More Atheism+ stuff

Now that I think about it, I was a little wishy-washy when it comes to whether I would call myself a follower of Atheism+ and joining the movement.

I think that I would be something of a "fellow traveller" at the moment because the ideals that were laid out are ones that I either agree with or can agree with, but that is because the moderate movement hold broad, generalised views.

What concerns me the most about Atheism+ is that it's a product that will be heavily influenced by FreethoughtBlogs. And that concerns me. FtB has shown itself to be rather dogmatic when it comes to certain social issues.

For example, look at what happened with thunderf00t. He was invited to join FtB, and when he did he - to quote PZ Myers - "wrote during the short week he was here was incoherent, unprofessional rages against feminism and the whole network he was on".

(By the way, it seems at the time I write this you can still access his now defunct blog on the network.)

I don't know whether they see it like that but thunderf00t being kicked off of FtB was seen by those outside of the network as a silencing of dissent. Rather ironic when you consider the whole network was apparently founded because of censorship on the part of National Geographic who bought out the ScienceBlogs network. Although whether that reason reflects reality remains to be seen.

While I knew most of the big name bloggers there were pro-Watson during Elevatorgate, up until that point I had never really expected to see dissent, no matter how badly written, from a position to be censored on a website that was apparently founded on anti-censorship.

My last post on Atheism+ worked on the assumption that the moderate branch of the organisation would not create an orthodoxy. The problem is that Atheism+ will be formed mainly from regular readers/commenters on FtB. And considering that they are from a site that has an underlying set of unquestionable beliefs there is a very real possibility that Atheism+ will also adopt a party line that one is required to follow.

Looking at the comments on this post by Greta Christina you can see noelplum99 having his positions misrepresented by others. The word "privilege" is used a few times. If you don't want to read the comment thread, you can watch this video by BigLundi

who goes through the thread for you.

Looking at some of the threads from the A+ forums (yes, they have forums now) some of the comments already seem to show an insular view, this is despite the fact that nobody actually knows what the more detailed position is for the more moderate movement on the broad topics I mentioned in my last post.

To quote the poster BillHaines:

An aggressive group would've banned you already. Unorganized is to be expected; we're like three days old here, give us a break. You're either with us or -- why are you here? Inappropriate is in the eye of the beholder -- and as JM put it, "I just want a space where atheists with a shared interest in social justice can actually discuss it and get stuff done. You are free to form your own groups or continue taking part in whatever atheist community will have you. You can even come and civilly take part in our discussions! But we don’t need to tolerate the intolerant within our own space." So...

(Bolding mine)

This is a comment directed at someone making a suggestion about the name. How dare the user Mefune question the validity of the name? The other question is if Mefune had posted this question later on, when the site became more organised, would he have been banned?

This issue on diversity of opinion was brought up by the user surreptitious57 who made the perfectly valid point that as a movement becomes more diverse there are going to be more people who disagree with positions. The fact that a mod (BillHaines) doesn't seem to get that is a little worrying.

But as I said, I'm not going to support a movement when I have no idea what the movement actually stands for.

Atheism+

Talking about Atheism+ seems to be the thing everyone is talking about so I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and talk about it.

In essence it's supposed to be "Atheism with other things", but it's already starting to look like this isn't the case.

I would say that it looks like Jen McCreight's idea is already being co-opted by Richard Carrier, but that appearance is probably a little deceiving. I can understand the idea that it's being co-opted, FreethoughtBlogs seems to have created their own little clique within the atheist community and I think that the idea that we are seeing a co-option arises from that.

If we accept the idea that Atheism+ is supposed to be a "new wave" like the waves of feminism, it would suggest that we are seeing the formation of two groups within Atheism+, the mainstream and the radical. McCreight being the founder of the mainstream and Carrier the embodiment of the radical.

Jen McCreight is basically the founder of this wave, being the one to make the suggestion to start a new wave and doing something about it. The things that McCreight would like this movement to do is outlined in the post Atheism+: It's time to walk the walk. The items listed would be:

To start us off, here are some issues I envision A+ addressing from a secular, skeptical perspective:

• Racism
• Sexism
• Homophobia
• Transphobia
• Ableism
• Classism
• Ageism
• Neurotypicalism
• Animal welfare
• Environmental issues
• Political issues (Health care, crime, drug laws)

What we would see here is  This would definitely become more pronounced for the last three points and may possibly include "Neurotypicalism", but that's because I don't know what exactly the ideal would be there. Especially considering the issue between high- and low- functioning individuals.

But the basic idea here is also education; to try and get people to change their minds and improve things that way. It also strives to be inclusive (Point 6) but holds a firmer line against those who do not fit in with the values in question.

Carrier's "living document" is here. Reading through what he wrote, and also his comments to criticism indicate that he's the more radical one. The original version of that document had the conclusion:

In the meantime, I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.

Which has since been changed to (as of 30/8/12):

In the meantime, are you an atheist? Do you identify as an atheist? Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.

Now when you look at it, there is no real difference between the two comments. What we are seeing here is the in-group/out-group bias in play. In a rather ironic twist it's the same bias that has been levelled at FreethoughtBlogs. But good thing everyone else there is pretty supportive of the concept?

It's also poisoning the well, by automatically assuming that people who don't agree with Atheism+ are sexist and cruel. Good thing that Carrier doesn't have a thing for logical fallacies. Unless you happen to read the comments and see that the section "We believe in being reasonable" once read:

Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument and, when shown that they have, does not admit it, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.

It now reads (as of 30/8/12):

This means, first, that we believe in being logical and rational in forming beliefs and opinions. Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument on any matter of real importance and, when shown that they have, does not admit it (when given the chance), is probably not one of us, and if they persist in doing that, is definitely not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.

(I'm showing this because changes to the post aren't mentioned)

Just looking at these changes suggest that while Carrier has toned down the rhetoric, probably because of this tweet he still wants to excise those that he doesn't like.

But this reminds me of certain radical feminists, like Gail Dines, or Twisty Faster. Carrier is arguing for control. Carrier's Atheism+ is designed to control people and remove those who refuse to toe the line.

So that's basically it. What we are seeing is two different groups covered by the same organisation. In the end though we're seeing more of Carrier's views being discussed and that is influencing people on their decision to join the group.


I however am not going to claim that I belong to Atheist+ because they're clearly continentalist. Also, I don't think I need to attach a rather strange label to myself. I will be one of those people that supports the same ideals but won't adopt that label.

Updated: More thoughts on the idea.

The Rapture

Well apparently today is the Rapture. Apparently. As I write this it's 5:47 PM (UTC+9:30) and I just heard thunder. Surely this can't be a coincidence... hang on... yes. Yes it can be.

I base this on the simple fact that it's supposed to be at 6PM local time everywhere and unless God obeys the international date line we should have heard of the destruction of Kiribati (UTC+12,13,14). If God doesn't obey the date line then which time zone will he follow? Kiribati's furthest points lie within UTC+14, which is technically the same time zone as Hawaii (UTC -10). Would that mean that Kiribati will only undergo the rapture on some of the islands at 6PM UTC+12 and then undergo it again when it hits UTC -10 and -11? Or would the people of Hawaii be able to just move to the now destroyed Kiribati islands when they are destroyed 24 hours before Hawaii is?

You would have thought the people claiming this would have sorted this out by now.

Well I'll give an update after 6PM if I'm still alive or haven't somehow been raptured. Although I don't really find being forced to live in an underwater city appealing. Especially one based on Objectivist values.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: It's 6:04 PM in Adelaide right now. The rapture appears to have been some thunder about 5:45 and then a little rain. No reports on rapture people as of yet, but considering that there hasn't been anything from the East I'm going to assume that nobody was raptured.

That either means that nothing happened (which is most likely) or that everyone in Australia is fucked.

Literally an eye for an eye

It's such a good saying, but it's also one that I get the impression that people don't understand very well. But it might also be that I've come up with my own interpretation of the adage. I always interpreted it as a form of justice with a defined start and end point. So if someone attacks you and cuts off a finger then as a form of justice you get to cut off the finger of the person who attacked you. That's it. No escalation of retribution and the attacker has no right to then cut off one of your fingers since he's already done that. Of course in this day and age we have managed to move beyond such things and have come up with a system of monetary reimbursement and imprisonment instead of actually committing the same crime in the name of justice.

The reason I bring this up is that under Sharia law in Islam such a form of justice exists under the name Qisas. Granted the actual concept is a bit more complex and the teachings of it depends on the school of jurisprudence that it followed in the respective Sharia following country but the underlying premise is the same. Punishments should be proportional to the crime in question.

Discussions on this have started appearing again after Iranian courts suspended the blinding of Majid Movahedi after he threw acid in the face of Ameneh Bahrami back in 2004. In 2008 Bahrami took advantage of this concept during the trial when she suggested that he be blinded so he may see what she is going through.

Personally I'm a little conflicted. I clearly understand the arguments made when people say that it's a cruel punishment because it is cruel, but I don't really see why that means that this punishment is necessarily wrong.

This article on iranian.com suggests that Bahrami is unable to empathise with Movahedi by asking for this punishment. The fact of the matter is that I can't really empathise with him either.

This is a man who couldn't take "no" for an answer and did this simply because he was hoping that the attack would end pretty much the same way it did for Burt Pugach. Pugach hired three men to attack Linda Riss, a woman he'd had an affair with, by throwing lye in her face simply because she had gotten engaged to another man. In the end Pugach ended up marrying Riss.

Movahedi had decided that Bahrami was going to marry him no matter what. When he threw the acid on her face he didn't care about her. In the end he left a woman disfigured and in the end blind after surgery to save the sight in her one remaining eye failed due to an infection.

This man has utterly ruined her life. I'm sorry but I can't empathise with such a person. I've tried but I really can't. The only thing is that I empathise with him losing his sight and becoming unable to continue to experience the world as he knows it. I think that but then I remember that he made that decision for another person.

There are two other points that I would like to make. The first is a comment that you can find on other websites which is:

“His mother phoned my parents. She asked for mercy,” said Bahrami in an interview.

“She said that Majid would always work for me if he could keep his eyes. But now it’s too late,” she said.

The thing was that this was the plan Movahedi had. She would be defenceless and he would sweep in and take care of her for the rest of her life. In other words rewarding him for his behaviour. The mother might as well have offered some sort of "rehabilitating marriage" to make the comparison with my next paragraph more blatant.

It would be the same kind of "punishment" that Filippo Melodia was hoping for when he kidnapped and raped Franca Viola in Italy in the 60's. Melodia had tried to court Viola and had failed to.Instead of going to prison he would undergo a "rehabilitating marriage" a practise designed to protect the "honour" of the raped girl (it also automatically extinguished the rape charge for the man, so no ulterior motives there...). Viola refused and Melodia went to jail for 11 years.

Both Melodia and Movahedi committed their crimes for a reason. They wanted to get the girl no matter the cost. Melodia spent 11 years in prison for his crimes. Movahedi will lose his eyes.

The end of this Time article probably makes the most sense of this issue. By blinding Movahedi all that will happen is that he will be an additional drain on the system. But prison for any amount of time would be the same. Money that could be spent on whatever social welfare there is in Iran would either go to support a prisoner or a blind man. Odds are the blind man would get more social support.

The second point is one of forgiveness. There are people out there who think that she should forgive him and not go through with revenge. However forgiveness is a conclusion. There are many factors that lead to the resolution of an event like this. Getting justice would be something that is on the road to forgiving. Who knows, she may feel sorry that she asked for this punishment later on in the future, but at present all Bahrami has at the moment is that her attacker has not been given his punishment, and she is probably feeling that she has lost her life in the process. People are expecting much from a woman they don't know when the chances are if they were in the same position they would make the same decision that she did.

The point is that forgiveness is not something that you do willy-nilly. It has meaning and purpose and is not really something that is given lightly.

I think that it is possible in time Bahrami will come to forgive her attacker, but the important part of that statement is "in time".

#stupidscientology or yes, not logic

I'd like to join in the twitter thing using that tag, but I don't have an account and I can't be bothered making one. If you have one I suggest that you tweet using that tag.

John Dixon a councillor in Cardiff (that's in Wales in case you don't know) made the following tweet when he was in London:

“I didn’t know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”

Naturally CoS decided to complain. Ok, maybe they have the right to, but seriously. Would you really complain about that? Would you?

Now I knew that CoS was thin skinned. Clearly I didn't know how thin it was.

The article I linked to above states the CoS claimed that the comments "impinged on the right to religious freedom". I'd like to see their reasoning for that, especially considering that Scientology isn't a religion in the UK.

Reading the Google update page for #stupidscientology a few people have pointed out that an anagram for Scientology is "Yes, not logic". That probably explains the reasons for this complaint.

Damned if you do

Christopher Hitchens wrote an article on Slate regarding the French ban on burqas. Essentially as I see it he's arguing that it's a good thing based on two basic prongs, the first being that it frees women from being forced to wear it by their families, and the second is that being able to see each others faces is something important to western culture.

However, if Amanda Hess is right in her article, "But If You're Wearing A Veil, How Will I Know That You're Smiling, Baby? then the "real" argument that Hitchens made is that he just wants to look at the faces of women.

Now I have trouble understanding what Hess wants. Is she saying the burqa, regardless of whether the woman is being forced to wear it, is ok because it prevents us dirty men from looking at their faces? Or that us blokes are to avert our gaze whenever we talk to, or even see a woman?

I suspect that it may be the latter for two reasons. The first is that Hess does not make her stance clear on the issue. In fact she doesn't seem to even consider the merits of Hitchens' argument, instead it's written off as "wrong" simply because Hitchens is a man. The second is in this passage:

In an essay condemning a cultural institution that prevents men from looking at the faces of women, Hitchens instead argues that men have an inalienable right to stare. Of course, Hitchens phrases this in gender-neutral terms—”My right to see your face is the beginning of it, as is your right to see mine”—that assumes social equivalence between the gazes of women and men. In fact, the gender-neutral approach fails to acknowledge the sexist cultural institutions that allow men to exert ownership over women’s bodies through their gaze—like street harassment and sexual objectification. When a guy passes a woman on the street and tells her to “smile, baby,” he’s asserting authority over her face, her feelings, and how she chooses to express them—or not. Those who would declare their “right” to look at women should first note the social context in which women’s faces are often examined.

(my emphasis)

The bold seems, to me, to suggest that I shouldn't dare sully the purity of a woman by looking upon her face. This, coupled with the suggestion in the previous sentence regarding "social equivalence between the gazes of women and men" seems to drive this point home. If a woman looks at me, it's ok regardless of why she's looking at me, but if I look at a woman I'm "exerting ownership over [her] bod[y]".

The underlined part is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant. Just because there are some jerks out there does not mean that all men are dirty pigs. But it does suggest that had Hitchens said that "all women should wear burqas" we would see a similar article. Now if woman wrote an article on the issue in a similar vein as Hitchens' article I get the feeling that we wouldn't be seeing an article from Hess on the subject.

I draw that conclusion (and also the title of this post) on her closing statement:

Forcing a woman to wear the veil is one way to own women’s bodies; declaring that it is your “right” to force her to take it off is just another tactic in the same vein.

If I argue that the ban is good then I'm arguing that I want to own women's bodies. If I argue that the ban is bad then I'm implicitly guilty of owning women's bodies because some women will be forced to wear the veil.

I guess any opinion that I could have on this issue don't matter to someone like Hess because either way I just want to own women's bodies.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just as a brief aside, my own opinion of the French burqa ban is more or less that both the French and the French Muslims (ugh, it's an inelegant way of distinguishing them but it'll have to do...) need to come to terms with different issues. The French need to accept that Islam demands followers to dress modestly and should at least allow some sort of "out", say by permitting head scarves, while the French Muslims need to accept that some assimilation is necessary and the burqa is a tradition that they will need to drop. But this is something that deserves its own blog post.

No creationism means censorship?

I saw the headline today in the paper "School censorship danger" and my first thought was "What? Really?" Four words later and my thought was "my arse."

I haven't found an online copy of the article, but its in the today's Advertiser (3/5/10) on page 21 if you happen to be in a place with it. I'll try to find the (an?) online version.

Incidentally it's in "articles of faith". Technically it is the right place to put it, but the view put forward is wrong. Terribly terribly wrong.

Apparently the Association of Independent Schools who represent various types of schools, both secular and religious, are not happy about this ban.

This has been an issue that arose around last year when the Non-Government Schools Registration Board decided to ban the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in science class. The the pdf on their website is here and the relevant section is on page 4, under "Curriculum - Policy, guidelines and procedures (continued)" section B4:

The teaching of Science in relation to creationism and intelligent design

The Board requires the teaching of Science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.

The Board does not accept as satisfactory a science curriculum in a non-government school which is based upon, espouses or reflects the literal interpretation of a religious text in its treatment of either creationism or intelligent design

It's really quite clear, you can't teach a religious view and call it "science". If you don't follow this guideline you may lose your registration.

Back in March (I seemed to miss this story though) it was reported by Lauren Zwaans (the same women who wrote this article) that independent schools are seeking legal advice because the government, who regulate all schools including independent schools, decided to actually regulate independent schools.

When the March article was published the Australian Christian Lobby SA/Vic chairman Rob Ward stated that such regulation would turn religious schools into "government schools with RE classes". Oh dear, how horrible. Can you imagine it, faith based schools being forced to teach the same things the government schools teach? Oh the humanity.

Today's article isn't any better, the executive director of AIS SA, Gary Le Duff stated that,

The overarching issue is where does regulation stop, it's not just about this debate.

Right. Clearly the problem is the Government telling independent schools, and remember this include non-religious schools as well, that they can't teach their kids shit and call it science.

He was also quoted as saying:

We have come to some arrangement where the schools communities can manage and govern their schools without excessive intrusion into the right of parents to have their children educated in a particular set of beliefs.

Which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. He also went on about "tolerance", which is also irrelevant. I'm starting to wonder whether the people who try and teach creationism in science classes here in Australia can actually grasp that. It's not about regulation or tolerance, it's about the science.

The Sydney Morning Herald picked up this story as well, with Stephen O'Doherty, the chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, telling us that they are banning the right to teach "biblical perspectives" in science classes.

Good. Seriously, it's a good thing that this is banned. Just like teaching from the perspective of the Koran, or the Vedas or the poetic edda, or even Dianetics. These are "perspectives" that aren't used in science, simply because they are simply rubbish. It doesn't help children understand evolution, in the same way as using these books to teach chemical principles or basic astronomy. Teaching it as true just confuses children, especially if you teach that your specific holy text is infallible.

The Advertiser's article also has a quote from Family First MP Dennis Hood, who said that it restricts parents wishes and that it's "dangerous ground" when you tell schools what they can and can't teach.

Well on parents wishes I think that they can go jump. One of the strengths of our school system is that the average parent doesn't determine the curriculum. The government employs competent individuals who determine what schools can and can't teach children. This ensures that we don't get situations here that we see in the US with creationists getting themselves elected to school boards and trying to force creationism into the curriculum.

And it's not "dangerous ground" at all. Year 12 topics are like that, there are a set number of choices in certain subjects that a school may choose to teach, but what they teach must come from those topics.

Yet we are supposed to see this as a bad thing? I guess it must be, since schools have to teach kids all of that dangerous actual science without being taught "Goddidit".

However, they are still allowed to teach creationism where it belongs, in RE.

Gary Ablett Sr. on things he doesn't understand

Gary Ablett is a well known former AFL player, as is his eldest son, Gary Ablett. However the young Gary Ablett seems to have the intelligence not to "write" an article on the Herald Sun website.

His father clearly doesn't. "What kind of world do we want to live in?" he asks, and proceeds to use 2,777 words to argue that it's essentially "one with God in it".

This is an article already embroiled in scandal, he plagiarised a few sections from American evangelical websites and then some.

But I'm getting ahead of myself here.

Misquotes and morality

The article opens with two quotes:

THERE is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." (Herbert Spencer)

The famous King Solomon, considered the wisest man of his day, also said, "He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him". (Proverbs 18:13)

Only one of these quotes is actually correctly attributed. Herbert Spencer never said that quote. According to Wikiquote it's misattributed to him. It is, in fact, a quote by William Paley. Yep, that's right, the watch guy.

I think that says a lot for this article, or at least whoever fact checks for the Herald.

However don't think this article is just about misquoting, it's also about morality, and looking back to another unspecified time in the past (probably somewhere from 1973 to 2009). He says things like:

...[T]hat we should each begin to grow and learn; aspiring to live better, more meaningful, more productive and more effective lives. Surely we should each be focused on discovering how we as individuals and communities can learn to live and work together in order to produce a far more peaceful, stable, secure and loving environment?

Sadly, in this once great nation of Australia, this does not seem to be the case, which is why I feel burdened and compelled to speak out.

And,

Today, our newspapers, televisions and computer screens are full of shocking and horrible crimes, detailing a very serious decline in morals and values in our community. We read stories that describe a rapid deterioration in standards of behaviour wherever we look. Our culture struggles under the massive weight of increasing problems associated with hatred, anger, violence, alcohol and drug abuse, depression and suicide, family breakdown, the devaluing of human life and dignity, and a growing disrespect for law and order, to name just a few - all of which work together to create and subsequently feed an enormous and expanding hole in the moral fabric that once upon a time held our society firmly together.

And also,

However, over recent years we have shifted further and further away from the inclusion of anything godly in our planning, decision-making and policy-setting; so while we watch our standards crumble and our moral foundations erode away, we somehow simultaneously manage to sit back and wonder why society has no sure and stable footing left on which to build a strong and solid culture?

All of which suggest a desire to go back to earlier times, since we know that looking nostalgically back at the past is the best way to determine if our society is crumbling instead of looking back at it in a critical light.

Now when I gave a range I started at 1973, why that specific year you ask? Well by 1973 the White Australia Policy was practically finished. Perhaps I should have said 1975, when the Racial Discimination Act 1975 (Cth) was passed, outlawing the previous immigration policy.

Honestly I would have started at 1984, which is the year that the Sexual Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), but considering Ablett is a footballer, and the brouhaha with Lara Bingle and the proliferation of nude photos among AFL players, I figure that it's probably not the best starting date.

However, it is somewhat laughable to hear Ablett opine about the decline of morality when he has, in his words:

People also know and remember me because of some of my off-field moments, which were not so successful.

Not so successful off field moments? People know about him? It must have been in the media, the very people he states shows a decline in morality.

Jason Ball, in this post from the Young Australian Skeptics also has noticed this rather hypocritical stance.

On February 17 2000, 20 year old Alisha Horan was found dead in room 1265 of the Park Hyatt Hotel in Melbourne. The man with her in the room? Gary Ablett Sr. The man who provided the drugs? Gary Ablett Sr.

We are reading an article opining the decline in morals, from a man who was directly involved in the death of a young woman. A man who, according to this article from The Age, declined to answer most of the questions he was asked at the coroner's inquest because he might incriminate himself.

Or as he claims, because the Horan family wanted him to protect their daughter's reputation.

This is one of the "off-field moments, which [was] not so successful". Seriously, Ablett opining about the decline in morals is about as hypocritical as David Richardson (of "Barcelona Tonight" fame) telling us we need stronger journalistic ethics.

His answer is God.

I believe without a doubt that our nation is in crisis and is in its current predicament because we have deliberately disconnected ourselves from our Christian heritage and history. We are a nation that was originally founded upon the word of God and established on the authority of biblical truth. Our political system, our judicial system and most of our schools and hospitals were begun by godly men and women who based their lives and work on godly principles.

Americans may recognise this argument from Evangelical Christians in the US.

And yet, these godly men decided to preserve our Christian heritage in our country by putting section 116 in the Constitution Act. Yep, the Commonwealth isn't allowed to establish any religion, force people to worship or use religious tests for office. Funny how they decided to do that.

Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.

Now we'll look at the part of the article that made Ablett the genius he his today. Since he is the guy that many of us quote.

Clearly Ablett didn't let work evade his eyes, and I guess he must have called it "research".

Perhaps he was listening to Tom Lehrer's "Lobachevsky" when he did it (but I don't think he did), but he stole some of his arguments from other websites and people.

As stated in the second link in this post, the paragraph on humanism was nicked from here, and PZ Meyers points out here that the peanut butter argument came from Chuck Missler.

The former is just laziness, the latter is the same old regurgitation of debunked arguments. But don't think Ablett needs to plagiarise to attack science, he's perfectly able to do that himself.

In which a career footballer tries to argue against evolution

It started with a convention:

One of the things that triggered my response was that I became aware that there was an atheist convention in Melbourne last week. Richard Dawkins, a renowned atheist, gave a message entitled, "From goo to you through the zoo".

Now it is bad enough misleading us by telling us we descended from convicts but to tell us we descended from "apes" - come on!

And ends with this passage.

Too bad reality doesn't change when you are confronted with ideas that you don't believe in. But his hatred of evolution continues.

Man might look like an ape, act like a goat, eat like a pig, think like a jackass, be as stubborn as a mule and as cunning as a fox, but a man is still a man and has been that way right down through recorded history. I openly confess to being no scientist, nor will I try to pretend to be one. However, it is not hard for the average person to understand some of the basic laws and principles within the scientific world. There is so much misinformation out there called "science", masquerading as "truth", and because we've been taught to believe these falsehoods it takes an abundance of information to get these misconceptions unseated. So please bear with me as I may need to get quite technical to get my message across.

I've bolded the most important sentence in this passage. Remember folks, get your science from actual scientists, not former-AFL players who think they actually understand what it is they are arguing against. However he has decided to pretend to be someone who actually understands what it is he is arguing against.

For example, molecular biologist Michael Dentin pointed out in his book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, that even Charles Darwin had to admit he had absolutely no hardcore empirical date, no concrete evidence, no substantial scientific facts, nothing to prove any of the major evolutionary transformation he asserted. The fact is that fossil records do not support Darwin's theory. Experts have come to realise that the gaps in the fossil records and the absence of precursor and intermediate forms are such that they can no longer be ignored or his theory be taken seriously. It was Darwin, the author of the theory of evolution himself, that confessed in a letter to Ossy Gray on September 5, 1857 that "one's imagination must fill up the very blanks".

I don't really know whether Ablett is quoting from Denton, or writing his own drivel here, and as far as I'm aware the quoted bit doesn't appear anywhere except in this article. Hell I can't even find the existence of an Ossy Gray. I think I've found the letter in question here (and also here, select page 120) to an Asa Gray, and it appears that Ablett is not beyond using a quote mine. Well I guess it's not lying when you're lying for Jesus.

The part of the letter that includes this bit is actually as follows:

VI. One other principle, which may be called the principle of divergence plays, I believe, an important part in the origin of species. The same spot will support more life if occupied by very diverse forms: we see this in the many generic forms in a square yard of turf (I have counted 20 species belonging to 18 genera),—or in the plants and insects, on any little uniform islet, belonging almost to as many genera and families as species.— We can understand this with the higher, animals whose habits we understand. We know that it has been experimentally shown that a plot of land will yield a greater weight, if cropped with several species of grasses than with 2 or 3 species. Now every single organic being, by propagating so rapidly, may be said to be striving its utmost to increase in numbers. So it will be with the offspring of any species after it has broken into varieties, or sub-species or true species. And it follows, I think, from the foregoing facts, that the varying offspring of each species will try (only few will succeed) to seize on as many and as diverse places in the economy of nature, as possible. Each new variety or species, when formed will generally take the place of and so exterminate its less well-fitted parent. This, I believe, to be the origin of the classification or arrangement of all organic beings at all times. These always seem to branch and sub-branch like a tree from a common trunk; the flourishing twigs destroying the less vigorous,—the dead and lost branches rudely representing extinct genera and families.

This sketch is most imperfect; but in so short a space I cannot make it better. Your imagination must fill up many wide blanks.— Without some reflexion it will appear all rubbish; perhaps it will appear so after reflexion.— | C. D.

I added the previous paragraph for context, but it's rather clear that the quote in question is about Darwin's crappy diagram rather then him stating that evolution doesn't have enough evidence and that you need to use your imagination.

I'm wondering if the Herald Sun actually employ spell and fact checkers, since this article seems to require both.

Beyond that, this paragraph is just wrong, and the article is just getting wronger as you continue through it.

With testimonies like this from the author of evolution himself, I submit to you that the theory of evolution is not only lacking in facts, but has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. If it was only ever a theory, how did it find its way into our classrooms and society as fact?

So we have a "testimony" from Darwin that is a quote mine the misuse of the word "theory".

The next three paragraphs are the peanut butter jar argument. I'm not really going to discuss this, but I would like to say that he has mistaken abiogenesis for spontaneous generation. He also uses the creationist definition of "information" which is I believe "whatever the hell you want it to mean".

To inform us about information

This begs the question that since information is not inherent within matter itself, nor can it be derived from natural law, "where did it come from?"

Take today's newspaper, for example, with the codes and printing on it. To try and derive the information in the newspaper from the natural laws that govern the paper alone is impossible because the information needs to be printed on to the laws that govern the paper.

To attempt to derive the morning's news from the chemistry of the paper alone without the input of information is absurd. Even in a simple newspaper we can appreciate "Intelligent Design". It is the same as a genetic code imprinted according to the laws of information and language on to matter.

Hey look, it's another standard creationist argument. Well, I guess the Herald Sun has newspapers that reproduce, so clearly that proves evolution wrong.

Let's just ignore the fact that we write newspapers to be different every day and that there is massive change between editions.

And we see that pesky "information". I wonder what it could mean? He still hasn't made that clear to us. At least we know it's about genetics. If DNA is like a newspaper then I'd say that Gary Ablett Sr.'s would read something like this:

5' Gary Ablett Sr. Born again Christian, therefore no understanding of science, AFL player, intelligence limitations to be implemented, prone to using drugs and making stupid arguments. 3'

If he hadn't already mentioned that we need God, we would be wondering how long until we get to "needs designer" (next paragraph in his article) and then "who is the designer (hint: G-d)".

Never play probability games with Ablett

More standard creationist canards are presented, this time the old "DNA is too improbable to form" coupled with the "hurricane through a junkyard" and that biological evolution is used to make aeroplanes.

Some of the renowned and respected scientists and mathematicians through the world have concluded that something as complex as the "DNA" molecule of every living thing occurring by chance is 10 to the power 130. In other words, one chance in 10 with a hundred and thirty zeros after it ... that is a huge number.

So remember folks, don't play a game of cards with him for money. He'll try and use crappy statistics to get out of paying you.

Too bad things like non-random selection and the simple fact that the probability of an even occurring that has already occurred is 1, does not factor into this man's head. Perhaps he'd forget his 6 times tables or something.

Where the Bible is quoted to attack science

It's the classic Romans quote. You know, Romans 1:23-25 where Paul says that everyone knows that God exists and you're an idiot for not accepting it?

Well it's in there, and he's calling everyone who doesn't believe what he does and idiot. It's a great way to convert people, until you get to the person who would rather be an idiot then blindly believe the things you do.

He concludes with this:

Advances in microbiology, DNA et al have dealt the final death blow to Darwinism.

DNA is a digital code.

Darwinism cannot explain the origin of life because it cannot explain the origin of information.

I think these three sentences summarise how ignorant he is of the actual science.

I guess he's been reading Ken Ham or something, because someone who has actually looked at what science actually says would not draw such stupid conclusions.

Ending the article with a poem

I'm not going to bother with the last couple of paragraphs. It's just more of the same. Evolution is a lie, no God leads to the self destruction of our way of life. And this:

God's word tells us we are a very special and unique and precious creation, made in God's image for an eternal relationship with God and a purpose and a destiny that is mind-blowing. And God loves and values us so much that He was willing to leave His glory, take on human nature and enter into His own creation to undo the damage done by a dark intruder, and provide a mechanism by which you and I can qualify and be eligible for that relationship, purpose and destiny which is there for the asking. But that is all I will say, as I am aware this is a sensitive area for some. I do not wish to come across as a Bible basher or a religious fanatic, for this is not a church.

A remarkable piece of dissonance here. The thing is Mr. Ablett, you do come across as a Bible basher and/or a religious fanatic. It's that simple. All the stuff above the bold? Bible bashing and religious fanaticism.

It closes with a poem that basically blames godlessness for Colombine. It's as if he wants people who think for themselves to not be swayed by his argument.

Much of his article was a rant against evolution. Since he opened his article with a fake quote from Herbert Spencer, I think I'll let him have the last word.

The quote comes from The Development Hypothesis:

Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution as not being adequately supported by facts, seem to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all. Like the majority of men who are born to a given belief, they demand the most rigorous proof of any adverse belief, but assume that their own needs none.

Some Sharia in Australia?

From an article from the ABC.

Dr Zachariah Matthews, the president of the Australian Islamic Mission wants certain aspects of Sharia to be implemented as a "parallel legal system".

My own opinion is that it's a stupid idea.

And I think that is a stupid idea for all religious groups. There shouldn't be a separate legal system for people of certain religions at all. I don't care if it is Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Baha'i, Christians or even Scientologists.

Nobody should have access to their own special courts because of their religion, nor should they get any special privileges given to them because of these courts.

The two examples given in the article are:

"When it comes to Muslim family law there are issues relating to the legal age of marriage," [Dr. Matthews] said.

"In Muslim law, for example, as in Singapore, the legal age for both parties is 16 rather than as it stands currently [at] 18.

"There's also the issue of the waiting period [between] separation and divorce, which is currently specified at 12 months. In Muslim family law that could be a lot shorter."

The first one looks, to me at least, as a way around current consent laws. The Sex Discrimination Act 1991 (Cth) raised the marriageable age of women to 18 from 16, bringing it in line with men.

It is, however, possible to marry at a younger age, because if you are older then 16, but younger then 18 you can go to a judge and get an order permitting the marriage, according to section 12 of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).

I also must wonder where Dr. Matthews got that age from. From what I've found the legal marriageable age in Singapore is 21 and the Registry of Marriages in Singapore has a whole section regarding what needs to be done if you are under 18 and want to get married, which includes a counselling session.

Taking a quick look at this list on Wikipedia most Muslim countries have marriageable ages comparable to non-Muslim countries, and a younger age appears to be typical for women.

The point on divorce just looks like queue jumping to me. From what I'm aware the intention of the year long wait is to allow for the possibility of reconciliation and also to allow both parties to calm down and work things out amicably. Religious requirements for divorce already cause problems in some cases according to letter of advice to the Attorney General and that's considering that marriage is, under the Marriage Act, secular and not religious.

I mentioned earlier that we shouldn't play favourites regarding religion, the reason I mentioned that was because of the end of the article:

But Dr Matthews says the minor changes proposed would only apply to Muslims.

"As long as that concession does not infringe on the rights of others and society at large, then the question I'm asking is, are we not mature enough or sophisticated enough to manage that type of diversity?" he said.

There's the rub. The examples given regarding marriage, in my opinion at least, do infringe on the rights of others. They are suggesting that Muslims should be treated differently and have different recourse on civil matters. Marriage and divorce are not religious matters under Australian law, they are civil matters.

And as such they should be dealt with in civil courts, not religious ones.

Perhaps I'm being a bit hasty here, all the news articles that I could find seem to cover the same thing. I haven't managed to find a copy of the speech that Dr. Matthews gave, so I don't know if I'm taking what he said out of context. But based on what I've read I feel my points are valid.

The Sumarians Were Indeed Confused

As the number 5 story of The Onion's "Top 10 stories of the last 4.5 billion years.

It must have been terribly confusing to hear God speak everything into existence when it was already there.

But while you laugh, remember that there are people out there who believe that God did create the universe at that time. And then laugh even more.

Atheists in a pseudo-fundamentalist world

It's a strange thing being segregated. It's even stranger when you consider that I'm 13 697km away from their physical location.

I've mentioned before that I spend time one the CARM Discussion Forums (an apologetics group) however the current turn of events makes me wonder if they are actually apologetics.

I didn't actually spend a lot of time on the "Atheism" section, I found it to be rather dull because the few Christians who were there were either those actively proselytising or just trolling. There may have been a few actually interested in what Atheists do and the likes, but not many.

However, a post from the President of CARM (Matt Slick) changed everything. This is where the post is located. Since registration is required the entire post is reproduced below:

Atheists are now restricted to post only on the atheism (future sub boards) and evolution board.

Super Member Atheists will be permitted to keep current privileges to other forums only until their membership expires and then they will be restricted to the Atheism/Evolution board. Any renewals of Supermembership now/thereafter will be restricted to atheism/evolution board.

More changes are coming.

Why? Trolling.
I suggest you don't argue with me about it or bannings will occur.

thanks

So because some Atheists were trolling that means that all of us are to be segregated from the religious people because some Atheists troll.

So we are limited to two sections, the Atheism one, and the Evolution and Intelligent Design one. Now these two subforums are in a section called "Secular". There are 11 sections just there alone. All in all there are 100 main sections, each with varying numbers of sub-sections. Atheists are no permitted to use 2% of the entire forum. But that's ok apparently because according to their vice-president, Diane Sellner (Diane S) who says here:

Important notice concerning Atheists/Agnostics

---

If you want to debate Atheists/Agnostics/Secular Humanists, you will have to go to the Atheism forum, since they will be restricted to the Atheism forums. We will be making a few sub forums in the next day or so for the Atheists/Agnostics.

They will NOT be permitted to debate on the Apologetics or other forums on CARM but Evo/ID for now. Again, at your own risk, don't expect them all to "play nice" you will have to debate the Atheists on the Atheism forum, copy your last post to them and MOVE your discussions to the Atheism forum if you wish to continue your discussions.

See, they're going to give us some subsections so we can talk about similar yet different issues to the rest of the forum.

I guess the reason they aren't banning us outright has to do with their purpose and scope:

The CARM discussion boards exist for several reasons. First, they are to promote conversation among people with different viewpoints. Second, they are to help train Christians on how to deal with false religious systems. Third, they are to help Christians become better equipped to defend the Christian faith against non-theological systems.

This is apparently to allow conversation among people with different viewpoints. This is because this is an "apologist" site. In order for apologists do do what they do they need to be exposed to other viewpoints. It's a logical approach to take because apologetics requires a person to know what their belief says, and also what others think of their beliefs.

Continuing on:

Because of the nature of discussion and facing false doctrines, this means that Christians will be exposed to anti-Christian arguments from such groups as the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the atheists, the evolutionists,¹ etc. Some Christians think that this is a bad idea. They say that it is better to have only a discussion board where Christians can talk to Christians without the intrusion and challenge of the unbelievers. If this is how you feel, then these boards are not for you.

Again they stress the need to have different viewpoints. In a way the ideal of the forum is one that allows apologists from different faiths to do their thing.

But the underlined is the interesting bit. In segregating atheists they are creating a board where Christians can talk to Christians (to be specific I mean all denominations) without seeing a non-theist appearing to put forward their point of view.

Then there is this part of the quite extensive rules:

19. Censorship:

1. Please feel free to agree or disagree without fear of censorship or ridicule. CARM does not stand for censorship but will enforce requirements of decency per the board rules. You are, of course, free to discourse within the limits of the rules.

Technically their actions actually violate their own rules.

But I can't conclude without saying that I understand that it's a private organisation and I'm at their whims when I agreed to join the forum. It's just that it essentially undermines their purpose.

The fact of the matter is that the atheists there are now caged on CARM. We're there to look at unless you want to discuss things with us.

Unfortunately the few Christians that will appear will be trolls and essentially all Fundamentalist Protestants. To be honest the reason I joined was not to argue solely with those people. When I was able to look around I saw many varied posts from people of different faiths, denominations and from a wide range of religious viewpoints. I learned things about moderates and I've become more tolerant of religious people in general.

Now I can look. I can watch all these people discuss things but I won't be able to ask questions of people who will never venture into the Atheism section. CARM has, essentially, censored the Atheists from their forum but at least they threw us a bone. It might be a crappy bone, but it's a bone nonetheless.

I say this now because of a response from a poster calling himself 1TrueDisciple who said in response to me saying that if he were in charge all the Atheists would be banned:

If I were in charge, there wouldn't even be an atheist forum.

Odin Must Have Too Many Rings

Odin had a ring called Draupnir, which would, every ninth night, drop off eight copies of the ring. But considering how much time has passed that would mean that Odin would probably have a warehouse full of rings by now.

If we say assumed that the world was made from the remains of Ymir about 300 000 years ago (remember this is a completely arbitrary number) and then we assume that he got the ring about 250 000 years ago then 91 310 625 would have passed since then until now. Every nine nights he gets eight new rings that are exactly the same but don't make more rings. That would mean that he would have 81 165 000 rings by now.

What the hell would he do with 81 million rings? It's not like he can give them to the other Gods as a Yuletide present. I could imagine it.

"What did you get from Odin this year Thor?"
"What do you think Njord?"
"Another ring right?"
"Yep. Did you get your ring this year too?"
"Yep. I wonder if he just does this because he can't be bothered making the attempt to find us something?"

I guess he could start giving them out to people.

The Price Of Fundamentalism?

It's from an old episode of Trading Spouses, so it's not the latest news but it does raise a valid point.

I'm going to have to ask you to go and watch this video first. It's a little loud, and also somewhat bigoted.

From what I can gather, and from a vague understanding of those types of shows I think that the scene is the "homecoming". I'm sure that the family probably thought that it would be like all the other shows, the mother, Marguerite Perrin, would be all happy to be home and it would be all love and happiness and the like.

If you watched the video you know how it turned out.

Personally I can't help but feel sorry for the family. Looking at the faces it just seems that they've seen a side of their mother/wife that they either haven't seen before or was part of the "it wasn't that bad" sort of thing.

I suspect that other people have found, and still do find, it funny.

I don't, and I don't think I ever will.

This is a person who has become blinded by her "faith". I suspect that it's "faith" because it sure isn't faith. All we saw there was bigotry wrapped in religion. Nothing else.

But it's the loved ones in this case that are affected by this woman. She let her own prejudices blind her to everything that she loves and should hold dear to her and turn a moment that should have been nice go sour because of it.

But in a world where there are people who take their faith to such an extreme you have to ask how often do they let their "faith" hurt those that they love?

And why is it that for some people such "faith" is something to look up to?

Lucifer

I was listening to a song (see the end of this post) and it got me thinking.

Lucifer, apart from being a saint which I just learned about, is commonly tied with Satan, the Devil, also known as the Prince of Darkness.

Although the latter does raise questions as who the King of Darkness the better question is why would you tie a name that means "Bringer of Light" with someone who people consider to be the "Prince of Darkness"?

Light is commonly used in Western culture at least (So I don't know about the use in other cultures, so sue me) as a representation of the "forces of good", and as a bringer of truth and also knowledge (The Enlightenment anyone?). So why the name "Lucifer" for a being that is supposed to spread lies and make us dumb?

I'm sorry but it's illogical, unless it's supposed to be the other way around.

Based on some modern day social controversies, such as evolution vs. creationism, or stem cell research, it appears that there are far more religious proponents on the side that would slow down, or even stop, humanity from learning new things, new enlightenments.

It does seem that religion wants to keep us in darkness, make us live in a world of superstition and monsters, to keep us down and hold us back.

Perhaps then the name is apt, for the enemy of someone who wants to keep us in darkness would be one that brings us light.

----------------
Now playing: Gregorian - Ave Satani (The Omen)
via FoxyTunes

Texas State Board of Education and Science Standards

Panda's Thumb reports that fifty scientific organisations have sent a message to the Texas State Board of Education telling them that their "Strengths and Weaknesses" passage is a load of rubbish.

But this isn't about the number of people/organisations who support an idea or set of standards (I'm looking at you, you list making IDiots), but instead what the overall message is.

In this case it's "don't teach your children crap because it's bad for Texas."

Anyway, at present the SBoE is voting on whether their "strengths and weaknesses" and other anti-science phrases is made part of their science standards, or as they will be known in the future "science" "standards".

The Houston Chronicle had liveblogged the discussion. Unfortunately for me I can only read about it becuase I don't know if I can find a copy of what was a live feed.

There was an opinion comment by McLeroy in the Austin American-Statesman (by the way McLeroy is the head of the SBoE) which has some very odd comments like this one:

The first step is to define science in a way that is satisfactory to both sides. Using new wording from the National Academy of Sciences, Texas' standards define science as "the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon as well as the knowledge generated through this process."

This definition replaces the academy's 1999 language that was very controversial; it stated that science was "to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena." The change from "natural explanations" to "testable explanations" is very significant. The old definition was inferior in that it undermined both the philosophy of the naturalist and the supernaturalist. By circular reasoning, the naturalist was prevented from using science to prove that "nature is all there is," and the supernaturalist was prevented from offering supernatural hypotheses. With the new definition, both the naturalist and the supernaturalist are free to make "testable" explanations. The debate can now shift from "Is it science?" to "Is it testable?"

I don't really see the point here. How exactly does the old phrase, with "natural explanations" mean that naturalists couldn't use science? I don't even see the supposed "circular reasoning" in the statement. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. His point on naturalists appears to be there just so he can try to give his point validity. The real point, as far as I can see, is his comment on supernaturalists offering supernatural hypotheses.

The thing is that in the end they haven't actually done anything, by his own admission the only reason why the changed it was to allow "supernaturalists", who are most likely the religious in this sense, to try and get their crap into science classes.

What I think makes it worse in this case is that he's gone and taken something from the National Academy of Sciences, which I believe is a very important body in the US regarding science, and has managed to utterly misunderstand the point they were making.

Those that believe in the supernatural won't be able to offer supernatural hypotheses using either definition of science. The latter because the supernatural is not testable, and therefore you can't actually construct testable hypotheses and in the case of the former because it is, by definition, not natural, so you could never use such hypotheses to "to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena." See the use of the word "natural" there? No? Ok, nevermind...

The second statement was:

Once we have our observations, we can make a hypothesis. The controversial evolution hypothesis is that all life is descended from a common ancestor by unguided natural processes. How well does this hypothesis explain the data? A new curriculum standard asks Texas students to look into this question. It states: "The student is expected to analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." It should not raise any objections from those who say evolution has no weaknesses; they claim it is unquestionably true.

So. Much. Wrongness.

For those playing at home you should know that evolution is only semi-random. Yes, all the stuff involving genes is essentially random. However evolution is not just genotypes and phenotypes. Using his hypothesis you see the flaw about "unguided natural processes". Usually when creationists say "unguided" they really mean "random". It's just that "unguided" sounds more scientific, it's the same choice of words that quack doctors use to convince the scientifically illiterate that their stuff is genuine.

If someone can care to show me that "unguided" is not used by creationists as a synonym for "random" please do so.

What he is ignoring are things like sexual selection, predation and environmental factors. All of which are non-random, and affect evolution.

Lastly, he isn't actually referring to evolution at all, but common descent.

And the way that they suggest that students learn about common descent? Something completely stupid.

"Here is a bunch of fossils. See how they don't show conclusively that everything is descended from one thing? Good. Now you see how evolution is wrong. No Bobby, don't look at that evidence over there that proves that it's right. No, we're only allowed to use the fossil record."

Frankly I couldn't care less about "weaknesses". As far as I can tell the real possible "weaknesses" are actually at a level that is far beyond the level that the students should be at. The reason people complain is because what is being suggested is so blatantly wrong. It's making children learn that something is wrong by only looking at a small subset of the evidence.

I don't really have too much to say about the meeting at present. The liveblog, which I linked to above, covers it really nicely.

And That's Why People Hate You Catholic Church

Brazil, a country known for the Amazon, beaches, women, and religion.

Within this predominantly Catholic country lies a state in the north-east known as Pernambuco.

In this state lives a little girl. A girl whose name is unknown, but the events surrounding her, however, is known.

This is about that little girl, and the reaction of the biggest Church in the world.

This girl, who is nine by the way, was raped, by her stepfather. She has been abused by this man since she was six. He also abused her older sister who is 14.

However, a situation arose. She became pregnant.

With twins.

Doctors examined her, and believed that she would not be able to deliver the babies. She would need to have an abortion to save her life.

However abortion is illegal in Brazil, except in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy. Her's was, and so it was legal to give her an abortion.

It happened on Wednesday.

However, there were repercussions.

The Catholic Church were annoyed. They had tried to stop the abortion and failed. So they did something that most people think stopped happening ages ago.

Excommunication.

The doctors and nurses involved, and even the mother of the girl are now forbidden to receive the Eucharist, do anything in Mass and a few other things.

There has been no mention as to whether the rapist has also been excommunicated.

The story of the girl ends here. She was not excommunicated because she is too young. Those who were will have to go to the bishop, the local ordinary, or someone who has been empowered to remove excommunications. However I doubt that in this case it will be easy.

The sad thing is that the Church has really moved anger towards themselves, instead of against the rapist in question. They should have just kept out of it, but they didn't.

As I said before, the girl being pregnant was a health risk. According to Fatima Maia, the director of the hospital, and I'd assume a doctor, stated:

"She is very small. Her uterus doesn't have the ability to hold one, let alone two children,"

However a person by the name of Marcio Miranda, who is a lawyer for the diocese, believed that the girl should have carried the twins for the full term and had a caesarian. Becasuse we all know that ignorance is the best way to make any decision at all.

The archbishop isn't any better:

"The law of God is higher than any human laws, [...] When a human law — that is, a law enacted by human legislators — is against the law of God, that law has no value. The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion have incurred excommunication."

(Source: Fox News)

So it works this way. The director quoted the opinion of doctors. These doctors however, don't know the human body as well as a lawyer. The lawyer on the other hand, most likely knows less about the law then the archbishop.

But the archbishop is just parroting something that the Church has been claiming for about 1500 years. Popes have convened councils that ended up stating that the Pope, with spiritual authority, was the first amongst those with temporal authority because God gives people temporal authority, and since the Pope is the messenger of God, he is first.

It's not very logical but I don't think the Church actually cares.

I don't know where it says that you can't have an abortion, but I think that it is something that has no actual biblical roots, or from any teachings of Jesus. But apparently it's God's law, and a God who people claim is all about love and compassion shall not be overruled by man, who want to save the life of a little girl.

The actions here, along with this unrelated event, show that the Church is at least trying to be consistent. But do you really think people would give a damn if you did nothing in this case? Are people really going to cry "The Catholic Church is hypocritical" because you don't excommunicate these people?

Ok, the answer is probably.

But, we do see some Catholics who don't like what happened. Like the President of Brazil, who even stated that the doctors were right.

That is all that this comes down to in the end. Do we save the life of someone who is already alive, by sacrificing two foetuses that aren't?

Of course.

But the Church, I guess, prefers to see three people die instead of seeing one person live.

However it is backwards views like this that cause outrage. It's like telling people not to use condoms regardless of how effective they are against the spread of AIDS. People are going to call you out on it because it is a cruel thing to say.

The message that the rest of the world sees is that women who are raped and become pregnant have to carry the child of the rapist. The other message that we see is that abortion is wrong even when the health of the mother is at risk. Are these really messages that the Church wants to send?

In case you are wondering, the stepfather is now languishing in a jail cell. The police found him trying to flee to another part of the country.

---------------
Hat tip toPharyngula twice.

Conservapedia v. Student Sixteen

I honestly feel sorry for Student Sixteen. The comments on this homework (If it doesn't work try here.

I mean this person who is apparently called Charles Thoreaux actually did quite well in my opinion, based on what I have seen of these "World History" homeworks.

I wonder what exactly Andrew Schlafly uses as a benchmark to mark people. Compare the above to Student Eleven.

I know I'm not a teacher, but if I were I would not have given Student Eleven 100%, I would probably give a low pass mark because said student did give dates.

However, I get the feeling that Student Sixteen has actually done some research regarding Roman Philosophy. Sixteen chose Marcus Aurelius as his favourite Emperor because of his philosophical insight. Unfortunately he is getting marks from a guy who thinks that the Romans didn't actually do anything apart from conquer the Mediterranean and most of Western Europe and build roads.

You even see this regarding his comment on the answer to Question H1 (it's an "honours" question). Student Sixteen mentions Greek Philosophers in his answer, and then mentions Roman Philosophers who were influenced by them, apparently Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius and Virgil were all Greeks. Who knew?

The sad thing in a way is that for someone who does that "honours" question, you have to work around the definition of "truth" that Schlafly uses, a "truth" that involves the Bible and Christianity. So in essence the question is flawed to the extent that every civilisation before the birth of Christianity would not know what "truth" is.

I mean this student actually picks up and mentions the flaw in the question (judging an entire civilisation based on the actions of one man, in this case Pontius Pilate).

I think in a way the irony of the question is that Schlafly claimed that the Romans just took what the Greeks had with regards to philosophical ideas and ran with it, without making their own contributions, but still somehow can think that they wouldn't have applied Greek philosophical teaching to their lives. It doesn't make any sense.

I would, to be honest, have not deducted any marks in that case because I think he answered the question quite well there. He gave examples (albeit more passively) that shows that the question is wrong, and showed the main flaw in the question.

Other instances that make me feel for the guy is that he lost marks on a question about Latin because he didn't argue for the "inherent advantages" of Latin (which, by the way, was based on what I think is a rather ridiculous definition of "caveat emptor") which somehow means there is a "Liberal bias".

Schlafly's comment regarding question 3 ("more depth in analysis is needed") is rather hypocritical considering that Student Eleven answered the same question with far less depth then Student Sixteen did. Eleven gets full marks for writing something along the lines of "The Eastern Roman Empire had fewer attacks then the Western Empire and lasted far longer". I'm trying to be grammatically correct here and make sure you understand what I'm going on about.

So if I was to take any lesson away on Schlafly marking things then it would have to be "you can be as grammatically incorrect as you want as long as you spell your words right".

That being said, I would never give Student Sixteen full marks, because there were some answers that were clearly wrong, and a lack of dates in answers that should have them would also mean that you couldn't give full marks either.

The last thing that I am going to comment on is that I don't believe that Student Sixteen should lose marks because of a perceived bias, which is clearly what happened in question six. Question seven is a different can of worms. I feel that the answer that was given is actually quite good, the problem is that Schlafly undercuts his own comment regarding deducting marks and opinions, by having done exactly that in the previous question.

Question six was worded in such a way that you would be getting opinions as answers. Nobody, anywhere knows all the facts for a current event, because it is exactly that, a current event. It's pretty easy to form an opinion of the US at present based on the Fall of Rome, however it is ultimately opinion.

I think that most people who know anything about Conservapedia understand that Schlafly is not the most consistent of markers.

A Response to the WBC Site "God Hates Australia" - Afterword

I believe that this is the right term. I thought that this would be useful because there are a few small things that I would like to point out that I had found.

Part of my research into this series did actually see me look at some of the other sections in the "God Hates" site. These were based on possible ideas and arguments that I could make or just an interest in what they thought about other countries based on what I knew about them.

I had assumed that they would mention good things in societies that they claim that "God hates", in the same way that the Skeptic's Annotated Bible has a list of good stuff in the Bible.

It started when I was writing Part 1 my mind drifted to India, a country that I would have thought might have some good points towards it. What a fool I was to assume that. They mention some possible good things, but only because they use it to show what they consider a bad thing. India is known for more socially conservative practices, take a look at what happened to Richard Gere.

The closest thing that I go to a good thing was that they have a low divorce rate. You can find that right here. It's followed in the next sentence by a "you shouldn't have arranged marriage".

I did however find this somewhat ironic gem:

OTHER WHOREDOMS

Can you say Kama Sutra? Yes it goes like this….NASTY! This is an ancient guide book about perverted sex practices with how-to pictures (YIKES)! Here is just a little bit of information about it….brace yourselves…I hope you have a barf bag handy.
The famous Kama Sutra states that homosexual sex "is to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts.” There are chapters on conduct of the only wife and conduct of the chief wife and other wives; chapters on advice of the assistants on the choice of lovers, looking for a steady lover, ways of making money, renewing friendship with a former lover, occasional profits, profits and losses; and chapters on improving physical attractions, arousing a weakened sexual power.

If that wasn’t bad enough, don’t puke now, but there are an additional 10 chapters on “stimulation of desire, embraces types, caressing and kisses, marking with nails, biting and marking with teeth, on copulation (positions), slapping by hand and corresponding moaning, virile behavior in women, superior coition and oral sex, preludes and conclusions to the game of love. It describes 64 types of sexual acts.”

Because we all know that sex is dirty. I'm now going to randomly quote from a book:

My beloved thrust his hand into the opening, and my inmost being yearned for him. I arose to open to my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh, upon the handles of the bolt.

See, as I was going to say before that quote was that the Bible doesn't have any sex in it at all. Unless you happen to read Song of Solomon, why not try chapter 5 verses 4 and 5. Why I find the WBC passage funny is that they seem to just conveniently ignore any references to sex in the Bible.

It might not be as explicit compared to the Kama Sutra but it's still there in the Bible. The Kama Sutra might be straightforward, but apparently it also is created for married people, or at least the author spent some time talking about marriage. The quoted parts appear to have been lifted word-for-word, and uncredited from the Wikipedia article.

The second time I looked at another one of these pages was regarding Part 3.

Part three was on the "False Religious Systems" of Australia. They mentioned the Pope. I would have thought that they would have something on the Pope on their "God Hates Germany" page considering that the Pope is from Bavaria.

Again I was wrong.

Their Religion page is primarily about the "Evangelisch" churches (Protestant denominations). But that isn't what I consider to have been the stupidest. It's right on the front page, and the first thing for the Manner Of Life page. There is a subtle difference in the two, the first is from the "front page":

What else is this shameful country known for but the murder of millions and millions of people in World War II? The filthy pervert fag Adolph Hitler was raised to power and then able to convince a people to carry out his plan to virtually eliminate a race. What is wrong with you people to blindly go along with such evil and wickedness? You all are drenched in the blood of those murdered!

Crime/Genocide

What else is this shameful country known for but the murder of millions and millions of people in World War II? The filthy pervert Adolph Hitler was raised to power and then able to convince a people to carry out his plan to virtually eliminate a race. What is wrong with you people to blindly go along with such evil and wickedness? You all are drenched in the blood of those murdered!

I've bolded the subtle difference.

You saw that right, Adolf Hitler, a man whose regime sent between 5000 - 15000 homosexuals to concentration camps, is apparently gay. Never mind that one of the reasons given for the execution of Ernst Röhm was that he was openly gay. Nope. Hitler must have been gay. But the historical revisionism doesn't seem to end there. Notice how they don't mention Jews. I suspect that it must be because God hates them. God Hates Israel apparently.

The last thing is that based on their front page God apparently likes most of Africa and South America, excluding French Guiana, and most of the Middle East (considering that the WBC rants on and on about the evils of Islam) except Iraq, and Israel.

A Response to the WBC Site "God Hates Australia" Part 5.

In this part we look at the last section of the Westboro Baptist Church's "God Hates Australia" site.

If you are joining us late, please start from part 1.

But on with the show. The section in question is "Australia's Poster Children For Sin". Because we all know that sin has to have poster children. So in this case they are talking about celebrities.

Their first "poster child" is of course Heath Ledger. A man who is only here because he played a gay man in a movie. That was it. They even start this page of with the following:

Two words…..BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN!!!!

This is what they have to say on Heath Ledger:

Heath Ledger: Actor, died by an overdose in January of 2008. This young man was raised by parents who were divorced (I know shocker, right) who taught him to chase after every lust in his evil heart. Not only that, but do whatever it takes to be famous because that’s more important than serving God. This is what happens when you spit in God’s face with fag propaganda….you are sent a strong delusion by the hand of your God!

Based on only the laziest of research (I'm putting in a little more then they put in to make this site though) they ignore the fact that apart from being divorced, both his parents had remarried, and neither of them were gay. I don't know what exactly they taught him but I personally doubt that he was taught to "chase after every lust in his evil heart".

Now I would like stress here that the only thing that causes him to be "evil" is because he was in Brokeback Mountain that is his only crime. If he weren't in that movie I would be certain that he wouldn't be on this page.

There is one thing here that I have noticed. Back in Part 3 I pointed out that they used their "religion" page to basically bash Catholics. But nowhere have they mentioned Mel Gibson. I find that a bit odd, but I wonder whether it has something to do with the more fundamentalist views that Mr. Gibson holds, even though he is a Catholic. I suspect that they might consider him to be doing "God's work".

But continuing on, we meet our second "poster child for sin":

Portia de Rossi: Actress, Ellen Degeneres’ so called wife. This lady has a platform that instead of doing her duty and obeying her God, she would rather live in defiance! Shame on you, Australia, for teaching this woman from her youth up that it’s ok to be gay…look at what you’ve done. She will be held accountable for her actions, but don’t think for one second that you are innocent regarding this matter!

Portia de Rossi was born in Geelong, Victoria in 1973. However I really doubt that Australia taught her that it was ok for her to be gay. In Part 4 I posted the paragraph that mentioned that homosexuality was finally decriminalised in all states in 1997. I however didn't really go on about it there. I will here however.

The history of the decriminalisation process for homosexuality started in 1972 in South Australia. For those playing at home you would remember that back in Part 1 I pointed out that SA has the fewest rights for homosexuals compared to the rest of Australia. It's somewhat ironic in a way that a state that led the way is now backwards.

This process started during the time of Don Dunstan (who is one of our greatest premiers) which saw the passing of a "consenting and in private" type of defence, not knowing all of the facts I'd assume it was watered down by the hostile Legislative Council but the Sodomy law was repealed in 1975. It still had to be in private but it was a start. The ACT would follow in 1976 and they also equalised their age of consent.

De Rossi would have been 8 when they finally decriminalised homosexuality in Victoria, in 1981. NSW would outlaw descrimination against people who were, or were considered, homosexual. NT would legalise homosexuality in 1984 and WA, confusingly to me at least, decriminalised male homosexuality in 1989, and set the age of consent for homosexual acts to 21. Queensland repeals their sodomy law in 1991. Finally in 1997, Tasmania repeals the laws preventing you from being gay in private.

Although the law worked like that, public opinion takes far longer to change. Even today I would think it fair to say that homosexuality is only tolerated in Australia, but people aren't as accepting. The gay community is still fighting for acceptance and equality among the wider community.

Lastly, Portia de Rossi was married to Ellen DeGeneres in 2008 in the United States. However I don't know how their marriage has been effected by the passing of Proposition 8.

They separate these two people with the following Bible verse:

Proverbs 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Well it's a proverb so you can't really quote mine the Bible here, but I would guess that it refers to proud people regardless of sexual orientation. I suspect that the interpretation used by the WBC here is actually a narrowed interpretation of the proverb in question.

The next grouping of people are as follows:

Here are a few more proud, arrogant, rebellious brute beasts!

Peter Allen: Entertainer, died of AIDS related throat cancer.

Peter Allen who died in 1992, did die of AIDS related throat cancer. What puts him on this list would be, I suspect, because he is The Boy from Oz. The musical is based on his life. However, if this were the case then I would have thought that Hugh Jackman would have also been on this list. I would assume that had Brokeback Mountain either really sucked, or was never made, he would be.

Rob Astbury: Journalist, highest paid sports journalist in Australia but is more famous for being the ex-lover of Graham Kennedy; HIV positive.

Was. He was the highest paid sports journo. He also, after Derryn Hinch decided to be a jerk and outed him, his HIV status and claimed that Kennedy (who is considered the King of Comedy/Australian Television, even after his death) was also HIV positive, took a more active role in gay rights and AIDS education.

This is actually the second HIV positive person mentioned in this list. I guess the WBC still believes in the old "AIDS is a gay only disease" argument.

Darren Hayes: Singer of Savage Garden, is currently in a civil partnership with his boyfriend in England…YIKES!

Darren Hayes entered into a civil partnership with Richard Cullen in 2006. He is from Queensland, so it would be impossible to claim that "Australia taught him that it was ok to be gay" because he would have been 20 when the law regarding sodomy and homosexuality was finally repealed.

Anthony Venn-Brown: Evangelist for the Assemblies of God dog-kennel; the original founder of Youth Alive (you know how these fags love to attract children to their filth)!

Anthony Venn-Brown was an evangelist for the Assemblies of God. He is now a gay ambassador (apparently that is the term he uses), and has been since he came out in 1991. He has an autobiography entitled A Life of Unlearning which talks about his struggles within himself and being part of an organisation that considers homosexuality to be an abomination.

I don't know how long exactly this page has been around for, I can't find anything for the main site so I think that it has only appeared in the last 6 months. But this kind of innacuracy is to be honest unacceptable. He hasn't been a minister for 18 years but they still list him as a member.

It should also be noted that the WBC does not seem to think highly of the Pentacostal organisation, we all know that the "dog-kennel" is a dead giveaway.

Lastly, I suspect that Mr. Venn-Brown is only on here because of his past as a preacher, because it reflects badly on denominations that aren't the WBC and for his founding of the Youth Alive programme, because it is "evidence" that "homosexuals are paedophiles", even though there is no evidence that supports that. It is however a view that is used continuously by the WBC.

We finish this look at the last section of this site with a Bible quote:

Isaiah 13:11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

It's actually from a passage relating to Babylon. Not gay people. You fail again Westboro Baptist Church.