1. Gods and earthlings

Comment #174553 by ImagineAll on May 2, 2008 at 4:24 pm

This article appeared in my local newspaper a few days ago. I was delighted, but a little bit... Jaded isn't the right word.

When my friend, enthusiastic, pointed the article out to me, I said (with, perhaps, a bit more pride than necessary) "Oh, that article. I read it on richarddawkins.net AGES ago!"

Mostly, though, I'm happy to see it there.

2. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #169719 by ImagineAll on April 26, 2008 at 4:23 pm

"She turned me in to a newt!" [...] "I got better."

3. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169716 by ImagineAll on April 26, 2008 at 4:20 pm

I'm all for free speech, and if this were censorship by the police or by the government, I'd be angry.

But this is at a school. Schools DO censor, and, sometimes, I think that they should. It's frustrating, because I do, very firmly believe in free speech for everyone- even assholes and idiots. But, at a place that is designed to be a safe haven to students? Absolutely not. If the school HADN'T taken action against the student's shirt, it would be seen as endorsement of statements like that.

Hate speech should never be made illegal, but places like schools should protect their students' happiness first and foremost. There was no law in violation, and if there had been, the law would not have been just. Direct discrimination against any group isn't allowed.

Or, another example. The double standard has been pointed out previously- if that shirt had been explicitly racist, there wouldn't have been a court case. Or, at least, not one that the student had any chance of winning. When it's hate speech against homosexuality, however, the student gets off free in the long run. Either allow them both or don't allow both of them- the double standard is ridiculous and shows just how far our society has to go before true acceptance is established.

4. The death-of-god debate

Comment #148665 by ImagineAll on March 23, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Last night, I went over to a friends' house. We painted easter eggs and ate chocolate.

This morning, I went to Easter Brunch, and my father and I (in an attempt to cling to childhood) put on our own little easter egg hunt. We exchanged gifts. I now have chocolate.

I am an atheist. And y'know what? I love Easter.

I don't need religion to celebrate spring, though I do thank whoever came up with chocolate bunnies.

5. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138044 by ImagineAll on March 3, 2008 at 7:55 pm

I'll be flying *through* the San Francisco area on the eighth. I do always seem to miss things like this.

6. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126603 by ImagineAll on February 13, 2008 at 4:20 pm

MovingShadow- that was hilariously appropriate, and bonus points for the Obscure Simpsons Reference. :D

7. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123234 by ImagineAll on February 6, 2008 at 4:47 pm

I was amused by how half of the video simply talked about how horrible the Horsemen are for criticizing religion, and the other half talked about how they're cruelly stealing religion away from children.

They only imply that a loss of religion is a bad thing with the tone of the video (I don't think they ever actually said it outright) and following that, never actually said WHY it's a bad thing.

Evangelicals are losing their religion in college? Oh, no! How absolutely horrific, please excuse me while I go cower in a corner and bemoan the horrible human condition. And by that, I mean, celebrate.

8. Putting Candidates' Religion to the Test

Comment #121798 by ImagineAll on February 4, 2008 at 7:23 am

I disagree, Quill- though I can say that you've clearly been watching the news.

The election is in NO WAY decided. Both the Democrats and the Republicans need well over 1,000 delegates to win the election (the exact number escapes me, but it's closer to 1,500) and the last time I checked (admittedly at the beginning of last week), none of the delegates had over 100. Trends are starting to appear, but the election is in no way over.

The point of these questions isn't to decide on a single issue- it's partly to prove a point, perhaps for the next election. All of the candidates would have less than satisfactory answers to the questions. Simply, if we equate religion with a certain amount of stupidity now, maybe we can wean it out of our politics before it goes to far.

Also, it would be damn amusing. Those questions were brilliant. :)

9. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121362 by ImagineAll on February 3, 2008 at 9:44 am

I'm a football fan. (Also, girl. 'American Male Football Gene' my ass.) I like college football, though- at least that brings money to schools, even if the majority of it goes to football and basketball and not to the other, smaller sports. I dislike pro football, because I dislike the idea of professional athletes.

That being said, I'm a bit neutral here. I'm not specifically siding with the NFL, but I'm not siding with the Church, either. The NFL shouldn't have the power to regulate anything like this, but if they are going to regulate, it should be across the board- there should be no special exception for churches.

Sports bars are sports bars. They make most of their revenue OFF of sports, so they're given an exception. Last time I checked, the Church of Holy Bullcrap and the Trinity doesn't rely on football to make money- they rely on the gullibility of others.

Either remove the restrictions across the board, or keep them as they are. No special dispensation for churches.

10. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116625 by ImagineAll on January 26, 2008 at 9:15 pm

If the father really, truly wanted his son to live out his religious beliefs, he'd know that in Judaism the religion if the child is determined by the religion of the *mother*.

Don't get me wrong- this is horrific, but it's also slightly hilarious that the father's so wrapped up in his own religion that he doesn't realize he's going *against* it.

11. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #116038 by ImagineAll on January 25, 2008 at 10:59 am

Does anyone else sort of hope they're *not* successful in creating life? I mean, don't get me wrong- it would be incredibly cool and the medical repercussions would be astounding, but how long would it take the apologists to switch from "you're playing God!" to "See? If a person can create life, than God clearly can! That life didn't occur spontaneously, it was *created*!"

Them be tricksy fundamentalists.

12. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #84780 by ImagineAll on November 3, 2007 at 2:39 pm

As someone who attended a religious school (in an effort to find a better education) I can speak firsthand about the dangers of labels.

'Atheist' does not define who I am, beyond my lack of a belief in any god. I do not hold my values because I am an Athiest, I have certain morals and just happen to be an Atheist as well. These morals seem to correspond with the morals of other Atheists, but not BECAUSE we are Atheists.

The trend today, especially among the Christian right, however, is to equate morals with a philosophy. I saw it in my friends and their parents during the 2000 and 2004 elections: "George Bush is a Christian, so he is a good man." "I am anti-abortion because I am a Christian."

While our morals may not be influenced by our lack of a religious belief, others will automatically see it as such. My opinions in school were given far more credence than those of my more outspoken Atheist friends. People would dismiss them immediately, simply because they were Atheists. Even though my classmates were aware that I 'was not religious', the fact that I *did not identify myself* made my opinions seemingly more valid. They were untainted by prejudice.

When asked of my religion in a policy debate, I usually respond with 'it isn't relevant', because it isn't. To actually answer, ultimately, is to give them fodder.