Monthly Archive for January, 2012
In case two posts on strategy for debates on religion wasn’t hint enough, I’d be very game to argue with people offline. If you’re part of a religious or atheist group that hosts speakers, I’d love to come and give … Continue reading
‘why don’t we see the leader of Hamas com on Facebook? Because he’s not a civil leader, like PM Netanyahu’
Yeah, you tell ‘em, Joe! Maybe the Palestinians would be real people if only they went on Facebook, eh?
I feel like such a fair-weather Survivor fan for saying this, but I had no idea popular contestant Rupert Boneham was running to become the Governor of Indiana (as a Libertarian):
He recently released this video promising to fight against House Joint Resolution No. 6, which would limit marriage to that between a man and woman only:
As if I needed another reason to love Rupert…
His campaign site is here, in case you’d like to bask in his awesomeness.
(Thanks to Ron for the link!)
Oh, this just made my meeting-attending, class-preparing, paper-grading afternoon to see Be Scofield scorned on the Black Skeptics.
When the Scofields and Karen Armstrongs of the world talk about how the new atheists just aren’t aware of the liberal, tolerant, sativa smoking, feminist, genderqueer god concept, my response is “I don’t believe in that motherfucker, either.” She’s just as poorly evidenced as the old fashioned patriarchal god. She’s also not the predominant god concept impacting the African American community.
That felt soooo gooooood.
But now, back to the papers…
Top Ten: Favorite -ist’s
10. Nudist
9. Artist
8. Feminist
7. Altruist
6. Guitarist
5. Humorist
4. Nonconformist
3. Pragmatist
2. Absurdist
1. Suffragist
Top Ten: Least Favorite -ist’s
10. Creationist
9. Exorcist
8. Racist
7. Arsonist
6. Chauvinist
5. Extremist
4. Dentist
3. Rapist
2. Fascist
1. Lobbyist
Top Ten: Not Quite -ist’s
10. Foist
9. Exist
8. Waist
7. Hoist
6. Twist
5. Heist
4. List
3. Antichrist
2. Moist
1. Poltergeist
10. Nudist
9. Artist
8. Feminist
7. Altruist
6. Guitarist
5. Humorist
4. Nonconformist
3. Pragmatist
2. Absurdist
1. Suffragist
Top Ten: Least Favorite -ist’s
10. Creationist
9. Exorcist
8. Racist
7. Arsonist
6. Chauvinist
5. Extremist
4. Dentist
3. Rapist
2. Fascist
1. Lobbyist
Top Ten: Not Quite -ist’s
10. Foist
9. Exist
8. Waist
7. Hoist
6. Twist
5. Heist
4. List
3. Antichrist
2. Moist
1. Poltergeist
Post your answer in the comments. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post correct answers to avoid embarrassment.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)
Some past winners are from distant lands so their chances of taking up my offer of a free lunch are slim. (That's why I can afford to do this!)
In order to win you must post your correct name. Anonymous and pseudoanonymous commenters can't win the free lunch.
Winners will have to contact me by email to arrange a lunch date.
UPDATE: The molecule is L-sedoheptulose 1,7-bisphosphate or L-altro-hept-2-ulose 1,7-bisphosphate. The D isomer is part of the pentose phosphate cycle and the Calvin cycle. The winner is Peter Monaghan.
Winners
Nov. 2009: Jason Oakley, Alex Ling
Oct. 17: Bill Chaney, Roger Fan
Oct. 24: DK
Oct. 31: Joseph C. Somody
Nov. 7: Jason Oakley
Nov. 15: Thomas Ferraro, Vipulan Vigneswaran
Nov. 21: Vipulan Vigneswaran (honorary mention to Raul A. Félix de Sousa)
Nov. 28: Philip Rodger
Dec. 5: 凌嘉誠 (Alex Ling)
Dec. 12: Bill Chaney
Dec. 19: Joseph C. Somody
Jan. 9: Dima Klenchin
Jan. 23: David Schuller
I’m a fan of Yo, Is This Racist? even if the answer is almost always “YES”. This particular Q&A seemed particularly appropriate.
Anonymous asked: Is it racist that my science teacher sucks balls?
Yo, science education in the US is a fucking political mess of a tragedy, but it’s worth sticking around and at least trying to learn how to apply evidence and logic, because bastardizations of science are basically the favorite tool of the modern racist.
(Wait, is my choice of a common black american slang term for the title of this post racist? Dammit, it is, isn’t it?)
SHORTLY after it was reported that a 31-year-old Indonesian atheist may convert to Islam after insulting God and Mohammed, a row broke out between two Muslim groups over a Koran exhibition due to take place tomorrow in Dewsbury, Yorkshire.
The first report concerns Alexander Aan, a civil servant who was detained after declaring on Facebook that God did not exist. Police charged him with blasphemy, but Dharmasraya police chief Chairul Aziz said:
'Blasphemer' Alexander Aan
His parents came and told us that he wanted to repent.
Aziz said Aan was not charged because he was an atheist but because he blasphemed against Islam on the Facebook page called Minang Atheists, which Aan moderated.
He said Islam was this and that and that the Prophet Mohammed was like this and that. If he wants to be atheist, that’s fine, but don’t insult religions.
Aziz added even if Aan renounced atheism, the case against him would proceed.
Meanwhile, “true” sons of the “Prophet” – represented by members of Kirklees Muslim Action Committee – are at loggerheads with “fake” Muslims who belong to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, which is holding a Koran exhibition in Dewsbury Town Hall.
The former group has accused the organisers of:
Hijacking the Muslim identity.
It says the Ahmadiyya lot – which hit the headlines in the Jesus & Mo university kerfuffle recently – has no right to put on an exhibition about the Koran because they are non-Muslims. Committee member Dr Abid Hussain said:
We object strongly to the fact that a small minority are telling people about the Holy Koran when they are not even Muslims.
Ahmadiyyas hit back, saying they WERE Muslims. Arif Ahmad, vice president of the Spen Valley branch which covers north Kirklees said:
There are doctrinal differences between different groups but we believe ourselves to be Muslims. We believe the Holy Koran is our holy book and we hope to show it to the public.
In 1974 members of the Ahmadiyya sect were declared to be non-Muslims by the World Muslim League and are not recognised as Muslims in several countries’ constitutions.
Hat tip: Remigius
A Utah man convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death has appealed his conviction, arguing in part that potential jurors were discriminated against on the basis of their religion.
Von Lester Taylor - Utah Department of Corrections
After Von Lester Taylor pled guilty to murdering a mother and her daughter, a jury sentenced him to death. Taylor now claims that one juror should have been disqualified due to his belief in “blood atonement” and that the entire jury selection process was invalid because evidence suggests the prosecution was deliberately excluding jurors who were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
The Supreme Court of Utah ultimately held Taylor should have raised these claims earlier in the appeals process and that, because Taylor provided no valid reason for his delay, it is now too late for the court to consider the claims.
Even though the decision focuses on procedure rather than on religion, the case poses some really interesting questions:
First, the blood atonement issue. Blood atonement is generally understood as the belief that murder is so atrocious that it can only be forgiven if the murderer’s blood is shed. In a murder trial such as Taylor’s, this seems problematic: Does this mean the juror would only feel comfortable sentencing a murderer to death, rather than some lesser punishment like life in prison?
In Taylor’s case, the answer happened to be no, as the Supreme Court of Utah held in an earlier appeal that the juror “believed the doctrine of blood atonement referred to the Christian belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and not to the principle that anyone who kills must be killed,” and the juror believed “there may be circumstances in which a defendant who deliberately killed another person might not deserve the death penalty.”
But what if the answer had been yes? What if the juror believed that the only acceptable punishment for murder was death? Certainly it would not be fair for the defendant to be sentenced by this juror, as the juror’s sentence recommendation might always be death, regardless of the circumstances.
Which leads to another interesting question: Can attorneys reject jurors on the basis of their religion? When selecting a jury for trial, attorneys are allowed to exclude potential jurors because, for example, there is good reason to believe the juror would not be able to be fair (that would be “for cause” exclusion). Attorneys are also allowed a certain number of peremptory challenges, which they may use to exclude potential jurors that they simply don’t care for. In Batson v. Kentucky (1986), however, the Supreme Court held “the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State’s case against a black defendant.”
Does this prohibition extend to religion? Religion, like race, carries a lot of import in this country. If attorneys can’t exclude jurors on the basis of their race, then must they also be neutral with respect to religion? Taylor himself complains that the prosecutor unfairly excluded non-Mormons, even though Taylor wanted the blood atonement juror excluded on the basis of a religious belief.
When I first read this case, my gut reaction was that Taylor was right (if the facts were exactly as he claimed them to be): A juror who believes in blood atonement should be excluded, yet prosecutors should not be able to favor Mormons in the jury selection process. But how is this legally defensible, as both involve discriminating on the basis of religion?
This question has not been answered by the United States Supreme Court, but a case out of the Tenth Circuit suggests a resolution. In U.S. v. Prince (2011), the Tenth Circuit explained there is a difference between religious belief and religious affiliation. A prosecutor may strike a potential juror on the basis of religious belief (like the belief in blood atonement), but may not strike a potential juror on the basis of religious affiliation (like not being Mormon). The court explains a prosecutor “may undoubtedly strike a juror for being unwilling to sit in judgment of another human being, but he may not infer solely from a prospective juror’s race, gender, or religion that he will be unwilling to sit in judgment of another, and then offer that unwillingness as a permissible basis for a peremptory challenge.”
Here, the existing law lines up quite nicely with my visceral reaction to the facts of the case. What was your visceral reaction to these facts? If you were on trial, who would you want excluded from your jury, and why?
gulp -- of me.
thanks, brandon hoops!
blog post, copyright ©2011 helen sotiriadis. content copyright of respective owners.
this feed is for personal non-commercial use only.
mirrored at wordpress
The latest edition of Randy Milholland’s Super Stupor mocks the ridiculous poses comic book artists contort their heroines into — you know the ones I’m talking about, the strange postures in which they simultanously thrust their breasts upwards and forwards, while thrusting their buttocks backwards and upwards, with their impossibly slender waists slung spinelessly between them (he also summarizes Liefeld Syndrome, a very scary disease).
But I questioned his accuracy. Panel 8 is freakishly bizarre; no one could possibly actually draw a woman in that pose, could they? And then, coincidentally, I was also sent a link to The 5 Most Ridiculously Sexist Superhero Costumes, and there, in the very first illustration for the article, is a super-heroine doing precisely the same weird spinal twist to face the reader and swivel her ass to face him, too, with one one leg splayed wildly in the air.
I’m sorry, Mr Milholland. I will never doubt you again. I guess there’s a reason I haven’t read any mainstream comics in 30 years, too.
(Jhonen Vasquez also has a marvelous send-up of the balloon-breasted, soda-straw waisted comic book stereotype, but I cannot show it here because it is totally obscene. Oh, all right, if you insist, I found a poor copy here.)
We have a little rule/saying/ideology in our household: When you reach 18, your birthday present is a kiss, a suitcase, and, if you've been especially good, a bus ticket anywhere. And now, with 87 days until the twins are 18, I'm spending a lot of time thinking about what I'm going to do with my new-found independence.
Scratch that.
I had been thinking about what I'm going to do with my new-found independence.
At this point, I may be giving up that dream for another 4 years.
It's time for a reality check. Cay's first choice school is far too expensive, and it looks like, even with a talent scholarship that pays 50% of her tuition, it's going to be far to expensive for her to go there and live on campus. She could go to her second choice school, and lose out on her current position with the TV show she crews, lose out on any of the many internship and film opportunities that the University offers, and lose out on being a zoo docent.
Yesterday when she found out she had a $14K talent scholarship (that's $14K for every year she's in school) she cried. She did not cry tears of joy. It was a great scholarship, but not enough to close the gap in what she'd have to pay.
Enter Plan B.
She can't afford to live in Santa Fe in her own apartment, even with a room-mate. But I can. I can move to Santa Fe with my portable Section 8 grant, and if I kept her in my household, she could be on the grant as well as a household member. We'd pay very little rent, but I'd once again be supporting her on an income that was too low to support just me. It'd be tough, and I'd be signing on for 4 more years of possible mommydom.
I'd be losing out on a lot of what I do at the zoo. I wouldn't be able to take the (volunteer) position of Education Co-ordinator at Prairie Dog Pals. I'd have to leave the church I just found.
On the other hand, I've always loved Santa Fe. I won't have to worry about my hypoglycemia as much... at least I won't worry that I'll pass out alone in the apartment and won't be found for days. And I won't be so lonely.
So are Cay and I both willing to give up the freedom we had planned on to make this work? She's thrilled with the idea. Me? I'm cautious.
We've already identified an apartment complex within walking distance to the college, shopping, and the main bus route. It takes pets, so I won't have to give up my cat, as I feared I would when I was planning on staying in Albuquerque. And there are still volunteer opportunities in Santa Fe... and a Unitarian Universalist Church... and maybe jobs.
There will definitely be summer internships for Cay if she has a place to stay in the city... internships which may be vital in shaping her career.
I've always valued independence, and I've raised my kids that way. My eldest thinks this is the wrong move, that Cay should sink or swim on her own. But the economy and college prices are a lot different than they were when she was 18... a little over a decade ago. And I don't think that it's coddling Cay to be adaptable over the timeline of pushing the little bird out of the nest. It's just the economic reality of the day.
Scratch that.
I had been thinking about what I'm going to do with my new-found independence.
At this point, I may be giving up that dream for another 4 years.
It's time for a reality check. Cay's first choice school is far too expensive, and it looks like, even with a talent scholarship that pays 50% of her tuition, it's going to be far to expensive for her to go there and live on campus. She could go to her second choice school, and lose out on her current position with the TV show she crews, lose out on any of the many internship and film opportunities that the University offers, and lose out on being a zoo docent.
Yesterday when she found out she had a $14K talent scholarship (that's $14K for every year she's in school) she cried. She did not cry tears of joy. It was a great scholarship, but not enough to close the gap in what she'd have to pay.
Enter Plan B.
She can't afford to live in Santa Fe in her own apartment, even with a room-mate. But I can. I can move to Santa Fe with my portable Section 8 grant, and if I kept her in my household, she could be on the grant as well as a household member. We'd pay very little rent, but I'd once again be supporting her on an income that was too low to support just me. It'd be tough, and I'd be signing on for 4 more years of possible mommydom.
I'd be losing out on a lot of what I do at the zoo. I wouldn't be able to take the (volunteer) position of Education Co-ordinator at Prairie Dog Pals. I'd have to leave the church I just found.
On the other hand, I've always loved Santa Fe. I won't have to worry about my hypoglycemia as much... at least I won't worry that I'll pass out alone in the apartment and won't be found for days. And I won't be so lonely.
So are Cay and I both willing to give up the freedom we had planned on to make this work? She's thrilled with the idea. Me? I'm cautious.
We've already identified an apartment complex within walking distance to the college, shopping, and the main bus route. It takes pets, so I won't have to give up my cat, as I feared I would when I was planning on staying in Albuquerque. And there are still volunteer opportunities in Santa Fe... and a Unitarian Universalist Church... and maybe jobs.
There will definitely be summer internships for Cay if she has a place to stay in the city... internships which may be vital in shaping her career.
I've always valued independence, and I've raised my kids that way. My eldest thinks this is the wrong move, that Cay should sink or swim on her own. But the economy and college prices are a lot different than they were when she was 18... a little over a decade ago. And I don't think that it's coddling Cay to be adaptable over the timeline of pushing the little bird out of the nest. It's just the economic reality of the day.
I’m glad someone is finding clever ways to point out the hypocrisy of Republican efforts to invade the privacy of women.
To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.
What? No lecture about their manly responsibilities, no waiting period, no efforts to redirect these men looking for Viagra towards ineffective treatments? This is hardly fair. But it is a good first step.
Unfortunately, that first step ended in a Republican pratfall.
The Republican-controlled senate narrowly rejected the amendment Monday by a vote of 21 to 19, but passed the mandatory ultrasound bill in a voice vote. A similar bill in Texas, which physicians say has caused a "bureaucratic nightmare," is currently being challenged in court.
Darn. Did no one think to mention to the Republicans that this bill would support the life-styles of a multitude of cardiologists and proctologists? It’s also morally right: every artificial erection should be complemented by an anal injection.
Have you ever wondered what Satan’s motivation would be?
According to standard Christian dogma, God decides to make some eternal servants--known to us humans as “angels”—and the No. 1 Servant (Lucifer) decides he can stage a coup d’etat and take over God’s position. Of course Lucifer fails, God castigates him to the role of villain, and for millennium thereafter the two bicker and argue. It is all very Greek Tragedy.
Lucifer…or Satan as we shall call him…enters the Garden of Eden with God’s permission and mucks things up for every human thereafter. Satan gets into a bet over Job, and tempts Jesus. Ever since faithfully assuming the role and blame of being Enemy No. 1 on God’s list.
But why would Satan mess around tempting humans, getting involved in human affairs, etc? Look…he would know the book of Revelation as well as we do. It is not some secret code; some hidden language only “true Christians” can read and we have cleverly kept secret from Satan and his spies for the past 2000 years. Satan has read “Left Behind.”
In the end, he is going in the Lake of Fire along with the rest of us heathens. Contrary to popular cartoons, Satan (according to Christian dogma) will not rule Hell. He will not be in charge. He will not be enjoying Jack Chick Torture with sadistic fetish. He will be screaming and whining along with the rest of us heathens.
And Satan…who already tried to take on God once, and has been around since the very beginning…would know this. He doesn’t get reduced time for the more souls that join him; he doesn’t get credit for fewer people in heaven. He does not get more people to rule, the larger the census in hell. He gets the chop with us.
[If some Christian wants to argue Satan thinks he can take on God and win…one wonders what good humans will do in this effort. Does he get a nuclear pitchfork every time an unbeliever dies?]
Oh sure, maybe for the first few centuries, he may have tried to convert a few just to piss God off…but what fun in that? Satan played his biggest trump card in the Garden—now every human is doomed by default to hell. Even better, human nature (again, according to Christian dogma) is such we have a propensity to do more evil.
Satan doesn’t have to do a thing. Heck, God even helps out by occasionally whacking off whole lots of evil people—babies and all—by genocide, tsunamis, earthquakes, flood, famine and volcanoes. Not to mention a war or two. It would be hard for Satan to keep up!
So why would Satan care about tempting humans? Even under Christian dogma…
I ask because Dr. Jones argues the Devil is portraying heaven as boring. That cartoon and modern media’s depiction of heaven, with St. Peter at the Gates, and clouds and harps and singing and time stretching out into tedious infinity is some nefarious plot on the Devil’s part to…I don’t know…keep people from relishing death?
Really? After tempting and observing humans for 1000’s of years (according to Christians) this is the best plan Satan can come up with?
Look, we don’t buy things because we find the competitor’s products undesirable; we buy things because we want them. “Don’t buy Fords—they are only meh.” No, no, no, no. “Buy OUR Car! It will make you Sexy! It will make you go fast! It will save you money!” The only time an advertiser demonstrates the shoddiness of a competitor is to immediately compare it to their own—“Look at how much stain is left when you use theirs; our product removed it better! Faster! Safer! Cleaner!”
If Satan is running down heaven, this is only half the job. The Devil would need to replace it with an alternative even better than heaven. Which got me to thinking…assuming arguendo there was a demi-god Satan, in competition with God, what would Satan do to keep as many people out of heaven as possible (assuming Satan had such a goal?)
What would I do?
Well…obviously one would need to develop on alternative religion. One that was close enough to the truth to sound legitimate, but not sufficient to get one into real heaven. One that claimed a greater reward than real heaven…with less work.
So first we would make it simple to get in. Not too simple—then no one would believe it. Further, make it a little uncertain, so humans keep reassessing their position and re-confirming the little thing they must do. Manufacturers long know the real money is in replacement parts; not just the original purchase.
Make the humans feel good about themselves to further solidify the belief. For example, create the concept of really, REALLY big sins, and as long as they are not doing those…why…the human is just fine. Be willing to mold with the times; as long as the person acts within the current societal norms, they qualify.
Never explicitly quantify a promise. Be opaque. Don’t say, “I will be there at noon on Tuesday;” say, “I am coming soon.” Don’t promise to heal them if they perform the correct ritual; explain you will comfort them. And if (Satan Forbid) they expect some response, make it so it is their fault when the response doesn’t arrive. They are too stupid, too insincere, desire the wrong things, too immature, too human.
Put the reward out of verification…only once you die you will have candy and health and love and peace and money and adulation and power and whatever you want.
In short…if I was Satan and I wanted to create an alternative religion to keep people out of heaven…I would create Christianity. The perfect placebo.
According to standard Christian dogma, God decides to make some eternal servants--known to us humans as “angels”—and the No. 1 Servant (Lucifer) decides he can stage a coup d’etat and take over God’s position. Of course Lucifer fails, God castigates him to the role of villain, and for millennium thereafter the two bicker and argue. It is all very Greek Tragedy.
Lucifer…or Satan as we shall call him…enters the Garden of Eden with God’s permission and mucks things up for every human thereafter. Satan gets into a bet over Job, and tempts Jesus. Ever since faithfully assuming the role and blame of being Enemy No. 1 on God’s list.
But why would Satan mess around tempting humans, getting involved in human affairs, etc? Look…he would know the book of Revelation as well as we do. It is not some secret code; some hidden language only “true Christians” can read and we have cleverly kept secret from Satan and his spies for the past 2000 years. Satan has read “Left Behind.”
In the end, he is going in the Lake of Fire along with the rest of us heathens. Contrary to popular cartoons, Satan (according to Christian dogma) will not rule Hell. He will not be in charge. He will not be enjoying Jack Chick Torture with sadistic fetish. He will be screaming and whining along with the rest of us heathens.
And Satan…who already tried to take on God once, and has been around since the very beginning…would know this. He doesn’t get reduced time for the more souls that join him; he doesn’t get credit for fewer people in heaven. He does not get more people to rule, the larger the census in hell. He gets the chop with us.
[If some Christian wants to argue Satan thinks he can take on God and win…one wonders what good humans will do in this effort. Does he get a nuclear pitchfork every time an unbeliever dies?]
Oh sure, maybe for the first few centuries, he may have tried to convert a few just to piss God off…but what fun in that? Satan played his biggest trump card in the Garden—now every human is doomed by default to hell. Even better, human nature (again, according to Christian dogma) is such we have a propensity to do more evil.
Satan doesn’t have to do a thing. Heck, God even helps out by occasionally whacking off whole lots of evil people—babies and all—by genocide, tsunamis, earthquakes, flood, famine and volcanoes. Not to mention a war or two. It would be hard for Satan to keep up!
So why would Satan care about tempting humans? Even under Christian dogma…
I ask because Dr. Jones argues the Devil is portraying heaven as boring. That cartoon and modern media’s depiction of heaven, with St. Peter at the Gates, and clouds and harps and singing and time stretching out into tedious infinity is some nefarious plot on the Devil’s part to…I don’t know…keep people from relishing death?
Really? After tempting and observing humans for 1000’s of years (according to Christians) this is the best plan Satan can come up with?
Look, we don’t buy things because we find the competitor’s products undesirable; we buy things because we want them. “Don’t buy Fords—they are only meh.” No, no, no, no. “Buy OUR Car! It will make you Sexy! It will make you go fast! It will save you money!” The only time an advertiser demonstrates the shoddiness of a competitor is to immediately compare it to their own—“Look at how much stain is left when you use theirs; our product removed it better! Faster! Safer! Cleaner!”
If Satan is running down heaven, this is only half the job. The Devil would need to replace it with an alternative even better than heaven. Which got me to thinking…assuming arguendo there was a demi-god Satan, in competition with God, what would Satan do to keep as many people out of heaven as possible (assuming Satan had such a goal?)
What would I do?
Well…obviously one would need to develop on alternative religion. One that was close enough to the truth to sound legitimate, but not sufficient to get one into real heaven. One that claimed a greater reward than real heaven…with less work.
So first we would make it simple to get in. Not too simple—then no one would believe it. Further, make it a little uncertain, so humans keep reassessing their position and re-confirming the little thing they must do. Manufacturers long know the real money is in replacement parts; not just the original purchase.
Make the humans feel good about themselves to further solidify the belief. For example, create the concept of really, REALLY big sins, and as long as they are not doing those…why…the human is just fine. Be willing to mold with the times; as long as the person acts within the current societal norms, they qualify.
Never explicitly quantify a promise. Be opaque. Don’t say, “I will be there at noon on Tuesday;” say, “I am coming soon.” Don’t promise to heal them if they perform the correct ritual; explain you will comfort them. And if (Satan Forbid) they expect some response, make it so it is their fault when the response doesn’t arrive. They are too stupid, too insincere, desire the wrong things, too immature, too human.
Put the reward out of verification…only once you die you will have candy and health and love and peace and money and adulation and power and whatever you want.
In short…if I was Satan and I wanted to create an alternative religion to keep people out of heaven…I would create Christianity. The perfect placebo.
After I outlined my best practises for debating religion, Eve Tushnet and The Ubiquitous had some thought-provoking criticisms to make. Well, The Ubiquitous’s was framed as a compliment, but it worried me more. He said, in praise of my suggestion … Continue reading
Donna Hunter is a fighter. She’s been fighting for years now to get just one secular school in Morinville, Alberta (Canada) — and she’s only one of several mothers fighting for that cause. Right now, the Greater St. Albert Catholic Schools manages all four of the schools in the area, leaving non-religious parents with no alternatives.
Chris Colbourne - St. Albert Gazette
‘
Last I heard, there was actually going to be a secular alternative, but it doesn’t look like that’s panning out. They just got denied by — of all places — the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
The Alberta Human Rights Commission has refused to deal with two complaints filed by parents who are fighting for a non-religious schooling option in Morinville.
Donna Hunter and Marjorie Kirsop received letters from the commission Thursday telling them to take their complaints to “another forum” such as the province’s School Act.
…
Kirsop and Hunter filed their human-rights complaints late last year, alleging their non-Catholic children were discriminated against because they have not been allowed to opt out of religious instruction in a system where Catholic doctrine permeates the school day.
Kirsop isn’t sure how to proceed anymore since she’s just going around in circles:
“I’m extremely disappointed as my complaint to the Human Rights Commission was made after many failed attempts to obtain a genuine public education in Morinville,” she said. “After our request for a secular education was denied by our school board in mid-January of 2011, we appealed to the Minister of Education. As of today, we still have not received a response from the Minister of Education in regards to our appeal. And now, we are told by the Human Rights Commission that our complaint is best dealt with by the school board — the very school board who denied our rights in the first place. It’s ironic. It seems we are just going in circles again. Should I be making another appeal to the Minister of Education?”
It’s a little hard for me to wrap my mind around what’s happening since I haven’t followed this story too closely and I’m not very clear on Canadian laws regarding education and religion. Some of the Canadian readers out there might be able to help us understand the issues a bit more — what happened in Morinville and what courses of action are left to take?
Reader Edwin adds this bit of relevant information via email:
… there was a provincial law enacted in 1905 that guarantees the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer and only recognizes the Roman Catholic and Church of England teachings in public schools… It was a condition of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan joining Canada. It actually overrides our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our Constitution).
On a side note, there’s a nice interview with Donna Hunter here.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
