1. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #180664 by joshuaslocum on May 15, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I wish Stephen Jay Gould were still around just so he'd have to see how pitiful and misguided his Non-overlapping Magisteria construct really was.

2. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156569 by joshuaslocum on April 7, 2008 at 10:21 pm

It's great to see so many people sending letters. Thanks for posting them! Remember to cc them as widely as possible. The suggestions to send letters to the editor are good, too. I'll get on that myself tomorrow.

Here's another thought, maybe for RDFRS - start a Monique Davis Freedom of Conscience Fund drive. Capitalize on this - I'll put up some bucks toward the church/state separation work done by all the worthy organizations many of us know about.

3. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156551 by joshuaslocum on April 7, 2008 at 8:01 pm

To all:

My letter to Ms. Davis, with cc's. I don't expect this will change her mind, and that wasn't my point in sending it. I do hope enough blunt critiques and expressions of justified outrage will induce other public figures to think twice about their actions. I hope you'll join me in publicly denouncing Ms. Davis' bigotry, using your real name. We can't afford to merely complain to each other here - the "real world" needs to hear from us. Stand up and be counted!

Also, here's the list of email addresses I tediously culled for the members of Ms. Davis' committee, if they're useful to you:

jack@jackfranks.org, lisadugan@sbcglobal.net, 70thdist@pritchardstaterep.com, repjohnbradley@mychoice.net, annazettec@aol.com,statereppaul@sbcglobal.net,staterepgordon@sbcglobal.net,repkrause@aol.com, repmyers@macomb.com, poer@housegopmail.state.il.us, statereprramey55@aol.com, jimwatson@localnetco.com,

If you want to write to any of the organizations I cc'ed below, I'm afraid you'll have to use their infernal "contact us through this web form" functions because they don't list email addresses.




******************************************************************


Dear Representative Davis:

I must express my shock at the tirade you unleashed against activist and atheist Rob Sherman at the April 2, 2008 meeting of your committee. I could barely believe my ears when I heard you say - nay scream - that Mr. Sherman was spreading a "dangerous" "philosophy" that children shouldn't even know exist. There were so many malicious strawmen stereotypes about nonbelievers in your disquisition it would take pages to correct them all.

Most appalling of all was to hear you tell Mr. Sherman,

"I am fed up! Get out of that seat!"

and,

"You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in
destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

I can hardly credit that an elected representative to a United States legislature - sworn to uphold the Constitution - would have the gall to order a citizen out of the legislature, and to state his lack of religious belief stripped him of his rights guaranteed under that Constitution. Have you read the Constitution, Ms. Davis? That document guarantees all citizens - those who adhere to a religious belief and those who don't - the same rights. Our
secular - yes, secular - Constitution is unique among the founding documents of the nations of the world in separating religion from government so that everyone, believer and non-believer, may freely exercise the right to participate fully in society.

By far the most disturbing facet of this sad affair: As a black woman who doubtless knows the history of the African-American struggle for full enfranchisement, I'm stunned it would even occur to you to tell another American citizen he had "no right" to participate in government, and to "Get out of that seat." Those who
have experienced discrimination and persecution (and I am among them) have a special moral responsibility to stand in solidarity with others whose voices are oppressed because they aren't the "right" skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or any other attribute. To instead turn on a representative of an unpopular minority is ethically perverse.


Sincerely yours,


Joshua Slocum (a citizen, a taxpayer, a member of a family, a community
activist, and an atheist)



P.S. - Since I'm disseminating this letter to as many people as possible in the hope of waking them up to the danger of lawmakers who wrap themselves up in a godly cloak in order to insult and disenfranchise non-believers, I'm including a link to the audio of your remarks for background:


http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/files/DAVIS.mp3


P.P.S. -I do want to thank you for reminding me to get around to the charitable donations I've been planning to make to secular organizations that work for the separation of religion and government. I'll be making my gifts in your honor.

cc: Illinois House State Government Administration Committee Members
Senator Barack Obama
Governor Howard Dean, Chairman, Democratic National Committee
Margaret Downey, President, Atheist Alliance International
Ellen Johnson, President, American Atheists
Dan Barker and Annie-Laurie Gaylor, Co-Presidents, Freedom From Religion
Foundation
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Lori Lipman Brown, Secular Coalition
Lori Lipman Brown, Secular Coalition


**EDITED ONCE for formatting issues.

4. Sci-fi guru Clarke to have secular funeral

Comment #147020 by joshuaslocum on March 19, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Hi all,


It's interesting that Clarke's funeral is bringing up the topic of living wills and funeral plans. All to the good, I say. I want to clear up some misconceptions and offer some information I hope you'll find useful. I'm only speaking from an American knowledge base, mind you. I'm the director of nonprofit, educational charity called Funeral Consumers Alliance. Think of us as the watchdogs who try to protect the grieving from overpaying for funerals, and from having their choices taken away from them by an often avaricious funeral industry. I'm an expert on funeral law in the United States from a consumer perspective (I say that not to be immodest, but to indicate that what I'm telling you comes from real legal research, it's not just my opinion).

1. A will is not going to do you any good as far as your funeral goes. Why? Because it's almost never read until well after the body is buried. Please, please don't believe a will is the proper place to make your funeral plans - that's a longstanding but self-defeating myth.

The proper place for your funeral plans is in a written document that you have made copies of and distributed to your likely survivors. The conversation is just as important as the document itself - you're doing no one any favors if you write out a document in secret and put it in a lock box at the bank.


2. How much control you have over what happens to your body at death varies by state law. In all states, in the absence of any contrary instructions, your legal next of kin by marriage or blood have the right to decide every last thing about your funeral. In some states, the deceased's wishes simply are not recognizeable under law. That's a fact, however unpleasant it may be.

But, a majority of US states have laws we call "personal preference" or "designated agent" laws. They allow a person to make legally binding funeral wishes known (to the extent they're legal, practical, and someone can pay for them), or to designate an agent, some other person, to have the sole authority to direct the funeral. This is especially useful for gays and lesbians, or people in families who are likely to war with each other over your dead body.

Here is a list of those state laws - if your state has them, it's a really good idea to take advantage of them today by writing up an expression of your wishes:

http://www.funerals.org/pref.htm


I don't want to derail the conversation, but if you're interested in funeral issues, what your legal rights are, and how to avoid being soaked by a high-priced funeral home, please visit our web site at http://www.funerals.org

Please excuse the 1995-vintage site. It's hard in the nonprofit world to raise money for things like site development. We will have a totally redesigned, easy to use and up to date site live at that address within the next week.

I hope this is helpful.

5. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #137952 by joshuaslocum on March 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm

I'm not educated in this field enough to have any idea how likely it is that intelligent life exists outside earth, or that we'll find it. But I can't imagine anything more breathtakingly exciting than if we did. It's enough to make you giddy when you really contemplate it.

6. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128651 by joshuaslocum on February 17, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Babrock,

I'm sorry I came on so strong. It's just that it's really hard to read stuff when there's no end to sentences, no capitals, etc. It doesn't bother me because I think I'm the typing police, it bothers me because I really do want to read what you and everyone has to say, but it's frustrating to have to work so darned hard to do it. A lot of people really will just skim over those kinds of posts for that reason, which means your points don't get across (not good for you or others).

I didn't mean to be personally insulting to you, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way.

7. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128611 by joshuaslocum on February 17, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Well Steve, you are unfailingly patient and courteous, as always. I'll have to take your word for it that babrock had a "good point," because I refuse to work so hard to parse such unintelligible typing. Babrock, you may not realize it, but it comes across to the reader that you're disrespecting them when you write this way. Using capitalization, punctuation, whole words, and discrete sentences, is what makes writing intelligible, and it's not beyond your capability. It's counterproductive to force your readers to work that hard to make sense out of what you say.

And to anticipate common objections that arise anytime someone pleads for mechanical clarity -

1. No, it's not beyond your ability to learn how to use the shift key.

2. No, it's not impossible or too time-consuming for you to type out the whole word, rather than just a letter.

3. No, I'm not being a spelling pedant; I'm talking about the lack of structure in your typing that makes it hard to understand.

4. No, it's not acceptable to type in word salad just because this is the internet, and not a peer-reviewed journal.

8. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128557 by joshuaslocum on February 17, 2008 at 11:35 am

We are the Borg. Your life as you have known it is over. Your culture will adapt to service us. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Lower your shields and prepare to be assimilated.

9. Sharia fiasco

Comment #125023 by joshuaslocum on February 10, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Thanks Goldy - please *don't* keep your views to yourself! That's what we're all here for. I'd much rather shake hands and make new friends even if it comes at the cost of getting our feathers ruffled up a bit at first. Thanks for smoothing them down, and cheers from the Yank side of the pond.

10. Sharia fiasco

Comment #125020 by joshuaslocum on February 10, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Goldy, I get it. I'm with you. Blasting an entire population based on the actions of extremists is bigoted, hateful, and should be roundly condemned. Let me repeat that: I'm WITH YOU and I agree. Now can you please, please, acknowledge that it is legitimate for us to have concerns about the extremists, and that it's not racist or "demonising" to criticize the extremists? Please?

11. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124949 by joshuaslocum on February 10, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Goldy, #46:

"See what the media say now? Look what RW unleashed. I tell you, we don't need a revolution in the UK, the demonisation is getting stronger. "

Goldy, I realize I may be misinterpreting what you said, but please help to understand it. What "demonisation" are you talking about? That Independent article cited gov't statistics showing that 17,000 women in Britain are victims of "honour violence." It recounted the stories of girls raped and murdered by male relatives or hired killers, for the "crime" of choosing their own love interests.

Please - how is this "demonisation?" And of whom? I'm trying really hard to understand how this report could be called evidence of demonisation. Do I misunderstand you? Is this report not pointing horrific, evil things done to British women that must be stopped?

12. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124901 by joshuaslocum on February 10, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Richard M, #29 -

You're right, things are never as simple as they seem. And the West's history of imperialism muddies the water considerably. There are, however, lines that need to be drawn in the sand. We can disagree over what those are, and all of us should be open to having our minds changed by reasonable discourse. Some of those lines, however, really aren't that "problematic." Universal franchise. No wife-beating. No discrimination against gays. No requiring women to have two witnesses in court when a man gets only one. It's these simple, clear violations of what we all (hopefully) hold as sacred (if you'll pardon the term) values that need to be called out immediately, not theorized or waffled over.

13. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124894 by joshuaslocum on February 10, 2008 at 11:53 am

BaronOchs #22 - I don't know the answer to your question. Maybe some of our UK friends do, or maybe the only people who do are the gov't ministers who came up with the scheme in the first place?

14. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124872 by joshuaslocum on February 10, 2008 at 11:37 am

I'm glad you did, Allan. I commend you for being able to keep your temper to a low simmer - "call" took me past the boiling point.

15. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124865 by joshuaslocum on February 10, 2008 at 11:28 am

Lucas, #7, - it took only 7 posts for one of the bedwetters over at Pharyngula to get into a right snit. A poster named "call" wrote this about Condell's video:


"Well, there are two blatant lies in the couple of minutes (about polygamy and hate speech), so I stopped there. There are a lot of right-wing racist nutters frothing at the mouth about "Islamics" these days, and this is just another one (though he may not realise it himself). Why not just point us to what the Daily Mail (the paper that supported Hitler) is saying about it?"


To which I replied:

"Call, perhaps you haven't been reading the papers. The British government did, in fact, approve of giving extra social benefits to men with multiple wives. From the International Herald Tribune:

'LONDON: British men who marry several women in a country where polygamy is allowed can legally claim welfare benefits for all of them, a government review has concluded.

Polygamy is illegal in Britain, but the Department for Work and Pensions said Saturday that its yearlong review of welfare regulations dating back to 1987 found that men who marry several women legally in other countries can maintain those relationships here and claim welfare benefits for each one.

The ministry estimates that up to 1,000 polygamous relationships exist in Britain, and the ruling is expected to primarily benefit members of the Muslim minority who married elsewhere under Islamic law.'

Call, Madam or Sir, are you going to acknowledge that this is a fact, and not a 'blatant lie?'

Condemning the societal tolerance for oppressive, unfair religious practices that degrade the idea of universal civil rights is not right wing racist nuttery. It's the purest expression of liberal values that value human beings as human beings, not as pawns in a politico-religious game. I am God-damned sick of my fellow liberals abandoning these values and having the stupidity and gall to hector the rest of us and call us racist right wingers for defending the values of human rights that YOU ought to be defending too.

Why do commentors like you want to bend over backwards to disbelieve that some very serious breaches of liberal, democratic values really, really are happening? Whence comes this desperate emotional need to defend the indefensible, and to accuse those who stand up for fairness of being bigots? I cannot understand this. "

And no, I don't expect I'll get any acknowledgment from "call" that he or she ejaculated an emotional, fact-free response.

16. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116880 by joshuaslocum on January 27, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Steve, I couldn't have said it better. There is an *exact* parallel. It works just like you said. Men and women can hold hands, but if two women do, it's "flaunting it," and "shoving it in people's faces."

With respect to religion and rationalism, you can stand on a streetcorner and proclaim your love of God to all and sundry (irritating shoppers and pedestrians no end), but if someone dares to reply, "I don't believe in your God, thanks very much," he's committed an aggressive "assault."

This fundamental assymetry has to be recognized and objected to loudly. Too many good people, humanists and members of the left, don't recognize it. They let themselves, and their good humanitarian ideals, get trampled on by people who do not reciprocate the "respect" they demand for their faith. They need to stop apologizing for "offending" people and wise up to the cheap rhetorical trick that's being pulled on them. Demanding equal space to express one's views in the public square is a liberal and human-affirming act. Apologizing for one's existence lest it offend someone else is cowardice.

17. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116866 by joshuaslocum on January 27, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Steve Zara wrote:

Well, I don't think that is the case in the UK. Also, I am not saying that one should always be nice; not by any standards. It just happens to be my personal style. I think many different strategies need to be used together, as in the campaigns for women's rights, and for gay rights.

In gay rights in the UK we have both the forceful approach of Peter Tatchell, and the far more polite and quiet approaches of people like Ian McKellen and Stonewall. This combination has worked pretty well.

However, even when arguing agressively, I think think one should not stoop to "you are stupid" as against "yout ideas are stupid".

I quite agree with you Steve. Here in the US, unfortunately, it really is the case, and has been for a long time, that we've been ever so gently nice, and we've been bulldozed by the rising wave of the proudly pious infecting everything. Too many people whose views I agree with - nice, liberal people who care about human rights - have handcuffed themselves by their own effete gentility. Then they're shocked (no, I meant, "deeply saddened," and "troubled," - God forbid one should get "angry") by what the fundies do. All I'm saying is: know when to take the gloves off.

As a veteran of the gay rights movements of the late 1980s and early 1990s in the US, I've seen firsthand the wisdom of fighting a battle on multiple fronts. All the older (yes, it was older people) worry warts didn't want us young whippersnappers to be too brash and scare the nice heterosexuals. Why, they won't like us if we don't tiptoe, went the mentality. Meanwhile, ACT UP was staging outrageous and tasteless demonstrations that, lo and behold, actually got people off their asses to do something about helping AIDS victims. The outrageous behavior also cleared a larger conversational space for more moderate, work-within-the-system people to look reasonable and get more work done (which they did). Except those who were too busy keeping their lips pursed and wincing at everyone who was so "confrontational." Call it, I'm-gay-but-ery.

I think we all need to use wisdom and discern where our talents are put to their best use. Unlike you, Steve, I'm not particularly "nice" when I argue for causes I'm passionate about. There is a difference between candor and rude incivility, though, and I'm not advocating rudeness, I just resent it when people confuse the two. Many who quail at heated discussion deliberately conflate passion with boorishness, so they can cluck-cluck at the "not nice people." I won't bother them on their fainting couches as long as they don't try to make me lay down on one.
And yes, it goes without saying that there's a difference between calling someone stupid, and saying that their arguments are ignorant or stupid. I reserve the right to the latter, unconditionally.

But my brand of commentary is most certainly not always the best approach, and I try to remember to ask my friends who share your style, Steve, to step in where my loud mouth would only enflame to no good end. I just wish more of the quieter, more measured people would recognize that we firebrands are valuable too. It has ever been thus, and no cause will ever progress without a good mixture of both.

EDITED once to correct grammatical ignorance:)

18. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116834 by joshuaslocum on January 27, 2008 at 2:58 pm

To #117, Louzer, who said:

But Dr. Dawkins, I don't think you should have called him naive, straight at the face. That was so un-Carl Saganish. I mean you could have just left out that part about calling him naive and got staright to how tiktaalik is the most recently discovered intermediary, and why it is extinct, and how the fossils where found in the right geological strata where it was expected to be found.

Richard Dawkins is not Carl Sagan. I'm a great admirer of both men, and they do (or did) what they do in their own individual styles to great effect. Yes, Sagan is known for his gentle tone and his ability to tease the reader into feeling as awed at science as he is. But that is not the only effective tactic, and it is not always the most effective tactic. Sometimes blunt candor is called for, even (especially) if it makes some people "uncomfortable." I'm still trying to figure out why making someone uncomfortable or "offended" is today's Cardinal Discursive Sin. Really - it's a *good* thing to rouse up some uncomfortability in certain situations. And, no, I don't care if that makes you "personally uncomfortable."

I really think we are in the business of seduction not rape. I have found my undercover work very effective for building cognitive dissonance in fundamentalist minds.

Now I'm going to practice what I preach: cut the crap, Louzer. Rape? You really think rape is the best metaphor to describe Dawkins' blunt statement that the question was naive. For pity's sake. Now that's what I call offensive. Offensive to anyone with a sense of proportion about these things.

To everyone who wrings his or her hands about making people "uncomfortable," or "offended," and would like us all to be oh so humbly deferential to everyone's feelings, please consider this. People like Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer have been doing wonderful work in communicating science for years and years. I admire both of them a great deal, and wouldn't take anything away from their effect on the public understanding of science. That said, there is *a limit* to how much this approach can accomplish. If you haven't noticed, all the nice, cordial, humble, deferential tones from the Sagans and Shermers of the world haven't done a thing to stem the rising tide of irrationality and public piety that's compromised our discourse and our politics.

The bold, blunt approach of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and others was and is what's needed to make progress right now. It doesn't matter whether you, personally, get your knickers twisted up by that approach. The fact is we rational thinkers have gone as far as we can with the nice, polite, "maybe I'm wrong, of course, but won't you please consider. . ." line of discourse. It's gone on so long that many here who ought to know better have fallen under the spell Dawkins describes in the God Delusion as being shocked - SHOCKED - at hearing normal, candid criticism directed at articles of faith.

I know many of you fervently want to believe that all it takes is gentle seduction, nice suggestions, and humble bet-hedging, but it isn't true. That is all we've had available for decades, and we find ourselves dragged further and further into religiosity and irrationalism. If your polite method is so effective, how do you explain this?

So yes, I'm all for making people feel uncomfortable, and if necessary, embarrassed, when they *ought to be embarrassed*. And yes, stone-ignorant people like John ought to be called out as such. It's pitiful -and it's totally unnecessary - to be that naive and *publicly proud of it*. It should not be considered normal to proclaim your stupidity and expect everyone to smile nicely. And I'm all for doing it in the most public way possible. This is a necessary corrective to years of all of us pretending not to notice patently outrageous stupidity.


I certainly don't think this kind of blunt talk is always the best approach; sometimes more genteel discourse will win the day. But will the handwringers please give my side the benefit of the doubt and admit that, yes, sometimes calling a spade a spade is necessary?


/rant, and thanks for listening.

19. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101274 by joshuaslocum on December 20, 2007 at 7:05 am

It's hard to keep the bodies in their coffins round my way. We've had to reinforce the lids.

Paula, bless you my child for giving me today's first coffee-through-the-nose moment!

20. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100075 by joshuaslocum on December 18, 2007 at 7:57 am

Something else for those concerned about the "bad PR" smoking allegedly gives the atheist movement:

It's a lot easier to make grand pronouncements about such things behind the protective screen of a computer when you don't actually have to encounter real, living people in front of you who care about many of the same issues you do. About half the volunteer staff for the Richard Dawkins Foundation at the AAI conference in DC (I was one of them) smoked, and outside on the terrace at their breaks. I wager you'd have had a much harder time insulting them to their faces; you certainly wouldn't have gotten away with the vicious remarks you've made in this fairly anonymous online forum.

I fear I've contributed partly to this threadjack, and I'm sorry about that. But I'm not willing to let this singleminded, insulting zealotry pass without comment. We all have much better things to do - keeping the wall of separation between church and state up, protesting religious influence on government policy, for example. The contributions all of us make to these causes are important, and you do not have the right to reduce anyone - even the dread smoker - to a subclass who can be insulted publicly without expecting people to call you on it. You've gotten to used to getting away with it and it's time you learned there are some of us who won't tolerate it silently.

There are plenty of issue organizations through which you can channel your energies. It would be nice if we could all get back to doing good work for the secular cause and leave the insults and rancor someplace else.

21. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100068 by joshuaslocum on December 18, 2007 at 7:38 am

Allan, I'm afraid there is no one whom the Cotton Mathers of the antismoking world will take seriously if that person doesn't instantly buckle under to their authoritarian rhetoric. Notice that those of us who smoke or who argue that we and others have the right to decide when or where to voluntarily subject ourselves to it have been reduced to "knuckle-draggers," perpetrators of "manslaughter," "immoral," and have been compared to rapists and murderers. Simply read: subhuman.


The type of person that throws that kind of invective and vitriol cannot be reasoned with; the attitude is founded on unreasoning hatred. No argument that uses logic, or tries to appeal to the idea that a smoker should be treated with anything resembling human decency in any circumstance, will make the slightest difference. Notice that these people will not acknowledge that there could be any circumstances in which a person has the (shudder) liberty to do as he pleases, or that anyone else has the liberty to "tolerate" it. Everyone - every single person - in this view who does not immediately demand the cessation of all smoking is a victim trapped by the smoker, stripped of all agency and incapable of making the rational choice to be there, QED.

No matter where anyone stands on issues of smoking or any other unhealthy behavior, one should be offended - and frightened - by people who state:

"Making them feel disgusted and antisocial by it is a powerful remedy to the grip of chemical dependence - it produces strong brain chemicals of its own that might just counteract the cravings where an attempt driven only by vague good intentions would fail. Fear of not fitting in and fear of death are much more powerful motivators than mere guilt or aspiration, and if governments take the health of their people seriously (which they undoubtedly should) then it behoves them powerfully to take effective steps in this regard. "

You don't have to be an unreconstructed Libertarian to find that view of how the government ought to harangue, coerce, and shame those deemed "unsuitable" to be sinister and depraved. It's an unfortunate, but instructive demonstration that the capacity to viciously dehumanize other people is not limited to the theological mind. It is, fundamentally, a dominionist religious attitude, with the same dehumanizing condemnations and demands for submission.

22. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99399 by joshuaslocum on December 16, 2007 at 2:52 pm

"The one things that annoys me almost as much as "political correctness" is over-sensitive reactions to it. "

I suspect we agree more than we disagree. No offense intended to you, Atticus. I just happened to disagree that the heart-patient comment was a "good point." You're probably right about me being sensitive on this topic - it's difficult to convey to nonsmokers how over the top the conversation frequently becomes when tobacco is raised. You might not see it as over-sensitive if you could be a fly on the wall for the routine rudeness, often escalating to public verbal abuse, smokers endure despite our best efforts to have a small space of our own. None of this would be obvious to people who haven't been the target of this all-too-common behavior.

Again, I meant no offense to you, and I apologize if I came on rather strong.

23. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99387 by joshuaslocum on December 16, 2007 at 2:23 pm

"However, the guy who pointed out that Dennett was a recent heart patient had a good point. "




What is that "good point?" I assume Mr. Dennett was well aware of his heart condition, don't you? If Dennett was worried about this, isn't it likely he would have declined to be there? Perhaps you're worried that Mr. Dennett was too intimidated to say no, and just sat in fear that his "enforced" presence in a smoking room might trigger a heart attack? This is all really quite silly.




Why, I remember Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris *voluntarily* getting a table in the smoking pub at the hotel hosting the AAI convention in October in Washington DC. Yes, astonishingly, even nonsmokers are allowed to make these choices, and even more astonishingly, they're not in mortal terror of dying.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it ought to be absurdly obvious to the "concerned" here that these gentlemen are smart, accomplished men who are perfectly capable of deciding whether or not they wish to be in Hitchens' smoking house. None of them have a problem with self expression or deciding when and where they spend their time. They were not there at gunpoint. I know it's shocking, just shocking, but it looks like Dennett decided he wasn't afraid of having a heart attack from some cigarette smoke. Mercy sakes, I think he lived, too.

24. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99365 by joshuaslocum on December 16, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I find it absolutely incredible anyone on here is getting themselves twisted up about Hitchens smoking . The antismoking sentiment has gone so far beyond reasonable that we actually have posters here blatantly stating that "bad guys" smoke and that it's shameful to be seen smoking. As Reed commented above, virulent antismoking sentiment is truly and literally religious, with all religion's sanctimony and moral rhetoric.

Let me be clear: no one is arguing that smoking is good for you or others. It isn't, although people in the room aren't going to drop dead after spending an afternoon with a smoker, hysterical rhetoric to the contrary. No one is arguing that people should smoke willy-nilly around those who find it offensive. I smoke in my own house, but I wouldn't even dream of asking to smoke in a nonsmoking friend's house or car. But likewise, my nonsmoking friends wouldn't dream of presuming that I will not smoke in my house if they choose to visit me there.

As others have pointed out, this was Hitchens' own house. If Dennett, Dawkins, or Harris objected to him smoking, you can bet they would have requested an alternate nonsmoking venue for the filming. Clearly, that wasn't important enough to them, but that seems to rankle the sanctimonious who assume the poor gentlemen were trapped against their will. Oddly, it actually seems to disappoint the most virulent antismokers when they see others actually tolerating smoking - they need to make up a story that the poor, blighted nonsmokers were trapped in a carcinogenic hell because they were too polite to plead for their lives.

I can certainly understand people who object to being smoked around; decency and consideration for others demand that you respect that. But it works both ways, and antismokers would do well to remember that smokers are people too. It may surprise you, but many of us are quite nice, moral people who pay taxes, contribute to charity, and care just as much as you about the state of the world around us. Being insulted and cast as moral pariahs not only offends us, but makes people like me want to thumb my nose all the more at the paternalistic sanctimony.

25. Bible Belter

Comment #68309 by joshuaslocum on September 6, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Friend: Thanks for pointing out I'm humor-impaired today! D'oh!

26. Bible Belter

Comment #68284 by joshuaslocum on September 6, 2007 at 3:49 pm

EDIT: Please ignore this post. . . I was obviously too dumb to notice Keith was making a joke:(


To add to what Linda said, Keith, for the love of your god, please also humor us with the occasional punctuation mark. It really makes reading so very much easier. That's the longest run-on sentence I've seen in months - didn't even read your post after I deduced it was just one long train of words.

27. Bible Belter

Comment #68187 by joshuaslocum on September 6, 2007 at 10:10 am

To Prof. Dawkins (and others from the UK):


You've commented on Hitchens' phrase,

"or as it might be phrased in Latin form, no child's behind left."

by saying,

"An undeniable lapse but not a characteristic one."

Those from outside the US may not get the allusion Hitchens is making. George Bush pushed, and Congress passed, an education reform law popularly known as "No Child Left Behind." The law is controversial and has sparked acrimonious debate. Critics claim it's a law which punishes public schools whose students do not meet certain scores on standardized tests. These critics see the law as holding underfunded schools to impossibly high standards while providing insufficient money for them to meet the law's requirements.

Hitchens was undoubtedly alluding to the difference between the professed and the actual "concern for children" that our religiously fanatical politicians and institutions exhibit.

Of course, you may have understood that American reference, yet still found the phrase clumsy and vulgar.

28. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66100 by joshuaslocum on August 28, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Professor Dawkins, I can answer your question about tax-deductibility. I am the director of a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization.

No, donations specifically for Ted Haggard's personal benefit are not tax-deductible. And no, it is not legal for an entity with tax-deductible status for donors to funnel money to Haggard or any other individual for their personal benefit.

Organizations known as 501(c)(3)'s (the code section of the tax law dealing with this) are exempt from taxation, and donors may take a tax deduction for any gifts they make to such an organization. In exchange for this favorable treatment, (c)(3) organizations must be organized for educational/charitable purposes. They may not engage in "self-dealing" -- giving money or favorable treatment to trustees or other insiders, etc.

While they may pay staff a reasonable compensation, such organizations can get in trouble if the Internal Revenue Service finds they're enriching employees or directors.

If Ted Haggard were legitimately on the staff of such an organization, the org. would be allowed to pay him a reasonable salary. Obviously, this would be paid from part of the tax-deductible gifts from donors.

An organization may decide that part of its charitable mission was to help families in distress with cash gifts, payment of household expenses, etc. But I highly doubt Haggard's situation would qualify. If a nonprofit accepted money specifically to support Haggard or someone else in his position, and allowed the donor to take a tax-deduction, I'm pretty certain the IRS would rule that illegal. Such activity could jeopardize the organization's tax-free standing.

29. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64780 by joshuaslocum on August 21, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Not to TheHardProblem, #29

Well, it sounds like I just need to lighten up then! Mea culpa. I'm taking the chip off my shoulder now:)


BTW. . would you prefer losing him to cancer, old age, or just what? We're all gonna die, brotha!


Best,

Josh

30. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64751 by joshuaslocum on August 21, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Note to TheHardProblem, #18:

Smoking doesn't make you immoral. Having your picture taken smoking doesn't make you immoral. Scolding adults in a prissy tone of voice because you dislike their personal habits does make one highly unpleasant, though.

31. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53491 by joshuaslocum on July 1, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Two things are astonishing:


A. The paper considered this "news," and to the extent of devoting so many column-inches to it.

B. That they didn't try to, or couldn't find, one public figure willing to call bullshit on these clergy and point out how outrageous and offensive their remarks were.

UK papers are starting to look more and more like those in my own U.S., sadly.

32. Cigarette Smoke Alters DNA In Sperm, Genetic Damage Could Pass To Offspring

Comment #47515 by joshuaslocum on June 4, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Not so fast, oh guilty ones. There's absolutely no suggestion that this has phenotypic effects. This is one preliminary study. Sheesh, konquerez, don't beat yourself up. Guess what? EVERYTHING you do could "damage" your genes. There's a hysteria abroad now about tobacco - it appears to be more dangerous than radioactive fall-out. For the love of Pete, put it in perspective. Unless you want to live in a plastic bubble (and then suffer a seriously undertrained immune system), something, somewhere, somehow, will make you less than optimally healthy.

To make a connection between your daughters' nebulously described "behavioral problems" and your cigarette smoking is not only completely unfounded, anecdotal, and worthless from a scientific perspective, but it's giving you belly aches you don't deserve as a Dad.

Lighten up, everyone. Tobacco, germs, failing to "enrich" your kids with Mozart in the womb, whole milk, formula instead of breast-feeding - you can make yourself hysterical and nuts over not being "perfect" or you can let life go on.


I suggest a little less paranoia, and a little more fun at the dinner table and some nice stories before bed. Trust me. . .your life will be a lot less stressful and your kids will actually enjoy it. They're not Faberge eggs.

33. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45586 by joshuaslocum on May 28, 2007 at 10:54 am

Thanks very much, Russell, for the links.

34. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45349 by joshuaslocum on May 27, 2007 at 9:33 am

Russell:

I enjoy your writing, and you've piqued my interest with the excerpt of your Quadrant article. Is there any way to read it that doesn't require a paid subscription to the journal? I realize journals have to make money, but so much good conversation is hidden behind subscriptions it's frustrating for those of us who won't subscribe to a publication to read one or two articles at most.

Cheers,

35. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39453 by joshuaslocum on May 10, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Pewkatchoo:


HA! Yes! Touche, or should I say, tush?

36. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39020 by joshuaslocum on May 9, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Well, if I'm a prostitute (natural or otherwise), I demand to know why my pay is so meager. I've been gay my whole life, but I didn't realize my existence was a de facto occupation entitling me to recompense. To which office should I apply for back wages?

37. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #36103 by joshuaslocum on April 30, 2007 at 7:50 am

Russell and Johnathan --- thanks for the good laugh. People with a weak command of the English language are always tarting up the ordinary, and they usually give themselves away in just this manner. It's like the debutante who shows up with too much jewelry and too much makeup. If you've got it, you don't need to flaunt it.

My nominations for the next iterations of "ultimate":

surantepenultimate

supraantepenultimate

uberantepenultimate

And from the backwoods:

most antepenultimatest


Josh "Cranky Prescriptivist" Slocum

38. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #36011 by joshuaslocum on April 29, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Pedant's Corner:

"the penultimate social critic of the first half of the 20th century."

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. Penultimate does does not mean "the most ultimate," a ridiculous redudancy anyway. It means the second-to-last in a series. E.g., "In their penultimate game before the last one of the season next week, the Yankees blah, blah, blah."

The word the writer was searching for was just plain ultimate.

39. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30230 by joshuaslocum on April 7, 2007 at 9:21 am

On anonymity:


I've always used my real name because I'm not ashamed of what I have to say, as unpopular as some of my opinions might be. In fact, I hope it makes my position harder to dismiss, because I'm willing to stand behind it, publicly, for good or ill. I wish more people would do the same, but it's a personal choice. It's rather like gays and atheists being in the closet - it's a lot easier for society to pretend they don't exist, or that they're just a trifling number, when folks won't "come out." Then again, there are lots of reasons people use pseudonyms on the Web that have nothing to do with weighty political concerns, so I don't want to make too much out of it.


On Moore:

What disturbs me the most is his inability to distinguish between native intelligence and ignorance. People can be (and often are) clever, but ignorant of the facts about the world. Ignorance can be cured - it's called education.

Mr. Moore (deliberately?) confuses that distinction and falsely accuses people like Dawkins of touting themselves as innately more intelligent than the dirty masses. Now, I think it's obvious Prof. Dawkins got more than the usual share of intelligence, but I bet he'd be the first to argue that he's battling against ignorance. I bet he'd say he wants to elevate the knowledge of everyone, including the woman who "toils in the paddy field."

Ignorance is not ennobling or sanctifying, Mr. Moore, it's sad. I think it's you who insults "the great unwashed masses" by assuming they're incapable of higher learning. If you truly care about the child who begs in the dirt (beyond using him as a convenient foil for your literary temper tantrums), consider helping him join the educated world. Perhaps he won't have to beg in the dirt any longer.

40. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26365 by joshuaslocum on March 18, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Elfinabout wrote:

"Richard/Site admins: I have a request. I'd like to arrange a poll of forum members. My wish is to ask each member if they would be kind enough to identify themselves (anonymously, of course) as either "straight" or "gay/bisexual".

Well, I'll start the ball rolling. Gay guy here. Big whoop. I'd consider it an insult to myself to do it anonymously, though I appreciate your sensitivity to others, elfin ( you can let them off the hook but I won't). It's actually amazing to me that people are having a harder time coming out as atheists than they are coming out as gay. When I was a loud-mouthed 12-year-old who decided to stop pandering to ignorance, I took a lot of abuse for being an out gay kid. Little could I have imagined (!) that my atheism would be more controversial than the fact that I like men. What a sick, sad society we're living in.

It took a group of angry, courageous people in the late 60s (who stopped being quiet for the sake of "getting along") to put gay civil rights on the map. It's time for all of us to do the same thing as atheists. It has to start somewhere (hint: it starts with you).

41. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #25299 by joshuaslocum on March 11, 2007 at 8:38 pm

I should add that as an undergraduate I minored in Anthropology. My instructor was a woman who specialized in Sub-Saharan African kinship and gender (yes, gender, not sex . . .there is a difference) role systems.

As a class, we had to tackle what was then called "female circumcision." Extreme, unreconstructed Post-Modernism was having its last gasp of intellectual credibility while I was an undergrad.

My instructor assigned a variety of texts for us to consider. There were those anthropologists who wanted to view female genital mutilation as "just another culture's way of signifying ascension to adulthood and political enfranchisement." There were Western feminists who wanted to abolish FGM on grounds it was inhumane. There were people in the middle who cautioned that Western intervention, without a grounding in how and why FGM came about and helped form politically adult women, could wreak havoc and would recapitulate the worst of Imperialism.

In the end, I drew a line in the sand. I wrote a paper on FGM and concluded (I paraphrase, as I can't remember just exactly what I wrote):

**It's all well and good that the women in these countries say, "Without circumcision, we cannot become adult women. If we don't become adult women, we cannot assume our place in the village and we cannot assume our role in governing it." But if the only choices on the table are: '1. We keep our genitals intact and forfeit our political power; 2. We have our clitorises cut off and our vaginas sewn up, and then we can influence the male leaders,' then there are too damn few choices on the table, and I refuse to dignify this system. We have an ethical duty to introduce a wider world of political participation to these women. **

I haven't changed my mind about this.

42. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #25281 by joshuaslocum on March 11, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Linux wrote:

"How is female genital mutilation any different than breast implants, plastic surgery, etc. I'm not saying female genital mutilation is OK, I think it's horrible and should be abolished, but to say that the West is any better is incorrect when there are so many plastic surgeries taking place."

Gee, let me count the ways:

1. Female genital mutilation is NONVOLUNTARY in many cases. It is practiced on young girls before they're old enough to consent.

2. It's not just the snipping of a bit of skin - it usually involves cutting off the clitoris. The male equivalent would be cutting off the head of the penis.

3. It deprives women FOREVER of normal sexual enjoyment and function.

4. It is often practiced in crude, filthy settings that lead to infection or worse.

5. The most evil kind is called infibulation, which is the cutting off of the external genitalia and sewing the hole up small and tight -sometimes with a few small sticks to keep it open.

Wake up, friend. Some things are NOT relative (says the liberal rationalist who yet understands some things are objectively worse than others).

Here's a little light reading from the World Health Organization's Web site. Don't be pacified by the deceptively clinical language - the reality is just as bloody as you could imagine. E.g - for "excision" subsitute "cutting off."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Type I - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris;

Type II - excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora;

Type III - excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation);

Type IV - pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue;
scraping of tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice (angurya cuts) or cutting of the vagina (gishiri cuts);
introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it; and any other procedure that falls under the definition given above.

The most common type of female genital mutilation is excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, accounting for up to 80% of all cases; the most extreme form is infibulation, which constitutes about 15% of all procedures."


Now, do you still think voluntary plastic surgery (ill-advised as it may be) is "just as bad?"

43. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24554 by joshuaslocum on March 7, 2007 at 7:54 am

I sent the above, slightly modified, as a letter to the editor of the Orange County Register.

44. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24553 by joshuaslocum on March 7, 2007 at 7:50 am

Campos wrote:

"But how many people, at least among the social classes that produce presidential candidates, believe in the orthodox doctrines of Christianity with the same degree of confidence that they believe in, say, the existence of Antarctica?"


It matters less whether these people believe this fully if pressed, but that they're willing to act as if they do. They make decisions in the real world that affect all of us in terrible ways because they act as if these beliefs were true. They vote in ways that restrict human rights, that increase economic inequality, and that enflame tensions between countries. They act and vote in ways that beget war and suffering.

It is just not good enough to say these people would probably admit uncertainty if a gun was put to their head (metaphorically). That they willingly suspend uncertainty and make real, consequential decisions in the physical world is problem.

If Mr. Campos doesn't see this, he is a fool. I concur with others who've written that this piece demonstrates a shockingly juvenile and unsophisticated "analysis." For a law professor to have signed his name to this is just embarrassing. Mr. Campos ought to apply to his own arguments the same standards of logic and evidence he expects and would use in a court of law.

45. A Familiar and Prescient Voice, Brought to Life

Comment #22276 by joshuaslocum on February 13, 2007 at 9:50 pm

A letter I submitted to the NY Times:



Dr. Sagan, you are so sorely needed and so sorely missed. I count him among the group of dead people I would most want to meet if it were possible (muckraking journalist Jessica Mitford's another). Sagan was doing his extraordinary work while I was too young to appreciate much beyond the shallow concerns of a teenager. Kudos to Ann Druyan for giving us one last chance to learn from one of the most important spokesmen for the wonder of the natural universe and humanity's place in it.

46. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21517 by joshuaslocum on February 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Bravo to everyone here who made such salient points, and took on Professor Hunter and her bigotry.


When reading some of the email responses attributed to Hunter, I was enraged to see her resort to the "it's a choice" argument; elevating her skin color to some privileged, off-limits status (being an ass to others is just fine, as long as your bigotry isn't racial). This reminds me of the *many* times I have experienced a focused, virulent homophobia in the black community. I'm sorry if that doesn't sound "nice," but it is a fact that homophobia runs particularly deep in many African American circles (full disclosure: I'm a white guy).

I have listened to many black civil rights leaders (often clergy) denigrate gays, and campaign to keep them oppressed because it's against "God's word." When asked why a group that experienced such oppression could support these measures, the response is always "you chose the sin; I can't help being black."

This is disgusting and morally reprehensible - quite aside from the fact that it is stupefyingly ignorant to believe sexuality is a choice. All people deserve dignity and full enfranchisment in society. It's bad enough that so many people - of all colors - hold ignorant, bigoted views about gays that inform their voting patterns. But it's a bigger "sin" for a group that *ought to know better* to be so vicious. Being black or a member of any other oppressed minority does not give you a free pass to comport yourself as if you were above basic ethical and moral responsibilities that all humans have.

Ranking oppressions is one of the worst phenomena to come out of the divisive "identity politics" of the 80s and 90s. It is particularly cruel and ugly for a traditionally oppressed group to gang up on another, whether it be gays or atheists. It just goes to show there's nothing particularly ennobling about living through oppression, if the only lesson you learn is "it's OK for me to be a hateful, ignorant ass, but it's not OK for you to treat me that way."