Wow. Just… wow.
I don’t know where to begin.
A few days ago, a student at the University of Central Florida attended mass at his Church. During communion, when the wafer was placed into his mouth, instead of eating it, he took it and walked out. Catholics went nuts; even after he gave it back, the Catholic League (more on them in a moment,) said
We don’t know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was. However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.
We just expect the University to take this seriously. To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated.
Overreacting much? Actually, that kind of sacrilege will be tolerated, especially in America, where freedom of religion (and from religious persecution) is guaranteed by the constitution. Of course, the fanatics don’t quite see it that way, and the poor kid has been getting death threats. Because that’s what turning the other cheek means in America.
Oh, and just so we’re clear: stealing a cracker is a hate crime, but sending death threats? Oh, that’s perfectly acceptable, rational behaviour. If you don’t like the person. And if he’s stolen your magic lunch.
Enter PZ Myers, who, as usual, wrote about it the way it is, in a piece entitled It’s a Frackin’ Cracker. As usual, he pulled no punches in describing the mob as what they are: well… a mob. He also offered to desecrate a communion wafer, if anyone would send him one. Cue a rapid switch of target on the part of the Catholic League; they’re now engaged in a full-on offensive on PZ. Not for anything he’s done, but for something he said he’d do. To a cracker. Apparently conspiracy to wound a biscuit is a cardinal sin if you’re an insane Catholic — and Bill Donohue, the leader of the Catholic League, certainly counts.
So — to get to the point — the Catholic League are trying to stir up a good ol’ fashioned witch hunt, and are inundating PZ with hate mail and death threats, and his employer with demands that he be fired. This is, to be frank, unacceptable. All PZ has done is exercise his right to freedom of expression, and he’s being targeted by a hate campaign. So what to do? Start up a support campaign, that’s what.
PZ is asking that people write a short note of support to President Robert Bruininks of his University — the University of Minnesota, Morris — and I second his request. PZ is one of the more outspoken voices of reason on the internet, and it would be a shame if he were made to suffer unduly for something as simple as expressing his opinion. If you’re a rational person, even if you’re religious, and don’t agree with PZ, please consider writing a note in support of his right to express himself without fear of being victimised.
I already have. Here’s what I wrote:
Dear Sir,
I’d like to take this chance to add a note to the probably hundreds you’ve already received in support of PZ. He’s a great writer, a great educator, and a credit to your institution.
It’s true that he’s outspoken, and that he pulls no punches in expressing his opinions. That is not a crime, and if Bill Donohue and his supporters restrained themselves to responding in kind then there would be no problem. The fact that they have not, that they have resorted to a campaign of mass harassment, of death threats, and trying to cost PZ his job — in short, a campaign of terrorism — merely underlines why it is so important that we have people like PZ who are unafraid to call these people out on their hypocrisy, and to criticise their unacceptable behaviour in public.
I hope that the incoherent screaming of the mob will not prejudice you against PZ in any way, and that he will be allowed to continue to bring credit to your institution amongst free-thinkers and rationalists across the globe.
Sincerely,
Will Goring,
Reading,
United Kingdom.
A week or so ago, I blogged about Richard Lenski and his long-term research into Evolution of e.coli cultures in the lab, that culminated in the evolution of a novel and beneficial trait in one of those cultures. Moreover, that evolution was reproducible from an earlier culture that had a specific mutation but did not exhibit the trait, but not from other cultures without that mutation. It’s really interesting research, and has the potential to tell us a lot about the mechanisms of evolution.
Of course, because it also, more or less as a side effect, demonstrates quite clearly that evolution happens, the creationists have been all over it, trying to discredit Lenski, his team, and anyone who has anything nice to say about his work. I’m sure there are creationists some who are approaching it at a scientific level, and trying to falsify his findings. I expect that they’ll fail, but I support their attempt. There are others, however, specifically the anti-scientific mob at Conservapedia, who have been predictably foaming at the mouth and ranting, levelling all sorts of unfounded criticisms at Lenski (he’s biased, he’s a hack, it’s a fraud or a hoax or a lie.)
Eventually, one of them got up the courage to put his money where his mouth is and challenge Lenski to defend his findings, and … well it’s worth reading it yourself.
I would love someone to have stood up during Tom Wright’s sermon and called him on Godwin’s Law.
I gather this isn’t exactly news, but it’s the first I’ve heard of it.
The Lords have just approved the change, by a significant majority. I couldn’t be happier; blasphemy is a ridiculous, archaic offence that has no place being enshrined in the law of a civilised nation. In fact I’ll call it the first good news about the British legal system I’ve heard in a long time.
Well this is somewhat heartening; it seems like pretty much everyone agrees with me on the recent statement from Dr Rowan Williams, that the UK should adopt aspects of Sharia Law.
This also neatly demonstrates something I’ve been saying for a while; The UK really is a much more secular nation that the US, state religion notwithstanding. British people tend to know this, but some (by no means all) Americans seem to labour under the impression that the Church here is actually wields some real power. This is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England, and yet pretty much everyone in government has come out and publicly criticised him for speaking rubbish. Can you imagine the US president speaking out against a religious leader like this?
I know it sounds insane, but it’s true.
The BBC is reporting on an interview he gave, in which he argued that many Muslims don’t relate to British law and would seek to practice Sharia Law anyway. To avoid this going underground, or being a source of cultural tensions, he thinks we should implement “aspects” of Sharia Law in a controlled way, in order to “maintain social cohesion.” It sounds sort-of reasonable on the face of it, until you ask how exactly it’s going to maintain social cohesion, and remember exactly what particular wedge this could be thin end of. Dr Williams know this, and he says:
nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that’s sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well
But what he either doesn’t know or doesn’t say is that you can’t draw that distinction in a useful way. This is what Sharia Law is about, it’s not some optional extra that sits on top of a bunch of more acceptable legal constructs. Of course there is more to Sharia Law than oppressing non-Muslims and brutalising women, and it would (arguably) be possible to implement some of the less offensive aspects of it in the UK — but that wouldn’t help. And this is why it would have no positive effect on social-cohesion: No one who can’t relate to the British legal system is having a problem with the way it handles financial matters or what bank holidays we have; that feeling of alienation doesn’t stem from minor administrative details, it comes from a fundamental disconnect with the basis of the law. British law is, by and large, secular, egalitarian and liberal; Sharia Law is none of those things; it’s religiously motivated, patriarchal and authoritarian, and those are exactly the features that the Muslims who can’t abide by UK law want to see introduced. Making a few token gestures won’t appease those people, but it will give them a sense of momentum and a legal precedent for Sharia Law being enacted in the UK. I don’t know about Dr Williams, but that’s not a situation I want to find myself in.
Actually, I think I do know about Dr Williams. I’m sure he doesn’t want Sharia Law to make significant headway in the UK — he’s a civilised man, after all — but, as is so often the case with the religious, he sees any religion as better than no religion, to the point that he thinks any religion is due special privilege:
What we don’t want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people’s religious consciences.
Personally, I’d like to rephrase that second paragraph as “What we don’t want either, is I think, a stand-off, where people’s religious consciences lead them to claim special privilege to break the law that applies to everyone else.” But then, Dr Williams doesn’t believe in the law as I understand it:
An approach to law which simply said — there’s one law for everybody — I think that’s a bit of a danger
OK — what? What is the law if it doesn’t apply to everybody? It’s nothing more than a tool of oppression, and an educated man like Dr Williams should be ashamed of himself for even suggesting it. The law, one law, must apply to all people equally, otherwise we have no claim to be a liberal, free society, and we might, as Dr Williams suggests, resign ourselves to being on the inexorable path to Sharia Law.
Standard disclaimer: I have nothing against the vast majority of Muslims, and have a lot of respect for many of them. It’s the barbaric misogynists who believe that women are property to be used and abused as men see fit, that it’s perfectly reasonable to behead “the enemies of Islam,” and (most importantly) that the “law of God” is the only one to which they are beholden, that I’m talking about here.
Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins have been scammed into giving interviews for a creationist propaganda movie. When they were approached, the movie was apparently titled Crossroads, and had the following synopsis
It’s been the central question of humanity throughout the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, “The Origin of Species.” In the century and a half since, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin’s idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. This conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms and town halls across America and beyond.
Now that the movie is ready for release we discover that it’s actually titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and that it’s the usual religious attack on science, combined with the now familiar claim that the only reason anyone believes in “Darwinism” is that there’s some secret police force rooting out the dissenters and ruining their careers before they can speak out:
Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn’t just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.
What’s the betting that their claim to not just represent one side of the story isn’t entirely accurate? The way they got interviews with at least two of their enemies doesn’t exactly demonstrate a commitment to the truth.
PZ expresses surprise that they felt the need to lie to him to get the interview; after all, he’s not exactly known for being shy about arguing with the faithful. I’m tempted to suggest that the creationists, and especially their well oiled PR machine, have got so used to lying whenever science is so much as mentioned, that they just forgot there was any other way to communicate. Actually, though, I suspect they had good reasons to lie. PZ might have been willing to show up if he’d known the real reason for the interview, but he’d also have been much less willing to be led in the interview, much more on his guard and much less likely to accidentally say something that could be used to make him look bad. But quite aside from that, I just don’t think PZ was their main event. It’s no insult to the man — regular readers will know I have nothing but respect for him — but to the creationists he’s a bonus item; they were after Dawkins, who’s well known for not debating, or giving interviews to creationists.
It’ll be interesting to see what the movie’s like; I doubt it’ll get a cinema release in the UK, but I’m sure I’ll manage to track it down somehow. I don’t hold out any hope that any of the scientists’ interviews will have been used complete, and the underhand method they used to to get them doesn’t allow me to believe that even the spirit of what they said will be left intact, but it might at least be good comedy to see just how terribly their words have been twisted.