Recent article in the Guardian from a guy called Alastair Noble:

As a former science teacher and schools inspector, I am disturbed that proposals for science education are based on near-complete ignorance of intelligent design.

This is in response to the rather awesome news that primary schools are going to be teaching evolution (along with the similarly awesome news that the BHA piped in their approval - YAY!).

I did a bit of research on Dr. Alastair Noble and thought I was going to conclude by saying "why did the Guardian even publish this guy?" Unfortunately, it looks like he's geniunely a scientist, genuinely used to teach science and genuinely used to inspect schools. The more I looked into it the worse it got.

First of all, on the religious nutcase side of things:
- Alastair Noble put his name to a rather daft letter to the Telegraph claiming that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life and that intelligent design does.
- He's a signatory on the Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". (While there can't be more than 850 names on that list, a website has been set up to find scientists supporting evolution who have the name "Steve". It currently has over 1100 names.)
- He's written an apologetics book called "Is It True: The Case For Christianity" and in the book description it mentions that he belongs to the "Billy Graham Evangelistic Association".
- He also gives a 5-star review for Stephen Meyer's book "DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design".

However, on the positions of authority side of things:
- He has a PhD in Chemistry and is currently a research chemist.
- He works as an education consultant (for a Christian charity called CARE).
- He is a former secondary school chemistry teacher.
- He is a former school inspector.
- He has worked on educational programmes within the BBC, the CBI and the NHS.
- He is Field Officer of The Headteachers’ Association of Scotland.

In the end it looks like he has enough qualifications to entitle him to an article in The Guardian. Still, it isn't half depressing.

PETA is a fraud. It also has a long and disgraceful record of exploiting Christian and Jewish themes to hawk its ugly services. Those who support this organization sorely need a reality check. They also need a course in Ethics 101.

Er, Donohue, I think Jews would rather you left them out of this.

Anyway, here's the image Bill is so het up about. Personally, I think this is hilarious:
( See the shocking image! NSFW! )

Model Joanna Krupa, who features in the ad, has this to say:

As a practicing Catholic, I am shocked that the Catholic League is speaking out against my PETA ads, which I am very proud of. I’m doing what the Catholic Church should be doing, working to stop senseless suffering of animals, the most defenseless of god’s creation.

It must be said that the advert is actually in awful taste and the main reason I'm posting it is because it is so ridiculously over-the-top that it needs to be seen to be believed. (Also because I love imagining the look on Bill's face when he saw it. Priceless!)

(Via MediaWatchWatch)

Cross-posted to atheism

WHOSE RESPONSIBLE THIS?

The Yeah Yeah Yeahs have decided to ditch their more organic sound for some electronica shite.

How could they go from this....


.. to this?


Not only is it irritating to think about how much better it would sound if it didn't have the naff keyboards, but this actually seems to be the best song on their latest album. What the hell happened? :(

More examples of awesome YYYs songs under the cut...
( Read more... )

It's an odd contrast with Bill Donohue loudly proclaiming his nonsense, while Pat Robertson quietly gurgles his agreement:

Pat Robertson: Well he's nothing if it isn't a fighter and it's a pleasure to have Dr. William Donohue with us from the Catholic League. And he's written this very very interesting book called 'Secular Sabotage'. Bill, it's nice to have you here. Tell us what got you going on this book.

("Well Pat, I say this sort of crap all over the media and people actually seem to listen to me. So I figured that if I stir up even half the amount of interest I worked up for that Da Vinci Code movie, I might rake some real money out of it.")

Bill Donohue: Well thank you very much and thank you for all the good work you've done over the years in fighting to keep our Judeo-Christian heritage. What got me going is 16 years of doing this job here. [The job of promoting movies, books and television shows by complaining about them.] Looking at the whole culture and how it attacks Christianity. I decided to put it together. [In other words, conspiracy theories sell well.] And what I've done, I've got over 600 different end-notes, citations. This is not an essay, I've got the evidence here.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Pat Robertson and Bill Donohue are both slapping each other on the back for each other's good work. While Pat Robertson probably doesn't have an awful lot of support for the Roman Catholic Church, being an evangelical protestant himself, I can see how he'd forget all that for the purpose of supporting a fellow gay-basher. I'm more surprised by Donohue though. For all the horrible things he's said in the past, I never thought he'd sink so low as to congratulate Pat Robertson for all his good work.

Still, let's get back to what we've all come to expect from Bill. During the interview, the question of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church came up when Robertson asked if "all these scandals in the Catholic Church [were] part of this secular agenda to undermine to undermine the moral fabric of the church." Donohue replied that indeed they were [the section begins around the 3:45 mark in the video above]:

There's no question that within the Catholic Church you have a you a left element ... I regard them as termites sitting within, trying to eat away the fabric of the Catholic Church. So they lie about it in the Catholic Church, they say "oh, we had a pedophilia problem." It's been a homosexual problem all along. It's not my opinion, it's the actual data from the John Jay Criminal Justice System College [sic] here in New York City which looked at the data. I'm not saying homosexuality causes predatory behavior; I'm saying that most of the priests who have been predators have been homosexuals.

Yet strangely, the very same data that Bill references seems to point towards the complete opposite conclusion:

A preliminary report commissioned by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops to investigate the clergy sex abuse scandal has found no evidence that gay priests are more likely than heterosexual clergy to molest children, the lead authors of the study said Tuesday.

The full report by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice won't be completed until the end of next year. But the authors said their evidence to date found no data indicating that homosexuality was a predictor of abuse.

"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse," said Margaret Smith of John Jay College, in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now."

Hmmm, must have been missed out of his many citations....

(Via RightWIngWatch)

Cross posted to Atheism

Okay, well I've got a couple of newly watched movies and a couple of re-watched movies here.





( Read more... )

After the "Ugly" 'anti-health care reform' protest video I showed in the past, there's now a video of similarly mad Americans expressing their political views. This time it's Palin supporters at one of Sarah Palin's book signings. The stupid, it burns!


(Via ontd_political)

Presumably by now everyone's heard of this somewhat underwhelming advert from the BHA:



Some people have asked, "so how do you expect us to bring up our children without passing on our own beliefs" which naturally fails to note that the poster quite clearly includes HUMANIST CHILD. Andrew Copson is eloquent as ever in his explanation of how these people have missed the point:

"You have to wonder why these commentators can't just agree that there is an extreme of presumption which is coercive and should be avoided." said Andrew Copson. "People who criticise us as if we'd said that children raised in religious families couldn't be happy or that no child should have any contact with religion or learn anything about it at all should take the time to read the adverts and think about their message rather than rely on their own assumptions.

"The message of the posters is that the labelling of children by their parents' religion fails to respect the rights of the child and curtails their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies (and 'Humanist' is one of the labels we use on our poster) should not be foisted on or assumed of young children and that young people have the right to choose for themselves in line with their developing capacities as they grow. That's very far from saying that any possible reference to religion should be prohibited in the home!"

I say underwhelming since it's not entirely clear from the advert what scenario might arise where a child is overly identified with their parents religion (rather than simply brought up being taught their parents' beliefs). That being said, a rather apt demonstration has been forthcoming anyway......

This advert has clearly confused a number of different people who were all expecting something self-serving from the BHA. Their decision to advocate strict secularism rather than priveledge for their own belief system (like religious groups prefer to do) has bowled many people for six. However, none have managed to make such an enormous gaffe in their criticisms than Ruth Gledhill from The Times:

With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.
Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families.

Their father, Brad Mason, is quoted as saying:

“It is quite funny, because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children.”

While Gerald Coates, the leader of the Pioneer network of churches, is quoted as saying:

“I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian.”

cyranothe2nd provides the perfect response to all this and I couldn't really improve on it if I wanted to:

Yes, yes it is ironic, you f*cking idiots! The whole point of the ads is that they aren't Christian children-they are children of Christian parents.

Well, this isn't the first time Ruth Gledhill has said something idiotic. One of the first articles I came across from her was in response to a statement from the Vatican re-asserting that Darwin's theory of evolution poses no problems for them. The headline for the article was: "Catholic Church No Longer Swears By Truth Of The Bible." *facepalm*

(via Exchristians)

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has instituted a new series of tests that any applicant for British citizenship must pass:

- The ability to express the full range of human emotion by gentle throat clearing.

- The ability to drink a full pint of warm flat beer (non-alcoholic beer is permitted, but in this case two pints must be consumed).

- The ability to complement the cook after consuming a dinner of cold mashed potatoes, cold peas, and cold burnt meat.

- The ability to instinctively know if it's tea first or milk first.

- The ability to praise the French while clearly indicating that since 1066 they've pretty much been a bunch of losers.

- The ability to praise the Americans while clearly indicating that they got lucky that one time in the late 1700's.

- The ability to colour in red those bits of the globe that still should properly belong to Britain (extra credit if the United States is included).

And finally

- The ability to utter the phrase "British Way of Life" without cracking even the hint of a smile.

Joke orignally from here.

(Via Manuscripts Don't Burn)

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has done a lot that's annoyed me. He expressed support for the 'lower the time limit for abortion' movement which very nearly succeeded, he has always been cryptic on the issue of women bishops rather than giving them his full support and he has spoken out against secularism on a number of occasions.

All this being said, he has recently warned against giving too much support for faith-based activism:

Faith communities did not begin from a "clear Englightenment doctrine" of universal liberties, Williams said. "They are necessarily exclusive in the sense that they are committed to particular beliefs that not everyone shares. There is always a suspicion that they will favour their own or that they are using aid and development as a vehicle for propaganda on behalf of their own convictions, a cloak for proselytism.

"The development agency may come to see religion as a positive obstacle to liberation. Faced with the rise of aggressive religious conservatism all this longstanding unease becomes more sharply focused."

( Read more... )

(Via BHA)

Cross-posted to Atheism

A case has recently gone to the UK supreme court that a school called the Jewish Free School (JFS) uses racial discrimination in its selection procedure. The BHA have intervened in support of the prosecutors, insisting that racial discrimination should never be accepted, even with religious reasons involved. Interestingly, this turns out to be a result of the idiocy of Jonathan Sacks again.

The child's father was Jewish and the mother converted to Judaism. As such, the child has a Jewish mother and is eligible. The mother is a practicing Jew and the whole family attend synagogue so there is no reason to dismiss on the grounds of religious observance. Nevertheless, the Chief Rabbi ruled that the mother did not truly count as Jewish because she converted via a Masorti synagogue. Jonathan Sacks apparently doesn't count Masorti conversions and thus by the same reckoning the child does not count as Jewish either. The obsession over the place where the mother converted rather than both her and her son's religious conviction makes this a clear case of selection based on racial rather than religious grounds.

Also rather cool, Accord Chair, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain declared: “This is a defining moment. For too long state-funded faith schools have had a free hand to discriminate. This will be a big first step towards creating faith schools that serve the community around them, not just themselves.”

(Oddly it seems that the intro to the interview with Andrew Copson was quite biased in favour of Benjamin "at the cutting edge of fighting assimilation" Perl's side of the argument. It claimed that the idea that admitting a Jewish boy with a devoted Jewish convert mother was devastating to the Jewish community. Wtf? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGvBsxx9itc )

(Via BHA)

(Via Ekklesia)

Lord Sacks blamed Europe's falling birth rate on a culture of "consumerism and instant gratification". He said the continent was "dying" and accused its citizens of not being prepared for parenthood's "sacrifices".

The 61-year-old, who took his seat in the Lords last week, said: "Wherever you turn today - Jewish, Christian or Muslim - the more religious the community, the larger on average are their families.

"The major assault on religion today comes from the neo-Darwinians."( Read more... )

(Full article here)

This article seems like a combination of:
"ZOMG religious people are turning into atheists/heathens/heartless materialists!/ Won't anyone think of the foetuses!"
"ZOMG the Muslim immigrants are taking over"
and finally
"ZOMG why aren't more Jews using my Beth Din court on which my whole status as Chief Rabbi depends. Is there no decent sense of morality in the world anymore?"



(Via ontd political)

x-posted to atheism

Well so much for the BS that no moderate Muslims ever protest against Islamic extremism (which has been an increasingly bizarre discussion on the freeratio forums recently). In an earlier post I pointed out that, while disagreeing on Baroness Warsi's views on secularism, I was strongly in favour of her condemnation of Islamic extremism. She particularly pointed out a group known as Al Muhajiroun which had been protesting against soldiers returning from Iraq. Read more about Al Muhajiroun on the following wikipedia page or you can click here for specifically the controversy.

So without further ado, a recent counter-protest to an Al Muhajiroun spinoff group (known as Islam4UK) by the British Muslims for Secular Democracy. (Muslims4UK were also involved in their own counter-protest and on a less positive note so were BNP-affiliated "English Defence League".)


(Via MediaWatchWatch)
(Via BHA)

This is an image I saw about 7 or 8 years ago. It's against the use of fur in the fashion industry and I fully support the intended sentiment. What confused me at the time, however, was the decision to use a fox as the animal when it is vermin. Of course, actually thinking about it, the fox is a great choice. It would be highly hypocritical to get hold of the carcass of an animal that wasn't vermin for a poster promoting animal rights.

In much more recent news A.A. Gill has apparently made a blunder in admitting that he once shot a baboon on safari "to get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone". This is a quite horrible reason to kill an animal and animal rights protestors are right to suggest that if you want to know what its like to shoot a human being, shooting your own leg might be a better choice. After all, unless A.A. Gill wants to feel like a sociopath killing an animal for absolutely no reason would be a rather daft way to go about it. Soldiers in an army do not kill innocent bystanders for no reason unless they are aiming for a court marshal.

However, what is not mentioned until the very end of the article is that the baboon A.A. Gill shot, far from being endangered, is actually local vermin in the area:

Baboons are seen as a threat by some people in Tanzania because they raid crops, and farmers who need to control their populations can apply for licences to kill them in some areas. They have been classed as vermin in the country and often live on the edges of farming areas.

Now I'd say that if an animal is vermin, killing that animal can not so easily be condemned as immoral. Would there really be the same outcry about cockroaches, rats or wasps?

( Read more... )

The film stars Rachel Weiz who is from all accounts on top "The Constant Gardner" form as the star of this movie.

The movie is about Hypatia of Alexandria, a pagan philosopher, astronomer and mathematician who was tragically murdered by a Christian mob in the 5th Century AD. One interesting element is that Hypatia was not defined by gender or sexuality, being unusually accepted in the company of men and believed to have avoided sexual relationships (apparently she used her mentrual rags to illustrate that sexual desire is not beautiful).

I absolutely loved Alejandro Amenabar's previous movie "The Sea Inside" about Ramón Sampedro, a campaigner for the right to assisted suicide in Spain and the movie rightly received huge critical acclaim. Amenabar is also the director of "Open Your Eyes" which was adapted into the appalling English-speaking remake "Vanilla Sky" by the talentless hack Cameron Crowe. Before that he made a movie called "Tesis" about a film student considering to what extent violent media should be censored. You may also know about his film "The Others" starring Nicole Kidman. And here's the problem... By far the least impressive of his movies is the English-speaking movie "The Others". I get the impression that Amenabar is a far more capable director in his own language. Still this could be a lot of fuss over nothing. We'll see...

The president of the Religious Anti-Defamation Observatory, Antonio Alonso Marcos, has criticised the movie. (From what I can tell this organisation is pretty much the Spanish equivalent of Donohue's "Catholic League" organisation.) Marcos previously denounced the 'atheist bus campaign' as "illegal", so this is clearly a mild-mannered and even-tempered gentleman.... :p

Marcos comments are as follows:

( Read more... )

(Via MediaWatchWatch)

The Good

Okay, here's the most recent and excellent thing to come out of posts on the whole US health care reform thing (via ontd political). The health insurance industry get 'punk'd' (er, what does that mean?) at their own conference. YAY!


I'd also like to present another couple of videos on this subject that I saw in the past few months...

( The bad and the ugly are under the cut... )

This is my previous extra-long confused post, re-cut to make more sense and be FAR more readable:

Baroness Warsi and the National Secular Society

The BHA recently criticised comments by two prominent political figures: Tony Blair (for whom I feel no explanation is required) and Baroness Warsi (whose comments can be found here). Baroness Warsi is a Muslim politician in the Conservative party.

The National Secular Society quoted Baroness Warsi's description of "state multiculturalism" where she defines it as follows:

"Firstly, when we as Conservatives talk about multiculturalism we are not talking about the building of temples, or synagogues or mosques in any neighbourhood. For us that is religious pluralism and it is a defining British characteristic that began with the non-conformists.

"For me, state multiculturalism, as I like to define it is forcing Britain’s diverse communities to still define themselves as different, patronisingly special and tempting them to compete against each other for public funds."

The National Secular Society then respond by saying:

"We have been saying this for the past ten years. So far so good."

Sorry, but no it's not bloody good! Why the hell shouldn't religious groups compete for public funds just like everyone else? It's actually in this criticism of "state multiculturalism" that Baroness Warsi's criticism of secularism is most clear and obvious. She doesn't think that religious groups should compete against each other along with all the other stances vying for public attention. Instead she thinks religions should be granted priveledges by default.


Both are united against "state multiculturalism" - whatever the hell that is.

So where did the term 'state multiculturalism' come from?

( Read more... )

Problems with the Conservatives' critique of 'state multiculturalism'
( Read more... )

What should the National Secular Society have praised Baroness Warsi for saying?

( Read more... )

Baroness Warsi's absurd examples of persecution. (The bit the National Secular Society were absolutely right about.)

( Read more... )

Okay now this is confusing. (Via BHA)

The BHA recently noted a couple of tirades against secularism recently. The first I already knew about: Tony Blair. I didn't know about him quoting from a speech by the pope that humanism is 'inhuman', but it doesn't surprise me. I'm glad to see the BHA advising that he isn't made president of European Union council, but I'd like to hope that he's a highly unlikely choice anyway (then again he was a highly unlikely choice for Middle East envoy too, so who knows?).

The other figure the BHA have pointed out, however, is Baroness Warsi. Now she makes a lot of very sensible points in her speech, but she also says a lot of cr*p too. A big issue for me, however, is her use of the term 'state multiculturalism'. The National Secular Society seem to think this is a reasonable part of her speech, but I'm not so sure. I'd really like to know - what's wrong with "state multiculturalism"? What's worse this term seems to end up being traced back to Munira Mirza, who I am strongly in favour of and, from what I can tell, she has never used the term. What the hell is going on?

Perhaps this is some long case of chinese whispers?

If anyone can help me out here, please do...