And Then Everyone Was A Fascist: Why The British Anti-Islamisation Debate Needs To Drop The Term 'Fascism'

A month ago, a member of the British Army named Lee Rigsby was brutally murdered on Wellington Street, Woolwich by a pair of religiously-motivated madmen. It was only through the efforts of a few extremely brave members of the public that the body count was not any higher. Rigsby was, by all accounts, an extremely nice bloke who did not at all deserve the senseless fate that was delivered to him.

The murder of a soldier at the hands of Islamic militants has had the effect one might have expected.

Namely, a shitstorm has erupted.

On one side we have the Anti-Islamists, represented in its extremes by groups like the English Defence League or parties like the British National Party. They are calling for an end to what they perceive to be the spread of Islam throughout society, and they aren't afraid of using violence to achieve this end. The opposition to this standpoint (let's call them the Anti-Anti-Islamists, because it looks and sounds hilarious) claim that the situation is being massively over-exaggerated and that it is unfair to judge an entire group by its extremes. These guys are represented by groups like Hope Not Hate, and in its extremes by Unite Against Fascism.

Now, I'm going to do my best to remain as on-the-fence on this topic as possible with this post, because it isn't my intention to discuss the relative merits of either side and their arguments. I'm writing this because I take quite a big issue with the language both sides use. And by language, I mean one specific term.

Because seriously, guys, you all need to stop bandying around the word 'fascism'.

Fascism is a term for a very specific form of ultra-right political nationalism, emphasising strong leader figures and the “mass mobilisation of the national community” (cheers Wikipedia). It's a form of rule that rose to prominence in the 20^th Century, with countries like Italy being taken over by fascist parties during this time and with small fringe groups like the British Union of Fascists existing in countries like the UK. The most notorious example, of course, is Germany's Nazi state that existed between 1933 and 1945: when people talk of fascism, its this state and all the negative connotations that come with it that springs to mind.

Fascism isn't a buzzword. Fascism isn't all radical-right political theory. Fascism isn't everyone who doesn't think exactly the fucking same as you. It's a proper political term that represents a specific ideology but these days is instead being misused by every man and his dog, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.

So let's single out each side in turn and explain to them why they should stop misusing this word.

Dear 'Unite Against Fascism'. You're not opposing fascists, unless Nick Griffin has recently developed an obsession with corporatism whilst I wasn't looking. The days when there were openly-fascist groups and parties operating in the UK have long since ended; even the National Front has since shifted its focus to a brand of ultra-nationalism. Far-right movements? Yes, those you are opposing, but the use of fascism in your very name indicates a complete lack of understanding towards the thing you say you're opposing, which makes you guys look more than a little silly.

Dear Anti-Islamists. There's no such fucking thing as 'left-wing fascism'. That's a paradox that ranks up there with “a very dry rainforest”. If you were to start talking about 'left-wing extremism', then you might well find yourself onto something, because such a thing most certainly exists and I'm sure some of you guys have been the victim of it at times. But tacking 'fascism' on the end of something to try and make a point not only suggests you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about, it just seems childish and unnecessary.

Which bring us to my central point. In debates like the one currently raging about Islamophobia and the Islamisation of Britain, fascism is no longer being used to make a legitimate point. It's being used to stifle discussion, to shut down communication. “Oh, you hold an opposing view-point to me? Well, you're a fucking Nazi, mate” is essentially what people are doing when they bandy the term about.

This discussion's important. It needs to happen, and we need a decent consensus on how to answer it. So tactics such as everyone calling everyone else a fascist is doing nothing but increasing the rhetorical nonsense and ensuring that we take even longer to come up with an answer.

So seriously, guys. Cut that shit out.

This Week in Atheism, Religion and Scepticism – 21/04/2013

Been a while since I worked on a consistent weekly segment for this blog, so I thought it was high time I got something started up again.

My idea for the 'Sunday News Round-Up' is for it to pretty much do what it says on the tin: every Sunday I'll post links to some news articles relevant to topics this blog covers, along with a bit of analysis and discussion from me. I'll break them down by topic, articles relating to atheism and religion in one, articles relating to scepticism in the other.

Right then, let's get this show on the road.

THIS WEEK IN ATHEISM AND RELIGION...

Shirley Chaplin, Gary McFarlane and Lillian Ladele are back in the news this week, as they're appealing the decision made by the European Court earlier this year. You might recall these three as the guys who complained that their employers were discriminating against them on religious grounds; Mrs Chaplin is a nurse forbidden to wear a cross at work, whilst Mr McFarlane and Miss Ladele are a relationship and marriage counsellor respectively who refused to work with homosexual couples. The former lost his job over it, whilst the latter is claiming that her employers making her work with gay couples would be discrimination.

All the rulings against them were held up in the European Court of Appeals, but now they're back decrying unfair treatment, double-standards and further discrimination against Christians. I do feel a bit sorry for Mrs Chaplin, I must admit; she had been wearing her cross (not exactly a big deal) for thirty years when she was asked to remove it on health and safety grounds, and she did actually offer to modify it so it did not only for this to be refused. The other two I have no sympathy for, however. We're reaching the stage were gay couples are finally starting to gain the right straight couples have solely enjoyed for far too long, and these kind of people can scream that they're not homophobes until Hell freezes over: if you are refusing to work with such couples based solely on their being gay, that's actual discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

---

A health and physical education teacher in Columbus, Ohio has been fired after the principal learned she was gay. Would it surprise you overly to learn that this school is Catholic?

Yeah, me neither.

Carla Hale, who had worked at Bishop Watterson High School for nineteen years, had her post terminated because her homosexuality is “a violation of moral law”. No, seriously. That's apparently their reasoning for this bullshit move. I never cease to be astounded by the fact that these people still think they can get away with this sort of thing still. Either way, a shitstorm is brewing, the school is under heavy scrutiny and Hale, who very kindly says that all she wants is her job back, is nonetheless pursuing legal action against the school for it's blatant discrimination against her. She's going to win, there's no doubt about it; the school diocese has no justification for the stunt it's pulled.

---

And finally for this section some news closer to home for me: a poll in Scotland by the Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland shows a sizeable decrease in the number of people saying they belong to the Christian faith. This stands in stark contrast to an earlier poll in 2001, which had 65% of respondents saying they were Christian; in this new poll it's dropped to 55%, and those stating that they have no belief in god has risen from just 28% to 39%. Good news all round, by my standards. The National Secular Society, whose analysis of these numbers I'm politely pinching, points out that many people tend to overstate their religious tendencies in these polls, so for all we know the changes might be even larger.

The poll results are available online; you can check them out here.

THIS WEEK IN SCEPTICISM...

Anyone remember Andrew Wakefield? The former doctor who kicked off the whole MMR vaccine controversy with his fraudulent 1998 paper that linked the vaccine to autism? Who was using his paper to try and trick the government into using a medical test he had the patent for?

Yeah, well the asshole's back in the news again this week.

In the wake of the reports about Measles spreading in south Wales this month, Wakefield is using this outbreak as an excuse to remind us all that he sadly hasn't stopped breathing and to blame the British government for the whole thing. Yup, the man partly responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of infants because he scared their parents away from vaccines is once again trying to redirect the blame on everyone but himself. Professor Andrew Finn, a specialist in childhood vaccines and an actually credible source of information on these matters, has denounced Wakefield's statements as, and I do quote, “balderdash”:

“His proposal for single vaccines was not based on any observations in his published paper. It came straight out of his head. There has never been any evidence it would have made any difference.”

Wakefield has been struck from the medical record and has fled to the USA, where he continues to perpetrate his particularly noxious brand of bullshit.

---

If you follow vjack's blog Atheist Revolution, you might remember a post about how you should really reconsider using the Huffington Post as a reliable source of information. Well, please allow me to further stress this point by looking at another article in which HuffPo gives credence to pseudoscience and nonsense over critical thinking.

Specifically this one, in which it gives a soapbox to a group led by New Age woo-peddlar Deepak Chopra who are complaining about TEDx removing pseudoscientific videos from its blog.

Please note that TEDx is not the actual Technology, Entertainment and Design conference; parapsychologists like Rupert Sheldrake, the removal of whose talk Chopra and his friends are protesting, would never manage to get a platform there, due to them actually having standards. TEDx conferences are third-party conferences that license the TED brand in order to gain more attention, but they often don't have the standard of entry their parent group does. Nonetheless, the misuse of the brand can have negative effects on the parent company, and nothing damages ones credibility as a solid source for science than allowing a herd of quantum woo-types to use your name to add much-needed credibility to their ideas.

Thus TED, a private organisation that is free to add or remove whatever it wishes from its blogs, removed their links to several videos of such talks from their site. The videos are still available; they've not been wiped from the internet, so any claims of censorship or a cover-up is nonsense. Chopra and his ilk just seem to get upset when people try to hold their claims up to the same standards as everyone else in the scientific community, and Ariana Huffington is only too happy to offer him a highly visible spot to complain about it from.

That's this week in Atheism, Religion and Scepticism, folks. See you next time.

On the 'Redefinition of Marriage'

Of late this blog has been taking more of a sceptical bent, intermixed with a bit of light-hearted discussion of religious themes in media and the like.

So it really is high time I gave the religious hornet's nest a good boot and see what stirs up in response.

Let's talk gay marriage.

As vjack pointed out recently, we do seem to be reaching an apotheosis in modern culture when it finally starts to dawn upon people that marriage should be something people have a right to irregardless of their sexuality. Recently Uruguay's congress passed a bill legalising gay marriage in their country with over two-thirds of their lower chamber in support, and just yesterday France's upper house of parliament approved a similar bill. Times are indeed a-changing, with similar legislation all across the globe being proposed and debated.

Now I'm sure that somewhere there exists a non-religious person who is against gay marriage. These things do happen, after all. It's just that I can only think of one individual who fits this description; overwhelmingly, those who oppose the right of a gay couple to get married do so on religious grounds. That's not to say that everyone of a religious mind is against this issue, since some of the most passionate supporters for this cause that I know are also very religious.

All manner of arguments and reasoning are fired back and forth when it comes to this subject, from advocates stating its a civil right to opponents denouncing it as unnatural. There's a whole range of shitty reasoning and logical fallacies being peddled in this debate, and sadly I don't have time to go over them all here. Instead I'd like to focus in on one particular argument being used against gay marriage. It's one of the arguments I hear most frequently when this subject comes up, both in conversation with others and in speeches by government figures.

I'd like to focus on the idea that supporting this movement is to support a “redefinition of marriage”.

Now commonly on my side of the debate (hazard a guess as to which this might be) the response to this assertion is that allowing gay marriage is not a redefinition, but I'm going to take a different approach. Let's say, for a moment, that allowing gay people to get married is indeed redefining the way in which marriage is outlined in law.

Now please explain to me why this is a bad thing?

As society changes, so do the laws. So does the language. As our concepts of morality and fairness change, the way in which we legislate such matters adapts accordingly, as does the way in which we speak. Forty years ago women were viewed only as housekeepers and other notions we'd find extremely outdated now. Sixty years ago and the idea of civil rights would have been laughed at.

Laws change. And to say that in allowing gay people to get married we'd be “redefining it” is to ignore the fact that marriage has been redefined many times before.

Christians themselves will tell you that the Bible does not actually define marriage as “one man, one woman”; that seems to be something we've added more recently. In the past, it's worth noting, marriage was a political thing as well, a means of securing alliances between families and extending one's influence. Love didn't really factor into it all until far more recently. Thus this notion of marriage as a bond between a loving couple (in this instance, one male and one female) is just one more change a long list of edits and revisions to how we define the concept of marriage.

So perhaps opponents of this movement are right in saying that we are attempting to redefine marriage (I'm not saying for certain they are, let me stress; this post is more of a thought exercise than anything else). I fail to see what the issue with this is. Laws and language are redefined every single day, and that's a good thing. If these things do not change with the times they will become stagnant and outdated, no longer relevant to the times, which is something the laws our society is governed by can never afford to be.

At the end of the day, it will forever baffle me why this issue matters so much to people. You don't want gay marriage? Don't fucking get one, then. Marriage is a civil right, and there's no religious monopoly on it.

Why the hell should one group get to decide for everyone who can and cannot get married? That doesn't strike me as terribly fair.

Question: Do Video Games Cause Violent Behaviour? Answer: No.

 

“Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively.”

- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, majority opinion in Brown v. EMA/ESA

Merry ‘Insert-Whichever-Holiday-You-Happen-To-Celebrate-At-The-End-Of-The-Year’ and a Happy New Year to you, dear readers. Sorry for the truly atrocious rate of updates for this thing; I am trying to get stuff written, I swear.

With that said, let’s get stuck right into the topic at hand.

So, confession right off the bat; I’m a fan of video games, and have been since I was a kid. I grew up on games like Mario and Sonic, the Half-Life series is nothing short of magnificent (give us Episode 3, Gabe), and I think they’re an exciting, ever-expanding form of entertainment with opportunities for audience interaction unparalleled by any other form of media.

I’ve also never murdered anyone, either.

Strange that I should have to add this, yes, but in the news frenzy that tends to follow on from senseless tragedies I’d forgive many people for being led to believe otherwise. I’m going to avoid addressing the aforementioned tragedy directly; you know the one I’m referring to, it’s been discussed, and repeatedly bringing up such a travesty only helps to exacerbate the problem. In the wake of such events, it’s understandable that many seek an explanation as to what could cause something so awful to happen. This is only natural; we are pattern-seeking animals, after all, and we desire a reason for an act.

Yet this understandable phenomenon can very often take a nasty form, namely the labelling of some form of media as the cause of the tragedy. It’s happened time and time again. When John Lennon was shot and his killer claimed he was inspired by The Catcher In The Rye, people called for the book to be banned. Hip-Hop is often blamed for violence amongst young people.

And when a mentally disturbed individual walks into a public place and starts firing, people often blame the video games.

Now, commentators far wiser, well read and wittier than I have already covered this very topic, and their rundowns of the issue are pretty damn comprehensive (I’ll link them at the end, and you guys should really consider checking them out), so you might think that someone like me writing about this is a little pointless. But given that just a few days from now the town of Southington, Connecticut intends to collect together violentvideo games and likely burn them (because nothing says calm and rational like a bunch of townspeople getting together to destroy things they don’t like), I do feel the need to make known the colours I fly and let people know why folks making the correlation between violence in video games and violence in real life are wrong.

Correlation does not equal causation, people.

The idea of video games being linked to violence is not a new one. It’s been around for many a year, and in those years many a study has been conducted. Thus it’s safe to assume that if a link between violence in video games and violence in real life was indeed a thing, we likely would have found it by now or at least have an inkling of its existence. Yet consistently, the studies that are worth a damn (that is to stay, properly-conducted studies with decent control and whose authors didn’t set out with an agenda already in mind) have shown that no such link exists. In fact, as the ESA note in one of the links, “violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s. During the same period of time, video games have steadily increased in popularity and use, exactly the opposite of what one would expect if there were a causal link.”

Please don’t misunderstand me. There are plenty of things wrong with video games and the video game industry today. Please don’t get me started on the shitty business practices of companies like Sony and EA. They are guilty of plenty of things, but the blame for the recent tragedy and others like it is not one of them. Simply put, speculation as to what the cause of a school-shooting might be is an extremely tricky tight-rope to walk; as Stephen Novella noted in a recent The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe episode, there are more variables in such an event than there are data points, so anyone offering up answers like “video games done it” are guilty of massively over-simplifying the issue.

Whether you personally disapprove of the violence it portrays, violent media has a right to exist. As I’ve said before, I think such media can be extremely valuable, powerful and worthwhile. Don’t believe me? Check out stuff like ‘Spec Ops: The Line’ (one of the few games to really nail the horrors of war in a truly mature, sincere manner) or Telltale’s ‘The Walking Dead’. And if it really isn’t your thing? That’s perfectly fine, too, but blaming it for events we have no explanation for isn’t the way to go about things.

To quote the guys at Penny Arcade, “it’s a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second.”

Bristol University’s Christian Union Bans Women Speakers (unless they have their husbands with them) [UPDATED]

I really, really should be getting on with this essay, but this seemed pretty important to share.

In a reflection of the Church of England’s rather depressing recent decision to block the introduction of female bishops, Bristol University’s highly evangelical Christian Union has elected to ban women from speaking at their weekly meetings… unless accompanied by their husbands. One wonders how many female students in the Christian Union are married?

In an email released by The Huffington Post, president Mat Oliver states …

“It is ok for women to teach in any CU setting... However we understand that this is a difficult issue for some and so decided that women would not teach on their own at our weekly CU meetings, as the main speaker on our Bristol CU weekend away, or as our main speaker for mission weeks.

But a husband and wife can teach together in these.”

Naturally, the shit has hit the fan following this group’s attempts to cater to the more sexist, misogynistic elements of their number, with condemnation pouring in from numerous societies at Bristol University and Alessandra Berti, the Vice-President for Welfare and Equality at Bristol’s Union issuing a statement saying that…

“We have been made aware of a communication from the University of Bristol Christian Union, and we would like to assure our members and the general public that UBU and the full-time elected officers are investigating the issue further in consultation with the groups involved. In particular we will be making certain that our Equality Policy is properly adhered to in all cases.”

Given the nature of a University’s Equality Policy (I confess I’m basing this on the policy at my Student’s Union, though I suspect they’re not much different), Bristol’s Christian Union, who are affiliated with the Student’s Union and therefore subject to its policies, are likely to be in a lot of bother over this one; such policies outlaw discrimination based on (and I quote) “age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief (including lack of belief), sex and sexual orientation.”

All in all, it’s a tad depressing that a Christian Union, which are in my experience usually full of extremely reasonable and intelligent students, would choose to enact such a dated and discriminatory policy, but the criticism that’s pouring in already is pretty heartening. They can only get away with this sort of thing if they aren’t held accountable for it, after all.

I’ll do my best to follow this one pretty closely, and keep this post updated if anything new should occur.

SOURCES

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/04/bristol-university-christian-union-ban-women-speaking-meetings_n_2236586.html

https://www.ubu.org.uk/news/article/UBU/A-statement-regarding-the-University-of-Bristol-Christian-Union/

http://www.bristolcu.org.uk/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100192761/bristol-christian-union-bans-women-speakers/

http://bristol.tab.co.uk/2012/12/03/christian-union-gags-female-speakers/

UPDATE:

I think I may have been too quick to simply summarise this story as 'the shit hitting the fan'; an ungoldy fucking firestorm has erupted in the last few hours, with nationally-distributed newspapers running articles on this story.

It seems that the Christian Union in question, despite advertising Facebook and Twitter as services they utilise and despite their accounts being live just a couple hours ago, have chosen to delete both their Facebook and Twitter pages. To be fair to them, this is likely in the face of an onslaught of criticism and denouncements, with the likes of Richard Dawkins chiming in with his condemnation of their activities.

No official statement from Bristol University's Christian Union in regards to this matter yet, as far as I'm aware, but I suspect they're in for a hell of a day when they wake up to all this.

Facebook ‘Privacy Notices’ Won’t Help You

So there’s been a big stir of late over the fact that Facebook is now a publicly-traded business, with a lot of people now concerned about their privacy and the potential for violations of it. A little paranoid? Perhaps, but this is the internet; it’s important to be aware of the information that you’re putting out and the chance for it to come back to haunt you.

Such concerns seem to be the main cause of the ‘Facebook Privacy Notice’ chain update that’s doing the rounds on the popular social media website. This thing (you can view a copy of one of it’s many variations here at Snopes.com) has been around since June of this year, but as it’s now seemingly made the jump across the pond and is still spreading I thought I’d devote a quick post about it.

So let’s start with the bad news.

Sorry guys, but this Privacy Notice won’t help to protect your privacy online at all.

Your rights, responsibilities and access to things like privacy all stem from Facebook’s ‘Terms of Service’ (or ToS), which you agree to when you first sign up for the site. These are what govern who has access to your page and for what purpose; simply posting an update citing a couple ofpieces of US legislation (which are unrelated to social media and privacy and therefore irrelevant) cannot change that.

So long as you are using Facebook, it’s assumed that you are in acceptance of the ToS. If you’re not, you’re only option is to not use the site. That’s just how it works, sadly.

Concerns about your privacy online are valid, don’t get me wrong. Employers are known to read into your online life and the things you’ve posted, so it’s not a bad thing to be concerned about who can see what about you on the internet. But posting disclaimers such as this won’t help you.

You have concerns regarding who can see your content on Facebook?

Then be sure to monitor that content.

Monday Morning Musings #7

 

University kicks back in this week. Lots of Freshers to throw business cards at and an Atheist & Agnostic Society stall to man. Things are going to get busy.

The good Reverend Emily Heath has a lovely little article about how to determine whether your faith or religion is being actively persecuted or whether you’re just an asshole.

I understand that a lot of non-believers across the pond in the USA are disappointed with the Democrats’ backpeddling on the religious references in their Convention this election. Sadly that’s the nature of politics, friends; appealing to voters as much as possible will always trump ideological stances. It’s the same the world over.

Atheist blogger Jen McCreight has decided to stop her blog in the face of this Atheism+, ‘fuck those Freethought Blog guys’ shenanigans that continues to rage across the internet. I didn’t always agree with everything McCreight had to say, but I’m truly sorry that this controversy has ruined something she previously enjoyed doing. There’s no other way to say it; that fucking sucks.

And finally remember kids, dressing up in a Ghillie suit in an attempt to pretend to be Bigfoot might sound like a really cool idea. But when it ends with you standing in the middle of a highway in camouflage gear you really shouldn’t be surprised if you wind up getting hit by a car.

Monday Morning Musings #6

[This isn’t going up on Monday, sadly, but since I did technically start writing this post Monday afternoon I guess it can count at a stretch. Plus I really can’t be assed coming up with a creative title for this sort of post going up on a Tuesday. A most lazy non-believer, I am.]

I’ve heard Catholic apologists for the child sex abuse scandals use a lot of bizarre and utterly reprehensible defences, but the prize (if you can call it that; 'Badge of Shame' might be better) for the worst offender so far goes to Father Benedict Groeschel; he’s elected to go for the ‘blame the victim’ approach, claiming that in many cases it’s the child’s fault for being sexually abused. He’s since attempted to retract the comments (surprise surprise), claiming that he “did not intend to blame the victim”, but you don’t let an article reach publication unless you really do think like that.

‘beentrueandfaithful’ has uploaded a very interesting little article to /r/atheism about his experiences as a Mormon Missionary. Turns out some of them might dislike having to try and talk to you about the word of Jesus Christ even more than you dislike being talked to about it.

There was all that noise about Bruce Willis planning to sue Apple today, only for it to be revealed that the story was actually nonsense. Once again media sources forget that scepticism about a story can often be useful in preventing your paper/website/blog from looking extremely fucking silly before a national audience.

On a related note, I am aware of what a delicious irony it would be if the above story does subsequently turn out to be true. However, it was a story first reported by the Daily Mail; I think I'm safe.

Oh, and I’ve decided I’m going to drop an image at the bottom of these posts every week, since that’s always fun and totally makes these posts seem larger than they usually are.

Monday Morning Musings #5

So supposedly ‘Atheism+’ is a thing now. Apparently we atheists can’t support multiple at the same time and so must form them into one super-cause. Fair enough, then.

Looking at the images from some of those protesting the Scottish Government’s support of equal marriage, I realise just how much of a generational thing this issue is; even when I looked pretty hard I couldn’t see a single young face amongst the protestors. I mean, there’s always going to be those who don’t like it and want to get rid of it (just like there’s always going to be racists), but I’m thinking that a decade or two down the line most people will look back on those who protested against gay rights so hard and laugh at their backwardness.

The late Christopher Hitchens’ wife, Carol Blue, has released an edited version of her afterword for the book ‘Mortality’, the last book we’ll be seeing from the Hitch. Worth a look; it’s a nice read.

The National Secular Society (whose history I’m reading far too much about at the moment) is currently underway with the Reform Section 5 campaign, aimed at lobbying the government to remove a clause from the Public Order Act that outlaws “insulting words or behaviour”. If you’re in London I believe they’re holding a demonstration on the 30^th; it’s a cause worth supporting.

Monday Morning Musings #4

 

Centuries from now, imagine if archaeologists studying those weird 21^st Century types stumble across one of our annual calendars. Now imagine if people who really don’t understand how the calendar actually works find out that it apparently ‘ends’ on the 31^st of December and build a doomsday theory around the idea that we predicted the end of the world centuries ago. That’s essentially what this whole Mayan apocalypse nonsense is.

If a British public official ever made a statement suggesting that rape victims who get pregnant from their attack somehow deserved it, they’d likely be hounded out of office and casts out into the political wastes for being a douchebag. Across the pond, however, if a public official makes such a statement there’s a depressingly large percentage of the US population who’ll agree with him. It boggles the mind.

I really hope I never stumble across a blog like elevatorgate again. Okay, so you don’t like Rebecca Watson or Surly Amy, and you think FreethoughtBlogs is shit. Fair enough, but for fuck’s sake keep it civil; you don’t have to be a prick about it.

Witch-hunting might be relegated to our past here in this side of the globe, but over in Africa it’s still a serious issue. Isn’t it odd that witches usually turn out to be young children, elderly types or people who can generally not defend themselves, as opposed to physically-fit adults?

That 'Faces of Atheism' idea is back on the rise again, countering the whole 'Faces of Mormonism' thing the LDS Church is pulling. It's a pretty cool idea; sadly I'm hideously ugly and will make your face fall off should you look upon me shy.

Selling Themselves Short?

Given that the Closing Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics wrapped up over a day ago this post is perhaps a bit late, but timeliness has never been my strong point.

So here’s a post about the Olympics, you unlucky people.

Despite my confusion regarding it, religion is often a big part of sport. Just look at all that bollocks with Tim Tea-face or whatever he was called and you’ll notice that a lot of athletes to often hold a serious connection with god. I found myself contemplating this as I watched Christian Taylor interviewed after winning a Gold medal in the Triple Jump event.

This is a chap at the peak of human physicality, an athlete who’s at a standard where he can take a Gold at an Olympic event (which is to say, he’s extremely strong). Reaching such a stage has taken months of painstaking hard work. The training and practice, the blood, sweat and tears that this guy has put in is nothing short of incredible. He’s had the unflinching support of people like his coach, who’s urged him on through the darkest hours of self-doubt and desperation, and his family, who’ve likely (I’m not pretending to know this guy, don’t get me wrong) been there with him since the start.

And yet the first thing Taylor says on camera after winning is “how blessed” he is, and how he thanks god for his victory.

I just can’t feel that he and the athletes like him are selling themselves short when they make statements like that.

God didn’t put all those hours of training and practice in; Taylor did. God wasn’t the guy training him, urging him on all the way; that was Taylor’s coach. All in all, god really didn’t do much in Taylor’s training and racing, so it’s confusing as to why he’s the first person thanked in the victor’s interview. Surely there’s far more worthy candidates deserving of mention?

I’m sure there were plenty of people competing in that event who prayed long and hard, yet it was Taylor who won. That’s note because god has favourites, that’s because Taylor was the better athlete. He personally put in the work, he personally was the better competitor, and thus he won. I’m all for modesty, but if ever there’s a moment to be vaguely chuffed with yourself it’s when you’ve just taken the Gold.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m fully aware that this is just a personal opinion. I’m sure Taylor derived a considerable amount of confidence in thinking that god had his back during the long hours of training. It’s just I think it’s a shame these guys are giving away all the credit to some deity who just sat there and watched impartially.

They’re the ones who did all the work, after all, and so they’re the ones who deserve the praise.

Monday Morning Musings #3

 

People have the capacity to be muppets, no matter what side of the religious divide they fall into. I really think people need to bear that in mind sometimes.

I've got more respect for the Westboro Baptist Church than I do for people who dance around the issue and try and come up with supposedly legitimate reasons to dislike gay people. Just don your fucking 'GAY PEOPLE MAKE ME FEEL ICKY' t-shirt and be done with it already, guys; at least then you're being honest.

Looking at the Anti-Vaccine Movement, I can't help but feel that they're far too US-focused. Seriously, a lot of their claims boil down to “THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF US”, but in a country like mine, where we have this sweet National Health Service, that sort of posturing doesn't really fly. I should really do a blog post about this sometime.

Those Conspiracy Theorists are almost as quick off the block as Usain Bolt; Lady Atheist pointed out that there's already conspiracies circling regarding the shooting in Aurora, claiming that it was somegovernment super-soldier project or something equally fucking ridiculous. Can't knock them for punctuality. Just for everything thing else about their views and theories.

Monday Morning Musings #2

I listened to part of a radio show yesterday morning trying to show how important faith was in the Olympics. A show that predominantly focused on Christianity. At the time I thought the irony was delicious, but in hindsight Christianity attempting to pinch religious festivals from older faiths seems entirely in-keeping with its history.

Last I checked /r/atheism has well over a million subscribers now. Which is cool and all, but it’d be nice if cool places like /r/skeptic could get some love too.

There’s a preacher out there who claims he can cure people of cancer by kicking them in the face. I wonder what wondrous cures his fists can bestow?

Any supreme deity who decides that wasps and hornets are both awesome ideas is clearly a complete bastard. If you look at the whole evolution idea, however, they’re just more proof that the biggest bastards survive on this earth.

People are still going on about the whole Freethought Blogs scandal thing? Seriously, guys, we need to stop flogging a dead horse and move on; if you don’t like the way PZ Meyers runs things, don’t bloody read it.

And finally, this:

Sorry Guys, Einstein Didn't Say That

Albert Einstein was not on either side. Let's stop trying to make it seem like he was.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in ‘Albert Einstein: The Human Side’, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

“The biggest problem with the internet is that anyone can attribute any quote to anybody.”

- Han Solo

You may well have seen this copypasta cropping up on your various social media sites over the last couple days or weeks. I would paste it in here but the thing’s massive, so instead just hit the link if you want to see what I’m referring to.

To give you the short of it, it’s a copy/pasted dialogue between ‘THE NASTY ATHEIST PROFESSOR’ and ‘THE HEROIC RELIGIOUS STUDENT’ in which the nasty professor type attempts to ridicule and browbeat the student for his faith in god, only for the student to retaliate with a can of supposed logical whoop-ass that turns the table on the professor.

Oh, and apparently this student is Einstein.

I saw this flare up across in the US via r/atheism a few weeks ago, with lots of irreligious redditors voicing their criticisms of this copypasta. Now it’s crossed the pond to appear on social media feeds here, so I figured now would be an excellent time for me to take a good hard look at it and point out the flaws in the history of the copypasta itself, it’s content and the fact that Einstein’s name has been attached to it.

Much of what I’m about to say I would not be able to argue had those lovely chaps and chapettes over at r/atheism on Reddit not pointed it out first, to give credit where credit is certainly due. Cheers, Reddit.

Now then, let’s get this deconstruction started.

We start off with a vague butchering of the Problem of Evil Argument being bandied about by the Professor against the Student as a way to discredit god and the belief in him. It misses out a lot of the key points of the Problem but I’d prefer to focus on the Student’s response, so we’ll move past that to the part where the Student starts countering the Professor’s onslaught. His first point is about heat and cold, arguing that cold is simply the absence of heat. Okay, I can accept that too.

But here’s where things start to get silly.

“Student: You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”

This view has a few key flaws in its reasoning. Whilst it is acceptable to label darkness as the absence of light, it should be noted that there are things in cosmology that are dark by their very nature and that there are things we consider to be dark because we cannot perceive the wavelengths of light that do actually illuminate them. The view itself is solid enough but does imply that the Student has a limited grasp of astrophysics. Considering who they attribute authorship to, this does cast a bit of doubt on the whole thing.

Moving on:

“Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?”

Here we start to fall into the territory of the evolution denier. The usual ‘can’t see evolution so that means it’s just like god lolololol’ trash spouted by creationists and intelligent design proponents. They fail to realise that we have actually observed evolution. We have observed HIV evolving to adapt to living beings across the years. We have observed viruses and diseases reacting to medicine by evolving to resist it better. By using things like bacteria and insects as control species scientists can indeed “observe evolution”, as they reproduce fast enough in laboratory conditions to see it happening.

And of course the Student cannot help but drop the “I DIDN’T EVOLVE FROM A MONKEY” faux-pas into this rant. He’s absolutely correct, of course. We didn’t evolve from monkeys. We evolved from an ape-descendant that we also share with other animals, such as monkeys. Please actually understand what you are criticising before you criticise it.

“Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?”

Absolute nonsense. Through scientific methods such as MRI scans we have indeed observed the brain. Scientists have mapped out causal links between brain activity and all functions of the body; observation of a sort. Finally, if we really felt the need to we could also cut open the Professor’s head and observe the brain. Hell, isn’t that what brain surgeons do? The brain is a thing; through evidence and reason we know it to be there. Have I seen one? Admittedly, no. Has the Professor? Given his focus on Philosophy, probably not. However, belief in the brain is not a matter of faith, as the Student seems to be implying; we have evidence and reason to consider it a real thing. A philosophy student might claim that all this evidence could be false and based on flawed evidence, but I think that a swing from Ockham’s Razor puts this to bed. What is more believable, after all? That through evidence we know the brain is there, or that because this evidence could (very, very) potentially be false we can never truly know it is there?

That is the jist of this version of the copypasta. The Student drops the conclusion that “the link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving”. And then the final bombshell drops in the last line:

“By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.”

Here is my main issue with this copypasta, the reason why I’m devoting a blog post to criticising it. There are thousands of these things floating about the internet. Hell, there are multiple versions of this one; you can see older versions of the dialogue between the Student and the Professor that date back to 2007, interestingly without Einstein’s name forcibly affixed to the bottom.[1] It is the religious apologist equivalent of an urban myth popularised by the internet; this exchange likely never happened.

This fact ties nicely into my next point.

Which is that Einstein never said this. The copypasta you have just read is a huge misrepresentation of him aside from being logically flawed.

Albert Einstein was undoubtedly one of the greatest minds of the 20^th Century, arguably one of the greatest minds our species has ever produced. His theory of general relativity was a work of unparalleled genius that continues to define the field of physics to this day, holding up and remaining solid in the face of rigorous testing. Einstein himself is hailed as a genius, and rightly so; his name has entered into popular language as a stand-in for genius in many places (“what are you, some kind of Einstein?”).

Is it any wonder that many factions and ideologies want to claim him as their own?

That is what this copypasta seeks to do; tie Einstein firmly to the theist camp. Yet this is a gross misrepresentation and an insult to what the man actually believed. He was a man who decried the belief in the personal god theists so ardently cling to.[2] This he perceived as “child-like”. He was not even Christian; his mother and father were non-practising Jews.[3] It is important to note, however, that Einstein was not an atheist either. Indeed, he was quite critical of atheists and atheism at times, calling out our “crusading spirit” and stating that he preferred an attitude of humility.[4] I guess you could call him an agnostic, or perhaps a pan-theist at a stretch.

This is the point I am trying to make in all this. Would I have liked it if Einstein identified himself as an atheist? Certainly I would; it’s always nice to know that great minds of the past thought similarly to you. But that does not mean I am going to deliberately misquote him, deliberately falsify his views in order to try and deceive people into thinking that he is of a similar mindset to me. To do so is to simultaneously insult the memory of a truly gifted scientist.

It also implies that I secretly worry that my views lack validity and plausibility; after all if I was confident in them why would I feel the need to lie in order to make them superficially appear stronger?

So when it comes to the debate on the validity of religion, ladies and gentlemen on both sides of the court, let’s just leave Einstein out of it shall we? He was a scientist first and foremost. He did not believe as either side does. Why is that?

Simply because he did not really have time for religion; he was too busy being one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.

Let’s stop insulting such a man’s memory, shall we?

---

[1] http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/professor.html

[2] Calaprice, Alice (2000). The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 217. Einstein Archives 59-797

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein

[4] Isaacson, Walter (2008). Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster

Having One's Cake And Eating It: The Catholic Education Service Is At It Again

You would honestly have a point if you were to say that Catholics across the globe seem to genuinely enjoy courting controversy.

Just a few days ago the Vatican promised to “crack down” on “radical feminist” nuns in America.[1] How are they being radical, you might ask? Oh, you know, just suggesting that homosexuality is actually okay.[2] ‘Radical’ things like that. And last month you had the Pope declaring that Marxism “no longer corresponds to reality”.[3] This from a man in a dress and a hat who talks to imaginary men in the sky; the irony is almost palpable.

But here in the UK the local Catholics seem to think that they cannot let the Vatican have all the fun. At least that is what I think is the Catholic Education Services’ reasoning behind encouraging children attending faith schools in England and Wales to sign a petition against gay marriage.[4] Specifically, this petition, one that as of writing has 469,121 signatures and which claims that:

“Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.”[5]

We’re talking about a petition with some serious logical fallacies on the go here, people. Throughout history people also kept slaves. And burned witches. I suppose we should start a petition to encourage everyone to hold to those timeless classics as well.

The backers of this petition are using the same outdated, flawed dogmas those who would see homosexuals relegated to second-class citizenship always use, wherever they are in the world. Step up to the plate Bigot-Robe-Dudes (aka. Archbishops) Vincent Nichols and Peter Smith as our example of such silly attitudes and ideas, who state in their letter to faith schools:

“A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved.”[6]

Oh look everyone, it’s our old friend the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Gay marriage would cause some catastrophic shift away from the ‘sanctity of marriage’? Where have I heard this one before? At least Nichols and Smith do not claim that gay marriage would lead to people marrying their dogs/children/toasters like some of their fellows on the anti-gay side of the fence do. Case and point Lisa Severine Nolland of Core Issues Trust, the group you may remember trying to get Ex-Gay propaganda smeared across London buses earlier this month.[7]

The reaction from the other side of the fence (my side of the fence, if that was not abundantly clear already) has been swift; the British Humanist Association has condemned the move by the CES and argued that it violates several sections of the 1996 Education Act. The Welsh Government has also stepped up to the plate, promising an investigation into the whole debacle and urging Westminster to do the same.[8] Go on yourselves, Wales.

The CES (and by extension the Catholic Church) and their meddling in the lives of schoolchildren is a very serious issue. It may be faith schools that they are taking advantage of, but do not forget that many of these schools receive government funding.[9] Your taxes are going to help fund schools that allow celibate priests to tell children to campaign against homosexuality.

And yes, that is what they are doing. Let’s make that clear. This is an anti-gay campaign, no matter what spin the CES try to put on it. And spin they are indeed trying to generate; one of their spokeswomen has already said that:

“We said that schools might like to consider using this [letter] in assemblies or in class teaching. We said people might want to consider asking pupils and parents if they might want to sign the petition. It's really important that no school discriminates against any member of the school community.”[10]

Oh, okay then. That makes it totally fine. You’re just suggesting that the schools use the letter. You’re just suggesting that those children sign the homophobic petition. You still totally respect everyone’s’ rights and feelings, and aren’t targeting any one group for discrimination.

Well, alright then. Two can play at this game. Suppose that I merely suggest that the Catholic Church is a horrific, monolithic religious entity that is a great source of hatred and abuse in this world, responsible for untold suffering in Africa and guilty of covering up more child abusers than we will probably ever know about? Suppose that I merely suggest that faith schools have no place in modern society, and should immediately be banned?

That’s not an anti-Catholic statement by your logic, so you cannot get offended.

---

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17766615

[2] http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/04/catholicism-america

[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-cuba-pope-idUSBRE82M0KT20120323

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage

[5] http://c4m.org.uk/

[6] http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News-Releases/January-March/Archbishops-Letter-on-Marriage

[7] http://www.core-issues.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=51&cntnt01returnid=15

[8] http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/26/government-to-investigate-pinknews-expose-of-catholic-schools-urging-children-to-sign-anti-gay-marriage-petition/

[9] http://www.diversityanddialogue.org.uk/files/faith_schools.pdf

[10] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage