Maryam Namazie on the Islamic Inquisition

I'm sending you all away.  For one thing, I'm busy and woefully short of advance posts.  But most importantly, there's something I think you need to read.

It's Maryam Namazie's speech at the World Atheist Conference.  You really should read it in its entirety.  But I'll put an excerpt here, because I believe this bit needs to be understood clearly by all of us:

Nowhere is opposition greater against Islamism than in countries under Islamic rule.

Condemning Islamism and Islam is not a question of judging all Muslims and equating them with terrorists.

There is a distinction between Islam as a belief system and Islamism as a political movement on the one hand and real live human beings on the other. Neither the far-Right nor the pro-Islamist Left seem to see this distinction.

Both are intrinsically racist. The pro-Islamist Left (and many liberals) imply that people are one and the same with the Islamic states and movement that are repressing them. The far-Right blames all immigrants and Muslims for the crimes of Islamism.

[It is important to note here that Islamism was actually brought to centre stage during the Cold War as part of US foreign policy in order to create a ‘green’ Islamic belt surrounding the Soviet Union and not concocted in some immigrant’s kitchen in London; moreover many of the Islamists in Britain are actually British-born thanks to the government’s policies of multiculturalism and appeasement.]

Both the far-Right and pro-Islamist Left purport that Islamism is people’s culture and that they actually deserve no better, imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class, parasitical imams and self-appointed ‘community leaders’.

Their politics ignores the distinction between the oppressed and oppressor and actually sees them as one and the same. It denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ and justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality for the ‘other.’

Civil rights, freedom and equality, secularism, modernism, are universal concepts that have been fought for by progressive social movements and the working class in various countries.

As a result of such politics, concepts such as rights, equality, respect and tolerance, which were initially raised vis-à-vis the individual, are now more and more applicable to culture and religion and often take precedence over real live human beings.

Moreover, the social inclusion of people into society has come to solely mean the inclusion of their beliefs, sensibilities, concerns and agendas (read Islamism’s beliefs, sensibilities, concerns and agendas) and nothing more.

The distinction between humans and their beliefs and regressive political movements is of crucial significance here.

It is the human being who is meant to be equal not his or her beliefs. It is the human being who is worthy of the highest respect and rights not his or her beliefs or those imputed on them.

It is the human being who is sacred not beliefs or religion.

The problem is that religion sees things the other way around.

And she quotes from Mansoor Hekmat at the end:

“Moreover, in my opinion, defending the existence of Islam under the guise of respect for people’s beliefs is hypocritical and lacks credence. There are various beliefs amongst people. The question is not about respecting people’s beliefs but about which are worthy of respect. In any case, no matter what anyone says, everyone is choosing beliefs that are to their liking. Those who reject a criticism of Islam under the guise of respecting people’s beliefs are only expressing their own political and moral preferences, full stop. They choose Islam as a belief worthy of respect and package their own beliefs as the ‘people’s beliefs’ only in order to provide ‘populist’ legitimisation for their own choices. I will not respect any superstition or the suppression of rights, even if all the people of the world do so. Of course I know it is the right of all to believe in whatever they want. But there is a fundamental difference between respecting the freedom of opinion of individuals and respecting the opinions they hold. We are not sitting in judgement of the world; we are players and participants in it. Each of us are party to this historical, worldwide struggle, which in my opinion, from the beginning of time until now has been over the freedom and equality of human beings…”  (Mansoor Hekmat, Islam and De-Islamisation,January 1999)

Remember these things, because they're important.  You need to remember them when charges of racism and cultural imperialism get thrown your way by people who would prefer you not criticize their faith.  Do not let people stop the conversation.

Got that?  Good.  Now go finish the speech.

Sod This, I'm Holding Out for Ragnarok

Oh, my god.  What a surprise.  The End Times have not come.  I am so shocked.  I just do not believe it. I-

(Hee hee.  Ho ho.  BWAH-HAHAHAHA!)

I can't keep a straight face. 

The excuses as to why the Rapture failed to happen on schedule will no doubt be mildly amusing.  Same ol' song and dance, I'm afraid: some doofus predicts the apocalypse, the apocalypse mysteriously fails to happen.  (When reached for comment, Jesus Christ is reported to have said, "Ha ha ha PSYCH!  Matthew 24:36, bitches!")  Wot an anti-climax.

I'm holding out for Ragnarok anyway.  The Twilight of the Gods is so much more awesome than all the silliness in Revelation.

The Morality of Religion: If This Is Morality, I'd Rather Be Immoral

I've been planning a set of posts on atheism and morality for some time now, but kept kicking the can down the road because I've had easier things to write about.  I'm still busier than a one-legged woman in an arse-kicking competition, but it's time to open me gob on the whole subject.  Consider this the prelude.

There's this perception among too many people that being religious automatically equals being moral.  Do yourself an experiment: hit random people up with a scenario.  They're on a jury, and have to decide who is the most convincing character witness for the accused.  Would they place more weight on the testimony of an atheist or a pastor?  Based on how atheists are viewed in other surveys, I'd be willing to be the vast majority of the public would plump for the pastor.

They shouldn't.

Being religious doesn't automatically make you moral.  We'll explore that in some depth in upcoming posts.  But for now, I just want to present a case study.  This is what one of the big theological thinkers had to say about genocide, infanticide, et al:

By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable.  It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity.  God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel.  The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God. 

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.  We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy.  Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites?  Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement.  Not the children, for they inherit eternal life.  So who is wronged?  Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli[sic] soldiers themselves.  Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children?  The brutalizing effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing.

This comes only after William Lane Craig claims God "has no moral duties to fulfill."  And an enormously long passage of nonsense that snipes at Richard Dawkins apropos of nothing, presents one of the lamest "logical" arguments for God's existence ever put forth by someone who purportedly possesses a functioning brain, and then childishly claims atheists have proven God exists if they say the God of the Old Testament did something morally reprehensible in commanding the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child in Canaan.  William Lane Craig has proven my (and my Christian best friend's) point that too much prayer completely rots a person's brain.

Two Posts on Religion Everyone Should Read

Back before I got so completely immersed in Doctor Who and the subsequent explosions of ideas that I haven't had time for much else, I was spending quite a lot of time catching up on every post ever written by Eric MacDonald.  His blog, Choice in Dying, is one I can't recommend highly enough for those who need a philosopher's perspective on these thorny issues of religion, atheism, morality, and choices.  He reminds me a bit of Dan Dennett, one of our Four Horsemen.  All I can say is, someone had better saddle that man a horse, because we've got a fifth Horseman.

Two posts from January particularly caught my eye.  In one, Eric talks about the cost of religion:

I do not think the sums have been done. Religion is not a peaceful thing, despite all claims to the contrary. It has been protected, for centuries, just as Islam still protects its holiness, by threats of violence. The English Bible that, for all its glories, is sometimes pedestrian and dull, is regarded with special reverence, in large measure because it had to be fought for, and people died so that they could read the Bible in their own language.

And in this, about the social pathology of religion:

We are becoming so accustomed to religious oppression and pathology that we scarcely dare to talk openly about it, and to call it openly by its name. Governments and large press organisations do a clever soft-shoe shuffle around it every time it becomes too obvious to be simply ignored, but no one is saying that this religious idiocy should end, and that it is intolerable that religions should play this role in the world. It seems to be taken for granted that there is nothing that we can do to moderate these pathologies except to try to insulate them in ghettoes of religious belief, the result of which can only be a mosaic of intolerant communities intolerantly related. If Roman Catholic hospitals want to kill women by refusing them appropriate medical care, well, that is just a peculiar belief system which has nothing to do with the rest of society. And when Roman Catholics or Muslims band together to oppose the practice of contraception in a world bursting at the seams with people, well, that too is just a religious peculiarity, and we must learn to live with these things.

Eric, once an Anglican pastor, has a very clear view of the harm religion can do and does.  He doesn't believe we have to live with it.  He doesn't believe we should stay silent in the face of it, just to spare the feelings of believers or in the interests of a false social harmony.

I wish all of my friends who were still believers would read his blog, start to finish, and really think about what it is they're doing, and what religion truly is.

The Limits of Tolerance

Johann Hari asks a very good question: "Can we talk about Muslim homophobia now? (h/t)"

Here’s a few portents from the East End that we have chosen to ignore. In May 2008, a 15 year old Muslim girl tells her teacher she thinks she might be gay, and the Muslim teacher in a state-funded comprehensive tells her “there are no gays round here” and she will “burn in hell” if she ever acts on it. (I know because she emailed me, suicidal and begging for help). In September 2008, a young gay man called Oliver Hemsley, is walking home from the gay pub the George and Dragon when a gang of young Muslims stabs him eight times, in the back, in the lungs, and in his spinal column. In January 2010, when the thug who did it is convicted, a gang of thirty Muslims storms the George and Dragon in revenge and violently attacks everybody there. All through, it was normal to see young men handing out leaflets outside the Whitechapel Ideas Store saying gays are “evil.” Most people accept them politely. 

These are not isolated incidents.

Johann brings up the point that because Muslims are so frequently targets of bigotry, harassment and violence themselves, there's an understandable reluctance to speak out against their less-admirable acts.  It's easy to get yourself branded Islamophobic for pointing out that Islam isn't necessarily a religion of peace, and that strict adherence to Islam leads to despicable acts.  But, as Johann says,

It’s patronizing – and authentically racist – to treat Muslims as if they are children, or animals, who can only react to their oppression by jeering at or attacking people who have done them no harm, and who they object to because of a book written in the sixth century. Muslims are human beings who can choose not to this. The vast majority, of course, do not attack anyone. But they should go further. They should choose instead to see us as equal human beings, who live and love just like them, and do not deserve scorn and prejudice.

Giving people a pass to be bigoted, damaging jerks just because they're a member of a despised minority doesn't do any sector of society any good.  It normalizes dangerous behavior.  It doesn't confront the intolerance before it gets wildly out of control.  And it only feeds cycles of oppression.  No one - not even atheists - are saying Muslims have to give up their religion.  But we expect Christians and Jews and members of other faiths to respect gay folks, even if they do think gays are icky.  It's ridiculous to give homophobia a pass out of some misguided sense of fairness.  It's not fair.  It's not fair to Muslim people who are lesbians or gays or bisexuals or transgendered.  It's not fair to those Muslims who might discover that their religion can accommodate gays just fine.  And it's not fair to the wider community, LGBT and allies, who are sick to death of seeing people get harassed, hurt and killed because of the way they love.

There are limits to tolerance.  We can tolerate people of other faiths.  We can't tolerate actual harm they do for the greater glory of God. Let's do talk about Muslim homophobia, just as we talk about homophobia in all its many disgusting forms.  Let's not stay silent about issues that are so critically important.

Tell Me Again that Science and Religion are Compatible

But before you do, consider this (h/t):

The official Vatican position on evolution tilts towards intelligent design. Its point man on the subject, Cardinal Schönborn, says: "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity' are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence." Ouch.

These are folks who have a fundamental, willful, and very large blind spot.  They deliberately twist science to fit their own dogma.  And that is something that's absolutely incompatible with science.


NOMA my skinny white arse.  As Jerry Coyne sez:

So yes, the true biological view of evolution as a materialistic, unguided process is indeed at odds with most religions.  Organizations that promote evolution, such as the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), prefer to avoid this critical point: all they care about is that evolution get taught in the schools, not whether believers wind up accepting the concept of evolution as it’s understood by scientists.  (If all they want is evolution to be taught, that, I suppose is fine. But it’s not fine if they want public understanding of evolution.)

And it's not fine when millions of people are told by their pope that science ain't science.  That twisted, skewed view of what science is matters.  That twisted, skewed view leads people to mistrust and misunderstand science.  It leads them to believe science can be bent to their own wishes, no matter what the evidence is. 

That's not science.  That's religion trying to steal science's respectability after having lost its own.  It's pseudoscience, and it's right on par with the cons, crooks and crazies who snatch a few words out of a science dictionary to try to make their wackaloon theories about homeopathy or magnetic bracelets sound plausible to people who don't know any better.

It's nice that the Catholic church is so cornered by reality that they've been forced to swallow a little bit of science in a desperate attempt to stay relevant and retain their power.  But it's giving them indigestion.  And anyone who believes that science and religion are perfectly compatible isn't paying attention to reality.

I Don't Get It. I Don't Understand.

Confession: I was, for a few brief months in my teens, a Bible-thumper.  So it may seem odd now that I can't get myself into the minds of believers.

I'd never been a religious kid, not particularly.  I had this nebulous idea that God existed and that he was good.  I prayed when things were beyond my control.  But we didn't go to church, and outside of the illustrated children's Bible I had, there wasn't a huge amount of God stuff around.  My parents believed, and my mother put me in a summer Bible camp once - maybe for religious instruction, maybe just because it was the best and only way to pawn me off on other people for a couple of hours so she could have some time for herself.  Considering she played Mom to the entire neighborhood, one can't blame her for needing a break.  And I learned how to glue Jesus to a wooden spoon, and stick him in a walnut shell, so it wasn't a complete waste.  One thing I do know, the people there didn't impress upon me the necessity of believing or going to Hell.  They gave me warm fuzzy feelings about Jesus and an indelible association between ancient Jewish carpenters and spoons.

So You Know Exactly How God Did It, Then?

You know, sometimes it seems like USA has come to stand for "United States of Appalling Ignorance."  A lot of people in this country need to read an improving book.  And I'm not talking about the Bible.  That one only seems to improve people's ability to be smug about their appalling ignorance.


MTHellfire found this bit of outstanding fuckwittery spouted by Bill O'Reilly and took him to the woodshed over it (h/t):

"Tide goes in and tide goes out...you can't explain that." Bill O'Reilly recently told Dave Silverman of American Atheists, during a recent airing on Fox News as they debated the integrity of religion.

After her head hit her desk, she went on to advise that, yes, actually, Billo, we can explain how the tide goes in and out.  I'd just like to add that Billo needs to avail himself of a book I recently read, Beyond the Moon.  We are so able to explain tides that entire pop sci books can be written on the subject.

MTHellfire went on to quote, in its full misspelled glory, a screed she'd been subjected to on Facebook, wherein the correspondent (and I use this term loosely) advised that the reason people don't trust scientists is that they can't explain where the first speck of dirt came from, but they can tell you how life was created.

Wrong wrong wrong, and not just because the original had enough grammatical errors to make an English teacher contemplate a home lobotomy in an effort to escape the pain.  Scientists can explain how life evolved.  They're not yet sure how it originated, but they've got some promising ideas.  They're pretty certain it did not include a large bearded deity poofing the whole thing into existence.

As far as the speck of dirt goes, any decent book on cosmology can clue you in.  Dirt is formed of elements.  Elements are forged in stars.  And so on, all the way back to the Big Bang.  So yes, Facebook babbler, scientists can explain where the first speck of dirt came from.  At length, and with equations, if you like.

But it's not like the "God did it" crowd is likely to listen to the evidence.  If they do, their eyes will all too likely glaze over, and they will take this as a sign: they cannot understand it, therefore scientists don't really understand it, ergo Jesus!  So let me just turn this around a bit.  I like turning tables.  It adds interest to a room.

Here's my reply to the "Scientists can't explain every single detail exactly, so God, so there!" crowd:

Do you know every last detail of how, precisely, God created the universe?  I mean, precisely how he spoke the whole thing into existence?  The complete and excruciating details of how, exactly, God did it, from the first photon to the last squidgy bit on Eve?

No?

Deary me.  Guess I'll have to just stick with science, then.

Handy Reference Guide to Biblical Rape Laws

For those who like to take their religion literally, here's an easy-to-use reference guide:

Lessee... had we been following those guidelines, I do believe I would've been married.  Believe me when I say that given the choice between that and stoning, I would have been handing out rocks.

This is one of the reasons I despise fundamentalists.  They don't think the world has changed since Bronze Age goatherders went on a killing spree.  Oh, some of them say Jesus came and gave us a new, kinder law - then try to tell us the Ten Commandments et al are still in force.  And they somehow conveniently forget the violent bits of the New Testament when telling us how wonderful and gentle Jesus was.  And they enjoy endorsing Paul's misogynistic bullshit far too much.

Building a modern civilization on Biblical foundations makes about as much sense as licensing only psychopaths as child care providers.

(Tip o' the shot glass to whoever posted this on Twitter.  Alas, I cannot remember who it was!)

As For Being Shrill, Strident, Etc.

Once again, the "tone" argument's making the rounds (does it ever cease?  It circles like a dog attempting to capture its own fugitive tail).  Ophelia Benson's already pointed out a few of the more annoying examples.  And she led me to this delightful bit by Jason Rosenhouse, which comes just in time, because a dear (and horribly neglected) friend of mine posted rather more sensibly on the issue (hi, Paul!).  I'd meant to come up with something thoughtful and considered that would explain my position, but find I don't have to.  All one has to do is read Jason's post and imagine me standing there jumping up and down going, "Me, too!"

I'd quote from it, but I can't find a single bit I want to excerpt because I want to excerpt it all.  But if you've ever wondered what we shrill, strident, unabashed defenders of evolution, atheism, and all things rational are thinking, this is pretty much it in a nutshell.

And remember, my dearest Paul, that we're not trying to convert the unconvertable.  Nothing we do will reach the men and women who spend their days swearing Jesus rode a dinosaur.  Politeness won't do it, any more than a good sharp smack will.  Think of the old psychologists-changing-a-lightbulb joke: the only way anything works is if they want to change.

No, we're rallying the troops and aiming at the fence-sitters.  And as one of those who got knocked off the fence and had some good sense jolted in to me by those horrible shrill Gnu Atheists, as a person who disavowed woo for science because PZ, Orac et al didn't have any trouble calling a spade a silly little shite, I can testify that being contentious sometimes does more than raise morale for the choir.  Sometimes, it awakens passion, wonder, and courage in people who might've sat it out.

It takes all kinds.  Changing the world isn't a simple task!

(For those who haven't had the pleasure, I can wholeheartedly recommend Paul's lovely Cafe Philos blog.  After a long day in the trenches, it's nice to sit with a cup of coffee and just enjoy some thought-provoking serenity.)

Sunday Read: So An Atheist and a Chaplain Walk Onto a Battlefield...

You can't miss this.  Truly cannot.  Go. Read.  And marvel at the power of faith to make dangerous ridiculous fucking morons out of some people.  I'm going to inflict it on my Christian best friend, because I do so love hearing him howl at people who put the blind in blind faith.  Perhaps someday he'll forgive me.

Actually a little appalled that sensible soldiers are risking their lives to protect this god-deluded fool.  Kudos to them for doing the job and doing it well!

In Which I Tell You About That Time I Read the Koran

George has this habit of making me think.  Last night, he voiced every thought I wish I had the eloquence to voice on the whole Koran-burning-pastor kerfluffle.  If you haven't read it, go now and do so.

Sums it up rather wonderfully.  And then, there's his promised response, Protesting Xenophobic Ignorance.   Yes!  That's how it's done!  Counterpoint to useless drivel, beautifully-delivered, and without hyperventilation.  Now, if only the religious folk would learn how to react so productively, we might have a dialogue going, and might even enjoy doing it - even when we point and laugh at each other.  Far better than overheated threats of violence and/or howls of "Help!  Help!  I'm being repressed because these people don't agree with me!"

So, that, together with PZ's take, pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.  Besides, if the First Amendment's to mean anything, some outrageous idiot has the perfect right to burn mass-produced copies of a book on their own property.  Hell, Christians do it to Harry Potter all the time, and I sincerely hope they'll do me the same favor.  Might I suggest marshmallows with that religious frenzy?  Seems a waste of a good fire otherwise.

Anyway.  Due to the fact I had to be at work for twelve fucking hours today, I missed the whole Koran-reading thing.  That's not to say I haven't read many bits of the Koran, and actually appreciated several.  I'll cannibalize anything for inspiration, thee knows.  Back in the days when I had a desk, I used to have the self-same edition George was reading sitting by the computer.  When I got blocked, I'd have a good flip through its pages until something caught my eye.  And I thought I'd share some of those moments for Day-After-Read-a-Koran Day.

Wanna know how an atheist finds inspiration in religious literature?  Then read on.  There's even some religious conflict!

Equal Treatment

I've been watching this whole Ground Zero (and every other) Mosque kerfluffle with bemusement.  I mean, seriously, people, there are worse things in the world than a Muslim community center.  Take Glenn Beck, for instance. Believe me when I say that given the choice between an hour with him and a day with Imam Rauf, it's the imam hands-down.  We'd probably have a good conversation, and I wouldn't come away covered in spittle.

There's been a sense that, to be a good liberal, you mustn't say a single thing against moderate Islam or the community center, which is absolute bullshit.  I read an article at Butterflies and Wheels last night that rather put that in perspective:

Again, I can understand that point, and on an everyday basis of course I am pleased to see the emergence of moderates who are seeking to divert Muslims away from extremism, but, at the same time, to exempt moderates from theological and philosophical criticism on this basis is condescending to them as fellow adults and also reinforces a worrying notion that as long as a belief system isn’t likely to immediately result in a bombing campaign then that belief system should be beyond criticism.

[snip]

No-one would consider that their personal political views should be exempt from criticism just because they are non-violent political views, and it would be an absurd and worrying precedent to be set were that the case. Religion is no different. Despite the fact that religious people seem to have a lot emotionally invested in their ‘faith’, the fact remains that religion, just like politics, is an ideology, and as such it is a perfectly legitimate target for criticism and debate, even if it is liberal and moderate in its nature.

Criticism of the sort that we deal out on a daily basis to every other religion and bit of woozy thinking doesn't automatically put us in the same camp as the xenophobic frothing freaks who are busy drumming up as much anti-Muslim animus as possible.

Some folks in the atheist community aren't for the community center, nor do they have to be.  They don't scream with joy at the grand opening of every Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or any-ol'-sect's newest building, either.  Most of what I've seen from our side is simply equal treatment - religion doesn't get a pass, not even when it's getting drenched in Glenn Beck's raving spittle.  Not that we're likely to be out there protesting, either, because when it comes down to it, Muslims have every right to build a nice community center for themselves in old clothing stores.  Or in Tennessee, or California, or wherever they may roam.  This is a free country in which you are free to waste your money on invisible sky daddies if you like.  We might critique your faith (sometimes starkly, perhaps even dickishly), and we might grumble about the idiocy of it all, but we're not going to be out there vandalizing, burning, or otherwise damaging your property, and we're sure as shit not going to be beating people up because they look Muslim.

Folks who want to lump us in the same category as the lackwits who've been out doing all of the above need to remember something:

Yes, of course we have to respect everyone’s right to hold irrational beliefs, but no of course we do not have to respect the irrational beliefs themselves. There’s a difference, and the difference matters.

Indeed it does.

As PZ says on this matter: "I don't like the Manhattan mosque, but they've got the right — as long as I've got the right to point and laugh."  This being America, and the Cons not yet having had their way with the 10,000,000,000 amendments they want to add, and all the existing ones they want to amend into oblivion, we each have that right. Though the frothing fundies don't realize it, the freedom to worship or not, where and when one chooses, is one of those things that makes America the amazing place that it is.

So, Imam Rauf, don't let the bastards keep you from building your center.  This is America, you are an American, and you can absolutely waste your time on outmoded superstition, if you like.  Good luck to you.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Michael Bloomberg
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Phil's Not Faring Too Well

I love Phil Plait.  I respect Phil Plait.  I follow him on Twitter, shall soon be following him on teevee, and enjoy him immensely.  But even the people I love best occasionally do things that earn them a gentle savaging from their peers.  And it seems that his Don't Be A Dick shenanigans (hereafter referred to as D-BAD) earned him said savaging.

Ophelia Benson, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, and now even Peter Lipson (one of the least-dickish people I've ever read) have taken some not-so-subtle swipes, when not unloading with both barrels.  I'm sure there's plenty I've missed.  It doesn't matter anyway, because the whole thing makes me tired.  This "we must be nicey-nice to the poor delicate believers!" bullshit is threatening to condemn me to a life of early dentures.

Just a few thoughts that have been going about in my head during this whole D-BAD drama, and then I am hopefully done:

1.  If you run with the skeptics, your sacred oxen are at risk of getting gored.  If you faint at the sight of blood, better not run.

2.  There is no safety in numbers.  Just because several million people believe a delusion doesn't make it true.

3.  Niceness and respect have their place, but all too often, it enables the very woo and uncritical thinking skeptics are supposed to be against.

4.  Enable one woo, and you've just thrown the doors open wide with a big welcome sign for all the others.

And, most importantly to me personally:

5.  Those "dicks" were the people who snapped me out of woo-tainted thinking to begin with.  All of the happy-joy-joy nice warm fuzzy people kept me thinking for years that some pretty inane shit was legit, because hey, they didn't seem to mind.  And I'm not a very unique human being at all, so I highly doubt I'm an anomalous data point.  Without the dicks, I'd still be susceptible to pseudoscience and magical thinking.  Sometimes, what a person really needs is a good, sharp slap by an enormous dick to snap them out of it.

Oh, dear.  I suspect that last bit came out wrong, or led to mental images that have you reaching for the brain bleach.  Sorry 'bout that.

Anyway.  What I'm saying is, dickishness has a place and a purpose.  Religious sentiment should not and must not get a safe little reservation all walled off from skepticism.  (That goes triple for you, Quinn O'Neil, oh ye of the most bloody stupid argument I've read all week.)

Religious freedom is a Constitutional right in this country, and we dicks respect that.  But respect for a person's freedom to believe in irrational bullshit does not translate into treating irrational bullshit with kid gloves, nor should it, and as for those who aren't tough enough to take it - I've got a couple of religious friends you should consult, because they might be able to advise you how to take it on the chin and keep grinning anyway.  They don't burst into tears and run away blubbering whenever I say something not nice about their faith. 

You know what all that crying tells me?  That the weepy religious believers running with the skeptical crowd aren't sure their faith is legit.  They're doubting.  Why else do they need everyone to tiptoe around them?  And how do I know this?  Because I did the same sniveling when my faith started crumbling on its own faulty foundations. And everyone who didn't do their utmost to reinforce those foundations, or at least refrain from breathing on them, seemed like they were personally attacking me.  Guess what?  They weren't.  They were going after silly superstition.  If you think your superstition isn't silly, then shore up your own damned foundations, grow a pair, and deal with the dicks.

And don't tell me that a few unkind words about your favorite form of woo is enough to sour you on the whole skeptical movement.  That's just petty and ridiculous.  Besides, there are plenty of accomodationists out there happy to wrap you in their loving embrace.  Not all of us have to.  Not all of us should.

Life is full of slings, arrows, and dicks.  You deal, or you don't.  And if that sounds harsh, well, it is.  It seems that despite some anatomical disadvantages, I am an enormous fucking dick. 

Doesn't mean I don't love you, though, irrationality and all. 

I Think George Became Upset

And why do I think our own dear, sweet, epitome-o'-kindness George became upset?  There's a Clue contained in his most recent post:

It was about then that my predatory, reptilian atheist mind wanted to simply lunge forward and devour the theologian in two or three gulps.

Had I been there, I suspect he'd have only gotten about 1 - 1½ gulps in, because I would've been devouring with him.  So much for "friendly."

I have no idea why atheists even try to have "friendly" debates with believers anymore.  I mean, sure, when you're among friends, you'll probably keep it friendly, but these "friendly" formal debates look like an exercise in frustration, without a little fire to liven things up.  The theologian spouts vapid crap, the atheist politely shares reality, and everybody in the audience probably ends up feeling like poor dear George except those frightening folks who seem to have had the irritation centers burned out of their brains.  You know the type.  They're the ones who'll chirp, "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade!" when they've become a quadruple amputee in a horrific accident that also killed their family and their dog.

If you're not one of the latter, do go enjoy George's deconstruction of the blessed event.

Cujo Wields The Smack-o-Matic to Excellent Effect

On the frothing idiots throwing a major shit-fit over the planned mosque near Ground Zero:

Compared to those people, Islamic terrorism doesn't seem terribly frightening at all. Terrorists can never take from us what we are. Americans are the only ones who can do that. What we need to remember from this is that there are clearly a group of Americans who want to do exactly that.

They're the really scary people.

Precisely.

And do read the rest of the post.  It's well worth your time.  Then, should you need to calm your blood pressure, enjoy a lovely sunset.

A Precise Summation of Christian Teaching

For the two or three of you who don't read Pharyngula:

Quote o' the Day

Aunty Flow is here, and has been pestering me with chronic cramps all day, which means I don't have the energy to wield the Smack-o-Matic on some politician's deserving derriere.  The good news is, within about 24 hours or so, all should be back to as normal as it gets and the lack of social energy that has led me to neglect far too many friends shall come to an end.  I shall also be prepared to resume spanking duties.  I'd like to ask the Cons to wax their butts in preparation for my imminent return.  A hairy ass absorbs sound and is also unsanitary.

In the meantime, I'm catching up with Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes, and have come across one of the few things that has the power to make me laugh today:

It's official, people: the Answers in Genesis people have finally decided to protest air.

I commend the rest of that post to your attention. 

Not Exactly a Leap, No

Via Happy Jihad's, this answer to that sneering, obnoxious claim by theists that atheism requires a leap of faith just like belief blah blah blah bullshit blah:

Even were one to concede that some ‘absolute atheists’ know for certain there is no God, that would not require the same leap of faith as one who knows for certain that there is must take. A theist must take the word of his or her holy scriptures, her personal experience, his longstanding tradition, and come to accept that the world was created by an immense invisible being who works through mysterious means, controls the weather and occasionally demands human or personal sacrifice.

An atheist looks at the lack of evidence for god/s, notes that evolution accounts for the diversity of life, that cosmological theories such as the Big Bang account for the universe’s existence, points out that all religions seem more focused on human concerns than is logical for a creator of the entire universe, and concludes that believing in God/s is rather foolish. This is the state in which I, and atheists following last week’s definition, rest.

Our theoretical ‘absolute atheist’ then takes it one further step, and concludes that the non-existent evidence is sufficient, and takes the miniscule millimetre-wide step of faith to this statement: “There are no God/s at all, whatsoever, ever, under any circumstances.” It involves faith, sure, but about as much faith as my stating: “There are no Mars Bar farms on Pluto, whatsoever, ever, under circumstances.”

Brilliant.  Simply.  Brilliant.

I shall have to run off several copies and keep them handy.  Perhaps in nice pamphlet form, for those times when theists come out with that "leap of faith" dribble and try to hand me pamphlets about Jesus & Co.

A Good Cause

Here's a chance to do some good for AIDS victims and get up Fred Phelps's nose at the same time.

Extra bonus fun: protesting Fred and his Westboro Baptist Church dumbfucks, a la Happy Jihad:

How I wish I could have been there...