get a chance to start a chance romance?

Over the summer, dozens of cities held SlutWalks. The events were prompted by shitty comments a police constable in Toronto made regarding victims of sexual assault. Saskatoon hosted one and some Freethinker friends and I were among the hundred or so hollering down the blocked off streets about respect and the like. One of these friends is one of those women born for cleavage, short skirts and hooker boots. She loves the style and how she looks, and her husband (and others) do as well. I almost wonder how we wound up friends, as I have my ample cleavage hidden usually and tend to keep my pants on. She’s sexually vocal, as well, not one who feels she should be ashamed of her carnal interests. I certainly admire her for that but have, on a few occasions, wondered how close she’s gotten to becoming a statistic, too. I’d hate to see her get hurt simply on account of how she’s dressed and false perceptions on the part of other people in terms of what kind of person they think she is. I think that’s badly worded, but hopefully understandable.

It is completely unfair to train girls and women into thinking that they have to hide themselves in public lest randy men lose all sense of themselves if they see a little skin or hair. Why should it be up to women alone to protect themselves from predators? Why shouldn’t guys carry more of the responsibility on their shoulders?

I don’t know. What do readers think? Can a campaign like this change much or is it more likely to be a fart in the wind?


Filed under: Awareness Issues, culture, In the Media Tagged: advertising, crime, rape, sex, sexual abuse, sexuality, violence, women's rights