Blasphemy Rights Day - don't take freedom of speech for granted

(Cross-posted to Skeptic Freethought)

As I mentioned earlier in my Weekly Recap, September 30th is International Blasphemy Rights day, as designated by the Center for Inquiry.  It used to be called Blasphemy Day; the word "Rights" was inserted to more accurately represent the purpose behind it.

It's not about infidels and apostates having a day to antagonize people who still hold religious beliefs.  It's not about members of a mainstream religion ritualistically taunting and harassing people of a minority faith.  It's not about goading religious extremists into a murderous rage.

It's about people who value freedom of speech raising awareness of how easily that freedom can be trampled upon.  It's about recognizing that as another set of claims in the marketplace of ideas, religion should not be immune from the same scrutiny, criticism, and satire that we freely apply to other forms of speech.  It's about believing that offending someone's religious sensibilities is not a crime.

Chances are that right now as you read this, you are committing blasphemy against someone's religion.  It might be the clothes or jewelry you're wearing.  It might be a symbol or phrase you have tattooed on your skin.  It might be the person you are in a relationship with or are attracted to.  It might be the "unclean" food digesting in your stomach right now.

Forbidden food AND irreverence to a revered tale!  It's sacrilicious!

It might be the lighthearted joke you made about a traditional practice.  It might be the way you celebrate a certain holiday.  It might be the particular translation of your religion's holy book that you read.  It might be a recent (or centuries old) scientific discovery that you now know as fact.

It might be the fact that you find a particular supernatural claim so absurd that you snicker at the very idea of it.

His Merriness will not be mocked!

The bottom line is that someone somewhere believes that their god hates what you're doing right now, and that person would be deeply offended to know that you're doing it so brazenly.  In some parts of the world, that makes you a criminal who deserves fines, imprisonment, torture, or the death penalty.

If you live in a country where treating religion with anything short of veneration is legal, consider yourself lucky.  Don't take freedom of speech for granted.

Weekly Recap: Censorship, Banned Books, and Blasphemy Rights!

What's this, a dissenting idea?  KILL IT WITH FIRE.

This is a big week for the defense of free speech.  Banned Books Week has begun!  It's time to celebrate those subversive works of the written word that have escaped the eternal memory hole despite a history of censorship.

I still find it amazing that some people are so deathly afraid of words on a page that they feel the need to quarantine (or even incinerate) them like biohazard waste.  Novels, erotica, scientific publications, religious texts, you name it - someone out there is so angry that it exists that they don't want you to be allowed to read it either.

In which I lay out my political principles for the world to see

The Heathen Republican often makes informative posts about the ideological differences between progressive and conservative atheists.  He recently posted a side by side comparison of the core principles of each viewpoint, mentioning their common points of contention.  This post will in part be a response to his, and in part be a statement of my own political views.

Though political quizzes are hardly an infallible gauge of opinion on complex issues, they tend to consistently plot me just about where my sentiments lie.  I'm near the center, on the left side of the axis, and more libertarian than I am liberal/progressive.

Sort of like this.  (politicalcompass.org)

I don't even like the two-dimensional plot much, but it's the most accurate, easy-to-digest model of a person's political views I've seen yet: personal freedom vs. restriction, economic freedom vs. restriction.  I personally think that foreign policy ought to be the third axis, but that's a discussion for another day.

Belated Weekly Recap: Strange Matter, evolution book ban, and honor killings in the UK?

I've been a bit busier than expected for the past week.  To tell the truth, I've mostly been out enjoying the fresh air with my wife and our dog, and just haven't had much time or energy left over to spend at the computer.  Blogging has consequently been on the back burner until now.

Posts going up within the week sometime in the near future (I swear upon Russell's Teapot):

You can't prove it's not there!

• a retrospective post about ten years of September Elevenths and the War on Terror
• a statement of my political principles as a left-libertarian centrist (partly a response to The Heathen Republican)
• a fun post in which I make up completely absurd claims and conspiracy theories
• possibly a Skeptic Freethought post as well, if I think I've come up with something worthy

At least I'm only 24 hours late on my Weekly Recap.  Let's do this.

Weekly Recap: Tea Party vs. libertarians, atheist wedding vows, Little Kropotkin, and education fail!

I'm a bit late getting my posts completed this weekend; I've been doing a lot of running around and have not had as much computer time as usual. My obligatory 9/11 decennial post will be up tomorrow or Tuesday.

Tea Partiers are not libertarians

Skeptic libertarian author Michael Shermer tweeted a link to this video highlighting the very different views of the psuedo-libertarian Tea Party "Patriots" and actual members of the Libertarian Party.

It may get a bit strawman in some parts, but on the whole I'd say it's spot on. I'm certainly not happy about social conservatives commandeering the libertarian label (though I do not consider myself a true libertarian, I agree more with their views than I do with either major party) for their anti-liberty agenda, and I'm all for calling them out on it.

Godless Quote of the Week

Photo credit

"Each time I look to the stars while holding your hand, one fact runs through my mind. From the iron that courses through our veins, to the oxygen that fills our lungs, every piece of me, and every piece of you comes from those stars above us. How amazing it is to know that countless years ago the very atoms that make us both the individuals we are today were perhaps intertwined, interconnected, but most importantly... together."

This is an excerpt from an atheist redditor's wedding vows. I thought it was beautifully written, and I wish I'd been clever enough to pen something like this for my wedding. We had a Christian ceremony, but asked the minister to keep the preaching to a minimum and picked out cookie-cutter vows that didn't contain religious references.

Of course, the minister decided to troll me and insert the phrase "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" at the end of them; people who knew I was an agnostic at the time had a good laugh about that one.

(via Blonde Nonbeliever)

Sunday Subscription Site Suggestion

This week, I'd like my readers to take a look at The Humble Empiricist, a blog written by a Michigan atheist who goes by the name Kropotkin. It's mostly opinion articles, and she states her case in a straightforward, common sense manner. You can also see the video counterpart to her blog on her YouTube channel.

Weekly Absurdity: Buying iPads instead of hiring better teachers

The New York Times recently reported about the fact that the push for cutting-edge technology in classrooms hasn't improved students' learning in any measurable way. To make matters worse, school districts have been laying off teachers while simultaneously shelling out for this expensive technology.

It's not about how much you spend per pupil or what shiny new gadgets you have for your students to learn on. It's about the capable and driven person you have in front of the classroom leading them to skills and knowledge.

(via Secular Right)

Disingenuous fearmongering about the "gay agenda"

(Cross-posted on Skeptic Freethought)

I was recently alerted to this video's existence via a Facebook post by a conservative Christian associate of mine.  It was created by CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family affiliate.

It's more of the same message we often see from social conservative "pro-family" organizations: that "parents" (read: heterosexual Christian parents) should be "concerned" (read: alarmed) about "homosexual indoctrination" (read: teaching kids that they shouldn't regard gay people as horrible, immoral monsters) in schools.

For what it's worth, I know that there are at least a handful of gay activists out there who do have a disdain for heterosexuals and do want special treatment for their orientation.  With a little bit of dressing up, this fringe element serves as a handy strawman for anti-gay activists to reference in videos like this.  Don't be fooled.  The vast majority of homosexuals just want to be who they are without being treated like freaks.  That's your real "gay agenda".

If you don't want to sit through the whole thing, skip to 6:48 for the part that really made my blood boil.

". . . it is clear that these kids are struggling."

Around the 7-minute mark the show's host plays a clip from a "tolerance" video promoted by a gay advocacy group.  In the clip we see teenagers giving their candid perceptions of their own gender identities, followed by the host and her guest reacting with thinly veiled disgust.  They no doubt picked this clip thinking that it represents the worst of the gay indoctrination that students face, and I personally saw nothing wrong with what that clip depicted.  What exactly is wrong with boys not acting masculine?  Girls admitting that they're not 100% feminine?  More importantly, what evidence is there that these kids are "struggling" any more than any other teenager struggles with life?

Of course, that's a rhetorical question.  I know that the people who are alarmed by the blurring of boundaries between gendered behaviors feel that way because it demolishes two immutable categories that they've constructed in their minds.  "Men and women are fundamentally different, even without counting the genitals and physiological differences, and should always behave as such, and you'll never convince me otherwise!" says my social conservative strawman.

What's really damaging is the idea that there can't be middle ground in gender issues, that you're either a manly man, a womanly woman, a girly gay boy, or a butch lesbian.  No room for bisexuals, or even heterosexuals who exhibit personality traits of both genders, exists in this mindset (let alone trans- or intersexuals!).

An admonition for conservatives who aren't anti-gay

I understand that there are plenty of economic conservatives out there who don't have a problem with anyone's sexual orientation or gender identity so long as they're productive citizens. I understand your sentiment that gay advocacy is intruding on public school curriculum with programs like those described in the video, and likewise that lawsuits for the same cause are frivolous and that government intervention on it is excessive. I don't completely agree with that sentiment, but I understand where it comes from.

What secular conservatives should understand is that much of the left-wing sentiment backing this type of aggressive advocacy was forged by the backlash from social conservatives against those homosexuals who have "come out" over the past few decades. Gay rights activists built up this momentum while fighting a culture war for their right to exist in society. Tell the religious zealots who have hijacked the Republican Party to stop fighting culture wars and focus on the economy, and you won't have to listen to this senseless debate any longer.

Weekly Recap: An atheist asks for advice, The Brick Testament, and more billboard controversy!

I saw this in the local paper while at my parents' house.  It may be a cheesy advice column, but it's a good sign to see the atheist viewpoint getting more mainstream exposure.  I have to wonder if the article offended anyone like certain billboards did, however...

Bible stories, told with Legos!

I recently stumbled across The Brick Testament, a series of biblical illustrations creatively built from the versatile plastic blocks we remember from our childhood (or later in life, for that matter).

Nothing is held back.  No detail is too racy, too gory, too contradictory with other details to be acted out with little yellow people.  Go check it out.

Godless Quote of the Week

One attack I’ve heard theists make against atheists is, “So, you atheists think you know everything? You think you’re smart enough to know everything? You think science can figure out everything? There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt…” That quote is from my good friend Mr. Straw Man, but it’s an idea we hear all the time: atheists are arrogant and don’t think they need god, because they’ve got it all figured out. I think people who make that accusation are confusing style with content. I’m a loud, aggressive, strident, outspoken atheist, and I’m an asshole — but what I’m claiming is not in any way arrogant. It couldn’t be more humble. It’s just “I don’t know.”

- magician, skeptic, and crude humorist Penn Jillette, in the intro to his new book God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales.

Sunday Subscription Suggestion

This week I'd like to spotlight Science Sushi, a blog that serves real, raw science without the usual jargon or speculative sensationalism.  The author, Christie Wilcox, is a proud nerd with an affinity for marine life and a penchant for mythbusting.

She infamously ignited a flamewar with proponents of the "organic" agriculture movement by writing a post debunking myths about the "organic" label, and held her ground like a boss.

Weekly Absurdity: Why is this still controversial?

Atheist and secular humanist organizations around the country have been putting up all manner of billboards over the past several months.  Unlike the intentionally incendiary ads sponsored by American Atheists earlier this year, these billboards have all contained a positive message: you don't need to believe in a higher power in order to lead a good life.

One such billboard sponsored by the Center for Inquiry went up in Grand Rapids, Michigan earlier this week:

How offensive!

This message has proven too controversial for many Christians' sensibilities (take a look at some of the comments on the news articles!).  The same billboard was apparently banned in Tennessee for its "offensive" message.  It's interesting how even extremist Christian messages don't cause the same level of controversy.

This, however, is perfectly acceptable.

I know that I've written on this subject before, but it still confounds me.  As always, insecure believers seem to see happy, friendly nonbelievers as the greatest threat to their religion's existence.

(via Friendly Atheist and Skeptic Freethought)

Why some people don't accept evolution: a layperson's perspective

(Cross-posted to Skeptic Freethought)

I’ll come right out and say that I am not especially well-educated in science. I studied the liberal arts in college and never took a course beyond Intro to Biology. I do think that I gained a fundamental literacy of the science through my minimal classroom study (and copious independent reading as a child), to the point that I can understand what science journalists and bloggers are talking about even without being able to make sense of the raw data myself.

Image credit: Ethan Hein

I do understand, at the most basic level, how evolution works and why it works, even if I can’t wrap my head around the intricate processes that drive it. I’d be out of my league attempting to teach it to someone or to debate a creationist on it (a position in which we atheists too often find ourselves, as if we’re all PhD biologists in the minds of creationists).

Even as a layperson (especially as a layperson?) I feel that scientific literacy is a vital part of being an informed citizen. I’m troubled by the widening knowledge gap I see between scientists and everybody else, and particularly by the anti-intellectual sentiment that is rising alongside populism.

Denial in favor of design

To many atheists (and even theists who are skeptics about most everything but gods), it may seem shocking and frustrating that so many people in the United States dismiss evolution as wild conjecture.

When we see the notion of “intelligent design” being taught alongside actual science in biology class as if the two had equal weight, our first reaction may leave a palm-shaped depression in our foreheads (or a forehead-shaped indentation in our desks).

Sure, there are a number of people so hopelessly dedicated to ancient origin stories that they don’t want evolution to be true. It would turn their entire world upside down were they to accept that they are part of a 3 billion year old solar-powered chemical reaction rather than a unique, purposeful creation apart from nature. It would mean to them that they are no better than their animal kin and take away all incentive for civilized behavior in their minds.

The threat of such a crisis of conscience has been used as an argument against evolution since Darwin first proposed it. It was used by the prosecution in the infamous John Scopes trial, and even today is rehashed and regurgitated by creationist groups like Answers in Genesis.

I'm not so sure that there's a way around this roadblock. How does one persuade a person to step over a ledge if said person is utterly convinced that they'll tread onto a slippery slope?

Framing it like a religion instead of science

There are others still who are taken in by deceitful rhetoric like "evolution is just a theory", people who don't believe the science because they don't understand it.

I suspect that a major reason why people don’t “get” evolution is that they try to understand the theory as something that it’s not: an infallible history that’s conveniently spelled out for them. Unfortunately, science doesn’t offer the romance or clarity of religious mythology, no matter how badly our human minds want it to (not to say it can’t be exciting in its own right if you embrace your inner nerd, but most don’t).

The narrative of Darwin on his epic odyssey through the harsh environment of the Galapagos, suddenly experiencing a “eureka!” moment as the idea of natural selection dawns on him, is false. It is nevertheless taught that way to schoolchildren to make the subject more fun (the same goes for the myth of Newton and the falling apple revealing to him the concept of gravity).

On the Origin of Species was a breakthrough 150 years ago, but it isn’t a sacred text. A century and a half of new discoveries have rendered it obsolete, and the biologists of the 2160s will likely say the same about our most cutting-edge scientific literature today.

Unfortunately, people don't seem to want an amendable explanation that says "We can't know for sure, but this is what most probably happened based on what we've found so far." It doesn't satisfy that desire for certainty that nags at all of us. It leaves room for doubt, and makes many people uncomfortable. No, people want an ironclad explanation that says "We know that this is what happened, for these irrefutable reasons."

Science can’t offer that. It’s driven by uncertainty – that’s what leads to new discoveries and new questions to be answered. Until the American public learns to accept that, how can we expect them to accept evolution?