Remember when Rock and Roll was a way of rebelling against the tyranny of religious fundamentalists? How could you not love this art form, and one of their most important ambassadors, Frank Zappa. We miss you, man!
Author Archives: Jacob Fortin
Vatican considers British Equity Bill “unjust”
It seems as though the Vatican is unable to mind their own damn business, as they’ve recently opposed a piece of legislation in the UK commonly known as the “Equity Bill”. The Bill itself seems to focus on trying to tackle discrimination in workplaces, for anything ranging from age, race, gender, and (more importantly for the church) sexual orientation.
Now the Pope may be an evil scumbag, but he’s no fool; the wording he’s used to condemn this has been carefully crafted to make it look like they are only trying to defend the rights of Catholics. They say they are worried the Government would force them to employ women as priests, or worse, force their adoption agencies to allow homosexuals to have children (oh no! We can’t send them these kids to a loving home!). It’s not surprising, however, that their rhetoric doesn’t usually make any sense once you begin to scrutinize it:
“Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.
“In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”
But there is a misunderstanding: sometimes in government legislation equality seems to mean that we are all absolutely equal, which we are not. We are equal in dignity.
What the fuck does that mean exactly? Does it mean we can deny some people the same basic rights as others with our heads held high? What is dignity if it plays no role in deciding how fairly and equitably we treat our fellow human beings? This is the problem with religious folks who believe in an ancient and out of date dogma; in their eyes, homosexuals and women are not on par with men, and any laws which grants these folks the same rights as heterosexual males is seen as abhorrent.
In the next few days the Catholic bishops of England and Wales will issue a further challenge to Mr Brown and the other political parties in a “religious manifesto”, or pre-election document, that will build on more than a century of Catholic social thought to argue for religious freedom, as well as care for the poor and deprived.
This is the new way the church tries to spin their obvious homophobia and misogyny; they mask it under the rhetoric of helping the poor and deprived, but ignore their basic supposition, which is that homosexuals and women don’t deserve the same rights as others. That’s it. They can write a whole manifesto tooting their own horn, but it doesn’t change the fact they have no fucking business telling a foreign nation what laws it should or should not pass. Stick to talking to your invisible friend in the sky, and leave the rest of us alone, thanks.
(props to Simon for the find)
Study finds abstinence teaching effective in delaying teen sex
Score one for the abstinence movement: a study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, found abstinence only teaching helped delay the age teens are having sex by as much as two years. Now, before you start cursing at the fact that the religious right is going to use this study to keep funding their veiled religious sexual education program, it’s important to note even the people conducting the study stressed abstinence programs are not effective in the long term. That’s because most programs misinform kids about various forms of birth control, and this is one of the main reasons why teen pregnancy rates in the US are so high.
… more than half of the students who were taught about safe sex and condom use reported having intercourse by the two-year mark, and more than 40 percent of students who received either an eight- or 12-hour lesson incorporating both abstinence education and safe sex reported having sex at two years.
So basically, abstinence only programs might delay the age kids have sex, but it doesn’t do a very good job at preventing these same kids from having babies when they are way too young.
I’m not actually surprised with the study, since it reflects the same studies which have been conducted regarding drug education programs; it turns out if you teach kids about their options, they are more likely to be curious and try them. The difference, of course, is they are less likely to make POOR decisions, which is really what education is all about. Look, you can’t stop kids from having sex (even less so than drugs); they’re hardwired by billions of years of evolution to crave it. Failing to teach kids about their options, however, is the real irresponsible thing here, and parents are sacrificing their children’s long term future in the vain hope they’ll “wait a little longer”. By delaying the inevitable and being deceptive about contraceptives and condom use, parents may have a little peace of mind, but it certainly isn’t worth the trade off.
NOTE: Turns out that it’s not even an “abstinence only” program they studied, but it was actually part of a broader sex ed program that encouraged kids to wait until they were ready while still providing information about proper birth control. This probably won’t do anything to dissuade religious folks from thinking their childish programs work, but that’s not really news, is it?
Anti-vaccination movement gets tooled
Remember the controversy surrounding Andrew Wakefield and his Lancet article that tried to make a link between autism and the MMR vaccine? If you don’t, the basic 30 second version goes something like this:
In 1998 Wakefield writes publishes a paper suggesting a link between autism and gastrointestinal disease with the MMR vaccine, and asks the government to stop distributing the vaccine until more study is done
In 2004, the Sunday Times reports that most of the parents of the children used in the study were recruited by a lawyer to file a lawsuit against the MMR vaccine manufacturers, and that Wakefield himself had been paid by this same lawyer to conduct the study
It was also discovered that data was falsified to prove that the symptoms had all occurred after the shot, even though many of the children showed the symptoms before actually getting vaccinated.
Flash forward to today, where the General Medical Council ruled Wakefield acted both dishonestly and irresponsibly, and had failed in his duties as a consultant. Now the Lancet has also removed his article from the archives, effectively closing an embarrassing chapter in their otherwise illustrious history.
There you have it. There really are no arguments left. The only piece of evidence “anti-vaxers” have has just been definitively proven to be a fraud, and Wakefield is disgraced. All that’s left is for the GMC to take disciplinary actions against him. Obviously, we all know this won’t do anything to stop the anti-vaccination movement, which is hell bent on proving a connection exists. They don’t need anything inconvenient like evidence to back up their claims; as far as they are concerned, they’ve already made up their minds.
It’s sad when people refuse to accept the truth, but in a way, I feel a bit of sympathy for these idiots. They want someone to blame for the fact their children are developmentally disabled, and the MMR vaccine was an easy scapegoat. It can’t be easy trying to raise a child with a disability, but it doesn’t entitle you to make shit up, and put other children at risk because you can’t accept reality. Because of their efforts, previously contained diseases like measles and rubella are back with a vengeance, and for the first time in decades people are dying from these highly preventable diseases. I personally feel embarrassed we can’t stop these morons from spreading their misinformation, even when their own studies are disgraced. When are people going to learn?
Ricky Gervais talks about ‘Invention of Lying’ atheist subplot
I haven’t put much effort on the podcast into hiding the fact that I thought The Invention of Lying was a bore of a flick despite a pretty amusing anti-religion side plot: one of the lies the main character tells is that everyone goes somewhere awesome after death, which then led to lies about God, rules, and all that jazz. Hilarity ensues (or so I thought it would).
I’ve heard many atheists enjoyed the movie off the strength of this part alone, so if you’re stuck on a weekend with nothing better to watch, go for it! For now though here’s part of an interview with the movie’s writer/producer/director/star and of course atheist scum Ricky Gervais talking about the religious backlash the movie received:
There’s a boldness and strength of idea underpinning The Invention Of Lying that you don’t seem to get in the vast majority of Hollywood comedies. Do you think that’s why the film struggled to find an audience in America?
Well, I think everything has to fight hard to get an audience in America.
I think the reason why critics and websites didn’t like it was obviously the religious element. I think some people felt cheated that they weren’t warned. But I don’t know what you do with that. Whether I should put a warning ‘contains atheist material’. I don’t know. Strange, really.
One reviewer said that ‘I don’t know why Ricky Gervais feels the need to shove his atheism down our throat’. I thought, woah, well this is one film that dares to presume the lack of God, whereas every other film I’ve ever seen presumes a God. There are door-to-door Bible salesmen. It’s taught in schools as fact. Children are indoctrinated with it from the age of four. And I’m the one shoving the ideas! Surely, we can have a discussion about it?
It seems a little bit unfair. And I don’t think it is atheist propaganda, in a world where no one has ever had the ability to lie, as an atheist, to suggest I believe that religion was started by man. And I put that in a film. I’d be a hypocrite to say anything else.
Did you sense that reaction was going to come?
I did. But I didn’t think that intelligent people would be so worried about it.
I tell you why I think that the film is actually more subversive than most other films. It’s because it was couched in quite a sweet Hollywood rom-com. It wasn’t a dark indie film that was a terrible existential damning sort of film. It was a really sweet, uplifting Hollywood rom-com. It just happened to be a film where there was no God.
I’d still put the main blame on unlikable characters and the underdevelopment of the ‘society where no one can lie’ concept. Plus I think the movie was buried by the studio as well, but who knows if that was because of the religious nose tweaking or because it was just kinda weak. But Gervais has some solid points: Who’s shoving what down who’s throat, exactly? And why are religious people so sensitive that a single movie with an atheistic aspect is considered so shove-tastic?
Lancaster mayor claims city is “growing a Christian community”
Seems like every politician these days has forgotten about the First Amendment, since they can’t stop trying to shove their religion down everyone’s throats. The latest clueless jackass is Mayor R. Rex Parris of Lancaster, in Southern California, who said during his annual State of the City address that the city was growing a Christian community.
I need [Lancaster residents] standing up and saying we’re a Christian community, and we’re proud of that,” the mayor said.
Needless to say, not everyone was thrilled with this statement, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations has demanded that he apologize for using his office to promote his religion. Parris has refused, saying it’s just the group’s way of trying to get attention. If you read the comment section of this article, it looks like the vast majority of respondents are happy with the Mayor’s speech.
Islamists will always complain about any religion unless it is their own [as opposed to Christians?].
Wether [sic] you moslems like it or not, this IS a Christian country, just as Egypt is a moslem country and just as Saudi Arabia is a moslem country [what great countries to compare yourself to!].
I don’t care what Muslims say anymore. If they don’t like the USA, then get the hell out. This country is predominately christian and Jewish [give me your poor and tired, but only if they accept Jesus Christ].
Of course, because they’re in the majority, Christians haven’t stopped to consider the corrosive effect religion has on politics; they may also have overlooked the fact there are over 30,000 different Christian sects, and many of them are so different as to be almost unrecognizable. The entire reason you separate religion and government is to avoid having to deal with a candidate’s private beliefs affecting the lives of people who have different beliefs themselves. You can bet your ass no one would have been happy if the Mayor had instead stated Lancaster was growing “an Islamic community, and we’re proud of that”. The wall separating church and state is starting to crumble, and that’s not good news for anybody.
JFK on the separation of church and state
It’s sad Jack’s words have since fallen on deaf ears as Christians work tirelessly to erode the wall separating church and state. This one act is the reason why your own country has enjoyed such unprecedented freedom (which isn’t what it used to be, honestly). All religions seek power and control, and are therefore antithetical to freedom, and great men like John F. Kennedy recognized this fact not so long ago. It’s a damn shame that everyone seems to have forgotten it since then.
Baptist group gets busted for child trafficking
A group of 10 missionaries with little experience and few braincells have been arrested in Haiti for suspected child trafficking after they attempted to sneak 33 kids out of the country. The 5 women and 5 men are members of a small Baptist church in Idaho, and claim they were merely trying to help these poor kids find new homes and new parents. The problem with their plan is not only did they have no documentation; a significant portion of the children they were attempting to sneak to the Dominican Republic were not actually orphans.
This whole business has caused a huge stir, and the government is worried more children might be taken away from their homes and loved ones and sold as sex workers (it was already a problem BEFORE the earthquake). The president has declared he must personally approve every adoption to avoid any more potential child trafficking while the dust settles.
Now I’m going to give these idiots the benefit of the doubt; I’m sure they thought they were rescuing the children from a life of both poverty, and more specifically, evil voodoo magic. Unfortunately, since so many aid services are run by similarly well meaning religionists with brains two sizes too small, many locals are distraught that the priority is often on conversion, and not actual welfare of Haitians.
“There are many who come here with religious ideas that belong more in the time of the Inquisition,” said Max Beauvoir, head of Haiti’s Voodoo Priests Association, which represents thousands of priests and priestesses. “These types of people believe they need to save our souls and our bodies from ourselves. We need compassion, not proselytizing now, and we need aid — not just aid going to people of the Christian faith.”
The government hasn’t decided if they are going to prosecute these morons, but this whole affair could have some serious consequences for other religious groups hoping to offer aid. I would put it plainly: we’ll take your money, but you can keep your fucking religion to yourself.
This is considered hate speech?
I think overly sensitive Christians need to re-examine their definition of hate speech. Political hopeful William J. Kelly is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill, claiming a sign erected by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in the Illinois Capital Building is hate speech:
At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
Kelly finds this disparaging toward Christianity and other religions in general, and is suing Jesse White, Secretary of State for Illinois (who is responsible for enforcing the state’s property laws). It’s becoming quite clear, however, this is a politically motivated action rather than an honest concern about “hate speech”. He’s hoping to rally Christians around him, and I’m sure he’ll have plenty of success; after all, the recent confidence that previously silent atheists are displaying scares the hell out of them, and some people are looking for any excuse to fight the progress we’ve been making.
So what we can gather from this lawsuit is anytime you suggest religion is merely a superstition, you are effectively committing a hate crime. Is Kelly unaware of the concept of freedom of speech or is he merely afraid of it? Why do religions fear dissension so much? Do they correctly see that once people are exposed to the fact religions are merely the product of superstition and ignorance that they might abandon them? If they get to remove the sign from the Capitol Building, does that mean we get to expunge “In God We Trust” from their money too?
Ok, this is pretty cool
Anti Abortion militants upset over Tiller murder conviction
It appears anti-abortion activists are getting a bit crazier every day. The recent conviction of Scott Roeder, who gunned down Dr. George Tiller just about a year ago, has apparently rallied religious nutjobs who think killing doctors who perform abortions is a heroic act. They are upset he was found guilty, which makes me wonder what connection they have with reality. I’m not sure what they were expecting exactly; did they think his defense (he had no choice but to use deadly force to “save babies”) would work?
What scares me the most is the type of rhetoric anti-choice activists use when talking about abortions. Sure, lots of groups say they distance themselves from violent tactics, but the truth is there’s usually a mixed message coming from these organizations regarding the use of violence. Take Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue saying more violence was inevitable:
“The blood of these babies slain by Tiller is crying for vengeance,”
Is that what a terminated fetus is doing in heaven? Crying for the murder of the doctor who performed operations usually meant to save the life of the mother? For such innocent creatures, they definitely are vengeful! Maybe (just maybe) the only ones crying for violence are religious wackos who have a tenuous grip with reality.
Gotta love the Onion
With all the talk of abortions in the wake of the news, CBS apparently can’t keep their fucking nose out of it, and the Onion comes out with this. Man, I wish I was as funny as them!
UK Home Office provides grant for Christian police
Apparently the Home Office in Great Britain has money to burn, as they’ve given the Christian Police Association £10,000 (or about $16,000) to help their campaign aimed at getting the public to pray to help prevent crime. They are already claiming the program, which they’ve already initiated, is having some major success:
In one particular area, an officer was investigating an incident but he had not been able to apprehend a suspect. He encouraged a church to pray for him and within days a suspect had been arrested and charged.
In another area, an officer encouraged churches to pray about domestic burglary and over the year it came down by 30 per cent. We do not discount good police work, which is why we call it circumstantial evidence.
You have to love the faithful; any time there’s a study done that proves prayer does exactly jack-shit (and Jack left town), they completely ignore it, no matter what the evidence is. It’s plainly obvious to everyone else talking your invisible friend doesn’t do more than bring a sense of comfort for the delusional, let alone “solve crime”. Could the 30 percent reduction in domestic burglary possibly be related to the crime rate falling in the UK for the past few years (the government reports a simultaneous increase in illicit drug use; am I to assume using their logic that using drugs prevents crime?) Where did these clowns graduate from: Police Academy 5?
Is it too much to ask that governments not spend their taxpayer’s hard-earned money on nonsense?
Virginia school bans Anne Frank’s Diary
It’s now official; parents need to stay the fuck out of the educational system. How else are we supposed to react when one of these people gets the expanded version of Anne Frank’s diary banned for containing a short passage making reference to the vagina?
There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can’t imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!
Originally Anne’s father had removed some of her passages from the diary, presumably out of fear that Anne’s frankness (is this considered a tasteless pun?) would be too much for students to handle. I guess he was right, since it took only one complaint for school officials to cave.
Hey, I get it; when you have kids, your brain gets a little bit rattled (in fact, during the late stages of pregnancy, a woman’s brain will temporarily shrink for a little while). It doesn’t help that these defenseless whelps need your constant attention not to die. Eventually, however, you have to accept the fact the wider world is out there for them to explore, and losing your shit every time a sexual organ is being discussed is a serious over-reaction on the part of parents with bigger hearts than brains.
Jim Allen, the director of instruction at Culpeper County public school had this to say about the situation:
“I’m happy when parents get involved with these things because it lets me know that they are really looking and have their kids’ best interest (in mind). And that’s where good parenting and good teaching comes in.”
Does good parenting involve banning books because of innocent references to private parts? How is this good teaching? It’s quite literally the opposite of that, moron.
Three speeches on surviving a religious upbringing
Here is the Center for Inquiry’s lecture held in the latter part of 2009. The speeches start at the 10 minute mark, so if you want to avoid all the “boring” introduction stuff, skip ahead. If you’re at work and can listen to things in the background, there’s no real slideshow, so enjoy it in the background. The speakers are William Lobdell, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, and Marilyn Mehr.