Something You Can Do

Via Bitch, PhD, we see that anti-choice organization Operation Rescue will holding protests outside abortion clinics all over the US and in a few Canadian cities for 40 days starting /september 23rd. You can check their website to see if a clinic in your area is being targeted, and if so, get in touch with them and ask how you can help.

Please do contact the clinic first, and don't just show up to yell at the protesters. The point here is to help protect the clinic's staff and patients from harassment, not to make life just outside their doors even more noisy and tense.

No One Actually Buys this Shit, Right?

I wasn't going to blog about it, because it isn't even my country, but some of the things McCain said last night were insane. I mean I know a certain amount of insanity is needed to retain the RTC vote, but for the sake of my sanity I refuse to believe that *anyone* could be won over by these gems:

• The idea that nuclear power should be safe is a radical environmentalist position


• The use of airquotes when talking about how late-term abortion bans* shouldn't include exceptions for women's "health"


• The idea that military personal, upon leaving the army, should be fast-tracked into teaching positions in public schools without needing to do any training or pass any certification exams or otherwise show that they, you know, can teach

He also completely cracked me up when claimed that his campaign couldn't be held responsible for Palin's "palling around with terrorists" smear because every rally has its fringe elements.

---

*As an aside, I am very angry at Obama right now for coming out in support of banning late-term abortions, and I don't care if he does think there should be exceptions for the life and health of the mother. These late term abortion arguments are a *huge* red herring in the abortion discussion and he should have called McCain out on that. Women don't up and decide, at 8 months gestation, that they'd rather not be pregnant after all, TYVM, bikini season is coming up so let's go have an abortion.** By including exceptions for life/health of the mother (and one assumes that this includes allowing the termination of fetuses that are dying and/or wouldn't survive out of the womb), the only abortions such a ban would prevent are those of women who have been trying to abort since their first trimester but couldn't because they lacked access, or those being considered by women whose social/economic/whatever situation has just changed dramatically, to the point where they no longer feel they can continue with the pregnancy. In addition, supporting late-term abortion bans while allowing earlier abortions pretty much always requires making what Amp calls the "woman, what woman?" argument. That is unfuckingacceptable and Obama should be ashamed of himself. Here's hoping that his enforced-childbirth support is really just pandering to that seeming majority that believe they support such positions only because they don't actually know much about it.

**Although I personally believe that if they did they should still be allowed to have one, because it's still their damn body.

Cuz He's Just That Kind of Guy

Focus on the Patriarchy asks their daddy to pee on Obama's birthday cake.

Not that they're petty or anything.

Hold Nothing Sacred

and lift your glass to P.Z. Myers. He stood up with grace, wit, and courage, to say "I am Spartacus," in the face of overwhelming insanity. I salute him.

The Word Dumb Has Long Ceased to Cover It

IDiots do something massively stupid and hypocritical.

Sciencey bloggosphere acts surprised

Well, no, not really. But now that I've interspersed all those letters with links, I'm not exactly inclined to go back and change my phrasing, so you're stuck with it.

This Week is Christ Awareness Week

No, seriously. I anticipate next week will be Straight White Men Awareness Week.

When the fresh-faced girl first got up in front of my Chemistry class to announce it, and I later saw the people tabling with big posters and everything, I couldn't decide if they were just incredibly stupid and couldn't grasp the principle behind the culturally dominant group not getting its own week, or if they were intentionally antagonizing my school's large and vocal non-Christian (largely Muslim) population. Now that Google has informed me that this is an international phenomenon, I'm completely at a loss. Why did it start? What's the point? And does the Campus Crusade for Christ (I assume it's them since they're the only noisy Christian group on campus) really think that anyone at UofT doesn't know about Jesus?

You May Now Stop Chilling Out

Some time ago I wrote a post about the controversy concerning Philip Pullman's book The Golden Compass at the Halton Catholic School Board. The book had been pulled from shelves at the request of (a) parent(s), pending review by a committee, and I said that this appeared to be a system that could work to keep legitimately offensive material out of the library while not practicing excessive censorship.

Well, it seems that I was right as far as the committee goes. It came back with a recommendation to move the book to the Young Adult section. Unfortunately, the board of trustees has decided to override the committee's recommendation and ban the book anyway on the grounds that it is "not in line with our governing values," that is, it doesn't adhere to the board's religious principles.

All that ire and condemnation that was inappropriate and jumping the gun a month ago is now fully appropriate and timely. Please proceed.

Rachel Maddow Hits It out of the Park

I've become familiar with Rachel Maddow through her frequent appearances on Keith Olbermann's Countdown show, which I watch through Crooks and Liars, and I'm a bit of a fan. At this Pandagon post we see Maddow going head to head with a crazy person who supports abstinence-only education, and she pulls no punches.

My favourite bit is towards the end:

Maddow: If abstinence programs are being used to substitute for programs that actually give people usable information about contraception, STDs and HIV, then they are killing people.

Thank you, Ms. Maddow.

It's also nice to see a host (in this case, Dan Abrams) who doesn't feel he has to be carefully neutral when faced with the choice between hard data and gibbering idiocy.

Okay Everybody, Chill Out.

There's apparently a big flutter (at least Pharyngula's all worked up) because the Halton Catholic school board has pulled a book authored by an atheist from the shelves. I think this is a little out of proportion, though. The parts of the article that I found most interesting, actually, were this:

Scott Millard, manager of library services with the board, told CTV.ca on Friday that the review has been board policy since 1990 and that "any community member has the right to request a re-examination of learning or library material."

and this

After reading the book, the committee will complete an evaluation form that examines a "wide variety of criteria" including grammar, plausibility, language, plot, etc.

It seems from the article that any parent can request an evaluation of any book, and that book will be pulled (not banned, mind, just pulled from public display but available on request) until a committee has made a decision. I don't think this is necessarily a bad policy. I tend to lean towards allowing lots of freedom in what literature should be available, but there's a valid argument to me be made against a school library carrying, for example, hate speech, and this policy could help weed that out, depending on the exact criteria the committee uses. Obviously there's plenty of room for the policy to be abused, as in this case, but if the committee evaluating the book is actually objective (and there's been no indication that they aren't), then the worst that can happen is the book will spend some time behind the counter and everyone's time will have been wasted. Maybe these abuses could be curbed by having a list of valid reasons why books should be reevaluated, and sticking to it.

Speaking of criteria, though, here's what I'm really wondering about: If a parent were to request an evaluation of the Bible, would it pass an unbiased committee? Obviously, finding that committee would be problematic, but if you could. I think it should be tried; at the very least it would be funny.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Apparently, Hamas is training American Muslim college students in terrorist techniques. Now, I don't want to come off as fear mongering here, but I think we all need to be very careful. Muslim girls in American colleges have learned the previously-unknown-to-them terrorist techniques of wearing head scarves, rolling their eyes, and getting up to pee. If we don't act now, no psychotic right-wing Christian speaker will ever be safe from... um... neutral or mildly rude behaviour?

Shit, I can't keep this up. I can't even pretend to follow the reasoning here. Just go read Thers' post cuz it's funny as hell.

x=moron, {x|x ε [Tory], x ε [Tories]}

I'm sure most current and former Ontarians remember the horrors of our last Tory government. Remember that asshole whose funding cuts to health care and education ran into billions of dollars? Remember the Education Minister who never finished highschool? Remember how no one in that government gave a shit what the people they were governing wanted? Good times.

Well, in case you had forgotten, or weren't here for it, or were too young to remember, or just got dropped on your head too many times as a child, and were thinking of voting PC this October, they've just stepped up with an excellent reason why you shouldn't. Not only have they come up with the worst possible solution to the problem of Ontario's publicly funded religious schools (make more of them!), their leader, John Tory, put his foot firmly in his mouth by saying that these brand new public religious schools he wants to fund would be able to teach creationism. Of course he's backpedalling like crazy now, and to be fair, I believe he is sincere in saying that he believes in evolution and meant that creationism would only be taught in religion classes,* as is apparently already the case with Catholic Schools.** But isn't it nice when they shoot themselves so squarely in the foot like that?

And, while we're on the topic, is anyone else annoyed that the Liberals and NDP are a bunch of chickenshit pansies, and the Green Party is the only party with a sensible position on this issue?

I'm actually really annoyed with the Libs and NDP right now. I'd almost rather they agreed with the Tories than take their namby-pamby no-boat-rocking status quo position. Maybe I'm naive, but I expected better from both parties. The status quo is both idiotic and discriminatory. The Tories are at least doing something, and their position does eliminate the discrimination (on the other hand it increases the idiocy, so I'm calling it a draw). Sticking with an bad situation because you'll offend some morons by proposing change is nothing but cowardice.

I'll keep an eye on these pages of The Star to see what's what, but I may end up having to vote Green this time around.

Oh, and this isn't the last time I'll say this before October 10th, I'm sure, but whether you agree with my post or not, if you're a Canadian citizen and an Ontario resident, and you're over 18 years old, please, please, please vote next month. Democracies only work when we participate.

---

*Which is all well and good but ought to be a moot point since public funding should not be fucking going to religion classes in the first place.

**Did you know this? I didn't know this.

Dammit, I Want This Settled!

It is interesting to me that no Calvinist has been willing to address my conclusions about their doctrine of Predestination. Michael Gallagher made some sort of half-hearted attempt, but all he really said was that Calvin was right about the doctrine, because it is supported in the Bible. Now, I am willing to concede that it may be supported in the Bible, but he didn't address the core issue, that is, is this doctrine as cruel and psychopathic as I think it is. If not, why not, and if so, how can any self-respecting person worship the deity depicted therein? Why is it that the same Calvinists who are more than willing to argue with me about homosexuality, global warming, gender roles, the need for salvation in the first place, and on and on, are always ignoring me on this one, central question? I don't understand. Twice now I've had comments about my opinion of this doctrine deleted. Now I'm not interested in being one of those people who runs around posting inflammatory things and then boasts of being deleted or banned. I am honestly and truly interested in discussing this, and the intellectual dishonesty of deleting comments one disagrees with or can't respond to frustrates me to no end. I'm not going to start screaming about Free Speech(TM) here, I understand that people's blogs are their space, and they have every right to censor what is said there. I just find it damned frustrating. I don't understand the mindset that allows someone to dismiss rational discourse as fruitless. And I suppose I could, and perhaps should, just live and let live. But I have a vested personal interest in having the questions about Calvinism posted above answered. I'm not interested in one-upping anyone, or playing gotcha, or otherwise playing rhetorical games to prove my intellectual superiority. That is not what this is about. Like I said, I have a personal interest. It is this: I have a certain belief. Now, like all people, I have a remarkable capacity for self-deception, and I have held on to this belief in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary, but, unlike certain people, the evidence to the contrary does bother me. And it may, eventually, if I don't get better at ignoring it, cause me to lose my belief. I'll tell you what I believe. I believe that, in general, people are basically good. To elucidate: By good I don't mean altruistic. I only mean not evil. A) I believe that, all else being equal, the majority of people would rather see others happy than unhappy, would rather see justice win out. And B) I furthermore believe that there is a limit to how far people will go in self-interest. An amount of suffering to others most would be unwilling to be party to, even at great profit to themselves. The fact of there being a significant minority of people who would worship such a cruel, unjust, psychopathic deity is a great threat to that belief. I would like very much for that fact to go away.

The way I see it, there are three options:
1) Calvinism and predestination are not as I have described them. There is something I am missing, or something I have unwittingly added. Those who subscribe to Calvinism simply do not hold the beliefs I have ascribed to them.

2) Calvinism is exactly as I have described, but there is some other factor I have not seen and have failed to account for, that makes the worship of the Calvinist deity okay. And one's own salvation does not fit the bill. See my belief (B).

3) Calvinism is exactly as I have described, and people really do worship a cruel and unjust deity, and they are just completely okay with that.

Now I would prefer very much for option (1) to be true, although option (2) might cut it as well, which is why I am here, practically begging a Calvinist, any Calvinist to come and talk to me. Not debate, not joust, just answer my questions. And if it turns out that option (3) is the truth, what can I say? I'll probably keep on believing in the basic goodness of people, because I just can't help it, but I'll be sad. And the amound of cognitive dissonance I have to live with will be increased.

So, to recap my questions for those who don't like to read paragraphs:
1) Is my characterization of Calvinist Predestination in this post accurate?

2) a)If no, how is it inaccurate? What would you say is a better description of your belief? I'm not talking about framing here, I mean an actual, substantive difference.

    b)If yes, how can you bring yourself to see this deity as good? What makes creating people knowing ahead of time that you have already condemned them to eternal suffering okay?

Will anyone answer my questions?

PZ Myers Is A Frikkin Genius

He has come up with the top ten reasons religion is like pornography.
While I'm making you click through to see the original top ten, in the comments several people have added other reasons religion is like pornography. I'm listing some of the most apt below:

11. Both are most heinous when inflicted on children.*
14. "Oh God, oh God, oh God, oh God!"

#13 (the soundtracks to both are crap.), however, is pure bullshit. The Anglican and Catholic churches have done some great things, musically.


What I really like about this post, though, is the last paragraph:

Basically, I'm saying we ought to regard religion like we do other human foibles: regulate it, curb it's excesses, shame those who overindulge, and for jebus' sake, stop treating it like some exalted, privileged, glorious endeavor. Any idiot can be religious, after all, and many are.

I really wish people would stop telling each other that believing in something for which there is no evidence makes you a good (or at least better) person.

---

*I am in no way trying to say that inflicting religion on children is anywhere near as bad as inflicting pornography on children, only that religion, like pornography, is at its worst when children are involved.

The Evil of Calvinism: Predestination

I'm not going to pretend that the doctrine of predestination is the only evil thing about Calvinism, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that it is the most evil.

Let's look at it honestly, shall we?

God: Omnipotent, omniscient. Knows before the beginning of the world everything that will happen up to the very end. Creates a system whereby people will be sinful, and may or may not be saved, depending on His divine whim. Knows who will be saved and who will not, and that the vast majority of humanity will be tormented for eternity. Creates people anyway! Offers salvation to a select few (the elect) and lets the rest burn for the heinous crime of being exactly as they were created.

Can we please talk about this? This is NOT loving. This is NOT grace. This is evil, plain and simple. This is a sick, psychopathic God that we are describing here. One who ENJOYS watching its creation suffer. The Calvinist god had every choice in the world and could have set up a different system, whereby people would not have to suffer for all eternity, BUT HE DIDN'T.

I have a question for the Calvinists out there:
Even if you can't help but believe that the Calvinist god exists, how can you bring yourself to worship him? How does this not make you sick? I mean even if you could show me absolute proof that such a deity existed, I could NEVER worship it. How can you live with yourselves, knowing that you've dedicated your hearts and souls to the above-described pure, unadulterated evil?

This shit is FUCKED UP.

Weird creepy proselytizing thing.

It all started in a troll roasting thread over chez the Lingering Poof. I asked Carmel to back up her claim that Mormons were not Christians. Carmel moved the conversation to her blog and we were discussing the issue when suddenly this dude showed up, trying to convert me and asking to discuss stuff with me. I told him he was free to email me, provided I could post his mails, and my responses, on my blog. Well, he did it. Here it is, in all its creepiness.

Jake,
I'm very sorry to hear that you feel so defensive about the subject. But let me clarify one thing, if in these emails you do not wish to civilly speak on matters on faith and belief, I will not continue them.

I always try to be civil, regardless of the subject matter. But I did say you were welcome to talk at me. I don't have discussions about faith and belief because I find them boring. Since there is no way to know if there is anything beyond what evidence can show us, I don't see the point in discussing it.

I know we haven't even exchanged emails yet. But there's one thing I have to tell you. I want to cry. For you I want to cry. I feel as if there's something in your heart that you don't wish to talk about.

This is just creepy. Stop it.

And this may be off base or it may be completely wrong, but I don't want to just talk about faith, I want to find out who you are.

Even creepier. We can talk about Christianity if you like. We are not talking about me. We are not talking about you. We are keeping this conversation impersonal or we are not having it. Capiche?

And why, you wish to belittle people's choices of faith or religion.

I don't belittle people's choices of faith or religion. I call things as I see them.

It doesn't seem very intelligent, or kind and giving as you like to make atheists out to be.

Please point to somewhere where I said something about the kinds of people atheists are. I think you're making this up.

Something I don't think you quite get, is that people are people, regardless of religion, race, or creed.

I think I know this better than you do. Because unlike you, I don't think Christians are special. They're just another part of the large majority of people with a belief system I don't share, and think is silly.

My heart really weighs heavy, for some weird reason about you (regarding you). And I don't know why that is,

Again with the creepy. You don't know me, stop making noises about caring about me in a personal way.

but Jake I just want you to know that there's more out there than Christians filled with hate or hypocrisy.

I know there are many smart, loving Christians out there. I count many among my friends. It's the hate-filled hypocrites that bother me, and it's hardly my fault if the majority of those that I encounter happen to be Christian. It's really not clear to me where you got these ideas about what I think, based on a thread that had to do with a very specific question about a very specific religion, and had nothing to do with my opinion of Christians in general (which you don't seem to know, since you keep misrepresenting it).

I wish I could tell you something that would turn your heart, but I'm not a Biblical scholar, neither am I a great Christian.

The best way to piss me off and make me end this conversation would be to try to convert me. Don't. I don't like it.

But for some reason, I find that I need to talk to you. Regardless about how you feel about my faith.

Whatever floats your boat.

And I do find it a tad bit cruel that you like to antagonize Christians and insult them.

I don't. Again, I don't see where you're getting this from the Mormon thread, but assuming you've read my other interactions, I want to make something clear. I don't hate Christians. I don't want to antagonize and insult them. There is a very well defined subset of religious people (not just Christians) who bother me, who I think are dangerous, and who I will contradict every chance I get. These are the people who let their religious faith get in the way of their view of reality, or who let their religious conviction guide them to proscribe standards of behaviour for others, especially standards that are unfair or discriminatory. If a person believes that there is some deity, who is beyond what science can detect, who created and is guiding the universe, that's their business. I don't share their belief, but I don't care if they have it. But if your religious faith causes you to believe things that are demonstrably untrue (the universe/earth is 6000 years old) or morally reprehensible (women should submit to their husbands, a blastocyst is the moral equivalent of a person), and if you try to teach those beliefs to others, then you are dangerous and yes, I will fight you.

Something that most Christians, real Christians, hold dear, it's as if having your heart ripped out of your chest before your eyes.

Not clear to me what you mean by this.

I believe that your stereotyping of Christians is unfair and unjust.

Please provide examples of me stereotyping Christians.

I just wish you could feel what I feel and see what I see.

I'm sure we all feel that way about our own beliefs. It would make a pretty boring world, though.

And I know you see me as some poor, pathetic, Bible beating wimp and weirdo. But I've done things that I've thought would eventually end my life or at least torture me forever. And I assume that there's something in your heart or in your past that makes you feel the same way.

There's not a person alive who can reach adulthood without having done something to feel remorseful about. It's not clear to me what this has to do with Christianity.

That your ever striving to prove not to everyone else, but to yourself, what you believe in. Now that may sound insulting but it's not intending to be that way.

Another way to end the conversation is to try and tell me what I think and feel. It's not only insulting, it's patronizing and self-satisfied and a really fucking annoying trick that most proselytizing religious types employ, and I won't have it. Do it again and this conversation is over.

I just feel as if, and I can't say it enough, that Christians have been misrepresenting themselves for hundreds of years if not more now.

*shrug* Christian is as Christian does. If you don't like how Christians represent themselves, tell it to the Christians.

They're supposed to be compassionate, understanding, and Jake in my heart, I feel you need that compassion more than anyone.

Again with the creepy. Further emails containing this sort of creepy will go unanswered. You don't know the first thing about me, stop thinking you do.

And I'm not here to make you believe what I believe...

I very much doubt that.

but to just give you a better understanding of what I think a Christian should be.

Why don't you focus on telling other Christians, then?

Jake, I feel in my heart for you. And it troubles me. In my sleep it troubles me.

You might want to work on that. It sounds like something that could easily turn into stalking behaviour, and I won't have that, either.

With all sincerity, compassion, and love,

The scary part is, I think you mean that.

And that's the whole, creepulent thing. A bit weird, no?

There are a few things that some Christians seem unable to grasp, so I'll explain them here.
1) My atheism, and the atheism of many other atheists, has nothing to do with you. I'm not an atheist because I hate you, or your religion, or because I "want" to deny your god. My lack of belief has no more to do with your god than my lack of belief in living garden gnomes has to do with the gnomes. It's a passive state. I simply don't believe they exist. I also don't care.

2) Atheists, by and large, don't feel deep down in our hearts that there must really be something out there. We really, really don't. We don't go about feeling things and then denying them to ourselves by consciously reaffirming our atheism. We just go about our days, living our lives, and we don't really think about the god question unless some religious dumsnut pops up and starts whacking us about the head with it. That's really how it is, and if your fancy book tells you different then your fancy book is wrong.

3) Most atheists don't hate religious people. Most of us (although there are exceptions) could care less what you believe. It's your behaviour that interests us, and that only so far as it affects others.

Drock, if you want to respond, please use the comments. If your response is sufficiently interesting or entertaining I'll move it up to the main blog.

I Knew Fundies Were Crazy

But this is laying it on a little thick.

Okay, I knew hell was all fire and gargoyles and agonized screaming, but did you know heaven was all bad techno music with worse dancing and ugly apartment blocks? Me neither.

Fundies are really fucking weird.
Also, they can't spell.

Oh. My. Bob.

So. There is now a video game out, by, as I understand it, the same nutbars who are behind the Left Behind book series. This exciting and terrifying game has players playing the role of Christians who are on a mission to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy. Their job is to convert as many as possible, and kill the rest.

How fun and exciting.

Now let's just step back a moment and imagine the outcry this game's creators would raise if an identical game had been made featuring Muslims instead of Christians.

All together now:
H-Y-P-Oh, forget it.

Assholes.

I Don't Mind

Being slightly-more-atheist-than-thou'ed by PZ Myers. Really I don't.

The Ardent Atheist The results are in, and it appears that you have scored 75%...

You are an atheist, pure and simple. You think God is just one big lie, and consider religious people to be both annoying and beneath you. Ardent atheists will argue tooth and claw for their position, and have no truck with people that won't listen. You think being an atheist is the only way to lead an honest life, and see no reason to accept the pleas of faith. Ardent atheists are the backbone of atheism. Be proud.

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 99% on pentagrams

Link: The Atheist Test written by chi_the_cynic on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

I Think I'll Get A Job In A Slaughterhouse

It must be nice to get paid not to do your job.

I'm no legal expert, so I can't say what the laws actually say, but I will say this: If the laws prevent an employer from taking action against a person who refuses to perform perfectly standard and legal aspects of their job, that they knew about when they took the job, then the law needs to be changed.

And if the law doesn't prevent it then serious pressure needs to be brought to bear against these companies. They need to be boycotted, picketed, and denounced until they start making their employees Do Their Jobs.

I mean really. How old are these pharmacists? 10? They're certainly acting it.

It's real simple people: If your job requires you to do something you find morally reprehensible, get a different job.

I'm incessantly amazed at the stupidity of my species.

Go Ahead, I Dare You.

Call this video of two embryos exploding murder.

Do it.

Compare, in all sincerity, this to the killing of two fully developed human beings.

Please, I beg you. It would so make my day.

(hat tip, PZM)