But will a secular visionary or an Islamist win?

None of the 13 candidates is likely to top 50 percent in voting Wednesday and Thursday, so a runoff vote is set for June 16-17. A president will be announced June 21, and the generals promise to yield power by July 1.

Guess we will know soon . . .

On the secular side, front-runners are Amr Moussa, Mubarak’s foreign minister for 10 years, and Ahmed Shafiq, a former Air Force commander and civil aviation minister whom Mubarak made prime minister during his last days in power.

On the Islamist side are Mohammed Morsi for the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s strongest political movement, which was banned under Mubarak, and Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, a moderate Islamist who broke with the Brotherhood and has emerged as a crossover candidate, with appeal among liberals and their polar opposites, the ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis.

That lineup is already an explosive mix. The secular leaders of the revolution fear either Moussa or Shafiq would perpetuate elements of the old, corrupt police state they served. Some Islamists threaten a second uprising.

"Voting for these people means joining them in sin," a Brotherhood cleric, Munir Gomaa, said in a religious edict. "It is not permitted by Islamic law … to bring back these faces that the revolution sought to remove."

The latest polls show Moussa and Shafiq in the lead, followed by Abolfotoh and then Morsi, with up to half the voters undecided. But polling, highly restricted under Mubarak, is new to Egypt and its reliability is unknown.

So, the possible good news is that secular leaders are in the lead; but the bad news is that both of those secularists are former Mubarak regime Cabinet members.

Where does that leave Egypt’s secular revolution? Mubarak proteges, or Islamists? Or someone else?

We’ll keep you posted.

Related articles:

1. Libya’s transitional leader announces Islamist state
2. UK Taxpayers Still Funding Islamist Extremists

Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firouzabadi said threats and pressures cannot deter Iran from its revolutionary causes and ideals, and stressed that the Iranian nation will remain committed to the full annihilation of the Zionist regime of Israel to the end.

Addressing a defense gathering here in Tehran on Sunday, General Firouzabadi said that nations should realize the threats and dangers posed by the Zionist regime of Israel.

He reiterated the Iranian nation and Supreme Leader’s emphasis on the necessity of support for the oppressed Palestinian nation and its causes, and noted, "The Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

The top military official reminded that the Iranian Supreme Leader considers defending Palestine as a full religious duty and believes that any kind of governance and rule by anyone other than the Palestinians as an instance of usurpation.

Remember that Iran is an Islamic Republic, and marching orders come from the Ayatollah; he is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, has the sole power to declare war, and controls who runs the state broadcast networks. In such a dictatorship, all power rests in the hands of one man . . . and here’s a bit from him:

Earlier this year, Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei stressed in explicit remarks Iran’s direct involvement in the Palestinian and Lebanese confrontation with Israel, including the Lebanese Summer 2006 33-day resistance against the Zionist regime.

"Wherever Iran interferes, it announces it in a very straightforward manner. For instance, we interfered in confrontations against Israel, which resulted in the (Lebanese) victory in the 33-day war and (Palestinians’ victory in) the 22-day (Gaza) war," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus in February.

"In future too, we will support and help everyone who opposes the Zionist regime," the Leader underscored.

"The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing," Ayatollah Khamenei underscored.

But will Iran oppose the Zionist regime with the nuclear weapons its working toward?

Is Khamenei crazy enough to use them against Israel? That depends on whether a fanatic will put “religious duty” above the ability of his nation to operate in the international community.

That sounds like an answer to me.

Related articles:

1. Biden Green-Lights Israel Attack on Iran
2. Quiz: Was it Ayatollah Khamenei or Rick Santorum?

Run! It's a Catholic persecution complex!

Because requiring all employers to provide health insurance that allows no-cost access to contraception is persecution of Catholics, of course.

The University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and 41 other Roman Catholic institutions sued the Obama administration in federal court Monday, the latest push against a requirement in the health-care-overhaul law that employers cover contraception in workers’ health plans.

The lawsuits were brought in a dozen different jurisdictions in the U.S., and plaintiffs included the Catholic University of America and archdioceses serving Dallas, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Washington, D.C.

"The government…cannot justify its decision to force Notre Dame to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate access to these services in violation of its sincerely held religious beliefs," Notre Dame’s lawsuit argues. "If the government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs in such a manner, there is no apparent limit to the government’s power."

Bear in mind that since 2000, all employers offering health insurance have had to provide within that coverage access to birth control and sterilization services. The only difference now is that a co-payment can no longer be charged.

What’s the difference? Instead of setting up an insurance plan which required employees to pay full retail price for reproductive care, which has the same effect as not having such coverage at all in the insurance plan, this move will make the coverage freely available.

That means that employees of Catholic-affiliated institutions who are non-Catholics, or who are among the large percentage of Catholics who choose to use birth control, will be able to get it without paying full retail price!

Mind you, the employer won’t have to pay for it; it’s just required that the insurer provide it.

Next, we look forward to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s religious discrimination suit against the Department of Health and Human Services. Seems HHS requires health insurers to provide free nutritional counseling. That counseling recommends low-glycemic (that is, low-pasta) diets to reduce obesity and diabetes.

Related articles:

1. Secular Coalition Calls for Boehner and U.S. House to Respect Individual Religious Liberty in HHS Ruling on Contraceptives
2. Catholic CEOs paint false definition of religious liberty with lawsuit

Last weekend, he handed out:

. . . 100 "Christian Popsicles" made of "frozen holy wine transformed into the blood of Christ" and featuring a crucifix instead the tongue depressor that typically hosts the frozen treats, he said.An image of Jesus Christ positioned traditionally on the cross is visible once the ice pop is consumed.

As for the frozen wine, Errazuriz said, he concealed it in a cooler and took it into a church, where it was "inadvertently blessed by the priest while turning wine into the blood of Christ during the Eucharist."

Sacrilicious! Image: Sebastian Errazuriz

Oddly, the bulk of the Religious Right has ignored this sacrilicious (or maybe more Catholicious?) taste treat. Then again, maybe it’s not so odd; Catholics are the only Christian sect who believe in “transubstantiation”, whereby the blessing of a priest magically turns wine and crackers into blood and flesh, but only in your tummy, and they change back to wine and crackers if you throw them up.

The lone exception to the silence? The lonesome Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who’s got a whine to pair with every cheesy artistic or political statement.

Purporting to represent Catholics throughout the United States and defend them against the trampling of their religious liberties (like the right to campaign for or against candidates from the pulpit, and to email pornography to strangers, and to prevent employees of Catholic-affiliated institutions from getting health insurance which covers contraception, and of course the right to threaten the owner of the Empire State Building if he won’t light it up to celebrate international monster Mother Teresa), the Catholic League’s last reported membership numbers were estimated at 350,000 in 1999.

Whines Donohue this time:

I never heard of this guy until about 10 minutes ago, but I already know he is a bigot, a hypocrite and a rip-off artist.

He is a bigot for making “Christian Popsicles”—the wooden stick is inscribed with the image of Jesus on the Cross. The flavors are made from what CNN is reporting as “frozen holy wine transformed into the blood of Christ”; the wine was “inadvertently blessed by the priest while turning wine into the blood of Christ during the Eucharist.”

…

He is a hypocrite because he says that although Americans should be “rightly worried” about the threat that radical Muslims pose, he decided to stick it to Christians instead. Why? Because religious extremism can be dangerous, he explains. So can sticking it to radical Muslims.

He is a rip-off artist because he recently ripped off the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators: while expressing solidarity with the anti-capitalists, he capitalized on their campaign by selling folding chairs with some of their signs painted on the back. My favorite was the stunningly brilliant, “I’m So Angry I Made a Sign.” The asking price was $2,500. Not a bad profit, especially for a socialist.

Errazuriz is a hypocrite for saying that radical Muslims pose a threat, because he decided to “stick it” (get it? Popsicle stick? Clever!) to Christians “instead”? I suppose Donohue missed Errazuriz’ “Twin Towers“.

Maybe Donohue could use a refresher on who has political influence in the United States, where Errazuriz lives and works. Radical Muslims? Or Christians?

Could the fact that Christians and Catholics are working overtime to give more and more of their religious regulations the force of law in the US be a reason that nonbelievers and secular-minded believers alike–people who want to make their own decisions on moral issues such as contraception, abortion, or same-sex marriage–are fighting back? Could that fighting back be why Donohue feels the need to shriek like an unchanged infant at every perceived slight?

That’s my guess. What’s yours?

Donohue has asked his followers to contact Sebastian at info@meetsebastian.com. I wonder how much positive feedback he’s getting?

Related articles:

1. Donohue: Catholic Reporters Are Anti-Catholic
2. Catholic League’s Bill Donohue Cries out for Attention

Here’s enough to get you started!

Atheism is a disbelief in Gods. "The New Atheism" refers to an exceptionally active group of atheists centered around the work of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens. All four are distinguished intellectuals and scientists. Dawkins and Dennett are especially known as interpreters of evolution for the general public. Legions have become turned on to evolutionary science through their work.

Evolutionary Religious Studies (ERS) is the scholarly study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. Religion has been studied from other scholarly perspectives for centuries. Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and James George Frazier were early scholars of religion. Their goal was to explain religion as a purely human phenomenon, in the same way that scholars try to explain any other human phenomenon, such as government or warfare. This is in contrast to theologians, who are more likely to function as religious believers. A few religious scholars try to show that divine interventions actually happen, but the vast majority subscribe to a position known as methodological naturalism, which restricts explanations to naturalistic causes.

ERS is therefore one of the new kids on the block as far as religious studies is concerned. Its bold claim is that modern evolutionary science can go beyond the many other scholarly perspectives in shedding light on the nature of religion. While evolution was never entirely absent as a perspective, the modern version became prominent at the beginning of the 21st century with books such as Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer, In Gods We Trust by Scott Atran, and my own Darwin’s Cathedral. The field has burgeoned since then; a partial list of prominent names includes Jesse Bering, Michael Blume (ETVOL’S religious editor), Joseph Bulbulia, Joseph Henrich, Dominic Johnson, Ara Norenzayan, Anthony Slingerland, Richard Sosis, and Harvey Whitehouse. If they are not yet household names, they should be for any household interested in religion from a scholarly perspective.

What is the relationship between the New Atheism and ERS? This question is surprisingly complex and needs to be answered in at least three steps.

I hope you’ll come back and share your thoughts on Wilson’s conclusions!

Related articles:

1. Janet Mefferd and Robert Knight Want to Sue Over the "Establishment of Religion with Atheism"
2. American Imams supporting evolutionary science

At least, according to Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, a frequent guest on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News. Hannity also sits on the board of directors of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, which aims to promote a conservative agenda to black Americans.

A frequent Fox News guest has drawn wide condemnation for saying women should have never been given the right to vote.

In a sermon that was posted on YouTube in March, Rev Jesse Lee Peterson said women are leading the United States down a path of wickedness because they have too much political power.

Fox News host Sean Hannity has invited Rev Peterson on his show several times, including after the video was posted, and sits on the board of the conservative activist’s organization.

The remark seemed to draw disagreement, if not condemnation, from Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, who tweeted: ‘When? Women voting is best thing in a hundred years.’

Rev Peterson’s fiery statement had drawn immense criticism.

‘I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote,’ Peterson said in the sermon.

‘We should’ve never turned this over to women. It was a big mistake… And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees (sic) with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.

Peterson went on to say that men should be legally permitted to hit their wives, and that women are too emotional to make decisions.

‘You walk up to them with a issue, they freak out right away. They go nuts. They get mad. They get upset, just like that. They have no patience because it’s not in their nature. They don’t have love. They don’t have love,’ he said.

And the right wing wants to go after Jeremiah Wright?

Sean Hannity has not commented on Peterson’s recommendation to legalize domestic violence (man-on-woman only, of course) or eliminate certain citizenship rights of women.

Related articles:

1. Jesse Lee Peterson Claims Obama is Not a Christian, Aided by Satan
2. Fox News: US Cable News Leader

The Plan:

Commissioned by Joe Ricketts, billionaire founder of brokerage TD Ameritrade, the plan was to recycle an ad about Jeremiah Wright that was produced but never aired in 2008, is produced in part by former advisors of John McCain who were critical of his decision not to go after the Wright angle.

The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”

The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”

I’m not sure how much impact Jeremiah Wright would have at this point, given that the bulk of the electorate saw his famous “God Damn America” sermon, which went viral in 2008, along with plenty of other vitriol dripping from his “man of God” lips.

The Problem:

The Romney campaign has made a point of focusing its attention on the economy, rather than Obama’s personal beliefs, birth certificate, or past spiritual advisers. Upon news of this plan breaking publicly, Romney released another statement to that effect.

But why?

Is he genuinely trying to keep the campaign focused on issues? Possible.

Does he just not want to be associated with any such ads? After all, he’s powerless to stop them from being produced and aired. Probably more likely than the first option.

But there’s a third option. CNN’s Roland Martin summed it up thus:

“If Ricketts wants to do that, if the GOP they want to do that, you’re now putting Mormonism on the table,” Martin said. “You’re now putting on the table how African Americans were treated by the Mormon religion. I don’t think Mitt Romney really wants to have that conversation, considering he was an elder and his dad was an elder, and they really did not embrace African Americans. It is a ridiculous conversation.”

Martin was fairly gentle, not bringing up the basic Mormon doctrine (until a mid-1970s “new and improved revelation”) that black people have a darker skin tone because their souls are impure, and that they could not hold leadership positions within the Mormon Church.

That’s definitely “not embracing”.

If Jeremiah Wright’s teachings get brought into the discussion, why shouldn’t Joseph Smith’s, which Mitt Romney was advocating as a missionary and as an elder?

Which candidate do you think would lose more votes over such a discussion?

Related articles:

1. Meet the Religious Right extremists behind the pro-Bachmann Super PAC
2. Fischer: President Obama Hates America and White People

The May catalog includes a lesbian couple and their daughters. Or, more likely, four models who’ve never met before who were hired for a photo shoot. Whatever.

Cue the hysterics:

JC Penney has laid low in the month of April by airing two different commercials that portrayed them as remaining neutral in the cultural war. Even though JCP seemed to have changed their approach, their May catalog shows they are making a strong effort otherwise. On pages ten and eleven, under the title "Freedom of Expression," you’ll find "Wendi and her partner Maggie and daughters" and again "Wendi, daughters Raven and Clover, and partner Maggie" in text. In the picture both women are wearing wedding bands.

Oh noes! Lesbians! (Click to embiggen.)

Families who once supported JCP and hold open store credit cards or are on their mailing list received the May catalog yesterday. Today, customers are able to view the May catalog online on the JC Penney website under May books.

OMM has so many issues to cover we had no choice but to move on earlier in the year but have decided to revisit this issue and speak out again. It is obvious that JCP would rather take sides than remain neutral. JCP will hear from the other side so they need to hear from us as well.

Last time OMM contacted JC Penney store managers, we were brushed off. Some even experienced in person the store manager saying "Thank you" and walking off while their customer and our concerned members were in mid-sentence. OMM has been told that JCP corporate office told store managers to say "Thank you" and then walk away. If they want our business, then we will not be ignored!

OMM goes on to provide JC Penney’s contact information and explain that, while they’d usually have a letter from their website available, JC Penney has blocked their email server.

I think there is a hint in there somewhere, OMM. Maybe, just maybe, JC Penney has determined that your members’ business is not really all that desirable after all.

Maybe they did their homework and learned that “One Million Moms” has probably fewer than 50,000 members; only 46,500 have “liked” their Facebook page. If we understand that not every member is on Facebook, but also that many more will “Like” an organization’s page than will join and send money, we’re looking at a fairly small number.

By way of comparison, at this writing, over 3 million people have “Liked” Ellen DeGeneris’ Facebook page; over 1,063,000 people have “Liked” the Human Rights Campaign’s Facebook page; 64,200 have “Liked” Americans United’s Facebook; and 725 have “Liked” Secular News Daily’s page. (You can help FIX THAT last one, please.)

JC Penney may also have figured out that One Million Moms is a project of the American Family Association, designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay hate group. Quite possibly not the demographic they’re after.

Search “Bryan Fischer” on this site to see all sorts of things the AFA puts forth–birtherism, paranoid conspiracy rants, claims that gays are all pedophiles, and all sorts of anti-atheist and anti-secular ranting–and you’ll probably agree that JC Penney is right to turn its back on these nut cases.

So here’s your opportunity to show JC Penney how much you support their choice to tell OMM (and, by extension, the AFA) to take a long walk off a short pier.

You can find the phone number of your local store here, or in your local phone directory.

You may also send an email to: jcpcorpcomm@jcpenney.com.

Those are good things to do, but there’s something better: Go to the store and buy something, and then thank the manager for standing up against the Religious Right.

Related articles:

1. American Family Association Redoubles Efforts to Get JC Penney to Fire Ellen DeGeneres
2. AFA Tries to Link JC Penney Credit Rating Drop to Ellen DeGeneres

My take? Shahid hasn’t got a clue.

In Religion for Atheists, published earlier this year, Alain de Botton suggests that religion has a lot to teach atheists. It is far too important to be regarded as completely redundant, he argues, because it promotes “morality” and “teaches us to become polite, honour one another, to be faithful and sober”. This is all true. Denying the wealth of knowledge and benefit that can be found in religion is hubristic.

Shahid misses a key point in his defense of religion: Religions are man-made. There was a time when we needed the threat of supernatural wrath to keep us in line; it was called the Bronze Age.

So, the more intelligent among us created religions. Those religions enforced social control, while also allowing the priest class (whatever it may be called) to stay at the top of the food chain.

The Bible even explains what happens to anyone who tries to usurp the ordained priest class. It’s in Numbers 16. Korah and others argued with Moses, and said that since the whole congregation was “holy”, it shouldn’t be only the Levites who got to be priests. Moses said, “OK, you guys do it tomorrow, and God will show you who is holy.” What happened?

According to the myth, God was angry, made a great earthquake, and split the earth open and swallowed Korah, all his property, all his goods, and all his family; then the earth closed on them, and a great fire burned up the men offering “illegitimate” incense.

The point? Don’t question the priest class! And it worked for a time.

But it’s still man-made.

Shahid continues:

But religion is also the cause of many of the world’s problems: it’s dangerous. Religious people often accept exoteric, literal interpretations of religious texts, without using their rational faculties. Religion without reason is blind, ruthless and leads to discrimination.

…

The Bible is still interpreted literally by many Christians and, consequently, we have seen the “issue” of homosexuality – which is condemned in the Old Testament – creep back into the headlines in the past few months. Religious leaders, basing their opinions on pre-modern scriptures, often speak insensitively about homosexuality. Why some Christians – even intelligent ones – still hold the Bible as a text that should be interpreted literally is a mystery, and potentially perilous.

Yes, it’s a mystery that, when the “holy” text behind Christianity specifically states that men who have sex with men have committed an abomination and should be put to death, that some people take that direct commandment literally. And when in Romans it is stated that “abusers of themselves with mankind” and “the effeminate” will not inherit the Kingdom of God (and there’s just that one Lake of Fire alternative), it somehow is interpreted by those silly Christians to mean they will go to Hell. How bizarre! Where ever could they get such ridiculous ideas?

This leaves me with some questions for Shahid:

If the Bible (or Koran) is not to be understood literally, then that means it doesn’t mean what it says. Right?

So, how do you decide which parts to follow and which you can ignore? There are no footnotes saying, “Muhammad didn’t really mean this part,” or “Moses says this is optional”.

I’ll answer for Shahid: “I’m making up my own religion as I goes along; one which suits my particular opinions.”

Shahid’s choosing to worship a god of his own imagining, not “Allah”, and not the cleverly-named “God”. The only way to truly know who those man-made deities are is to read their books and take notes. What you find in the book is who the deity is. Your feelings, your conscience, your ideas of right and wrong and just? Those are yours. Believe it or not, atheists have those feelings and ideas too, without a book that condones slavery, and endorses treating women as property, and says that those who leave the religion should be executed, to tell us what we should think.

Shahid then turns his aim on atheists:

But 21st Century secularists are also guilty; they have dismissed and lost the ethics taught by religion. Contemporary media focus is too heavily weighed on the out-of-date issues which religion appears to have a regressive and pejorative understanding of.

First, I have to nit-pick. “Secularism” isn’t “atheism”. Does Shahid think the secularist protesters who started the Arab Spring were all atheists? Of course not. Most, if not all, were Muslims. They just want a secular government; that is, one which does not base its laws on religion, and which is not involved in the business of religion. Many religious people are secularists. The good folks at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty are secularists.

Now that we have that settled:

In the quote above, we again see that Shahid wants to reinvent the religions and pretend they don’t say what they do say. The media focus on “out-of-date” issues of which religion “appears to have a regressive” understanding.

Where do the Bible and the Koran have expiration dates? I’ve not seen them.

If Shahid’s deity of choice is truly all knowing and all powerful, then that deity surely knows exactly what the book being read about him says. And that deity is quite capable–if he was capable of creating the universe out of nothing–of changing that book, and every copy of that book, to say what he wants it to say in the blink of an eye.

But the books say what they say. Therefore, logically, if the deity is all knowing and all powerful, the books must say what the deity wants them to say. Who is Shahid to question?

Nobody, according to his own writing:

Islam, like Christianity, is also failing in the field of hermeneutics; modern exegetes are unable or unwilling to interpret the texts to conform with our current world. This is partly because sects like the strictly orthodox Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, who are intent on not allowing innovation (which is a grave sin in Islam) into the religion, have a huge say on the Islamic literature disseminated throughout the world.

Embracing innovation is a grave sin in Islam. Yet Shahid thinks Muslims should . . . um, engage in a grave sin in order to “evolve” their religion into something it’s not!

Now, we get down to the two questions within Shahid’s thesis:

Should Christians and Muslims “renovate” their religions?

I don’t think they should.

If they don’t subscribe to what the book says, they should abandon it. Instead of cherry picking the bits they like and saying, “God says this”, why not be intellectually honest and admit, “I don’t know if there’s a god or what he or she wants, but my conscience says this is what I should do”?

One reason comes to mind: Fear.

Homer defeats Pascal's Wager.

Homer Simpson once countered that by asking, “What if we picked the wrong religion? Every time we go to church, we’re just making God madder and madder!”

But there are other fears. Loss of friends and family. Loss of income. Loss of social status. Loss of one’s head (literally). Coming out openly against the majority religion–or even a minority religion, if it’s the religion of your social circle or family–can have serious consequences.

Should those people try to “evolve” their religion?

No.

Why not?

As long as Christianity or Islam rely upon a specific antiquated text, there will be people who go back to that text and pick out justifications for violence, torture, slavery, and any number of injustices. Those verses won’t go away, and in times of human weakness, people will turn to them again.

Evolving Christianity was attempted during the Enlightenment. It helped, but fundamentalism is on the rise today.

Evolving Islam was attempted as well, at Cordoba. Again, it helped for a time, but fundamentalism rebounded.

Human history has demonstrated that a religion based upon Bronze Age texts cannot be successfully and permanently “evolved”. It can only be abandoned in favor of either truth or a new fantasy, one which meets modern needs.

What about those pesky atheists? Should they leave religion alone?

If you’ve read this far, you already know my answer.

Shahid, like de Botton, cares little about truth. It’s fine to tell yourself happy lies about the supernatural, just as long as you only believe the happy lies. Things like “I’m going to see my dog again in Heaven,” or “God will punish that person who I consider evil after he dies, even though he just escaped justice here on Earth.”

Not only do those happy lies bring with them the baggage of the unhappy lies, and the baggage of the conflict that religion inevitably creates, they’re lies. Believing them instead of seeking truth leads to ridiculous ideas like “the secret of the meaning of life”, or accepting horror in the world as “God’s plan”.

Truth? We get one life. 70 – 90 years, if in good health and in a developed part of the world, barring accidents or wars.

Truth? The meaning your life has is up to you. Nobody’s going to hand you a secret; you have to/get to create your own meaning.

Which provides a richer life? Fantasizing about life after death, thus not caring about and cheapening “this” life to nothing but an admission exam, or realizing that your time of existence is limited, and that if you want to find meaning and fulfillment in your life, you are empowered by yourself to create it?

I’ll take the latter.

Related articles:

1. Atheists! Think you know more about religion than the faithful?
2. Something-You-Already-Knew of the Day: Atheists Know More About Religion than Religious People, Study Finds

Here’s the latest:

For the first time in the 30-year battle against the HIV epidemic, a panel of experts has recommended that the Food and Drug Administration approve a drug to give to healthy people to protect against the infection.

The panel recommended Thursday that the agency approve the drug Truvada for preventing HIV in men who have sex with men, HIV-negative partners of HIV-positive people and “other individuals at risk for acquiring HIV through sexual activity.”

…

Studies presented to the FDA’s Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee show that Truvada reduced the risk of acquiring HIV by 42 to 73 percent among men who have sex with men and among HIV-negative partners of people carrying the virus.

Note that this is risk reduction, not risk elimination. It’s not as good as, say, a vaccine. It also likely won’t do a thing against resistant strains. But it may help keep new infections down for a time, and time is the average non-researcher’s greatest weapon.

Will the research continue under a Religious Right regime?

What do you think?

Related articles:

1. Harvey: HIV/AIDS Infections Prove Schools Shouldn't Teach Sex Education
2. Prayer cannot cure HIV: churches’ deadly “miracle cures” must be stopped

Opening arguments began Wednesday in Okanogan, Washington in the murder trial of a faith healing couple whose teenage son died of a burst appendix.

Greg and JaLea Swezey — members of the Church of the First Born — are charged with second-degree murder by “criminal mistreatment” in the death of their 17-year-old son, Zachery, in 2009. He died of a burst appendix while his parents and other church members prayed for his recovery, and failed to call a doctor or ambulance.

Two weeks ago a county judge ruled a Washington state law that allows faith healing for Christian Scientists but not other religions is not arbitrary,clearing the way for the start of the trial.

Interestingly, the defense attorney intends to call two young members of the Swezey family, who will testify that they have indeed had medical treatment. Apparently, the defense will suggest that the Swezeys did not refuse medical treatment for their son, but thought what they were doing for him was adequate.

Possibly, the attorney will suggest that the Swezeys thought he had the stomach flu. WebMD lists thirteen conditions with symptoms similar to appendicitis, lead of which is acute gastroenteritis.

When will we see the overturning of all laws protecting parents who abuse their children in the name of their “faith”? Children are unwilling, or at least incompletely informed, participants in these vain exercises of their deluded parents–parents more intent on pleasing an imaginary friend (and their fellow church members) with their “faith” than risking being seen as weak in faith by seeking medical treatment.

Related articles:

1. Oregon “faith healing” parents must surrender child
2. Oregon Senate votes to end faith-healing defense for parents

But what happens when the dictatorship is more secular than what follows?

Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project has yesterday released the latest data on Egyptian attitudes. Seems Egyptians are less optimistic now than they were a year ago, but they also want the Quran to shape the country’s laws.

Amid rancorous debates over the presidential election and the shape of a new constitution, most Egyptians continue to want democracy, with two-in-three saying it is the best form of government.

Egyptians also want Islam to play a major role in society, and most believe the Quran should shape the country’s laws, although a growing minority expresses reservations about the increasing influence of Islam in politics. When asked which country is the better model for the role of religion in government, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, 61% say the latter. However, most also endorse specific democratic rights and institutions that do not exist in Saudi Arabia, such as free speech, a free press, and equal rights for women.

Seven-in-ten Egyptians express a favorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood, down just slightly from 75% a year ago. Most (56%) also have a positive opinion of the Brotherhood-affiliated Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the largest party in the newly elected parliament. The more conservative al-Nour fares less well: 44% have a favorable and 44% an unfavorable view of the Salafist party. Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, a Salafist leader who was recently disqualified as a presidential candidate, gets somewhat better ratings (52% positive, 42% negative).

Presidential contender Amr Moussa receives overwhelmingly positive marks, with 81% expressing a positive opinion of the former Foreign Minister and Arab League chief. Meanwhile, 58% have a favorable view of moderate Islamist presidential candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh.

The April 6th Movement, a loose organization of mostly young and secular activists that played a key role in the demonstrations that forced Hosni Mubarak from office, is rated favorably by 68% of Egyptians. However, the Egyptian Bloc, a mostly secular coalition of political parties, is not popular – just 38% assign it a positive rating.

That last part is possibly the most disturbing. The Egyptian Arab Spring was led largely by secular-minded activists, who have now been pushed to the back of the bus by an Islamist majority.

That’s the same majority seeking to legalize necrophilia and strip the rights of women to have jobs and an education.

If you ever wanted to see the pyramids . . . well, I hope you already went.

There is some reason for hope for Egypt’s future–rather, hope for the future of women and secular-minded people in Egypt:

A growing number of Egyptians sees Islam as playing a major role in the political life of the country – 66% currently compared with 47% in 2010. For the most part, those who believe Islam is playing a large role see this as good for the country, but more disagree with that view this year than last. Conflicting views about the role of religion in politics are also seen in the significant numbers who say Saudi Arabia is the best model for Egypt, yet endorse key features of democracy. Among those who choose Saudi Arabia over Turkey as the best model for Egypt, two-thirds also say democracy is preferable to any other kind of government. More than six-in-ten say it is very important to live in a country with a free press (64%), honest multiparty elections (63%), and freedom of speech (61%).

While democracy is often interpreted as “majority rule”, and hence consistent with the desires of a nation with a single majority religion, the majority also wants a free press and free speech.

Will these freedoms include freedom of religious expression, including criticism? Time will tell what Egyptians mean.

Related articles:

1. Egypt: Frying pan into the fire? Muslim Brotherhood takes leadership role
2. CFI Heralds Reason Rally as Dawning of “Secular Spring”

A decade-long court dispute over a child neglect case that spawned a legal battle over faith healing, ended Tuesday with two guilty convictions for the girls’ mother and friend — Jacqueline Crank and her spiritual leader Ariel Ben Sherman

WBIR in Knoxville, Tennessee, reports:

Jacqueline Crank and her spiritual leader, Ariel Sherman, were sentenced to 11 months, 29 days of unsupervised probation. Crank’s daughter, Jessica, died of a rare form of cancer in 2002. Tuesday, the two were both found guilty of misdemeanor child neglect. Sherman and Crank say they will appeal the conviction.

Originally charged in 2002 with felony charges of aggravated child abuse and neglect, the pair found those charges dismissed and replaced with a misdemeanor.

Sherman, who lived with Crank and provided her “spiritual misguidance”, which reportedly included telling her that “faith” would heal her daughter, tried to buck the charges by claiming that he was not Jessica’s legal guardian and did not have authority to take her to the hospital for treatment.

The case began when Sherman moved his Universal Life Church flock to a six-bedroom house in Loudon County. There, he lived with Crank, her two children, Jessica and Israel, and a half-dozen other parishioners. Sherman held himself out as the “spiritual father” of Crank’s children and was reportedly Crank’s lover.

When Jessica developed a tumor on her shoulder, Sherman advised Crank to rely on prayer. Although she took Jessica to a local clinic at one point, the mother ultimately decided to rely on faith. Authorities intervened but Jessica died anyway.

The court was not swayed by Sherman’s attempt to dodge his responsibility in the case. At no point did Sherman tell Crank that Jessica needed medical treatment, though he was her “spiritual advisor” and certainly in a position to insist, with great influence, that treatment was necessary. He, like Crank, was found guilty on the misdemeanor charges.

This will serve as a test case at the Tennessee Supreme Court, where an existing law granting parents the right to refuse medical care for their children in favor of chanting, anointing with oil, burning sage, or sacrificing parakeets will be challenged.

State law allows a parent to choose faith over medicine provided that parent is heeding the doctrine of a “recognized church or denomination.” But the law is silent on what constitutes a “recognized” religion. Isaacs argued Tuesday Crank’s belief in the power of prayer is rooted in “genuine” faith.

Sherman’s case turns on how far a duty of care for a child extends. Can a boyfriend be held liable? A baby sitter? A pastor? Bosch noted at Tuesday’s hearing that only a parent or legal guardian is allowed under the law to authorize medical treatment for a child.

Tennessee’s ridiculous law needs to be repealed. Christian Science is a recognized denomination, and eschews medical treatment in favor of prayer. Scientology is a recognized religion, and denies psychological counseling in favor of “e-meter auditing”.

There is no evidence whatsoever that prayer, magic, or wishful thinking of any sort will heal a disease. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.

Back in 2006, the pro-religion Templeton Foundation released the results of its study of 1,800 heart bypass patients.

Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical School and other scientists tested the effect of having three Christian groups pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for “a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications” for specific patients, for whom they were given the first name and first initial of the last name.

The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600 apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were prayed for but only knew it was a possibility, and those who weren’t prayed for but were told it was a possibility.

The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery. Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But 59 percent of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52 percent of those who were told it was just a possibility.

In summary, being prayed for or not had no effect on the patients’ outcomes. Knowing that they were being prayed for increased the likelihood of complications. Why? Perhaps the added stress of assuming they should heal faster? Or could it be . . . Satan?

Or maybe this:

Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who didn’t take part in the study, said the results didn’t surprise him.

“There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either,” he said. “There is no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Moslem scriptures that can be constrained to the point that they can be predicted.”

Interesting. So Koenig is saying that there is no way to predict whether the Abrahamic god will answer prayers, and no theological basis for such belief.

Other than words reportedly from Jesus, in Matthew 21:22:

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

. . . and Mark 11:23:

For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

. . . and John 16:23:

And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

So, if there’s no theological basis for belief that their god answers prayers (ahem), I guess praying is almost like random chance, isn’t it?

Almost exactly.

Random chance is no basis for the medical treatment of a sick child, whose parents have the legal right and responsibility to ensure her welfare.

If a competent adult wishes to make decisions for herself on the basis of faith in an imaginary friend, that’s fine. Let her. (Granted, her willingness to make such a gamble should call her competence into question . . .)

But an adult should in no case be authorized under law to gamble her child’s welfare on the sacrifice of parakeets, or chanting of poems, or lighting of candles. Oregon has figured that out; when will Tennessee?

No related articles.

Romney took Indiana with 65% to Paul’s 16% and Santorum’s invalid 13%; North Carolina with 66% to Paul’s 11%, Santorum’s invalid 10%, and Gingrich’s invalid 8%; and West Virginia with 70% to Santorum’s invalid 12%, Paul’s 11%, Gingrich’s invalid 6%.

In Indiana, six-term Senator Richard Lugar lost to state treasurer, former coal executive, and Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock.

Lugar was ousted by state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, whose campaign against the veteran lawmaker was backed by conservative groups including the Tea Party Express, the anti-tax Club for Growth, the National Rifle Association, the Tea Party-aligned Freedom Works, and former Republican Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks election spending, outside groups invested $4.5 million in the race.

“Serving the people of Indiana in the United States Senate has been the greatest honor of my public life,” Lugar said in his concession speech. But in a written statement he admonished Mourdock’s “unrelenting partisan mind-set” and warned that “he will achieve little as a legislator” unless he changes his strict conservatism on governing.

Some Democrats in Indiana had hoped for this outcome, as Mourdock’s nomination could open doors for a Democratic challenger. However, in a heavily Republican state, this could easily backfire.

On the other side of the coin, a somewhat pessimistic Ezra Klein predicted last week that Mourdock’s success could spell serious trouble for the Democratic Party and for America in 2013, particularly if Obama should win in November. Such a win, if followed by an election win, would tell moderate Republican Senators and Representatives alike that serious primary challenges from the radical right are still likely if they are seen as “compromising”:

Consider three possible outcomes in Indiana:

Lugar wins: In this world, it’s not clear that any high-profile incumbents would have lost to a Tea Party challenge in this cycle. Sen. Orrin Hatch is widely expected to withstand his challengers in Utah. To many lawmakers, this will suggest that the threat of primary challenges has begun to recede. That gives them more space to actually legislate, with all the compromising and taking of tough positions that that implies.

Lugar loses and Mourdock wins the general election: This would be a signal that primary challenges remain a threat, and no Republican lawmaker can feel safe cutting deals or taking tough votes. This is a world where Republicans, having run and lost with a “Massachusetts moderate,” swear never to compromise on their principles again, and incumbent lawmakers realize that there will be a raft of primary challenges coming and so they had better spend the next two years shoring up their right flank. This is not a world in which you can imagine a ‘grand bargain’ getting done.

Lugar loses and Mourdock loses the general election. This, too, is a possibility. “If Mr. Lugar loses, it should increase Democrats’ odds of picking up the Senate seat in November,” writes Nate Silver. In that case, Lugar’s loss could keep the Senate in Democratic hands, much as Tea Party candidates lost in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado and kept the Senate in Democratic hands after the 2010 election. And remember, in this hypothetical, Obama would also have won the presidential election. This might be a world where Republican Party has a moderating moment, as both elites and rank-and-file blame their parties continued losses on its extreme reputation and take a more cooperative tack in order to repair their reputation in advance of the 2014 and 2016 elections.

How will it fall out? We’ll know in November.

Democratic candidate Tom Barrett, Mayor of Milwaukee, who lost to Governor Scott Walker in 2010, won the Democratic primary in Wisconsin tonight. He goes up against Walker in a recall election in a month. Polls currently show them neck and neck, even though Walker has spent over $20M to date and Barrett less than $1M.

Finally, tied in to North Carolina’s primary election was a vote on same-sex marriage. As of this writing, with 35% of precincts reporting, AP is projecting that the ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions will pass, currently taking 58% of the vote. Rev. Billy Graham took out full-page ads in 14 newspapers to promote the ban, which expands NC’s existing ban on same-sex marriage to include any form of civil union.

Related articles:

1. Four primaries tonight
2. American Humanist Association Announces 2011 Board Election Results

Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin are all holding primaries today. So, what do we care, given that “Got Mittens?” Romney is the presumptive nominee, and could get the remaining delegates he needs before August even if it were revealed that he is, in fact, a shape-shifting Reptilian with designs on enslaving humanity as a food source for his cold-blooded, alien kind?

In Indiana, there’s a high-profile Senate primary. Six-term Senator Richard Lugar is battling Tea Party-endorsed state treasurer Richard Mourdock. Mourdock has attacked Lugar as being too compromising, and has promised to stand firm on “conservative principles”. What sorts of principles? He’s pro-life; against “activist liberal judges”; for eliminating the IRS, reducing the size of government, eliminating Obamacare, and of course, preserving in current form the largest welfare programs in place (Social Security and Medicare).

That’s not hypocrisy; that’s knowing who your supporters are. People on Social Security and Medicare.

While Indiana is largely a Republican state, Democrats in Indiana are largely hopeful that Mourdock will win.

Huh?

They think if the Republicans nominate the former coal company executive, with his radical-right Tea Party support, it will open the door for a Democrat Senator.

Voters in North Carolina are deciding another hotly contested GOP primary, in the Eighth Congressional District. Front-runner Richard Hudson has openly courted the birther vote, declaring that the chief justice of the Supreme Court should be required to certify the citizenship of presidential candidates. Yet the Club for Growth, the conservative PAC supporting Lugar’s challenger in Indiana, is backing another candidate: Dentist Scott Keadle.

Finally, the Democratic primary in Wisconsin will decide who will go up against Republican Scott Walker in June’s recall election. It appears Dems are preferring Tom Barrett, who lost by 5 percentage points to Walker in 2010. Do over?

Tonight, the focus will be on the returns for the state-level races. But don’t worry, we’ll kick out the returns for the Romney-Paul race as well. Look for an “anti-Romney” bump for Paul from here on out!

No related articles.

Urbanski suggests finding a compromise, such as deleting the first four Commandments but leaving the remaining six. That sounds like a solution that will please exactly nobody.

Some background:

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Roanoake on behalf of a student at Narrows High School, Narrows, Va., and the student’s parent. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for them to remain anonymous due to the potential for retaliation and for a protective order barring defense counsel and court personnel from disclosing their identities.

FFRF first objected to the display in December 2010 when the Commandments were posted in all six county schools. The district responded by taking the displays down, then put them back up after the public pressured the board. On advice of legal counsel, they were again later removed.

Then in June, after FFRF and ACLU of Virginia sent a joint letter of objection to the district, the board voted 3-2 to put the Commandments up along with other documents in the misguided belief that the documents would put the display on stronger legal footing. The other elements included a depiction of Lady Justice, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Mayflower Compact and the Magna Carta.

The display at Narrows High School is in a main hallway where the student plaintiff by necessity encounters it daily. The display “promotes a particular faith to which Doe 1 does not subscribe,” the suit charges. “Doe 1 understands the current display to be merely a continuation of the board’s longstanding policy, practice, and custom of promoting the Ten Commandments in the school.”

Given the public outcry when the Commandments were removed and the clamor for their reinstallation, “any alleged secular purpose for the current displays is, and will be perceived as, a sham,” the plaintiffs contend.

Last March, some 200 students walked out of school in protest over the removal of the religious text, and went on record with anti-American and bigoted sentiments:

“This is Giles County and Christ is a big, big, big part of Giles County. For those who don’t like it, go somewhere else,” shouted one student. She was greeted by a round of cheers from the crowd.

The students prayed and then one by one students spoke out on the reasons they wanted the Ten Commandments placed back in their school.

“This is America and we can have our Ten Commandments and if they don’t like it, they can get out,” said one boy.

“It’s just freedom of religion and speech,” said one boy.

“It’s our choice to have the Ten Commandments. It’s not the law’s choice or anything, it’s not the state’s choice or anything. It’s Giles County’s choice. It’s the kid’s choice,” said another student.

Do these sound like the voices of people who’d be satisfied with 6 of 10? Not to me.

What are those Ten, anyway? Can you list them all? Jean Poole did, and explained them, back in 2009. They haven’t changed since.

Urbanski’s suggestion is to eliminate these:

• Thou shalt have no gods before me.
• Thou shalt make to thee no graven image . . .
• Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain . . .
• Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy . . .

He recommends leaving the others in place:

• Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

  Golly, that sure seems to mention God. Guess we’re down to five, not six.

• Thou shalt not kill.
• Thou shalt not commit adultery.

  Unless thy name is Newt Gingrich, apparently.

• Thou shalt not steal.
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

By removing the religious references, Urbanski’s proposal will leave the protesting Protestants with nothing. It will not be acceptable.

Even the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, who argues for church-state separation from a Baptist perspective (that separation is the best way to have religious liberty for all), thinks Urbanski’s proposal is a non-starter:

Proponents of Ten Commandments posting argue the historical legal significance of the document, claiming that keeps the government’s display from being a purely religious one. Now we see one of the potential outcomes of their argument: a court’s suggestion that we take an editing knife to them. And they say those of us who oppose government-sponsored Ten Commandment displays are the ones secularizing America?

The Ten Commandments are sacred text of great religious significance. We should keep it that way. The best way to do that isn’t to post them in government buildings; it’s to resist the temptation to do so.

And what of the plaintiff? Will Five of Ten make the plaintiff happy? Of course not.

The Five of Ten will reinforce the bizarre assertion that basic morality comes from the Bible, not from the need of individuals to cooperate in society. Never mind that not killing or stealing or lying, etc. are basic rules in every civilization known to human history.

Were I the plaintiffs, I might propose the text from the Georgia Guidestones instead! See, they have Ten Recommendations:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Don’t get me wrong, these Recommendations aren’t perfect either. And they’re not always so popular:

But if you want a list of ten things to stick up on the wall, they’re more useful to modern humanity than the Ten Commandments.

This set might also be generally more useful:

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another’s home, show them respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your home annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm young children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.

Now granted, I’d drop #7. That, of course, brings us down to ten!

Which set do you think is best? Or would a combination be useful? How about something completely different?

Related articles:

1. Ten Commandments proposal for Giles County schools is unconstitutional
2. Arguments for Giles County, VA Ten Commandments display test limits of reason

The lapel pins for “chaplains” at the Olympic and Paralymic Games.

When a BBC sitcom about the Olympics featured a clash of religious faiths no one thought that life was about to imitate art – but it has.

Religious symbols have been banned from a "faith" badge designed for chaplains at the London Games in case they cause offence.

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog) asked its advisory committee of faith representatives to suggest ideas for the lapel pin, which is intended to be the lasting symbol of the role of religious leaders for London 2012.

But plans for a design featuring symbols of each of the nine faiths represented on the committee were rejected — because not all religious believers would feel "comfortable" wearing symbols of other faiths.

In episodes of the BBC comedy Twenty Twelve broadcast in March and April, the "Olympics deliverance team" faces a crisis when plans for its "shared belief centre" offend the Algerian team, which threatens to boycott the event.

Yep, reality imitated art. And just like the TV show, the real organizers went into a tizzy.

The final badge — presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury and eight other faith leaders when they toured the Olympic park — simply features the word “faith” and a globe, alongside the Olympics and Paralympics logos.

Mr Morton said it was “perfect” material for the sitcom — albeit too late for the final three episodes which will be broadcast before the opening of the Games in July.

He said: “You can just imagine the discussions, and what’s really funny and sad is the amount of care, thought and sensitivity that has gone into producing something that is so utterly bland.

“By the time any possibility of offence has been addressed then any meaning has been washed away as well.”

Why is the Archbishop of Canturbury touring the park with other (competing) faith leaders in the first place? Is this a religious event? Not the last time I checked!

Here’s an idea. How about one of these options:

• Lapel pins that say “Chaplain”.
• Lapel pins that say “Chaplain” with a symbol of the particular chaplain’s religion(s) of choice.
• No chaplains. If teams want to bring religious leaders with themselves, let them do so on their own dime. Funded by donations, not tax dollars, thank you very much.

Which do you prefer? I’m sure you can guess which I’d favor.

Related articles:

1. Of Courthouses and Creches: The Crucial Difference Between Public and Private Religious Symbols
2. Government support for religious intolerance: A bad idea at home and abroad

The Telegraph (no, not the Daily Mail) spoke with a leading expert:

Prof Bill Reilly, ex-president of the British Veterinary Association, said cutting the throats of lambs, chickens and other animals without stunning them breaches legal requirements because it causes significant pain, fear and distress.

British and EU law permits the method of religious slaughter to account for Muslim and Jewish dietary practices, but stipulates that the animals must not be caused "unnecessary suffering."

Prof Reilly called for the practice to be dramatically curbed, suggesting that some slaughterhouses are refusing to stun animals simply to cut costs, rather than for religious reasons.

Writing in the Veterinary Record, he said the number of animals having their throats slit while still fully conscious – a practice known as non-stun slaughter – was "unacceptable".Referring to a report by the former Animal Welfare Council he claimed that "such a massive injury could result in very significant pain and distress", particularly because the throat has a large number of nerve endings.

It is often said by freethinkers that “your religious liberty ends where my face begins”. It seems in the case of methods of slaughter, that needs to be extended to “your religious freedom ends where tolerable treatment of livestock begins”.

Or, at the very least, I as a consumer should have the right to know if my dinner was tortured to death, shouldn’t I?

Not in the European Union!

In 2010, the EU proposed new regulations requiring the labeling of all halal- and kosher-tortmented meat. Seems many producers were following these barbaric guidelines not to meet the demands of religiously-observant Jews and Muslims, but because slaughtering without stunning is cheaper. The response?

Animal-welfare legislation in Europe requires that abattoirs stun all animals prior to slaughter unless they are being ritually killed according to the practices of a non-Christian religion.

The move to require halal and kosher meat producers to provide consumers with more information on the packaging of their products has enraged Jewish and Muslim organisations, with the latter claiming that the move has little to do with animal welfare but, rather, reflects a pan-European bias against Islam.

Earlier this year, members of the European Parliament, by a vote of 559 to 54, passed Amendment 205 to the food-information regulation, which would require all meat from ritually slaughtered animals to be labelled: “Derived from animals that have not been stunned prior to slaughter.”

A committee of the EU Council of Ministers vetoed the measure earlier this month . . .

Yep, the EU-wide legislation was vetoed despite 10 to 1 support in the European Parliament. It’s “Islamophobic”. Or, more likely, it’d cut their customer base.

The UK tried to at least provide information to its consumers . . . and failed last month:

Conservative MP Philip Davies wanted customers in the UK to be fully informed about what products they bought however Labour’s Gorton MP Sir Gerald Kaufman spoke out.

MPs voted to block the Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat) Bill 73 to 70, a majority of three.

Mr Davies said while Muslims make up three per cent of the UK population it is estimated Halal meat makes up around 25 per cent of meat sales in Britain.

He said: “There are some people in this country who would wish to ban Halal and Kosher meat on animal welfare grounds. I am not one of those people – I’m happy for people to make the decision themselves – but they should be allowed to make an informed decision.

“My Bill does not favour one or the other – it is to help everybody.”

Why should this fail? Can you guess?

Sir Gerald said he did not believe Mr Davies’ Bill was anti-Semitic, but said he strongly opposed it because it was inconsistent by picking out only the practices of Muslims and Jews.

Sir Gerald told the Commons: “This has profound connotations of religious feelings and I would be letting my own faith down, my family, I would be letting my many, many good decent, fine religious Muslims in my constituency down if I did not state my total opposition to this Bill.”

That’s right, politically-correct “multiculturalism” wins again. Who loses? UK consumers, who want to know where their food comes from. And livestock that are tortured to death for the sake of Bronze Age superstitions. They lose, too.

I predict that wise producers who stun before slaughter will begin labeling their products accordingly.

I further predict that they will in short order be decried as anti-Semites and Islamophobes breeding division for so doing.

Think I’ll be proven wrong? Stay tuned and let’s find out!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, dinner’s ready. Grass-fed beef that was killed instantaneously and painlessly by a bullet to the brain. Yes, I do know where my meat comes from and how it was slaughtered. Do you?

No related articles.

Mmmmmm . . . People!

Seems some people believe that baby corpses have magical healing and vitality-enhancing powers. They are selling powdered baby capsules.

Thousands of pills filled with powdered human flesh have been discovered by customs officials in South Korea, it was revealed today.

The capsules are in demand because they are viewed as being a medicinal ‘cure-all’.

The grim trade is being run from China where corrupt medical staff are said to be tipping off medical companies when babies are aborted or delivered still-born.

Seems dead babies, rhinoceros horns, and human placenta powder have been sold for years as part of Chinese “medicine” to promote health and vitality.

You’ll be thrilled to know it’s illegal–the dead baby powder, anyway–and the dead baby pills have been confiscated.

Horrific as we sophisticated Westerners may find this bizarre form of woo, let us not forget that it wasn’t too long ago that your local pharmacy just might be able to get you human corpse powder:

Amazingly, however, mummy smuggling not only still happens today, it was once so common that enough mummies were available to be ground up and sold as powder, archaeologists reveal.

“Mummy powder was something you could buy in pharmacies up to 1920, because people thought it was a type of medication,” said Egyptologist Regine Schulz, curator of ancient art at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore.

Yes, it was only less than a century ago that Americans and other Westerners gave up cannibalism. (The ritual cannibalism of Catholicism excepted.) Sure, ours were somewhat more aged than theirs, but dead human powder is dead human powder. Perhaps a good protein source, but not much else.

We can only hope that our Asian neighbors will catch up with Western society and stop consuming corpses for supposed health benefits soon.

These days, we have sugar pills instead.

Related articles:

1. Islamic Countries Show Tolerance: Boycotting UN Panel on Gay Human Rights
2. Zogby, Gallup both find Democrats in Congressional lead

Trouble is, we disagree on who’s doing the discrediting. I think it’s the Christians. Like him.

MICHAEL Coren is on a mission to prove that there is a monumental conspiracy to destroy Christianity:

I believe the evidence is overwhelming … that Christianity is the main, central, most common, and most thoroughly and purposefully marginalized, obscured, and publicly and privately misrepresented belief system in the final decades of the twentieth century and the opening years of the twenty-first century.

This quote appeared in the National Post last week in an interview with the Toronto-based writer and broadcaster, who has just published Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity.

In a Q & A session with religion reporter Charles Lewis, Coren said:

Christians are marginalized, they’re mocked, they’re told their views don’t belong, they’re told to keep their views out of the public square and keep their religion at home. And where it can be quite sinister is at universities where Christian students they’re told that their ideas are stupid. I’ve even seen it with my children who are in university. Somehow Christianity is not a valid area of thought any longer. You can bring your socialism, your feminism, your homosexuality, your anti-Zionism into the class but if you bring your Christianity that’s not to be taken seriously.

Hmm. Let’s see what the things “you can bring” are, and compare them to Christianity, shall we?

• Socialism: An economic system and political/ethical debate about what areas of life in which government should be involved.
• Feminism: Social theory and political debate about the civil rights of women.
• Homosexuality: Social theory and political debate about the civil rights of non-heterosexuals.
• Anti-Zionism: Political debate about the ethical issues surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel by European colonial powers, and the ongoing actions of that state in relationship to its displaced prior residents. Also, concern over the billions of US tax dollars exported to support said state.
• Christianity: A religion which grew out of Judaism, often used as justification for opinions and attitudes toward all of the above. Based on faith (that is, the assertion of knowledge without evidence), rather than reason or empirical investigation of evidence or circumstances.

One of these things is not like the other. Can you guess which?

Coren is right that Christianity is the religion most focused upon as problematic in Western civilization. Why? Because it’s the dominant religion.

If the United States were dominated by Muslims with their Shari’a law, or Hindus with their caste system, or Cthulics with their . . . um . . . human sacrifices to raise Cthulhu so he can eat us all, well, then that religion would be the primary focus of attention by those of us who don’t want our government’s laws, and the distribution of our tax dollars, decided on the basis of someone else’s religion.

But Christianity is the dominant religion. A religion which wants to keep women and homosexuals second-class citizens. A religion which demonizes any form of government “safety net” (well, other than subsidies to agribusiness and oil companies) as “socialism” because it means that vulnerable people turn to the state for help instead of the churches . . . and that those vulnerable people aren’t forced to hear about Jesus in order to get food. A religion which promotes sending billions of dollars to Israel each year, with no concern whatsoever for that state’s actions against its neighbors.

Who’s discrediting Christianity again?

Related articles:

1. There are other religions in the world besides Christianity | Daily Progress
2. Religious Right Author Says Romney's Mormon Faith Makes Him Unfit For Office

Symantec (creator of Norton Antivirus software) released information about the top sources of malware on the Internet. Porn sites likely won’t give you viruses, but religious and ideological sites? That’s another story.

Web wanderers are more likely to get a computer virus by visiting a religious website than by peering at porn, according to a study released on Tuesday.

"Drive-by attacks" in which hackers booby-trap legitimate websites with malicious code continue to be a bane, the US-based anti-virus vendor Symantec said in its Internet Security Threat Report.

Websites with religious or ideological themes were found to have triple the average number of "threats" that those featuring adult content, according to Symantec.

"It is interesting to note that websites hosting adult/pornographic content are not in the top five, but ranked tenth," Symantec said in the report.

"We hypothesize that this is because pornographic website owners already make money from the Internet and, as a result, have a vested interest in keeping their sites malware-free; it’s not good for repeat business."

I think this is just another example of a failure to be specific in wishmaking. When Rick Perry had his day of prayer for rain in Texas, he got what he asked for; he just didn’t specify a rain of water instead of fire.

And we all know that religious site developers, eager to be the next smash hit, are always rubbing their genie lamps, Bibles, Korans, or other inanimate objects and wishing that their latest blog post or video will “go viral”.

They want this:

They get this:

Hey! That's not what I meant!

Haven’t they ever seen the Wishmaster movies?

Has anybody seen the Wishmaster movies?

No related articles.

This week, they announced the selection of a new executive director, Republican lobbyist Edwina Rogers.

While it is well within SCA’s rights to interview and select a director by any means they desire, the how and why of Ms. Rogers’ selection raises some questions.

Crommunist comments,

I don’t know what the process was, and neither do most people who are hearing the news. Those who do know are being very quiet about it, aside from a couple of puff pieces on their website that barely scratch the surface. They would very much like us to believe that there exists a large, untapped well of secular support to be had on the political right, and that Edwina Rogers is just the person to mobilize it. I hope that pans out for them, because they’re at serious risk of losing their momentum and support through a stupid decision that was handled badly.

It’s hard to argue that SCA could have handled the announcement better. Far better. SCA has allowed the story to get ahead of them, instead of coming out and staying in front of the story. They didn’t frame the discussion.

Isn’t that what a lobbying organization is supposed to do? Isn’t that what a new executive director would instruct her staff to do?

Crommunist offers his advice:

If you’re going to make a decision like this that you know is going to be controversial, you line up a bunch of opinion leaders and get them to lend their full-throated support. You put the reasons why you made this choice front and centre. You go on a full media blitz (which, in this case, would mean getting guest posts up on Skepchick and Pharyngula and RDF and CFI and anywhere else you have a bunch of people looking), defending your choice and explaining the myriad reasons why you found the best person for the job. You have all this put in place before you make the announcement.

I’m not so concerned that SCA picked a Republican, even if it is a Republican who contributed to Rick Perry’s Presidential campaign. OK, maybe that bit does concern me.

You remember Rick Perry, right? The man who launched his Presidential campaign with “The Response“, a radical-Christian-Right prayer festival where evil secularists were bashed almost as frequently as homosexuals and feminists and Muslims?

She also donated $2,300 to John McCain in 2008, and $2,000 to GW Bush in 2004.

I’m sure that was just part of her job. Greasing the skids, as it were.

But considering Rogers very recently (3rd quarter of 2011) was donating to one of the most vociferously anti-secular GOP candidates on the primary circuit, how does she explain her apparent change of heart? It’s not like she was donating to Jon Huntsman, who came across as quite possibly more pro-separation than Obama.

Well, that’s pretty much the problem. She doesn’t touch on why she contributed to Perry, or McCain, or GW “faith-based initiatives” Bush:

Have you always been a secularist? How do you describe yourself and your beliefs?
I am a nontheist, but tend to shy away from labels, because I think they have a way of creating division within the movement. I have always been a firm secularist and an ardent supporter of the separation of religion and government. I am passionate about increasing the respect for nontheists in the United States and protecting the secular character of our government. I think that America is a place where there should be no religious test for participation in political life. I certainly feel that theists should be fully able to participate in public life—but no more than nontheists. I am not here to end religion.

And in the introductory interview, SCA didn’t ask. Maybe they did in the job interviews; we don’t know.

Now, it’s entirely possible that Ms. Rogers has the best skill set of the available applicants to enhance the SCA’s standing and influence. It’s also possible that she gave money to candidates specifically to aid her own chances of getting work.

But Rick Perry? How can an “ardent supporter of the separation of religion and government” turn around and donate to a man who used taxpayer funds to promote an evangelicals-only prayer rally, which he used to launch a Presidential campaign?

And as Crommunist aptly pointed out, why weren’t these matters addressed and these questions answered before the “hey, we hired her, ain’t that great?” announcement? Did nobody at SCA think the questions would be asked? Did they expect that SCA would be immune to criticism or questioning?

I truly wish Ms. Rogers the best, and hope she lives up to her employer’s expectations and does an excellent job with SCA. I look forward to seeing great things from her.

Perhaps as her first act, she can teach her staff how to frame their message.

Related articles:

1. Humanists eager to work with new Secular Coalition for America executive director Edwina Rogers
2. Secular Coalition Announces New Executive Director, Edwina Rogers

This is the antithesis of religious liberty.

Or Chadash, a Liberal congregation in Vienna, has applied for official status to ensure it has a say in religious matters under Austria’s new religion law.

On Tuesday, the European Union for Progressive Judaism launched a letter-writing campaign urging Austria’s minister of education, arts and culture, Claudia Schmied, to recognize the progressive congregation’s application to become a “Kultusgemeinde,” or official Jewish community, under public charter.

Liberal Jewish leaders say the new religion law passed April 19 and due to go into effect within weeks would concentrate power in the hands of Orthodox Jewish groups on all religious matters — from conversions to marriages to burials. The law, which applies to all religions in Austria, establishes so-called religious corporations, or boards, consisting of representatives from state-recognized religious communities.

The five recognized Jewish communities in Austria are Orthodox, and they would be empowered to make religious decisions, including whether or not to approve recognition for a new community, for the nation’s approximately 10,000 Jews. At stake is state funding for schools, teachers and infrastructure.

Thus, proponents argue, it is urgent for the 20-year-old Or Chadash to be granted official status before the law goes into effect.

Interestingly enough, the European Union for Progressive Judaism is petitioning only to see this Liberal congregation accepted as an “official” Jewish community, so it has a vote on the religious boards.

They are not fighting instead to overturn the law, a law which infringes upon the human rights of the people of Austria to worship according to their conscience.

Can you imagine a world where the official, government-sanctioned “religious board” decides who can and can’t get married, or who’s worthy of burial in a particular cemetery? And where those boards also get to direct state funding to the schools their majority prefers, thus perpetuating their own stranglehold on the body politic?

This law is a horror. Why aren’t we hearing an uproar about this disaster in the making?

Related articles:

1. Egypt Shows Us Why Religion-State Separation is Important
2. Separation of Church and State – Not Just a Good Idea, It’s the Law

Not to worry, Americans are far ahead of the average, as always! Er, because nearly 1 in 4 (22%) Americans think the world will end within their lifetimes:

Nearly 15 percent of people worldwide believe the world will end during their lifetime and 10 percent think the Mayan calendar could signify it will happen in 2012, according to a new poll.The end of the Mayan calendar, which spans about 5,125 years, on December 21, 2012 has sparked interpretations and suggestions that it marks the end of the world.

“Whether they think it will come to an end through the hands of God, or a natural disaster or a political event, whatever the reason, one in seven thinks the end of the world is coming,” said Keren Gottfried, research manager at Ipsos Global Public Affairs which conducted the poll for Reuters.

“Perhaps it is because of the media attention coming from one interpretation of the Mayan prophecy that states the world ‘ends’ in our calendar year 2012,” Gottfried said, adding that some Mayan scholars have disputed the interpretation.

Responses to the international poll of 16,262 people in more than 20 countries varied widely with only six percent of French residents believing in an impending Armageddon in their lifetime, compared to 22 percent in Turkey and the United States and slightly less in South Africa and Argentina.

These beliefs persist despite the high-profile failure of Harold Camping’s Family Radio “Rapture” non-event last year. Why do you suppose that is?

Is it because people are eager to feel important, and being part of the “last generation” gives them meaning?

Is it a response to stress, seeing climate change and war and poverty and rapid population growth?

Is it simply the proliferation of religious fervor and end-of-the-world nonsense in the media, from movies to books to the “Left Behind” video game series?

We do know a few things: The less educated, the poor, and the young are more likely to think the world will end soon:

Gottfried also said that people with lower education or household income levels, as well as those under 35 years old, were more likely to believe in an apocalypse during their lifetime or in 2012, or have anxiety over the prospect.

Unfortunately, it appears that the poll did not gather data on why people think the world will end, or what “end of the world” means to them. Nuclear war? Ecological collapse? Civilization imploding? Asteroid impact? Or the planet being physically destroyed by an imaginary deity?

Seems there’s more polling to be done to get to the bottom of this. Not to worry; the world won’t be ending any time soon.

No related articles.

He has declared that he will be “transformed” June 30 of 2012, along with his followers. Check this one out:

Doris Rosado watches her teenage daughters, Ninette and Kiara Mongrut, get the numbers “666” tattooed on their wrists, beaming with pride. The number typically conjures up biblical symbolism tied to the Antichrist, but this St. Catharines, Ont., family belongs to a obscure Christian sect for which “666” is a positive symbol of their group’s messianic leader.

“They wanted to do it,” Ms. Rosado, 45, said at the St. Catharines tattoo parlour where her daughters were inked. “But now it’s more important because we’re counting down… I’m so proud.”

For this family, and other members of Growing in Grace International, these tattoos are a way of demonstrating their faith as true believers of Jose de Luis de Jesus — who they fervently believe is the second coming of Jesus Christ — before a day of reckoning they believe will wipe out most of humanity.

But there’s more!

Mr. de Jesus also predicts that the “transformation” will endow him, and his loyal followers, with superpowers, such as the ability to fly and walk through walls, said Axel Cooley, the bishop’s daughter.

“[We can] run and not get tired. Go through fire and not get burned…. I could be talking to you right now, and then I could go through that wall. So, you’ll know there is a difference,” Cooley said.

The global economy will collapse as currency markets “fail” and governments around the world will be forced to resign. These predictions are based on biblical passages, she adds.

“The world’s not going to end. What is going to end is the system…. All the governments and the currencies will fall. The new government of the 666 will take over,” she said.

Growing in Grace has followers in 130 nations around the world.

While I don’t anticipate any apocalypse June 30, is it possible that crazed cultists will attempt an insurrection? It sure sounds that way:

In a video posted on YouTube and on their website, cegenglish.com, Mr. de Jesus called for his followers to enter into the final countdown until, he says, their government will come into power. “A government where we will govern everything with a perfect order. This is my last farewell for you. The time is finished… We will see each other soon in Armageddon.” [Emphasis added.]

Guess we’ll find out July 1.

Related articles:

1. Falun Gong: Cult Invading United States!
2. Frodology: The Scumbag Cult

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is urging President Obama to protect freedom of conscience by ending the unconstitutional National Day of Prayer.

In order to get its ‘We the People’ petition into the hands of the president, FFRF needs to gather 25,000 electronic signatures at the White House website by May 31. ‘We the People’ is set up by the White House to offer the public a way to petition the President.

Each year by Congressional decree, the prayer day takes place on the first Thursday of May. FFRF notes that evangelicals such as Rev. Billy Graham “hijacked the Constitution” when they lobbied to establish the National Day of Prayer in 1952, and set the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer date, by act of Congress in 1988.

The petition reads: 

“We petition the Obama Administration to: End the unconstitutional National Day of Prayer, which violates the 1st Amendment. God & government are a dangerous mix.

Congress, in 1952, abridged freedom of conscience when, at the instigation of Rev. Billy Graham, it designated a National Day of Prayer, ordering the President to proclaim ‘a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.’ The U.S. President has neither the moral nor the constitutional authority to dictate to Americans to pray, much less to tell citizens what to pray about or set aside an entire day for prayer. Whether to pray, or believe in a god who answers prayer, is an intensely precious, personal decision protected under our First Amendment as a paramount matter of conscience. Don’t let Christian evangelicals hijack our secular Constitution.”

Even though FFRF boasts over 18,000 members nationwide, it needs your help for this petition to go “viral” and garner the requisite 25,000 signatures ensuring Obama will respond. FFRF asks members and avid social media users to pass this along to friends and family. 

FFRF has been challenging the National Day of Prayer for years, and, in 2010, won a historic federal court ruling declaring the public law unconstitutional. In her eloquent ruling, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb stated: “The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy.” She affirmed that Congress may no more declare a National Day of Prayer than it “may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.”

Obama appealed the ruling and an appeals court threw out the case, not on its merits, but on the question of standing. FFRF has two other ongoing lawsuits challenging gubernatorial prayer proclamations.

Thomas Paine advised: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must undergo the fatigue . . . of supporting it.”

Please take a moment to add your name to FFRF’s petition to the White House. 

INSTRUCTIONS: SIGNING THE PETITION

(Senior citizen freethinkers may wish to elicit the help of a grandchild and encourage him/her sign the petition too!)

1. Open your web browser and ‘copy’ and ‘paste’ either of the two links into the address bar:

http://wh.gov/EUP

OR

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/end-unconstitutional-national-day-prayer-which-violates-1st-amendment-god-government-are-dangerous/b0nPWrTK

2. If you don’t already have a ‘We the People’ account at the White House website, follow the steps to create a username and password. (Note: The White House prompt on passwords specifically encourages at least six characters, a few numbers, and upper and lower case letters.)

3. Either choose ‘sign in’ or ‘create an account’

4. Once you’re logged in, click the green ‘sign the petition’ button

5. Click ‘promote the peition’ and share it with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. 

CALL THE PRESIDENT

Tell the White House that you are offended and excluded by the National Day of Prayer Presidential Proclamation and that you don’t believe in a god that answers prayer, much less that government has a right to push citizens to pray. 

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

P.S. If you use Facebook, remember you can find freethought graphic choices to use as your Facebook Timeline cover photo. Several specifically are geared to be used on the National Day of Prayer (tomorrow, May 3) as a protest. 

Thank you for your help! 

Related articles:

1. Join Facebook protest of National Day of Prayer
2. Obama Pander-o-Rama: Will Defend Unconstitutional National Day of Prayer

Good old “activists” – anti-vax activists, pro alt med activists, anti-GM crops activists. Hooray for crop failure and famine!

Scientists working on a new generation of genetically modified crops have sent an open letter to anti-GM protesters pleading with them not to destroy “years of work” by attacking their research plots.

The activist group, Take the Flour Back, has pledged to carry out a “decontamination” at a test site in Hertfordshire, where agricultural researchers are growing the world’s first genetically modified wheat that can repel insect pests by emitting a repellent-smelling substance.

Seems the “Take the Flour Back” Luddites think destroying research plantations is a good way to . . . um . . . ensure we don’t make progress in improving crop yields, or something.

Sense About Science has a petition you can sign and circulate.

The Religious Right hasn’t leapt onto the anti-GM bandwagon . . . yet. But I won’t be surprised if they do. After all, isn’t it a matter of scientists “playing god”?

Related articles:

1. Farah: Gays And Radical Muslims Working Together To Destroy America
2. Robertson: Asteroid Will Destroy The Earth

Can you find the subtle reference to The Ring? Look closely!

No? Me neither.

But (un)fortunately for us, someone has. And they’re making a movie!

Titled “Harmless”, this latest addition to the overexposed “found footage” genre has a simple plot with all the subtlety of a nuclear warhead. A man finds in his home a box of pornography. Viewing it releases unspeakably evil demonic forces into his home, destroying his family. Because, you see, pornography is not “Harmless”.

Starring and directed and written by Richard Praytor, and starring and produced by Beverly Taylor, and featuring kids who happen to be theirs, this flick is sure to be a blockbuster in the church-basement circuit.

Check out this trailer. And watch for the oh-so-subtle influence of The Ring. It’s like a sly inside joke!

By “sly inside joke”, of course, I mean “primary component of a major film franchise directly lifted and inserted into this steaming pile of ‘found footage’”.

Says Beverly, “This is a really important movie because I think that it communicates to families not only how quickly a thing like pornography or sexual addiction can affect a family, but how in particular it affects women.”

According to “Hopeless”–er, “Harmless”–it affects families by making doors open and close on their own (as in every haunted house movie ever made), and by causing children to see and draw terrible scary monsters (I’m sure this started before The Amityville Horror, but that’s my first recollection), and by having the girl from The Ring appear in a cemetery.

What a cemetery has to do with a movie about pornography, I’m not sure. Maybe it’s a really sexy cemetery.

Beverly promises it will be “a really scary movie”.

Scary like Reefer Madness, I expect.

Are there serious issues around pornography? For some people yes, absolutely. A clip from the movie does touch on one aspect, as the wife “Jennifer” (played by Beverly) complains about these perfect women in the porno and how she can’t compete with that. And yes, there are cases where sex addiction or an obsession with pornography can exacerbate an already weak relationship. Jealousy and increasing emotional distance can become serious problems.

But a box of porn can’t throw your wife down the stairs, no matter how much you might want it to.

Praytor and Taylor are taking a serious issue and creating a propaganda piece about it–attempting to scare people from the “demonic influence” of pornography–rather than tackling the real issues head on. Why?

It’s a matter of agenda. If their agenda were to find ways to help families, couples, and singles struggling with pornography, there are a number of ways to go. A comedy. A serious drama. A documentary. Any of these could be used to help those who have a problem recognize it as such, and figure out how to get needed assistance and relationship counseling.

Their agenda is instead to (quite literally) demonize pornography. In their view, pornography is not something that has any place in a relationship, or in any Christian home.

What’s that? Who said anything about “Christian”? Onslaught Media is a Colorado Springs-based firm, a significant component of whose work is Christian-missions/ministry in nature. Prayton himself stars in the “Men’s Ministry” video.

So, we see their aim. This film is setting out to be the Reefer Madness of pornography, and will likely be taken about as seriously by the same sort of people. Prayton and Taylor will be preaching only to the smut-shunning choir.

How, you ask, can this hamfisted propaganda piece possibly be made? Why, with help from crowdsource funding site Kickstarter, of course.

Or not. Oops.

I’m almost sorry for them.

You see, Kickstarter allows you to set the amount you wish to raise, and set the time limit–up to 90 days. If you don’t reach your target amount within that time frame, you don’t get funded.

Seems that with only 15 days left to go to reach their $12,500 goal, the makers of “Hopeless” (dang, I did it again!) have found 5 backers for a total of $225.

Could it be that Kickstarter wasn’t the place to go for a right-wing, anti-pornography propaganda piece?

No related articles.

"Breakdowns are good for you" said the text glaring from the website of Malcolm Bowden, the same evangelical Christian who just a few hours earlier had been on Channel 4′s 4thought promoting his ideas about the root causes and cures for clinical depression (transcript available here). Bowden claims that depression and many other mental illnesses are "very deliberately decided" by the person suffering from them and that the former is a "behavioural problem, rooted in pride, self-centredness, and self-pity". The proposed solution? To submit ourselves to the Christian God in total humility, and to find peace with this deity through living our lives for others.

The irony is that many common thought processes associated with depression actually fulfill most of these criteria: the lack of self-esteem or belief in talents are examples of taking humility to extremes, and the near constant concern about what others are thinking can drive us to live our lives according to the will of other people. Advocating these as cures is highly questionable when they are both key symptoms of the illness . . .

Maybe Bowden is advocating a form of homeopathy?

Nah.

Band’s youth does not preclude her being entirely correct. Just this evening I spoke with a retired psychologist on the supposed value of faith in treatment; after all, for some, faith in a deity of some sort can be very freeing. Meditation (with or without a religious context) can lower blood pressure and improve concentration, for example. Through faith, the individual can abdicate all responsibility for his current condition, and lay it on an external force to fix. This is the very foundation of the highly successful (if you consider a 5% success rate “highly successful”) twelve-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous. “Let go, and let gods.”

The psychologist’s response? She informed me that her goal, and that of any responsible psychologist in her opinion, is to encourage the patient to take personal responsibility. Only through taking responsibility and letting go of what she called the “Big Tit in the Sky” could the patient grow and self-actualize.

Bowden is advocating the opposite. He thinks that those with clinical depression should not grow, should not take responsibility. They should instead be shamed for not considering themselves powerless and giving an imaginary friend credit for their successes and blame for their failings. Bowden preaches self-inflicted infantilization as treatment. They should “Let go, and let Sky Tit.”

Band concludes by offering Bowden a spoonful of well-deserved shame for his opportunistic, parasitic “evangelizing”:

Using the distress of people suffering from depression to further a potentially destructive and harmful opinion for personal gain is not virtuous behaviour.

Can I get an “Amen”?

Related articles:

1. Church and Freedom from Depression: Cause or Effect?
2. Harvey Suggests that Marriage Equality Leads to Childhood Depression

High on the Islamist-dominated Parliament’s agenda is allowing every man up to six hours after his wife’s death to have “farewell sex” with her corpse. Oh, and also giving girls the freedom to not be burdened with silly things like education or employment. And lowering the minimum marriage age for girls to 14, freeing them from the burden of waiting for adulthood before marriage.

Secularists in Egypt, along with most rational people, are outraged.

Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.

The appeal came in a message sent by Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, addressing the woes of Egyptian women, especially after the popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.

She was referring to two laws: one that would legalize the marriage of girls starting from the age of 14 and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death.

According to Egyptian columnist Amro Abdul Samea in al-Ahram, Talawi’s message included an appeal to parliament to avoid the controversial legislations that rid women of their rights of getting education and employment, under alleged religious interpretations.

“Talawi tried to underline in her message that marginalizing and undermining the status of women in future development plans would undoubtedly negatively affect the country’s human development, simply because women represent half the population,” Abdul Samea said in his article.

I still haven’t figured out where the US’ Religious Wrong gets the idea that American secularists want to team up with the Islamists. Have you?

No related articles.

Why blow yourself up when you can get an “infidel” to convert and blow himself up instead?

Police Oracle reports:

Islamic extremist groups in Europe are becoming more diverse, ethnically mixed and are attracting an increasing number of new Muslim converts, an analyst has said.

Speaking at the Counter Terror Expo, Lorenzo Vidino – an academic specialising in Islamic extremism issues – said fundamentalist websites previously only seen in Arabic were also now being translated into [a variety of European] languages.

He went on the point out that the dynamic of Islamic extremism across Europe had also been changing with countries such as Germany – which had previously not been affected in any meaningful way – now facing an issue.

Further, recruits are ethnically diverse, including European natives; terrorists are finding roles for men, women, and recent converts. Aiding in recruitment, so-called “jihadist entrepreneurs” are developing and distributing video games focused on engaging in terrorism.

No, you can’t get them at Best Buy. At least not yet.

But surely that’s just a sign of American failure to fully embrace multiculturalism, right? After all, it’s working out so well for Europe.

No related articles.

Darn.

On Wednesday, a source close to the Gingrich campaign told NPR that he would officially suspend his campaign next week, and was likely to formally endorse Mitt Romney.

The circus of a GOP nomination process was effectively over a couple of weeks ago, but even then, Gingrich promised to keep fighting “all the way to Tampa”. Just days ago, as he was losing another 5 primaries (in some cases, coming in third behind Ron Paul), he was still mentioning that Romney didn’t have the 1,144 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Never mind that Gingrich, should he continue, would need to collect a whopping 96% of the outstanding delegates to hit 1,144.

But now, Gingrich appears to be looking at his tired, withered campaign much as he looked at his first wife. Or his second wife. Sure, he’d promised to be there until the end, but . . . well . . . It’s just not so interesting anymore, is it?

What will Gingrich do now? He’s already been told not to come back to Faux News. What’s left? Will he be writing a column for WorldNetDaily? Alongside Chuck Norris and Joseph Farah? Maybe co-authoring a “Christian Nation” history book with David Barton?

That’d be a treat.

Farewell, former Speaker. Enjoy a well-earned retirement. Please.

No related articles.

The mirror for the new site is at http://secular.dreamhosters.com.

At the top of the middle front-page column you will see a link that says “WELCOME TO THE NEW SITE!” Click there for a post for comments, concerns, problems, etc.

What to expect:

One minor glitch, which I doubt many folks will really be upset about, is that Google ads won’t show up until the domain name transitions. So there will be (up to) two blank spaces in the right-hand sidebar . . . no worries there.

The basic layout of the front page is the same, but some content has moved around, and some has been added. Upper left is the “local” stuff, as you see here on the old site, but only the first four items have pictures. Then are a bunch without pictures. More headlines in less space.

Under that is “Picks & Pans”, those brief writeups of/commentaries on articles found elsewhere on the web, followed by the Secular Press Releases (with excerpts, not just the titles), Right Wing Watch, and “Blogs”. That “Blogs” section includes Freethinker.co.uk, Religion News Blog, and the BJC’s Blog from the Capitol. Maybe more as time goes by. Finally, the PolitiFact widget, courtesy of the Tampa Bay Times.

On the right, from the top, you’ll see comments, the two latest videos from “Right Wing Watch TV”, then the latest from Freethought Blogs (titles and authors only). There’s a lot of turnover at Freethought Blogs each day, which is why this is separate from the “Blogs” section. If you hover your mouse over the title, you’ll see a little popup giving you the attached description of the item.

“Headlines” provides news headlines from around the web, and “Latest News from Google” gives you the results of a particular Google news query. Both of these are just lists of titles too, but hover your mouse as with the Freethought Blogs titles for the same result.

After an ad (or a blank space), the Secular Resources links appear.

On the individual article pages, everything is pretty much as it is now, except the sidebar is now on the right instead of the left. That should help the content load faster; the sidebar is “extra”, the main reason you come here is to read the articles! So that should get you the articles faster.

There was no outcry, so the little scrolling loadtime-expanding widget is no more.

See you there!

No related articles.

Leave any comments or concerns in the comments for this post.

Thanks!

Related articles:

1. Site Redesign Continues; What Do You Think So Far?
2. Site Renaming Underway – Post 1 of 2

1. Have You Voted in the About.com Readers’ Choice Awards Today?
2. Finalist! About.com Readers’ Choice Awards
3. “Bad Faith” awards — Vote today!