Feminism

This was such a poignant explanation, I just had to share:
Cambridge students on why they need feminism.

You must go to the link. You must read their responses.

Six things I am sick of hearing

1. You are overreacting:

Aside from the instant association this phrase has in my mind with gas-lighting, this phrase gets to me because it is often used for any expression of disgust, dismay, or disagreement. Many people seem to have gotten the idea that any reaction is overreaction, and it’s a bad habit. We should react; we should be passionate about the injustices we see in the world. Lack of reaction is part of the problem, not the solution.

2. That’s just the way it is (It’s always been like that): 

How is that ever relevant? If it is a problem or an injustice or discrimination, its duration should be more of a cause for concern, not less.

3. This isn’t the only place where this happens: 

Much like the above, the more widespread a problem is, the more of a concern it should be. Why do people think that just because something is ubiquitous that it is acceptable, or not worth trying to change? I realize that some people feel overwhelmed by the scope of some problems (I know I sometimes do), but trying to discourage people who feel passionately about wanting to solve problems is counter-productive at best.

4. Getting angry won’t solve the problem: Statistically untrue. Most social problems only change when enough people get angry about them. One could accurately say that ‘temper-tantrums won’t solve the problem’, but anger can be very useful, without resorting to loss of control. Anger will almost certainly lead people to solve the problem, but passive acceptance will most definitely not.

5. You should be afraid: 

I hear this all the time in various permutations. ‘Aren’t you afraid to walk down a dark street alone?’, ‘There are dangerous people in the world, you should lock your doors at all times’, and, my personal favourite, ‘You are vulnerable.’ I am not afraid to walk alone, I don’t lock my doors when I’m awake, and I am no more vulnerable than most people on the planet (of both genders). The media constantly tells us all the things we should fear, and conveniently forgets to put them in perspective. Yes, some people are awful, and do awful things. Most times, they continue doing awful things because people are too afraid to step in and stop

'Funny' Things That Are Not Funny

Every now and again, I come across a picture/meme on the internet that people have posted because they think it is funny. They might even admit that the picture is a bit sexist, or discriminatory, but in a harmless way. I don't think there is really such a thing as 'harmless discrimination'. Everything we see makes a small impact on how we perceive the world. I'm going to break down a few of them (on several different targets) to get you started, but I think that everyone should try and think about what a picture says about their worldview before they post memes like these. There are plenty of genuinely funny memes to love and share; I'll even post a few examples at the end.


This is not funny. It is insulting to women. Aside from the glaring generalizations and derogatory terms, it implies that the only 'girl' worth dating is hot, smart and nice, and that if she isn't all three of those things, she is defective in some way. The 'only dates assholes' part is either using a different definition of smart than I am familiar with, or is written by a guy who thinks all other guys are assholes because women won't date him (see  'nice guys' who aren't nice). In this view, any woman who isn't 'hot' is ugly, which cuts out a large number of very pleasant looking women. In this view, women are either smart or idiots, nice or annoying, with no middle ground that accounts for an actual human personality. Whoever drew this up and whoever thinks it's true obviously sees women as nearly two dimensional objects created only for their own gratification. Not funny.

When Religious Freedom Isn't, part II

The last  post I wrote on the topic of some people's egocentric views on religious freedom focused mostly on how women's rights are being stripped away by religious nutbars in America. I feel it is time to address the concept of religious freedom in a wider context. Although I do not hold any religious beliefs myself, I support people's rights to believe in whatever they want; it's called freedom for a reason. What I do not, and cannot, support, is the idea that believing in a religion should afford you the right to impose your beliefs, religious morality or dogmatic rules on others. I think that using the notion of religious freedom as a 'get out of jail free' card for persecuting others is not only reprehensible and illegal, it is the worst form of hypocrisy. Religious freedom means that you and everybody else on the planet get to believe, or not believe, in anything they want, as long as they don't push it on others or break the law. Period. Everybody.

I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp, but apparently some people are stupid. Some people like these religious extremists in Kansas, who are trying to pass a bill which actively supports people's rights to discriminate, if it comes from a 'religious belief'. It is summed up nicely by this phrase:

"According to this bill, not only would municipalities be inhibited from protecting against anti-LGBT discrimination, but those who do discriminate would become protected and entitled to do so."

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. A) Discrimination should not be 'allowable' under any circumstance. B) Discrimination should not be condoned, let alone supported by a government, especially one that claims everyone is equal. C) This is in no way, shape or form classifiable as 'religious freedom'; it is theocratic oppression, plain and simple. Let's move on.

Other stupid people include this radical religious group filmed in Luton, U.K., who seem to believe that several things are violating their religious rights, and don't seem to notice, care, or acknowledge that what they want would violate other people's rights. Participants in the 'protest' are universally unwilling to open up a

Where Intentions Meet Perceptions

Discussions often go awry because of misunderstandings; it is especially common in predominantly text-based discussions, but it happens in face-to-face ones too. Often, it is a simple matter of semantics, where two people define a word differently, and the problem is usually resolved as soon as each person makes their definition clear. Sometimes, though, as I have observed recently, the problem has more to do with a perceived insult where none is intended. Words can be fluidly interpreted, and often, multiple interpretations can be equally valid. Some words may have a meaning that a person was unaware of, or a connotation that is known to one group, but not another.

Perception is a powerful thing, and is by nature more subjective than objective. It often takes effort to look outside your own perspective and see why another person finds something insulting. There are many expressions of this problem, but I will only address the few that have cropped up in my world lately. I'm not even going to go into people who refuse to listen to any point of view that doesn't agree with their own, since the 'you're wrong, I don't care what you say, la la la la' argument is just childish and trying to reason with it is pointless.

First up, the simple perceptual misunderstanding, or a perceived offence due to phrasing or terminology. This is a pretty common problem, related to semantics, but usually more personal.
Example 1. An analogy comparing two things may seem apt to the one who makes it, but another person may

When Religious Freedom Isn't

The news these days is full of things pertaining to 'religious freedoms', particularly in America. Most of these are proposed legislations championed by religious zealots, not to preserve their freedoms, but to quash other people's. Religious freedom is the freedom to believe (or not) in whatever you like, and act according to your own conscience and morality. Dictating what other people are allowed to do with their own body is not religious freedom, it is theocratic oppression. I find it ironic that many of these same people harshly criticize Islamic states for their treatment of women, and yet are just as guilty of misogyny, albeit using different means.

I am speaking of several new laws which have passed or are about to be passed, such as this blatantly discriminatory one in Arizona, which will allow employers to withdraw insurance coverage for birth control unless provided with proof that it is prescribed for non-sexual purposes, such as acne or hormone control. So firstly, a woman would have to show her employer her medical files, detailing her menstrual, skin, or other personal problems, just to be able to get a prescription covered that is perfectly legal and covered by the insurance plan already. How does this support anyone's religious freedom, exactly? Secondly, and more importantly, a woman who has every right to have her prescription covered for whatever reasons she uses it, can have that right taken away by some bigoted fanatic who thinks everybody should live by his/her rules. Not that any woman isn't entitled to have sex whenever she chooses to, but under this law, even a married woman who has decided with her partner that they are not yet ready to have children can have her coverage taken away.

Why, you may ask, is this law being passed?

The Confusion about Nice Guys (TM)

  I have been involved in several conversations lately concerning The Nice Guy (TM), who is not in any way related to a person who is actually nice. In these exchanges, I have noticed two factors which tend to bog down the concept with pointless bickering and name calling (on both sides). First, there is often confusion as to what separates the Nice Guy (TM) from a guy who is genuinely nice, and how to tell them apart. Second, some people are unable to understand why the Nice Guy (TM) is received with such venom, and why they are regarded as misogynistic creeps. I'll try to clarify both of these, but I think a part of the problem might be due to 'branding'. Although the Nice Guy (TM) does pretend to be a nice person, the name is a bit misleading for a passive-aggressive narcissist with entitlement issues, so let's call him PANE for the purposes of this post. It seems appropriate.

  A PANE is not a nice person. A PANE often thinks that they are nice, but has little to no consideration for others and has trouble viewing anyone around him as a complex person with emotions of their own. A PANE is usually hideously insecure. A PANE is someone who will profess friendship (and only friendship) to a woman, and will go out of his way to provide emotional or financial support, all in the hopes that she will be so impressed by his 'niceness' that she will seek an intimate relationship with him. The PANE often has an idea of 'what women want', which is usually a shallow understanding of romantic idealism (flowers, candles, door-opening & paying for dinner) and agreeing with everything she says. When she does not seek a more

Anger

In general, I try not to get angry. To my way of thinking, anger wastes energy that could be spent on other, more productive, things. That being said, sometimes anger can motivate us to change a bad situation to a better one, or correct an injustice.

Today I saw something that made me angry. In brief, it was an open post which was a brazen display of self-righteous Islamophobia. The author claimed that terrorist Muslims (about a million by his count) want to destroy the world, and blow up buildings, and that extremists of other religions (such as Christianity) are cuddly puppies by comparison. He even went so far as to state that Muslims in North America are less dangerous because they are living amongst well-meaning Christians. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but you get the idea.

First, let me state clearly that while I think that the whole idea of religion should be written off as an obsolete idea, I also believe in personal choice. That being said, there are several different reasons that this made me angry.

1. His assertion that only Muslims blow up buildings. Yes, 9/11 was definitely among the most devastating. However, Christian extremists blow up abortion clinics, set fire to rival places of worship, and make death threats on a scarily frequent basis. If you want to be scared of terrorists, by all means feel free, but you should really be afraid of all of them, not just the ones that the media tells you to fear.

2. Which brings me to my second point- this guy has obviously been watching all the right propaganda, and all the wrong news. I'm fairly certain that even the Muslim terrorist extremists don't have "Destroy the World" written in their day planners. Destroy the West, maybe. Destroy America, probably. There are likely a whole list of things on their 'to destroy' list, but the world? I think I hear Fox news calling... In point of fact, Christian extremists seem far more interested in having the world come to an end. In addition, although extremist Muslim centres have an abysmal lack of human rights, particularly as pertains to women, some of the legislation being promoted by extremist Christians in the U.S. is definitely shudder-worthy. Things like being able to level criminal charges against a woman for potentially endangering her unborn child (even by accident, or if she didn't even know she was pregnant). Not just the religious fanatics to watch out for regarding human rights violations, either, as this article demonstrates: (Misogyny among police). But I digress...

3. Overall his arguments are ignorant, fed by propaganda without having bothered to look up the reality. He pushes these opinions forward with all the fervor of a fanatic, while all the while claiming to be skeptical and rational.

I don't disagree that terrorists are dangerous, but I think that ignoring all of the other terrorists in the world to get your hate on for one group is more dangerous. I think generalizing about groups of people can also be dangerous, as can being inflexible in your thinking. I could also mention that discriminating against a group of people is not going to make them any less likely to be terrorists.

I would like to use my anger to point out that extremes of any religion or ideology can be dangerous; they can and have led to violence. I would also like to use my anger to say that as much as it might be easier, we cannot lay the blame for violence at the feet of any one group. It is up to us, as individuals, to reign in our anger and put it to work, to refuse to initiate or tolerate violence in our lives, to tell our governments that unchecked anger, fear, and violence are not acceptable. It is up to us to judge each person individually, without stereotype or prejudice.

So, be angry if you must; just be rational about it.

Feed your brain!

This is most definitely a must read for anyone, but most especially for those who often find themselves defending rational thought. Coyne's explanation of Natural selection is succinct and well phrased, and his response to the spurious arguments in What Darwin got Wrong is excellent. You should read this.

The fatal flaw of battling racism

Not only am I against it, I greatly dislike the term itself, which I feel helps to foster the very thing that it rallies against. There is only one human race. One. No more. By saying that someone is racist, you are tacitly acknowledging that there is more than one human race, thus furthering the idea that there are large differences between people of differing ethnic backgrounds.

Biologically, there are almost no differences between any two people in the world of the same sex, and those few that do exist are entirely superficial. As a species, there are no differences between any two peoples in the world at all. Say it with me: There is no such thing as race within the human species. Most differences that exist are cultural in nature and have nothing to do with biology, appearance or what is commonly referred to as ‘race’.

Sadly, many people are prejudiced against people who are superficially different, or who come from a different culture. Unfortunately, these are judgements made in ignorance which can only be corrected if people are willing to be educated. A proscriptive attitude that ‘racism’ is unacceptable will only take us so far. The next step is to foster the knowledge that races do not exist, leaving even less footing for prejudicial attitudes.

In short, if you agree that there is only the one human race, stop using the terms racist or racism. The attitude can be far more accurately described as prejudice, discrimination, narrow-mindedness or ethnically biased. There are many other terms as well (see your thesaurus), and I don’t really have a problem with ‘ignorant knucklehead’ either, but trying to counter an misguided attitude by using terminology that lends credence to it seems counter-productive.


As an interesting side note related to fear as the cause of this particular brand of prejudice, see this article:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100412/full/news.2010.176.html

Indoctrination

So. From the time when we are old enough to take in information (which is pretty much immediately after birth) we are told what to think. We are told what to believe. We are told what the world IS. We are told not to question, not to buck authority, not to be different.

My problem: All advancement and achievement has been accomplished by those who said "I will be different, and who cares? I will think. I see these things that are true, and must tell the world, even if they do not believe me!"

We are raising a stagnant world. We are teaching the future that growth is bad, that ambition, that dreaming, is pointless. Why?

Rise up out of your stagnant grocery store-driven life, out of your world of crackberry and i-rule world, look around, and realize that we have forgotten how to live. Reclaim your individuality. Say " I am who I am happy being, and I don't Care what people say!" Use the internet as the tool it is supposed to be, and not as a replacement social life. Go. Talk to people face to face. Engage them, discuss everything, start an argument! Do SOMETHING. BE DIFFERENT. Be unafraid of things that will not cause you harm.

Question Everything. Master your fear and be a rational individual. I dare you.

Inherently Flawed?

So I was having a conversation recently about humans, and was told that we humans are inherently flawed, the misfits of nature, the one of the things that does not belong. This is an exceedingly common belief. The Christians believe in original sin, the Buddhists that we are working off past indiscretions, the list goes on, but you get the idea.

I disagree. There are no words for how strongly I disagree. If we were inherently flawed, we would be extinct. We are exactly what we needed to be for our environment, we have adapted readily, and evolved some pretty damn cool traits. So, okay, we can't go toe to toe unarmed against a bear. Neither can a fish. Does that make the fish flawed? We do have a tendency to radically alter our environment. So does a beaver. That we are currently taking it to an extreme only makes us as short sighted as most other mammals, possibly a bit on the stupid side, but hardly inherently or irredeemably flawed. We do kill our own kind, particularly over resources- we are hardly alone amongst other animals in that respect. So why are we flawed? Is it a result of some misguided notion that evolution produces perfection? It doesn't - it produces viability. Is it a belief that a mythological higher being (pick one) created us, and meant us to be flawed? Is it that we no longer fit in the delicate balance of the worlds eco-systems? I think I'll address that one.

We haven't existed in total harmony with our surrounding eco-system for at least 10,000 years. If you want to get back to nature, you've got a long trip. We have however in most cases managed to pace ourselves so the rest of the world can keep up. We can't go back to the beginning - the idea is ridiculous. Our species sacrificed speed for bipedalism and opposable thumbs, claws and fangs and fast maturation gave way to our great big marvelous brains, and instead of growing fur, we make clothing to suit the weather. Each of these steps was a remarkable adaptation that we should be celebrating, not cursing.

I am made exactly the way I should be made. I can easily adapt to live in any climactic zone on the planet. I can choose to understand something instead of fearing it. I can make a place to live, or tools to help me live, or beautiful works of art that enrich life. I can make music, and dance to it. I can communicate my ideas to others and be part of a community that helps and supports its members. Like any other mammal, I can be happy, sad, angry, afraid, lustful or tired. I can learn and I can teach. I can even leave this planet briefly and go out into space for a visit, or go to the moon. Soon I may be able to go to Mars. I can understand why I get sick, and do things to prevent illness or cure it. I (not personally, but we) can split the atom, and use it to heat my house in the winter. We have the means to live cleanly, and healthily and far longer than we ever have before. We are able to understand the damage we have done, and begin to fix it. We are able to see that sometimes there is no instant gratification, and learn patience. We are able to see the world from another's point of view, and learn compassion. We are able to remember pain, and heal it. We are able to remember love, and share it.

Inherently flawed my ass; we humans are so incredibly cool, it blows me away. Anyone who thinks there is something fundamentally Wrong with us isn't just seeing the glass half empty, they're looking at a full glass and seeing nothing. Why is it so hard to accept that we are cool? I think the notion of being flawed is like any lie - repeat it enough times and you begin to believe it.

It doesn't matter if you believe in god(s)/goddess(es), spirits, heroes, villains, cheese or flying spaghetti monsters, next time someone tells you that humans need fixing, tell them we aren't broken. Tell them we are awesome.

Evolution 101, part I

It has come to my attention that there is a need for an online resource which explains evolution and natural selection in plain and accessible language. So I have decided to try my hand at compiling such a resource. Lets start from the beginning, shall we?

1. 'Life' from 'non-life'
This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in evolution. In 1953, Dr.s Urey & Miller showed how amino acids could have been formed on this planet by natural forces about 3.8 billion years ago. These Amino acids would have been the first organic compounds. Amino acids are what DNA is made of, and are essential to life. It has been shown that they have been produced by the naturally occurring conditions of planet formation, and there is some evidence to suggest that this one type of process has occurred on countless other worlds as well.

2. Evolution is not random.
Mutation is random. Mutation is simply tiny random changes that happen to DNA due to time, solar radiation, or chemical interaction. If these changes are passed on to a new generation, they may cause something that provides an advantage, in which case they are likely to get passed on again and become more common over time. If they cause a disadvantage, they are less likely to get passed on. That is what natural selection is. It is not random because mutations which give an advantage are more likely to help a person breed and raise healthy offspring, and mutations which are harmful are less likely to be continued because a person who has one is less likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes.

The definition of a beneficial mutation may change with environment. For example: A random mutation which causes a person to be taller and thinner than the average. In a hot climate, this would be an advantage because it would help them shed heat more effectively. It would likely get passed on. In a cold climate it would be a disadvantage for the very same reason. Therefore it would be less likely to be passed on there.

More to follow, hopefully with diagrams...

Pat Condell's Passionate Argument for Freedom

I have to cheer for some of these points, and wonder why so many don't get it.

Isolation

This is what our society favours. The emphasis is on toys and gadgets, impersonal communication, and limited interpersonal relationships.

We are increasingly communicating with others through text messaging, internet chat and MM games. Few of us see more than a handful of people outside of work, and some don't even see more than that through work. Even talking on the phone has become less encouraged as texting rates are usually cheaper than airtime, and blackberries become more common.

We spend an inordinate amount of time devoted to making money, but rarely form close friendships with those we work with, and don't have enough time leftover to form other friendships. What free time most people have is usually spent at home, with the same people. We need more community than that.

We are encouraged to pair bond, and told that we are only supposed to love that one person and our family. What happened to loving friends, and seeing them frequently to enjoy their company? Everyone is too busy being isolated by the work and social expectations of our society.

This is not healthy for anyone.

So put down your blackberry, save your WOW session, pick up your phone and call a friend you haven't seen in a while, and get together for an evening. Invite them over, or out for coffee, or a beer. Heck, invite a bunch of people. You will feel better for socializing face to face. I promise.

I love natural selection!

This lyrebird mimics camera sounds, car alarms & chainsaws with uncanny accuracy. It's an amazing mating adaptation; truly marvelous!

The nature of justice

I had an interesting conversation tonight about crime and punishment. There were numerous disagreements, which I always find interesting, and some of these I put forth to you.

Overall, I am in favour of restorative, rather than retributive justice. There was general agreement on this point that it is better to have a criminal/lawbreaker make amends (not just payment) in a manner which either fixes or mitigates the crime. There are certain crimes however, for which amends is either difficult or impossible. Examples which were put forth included murder, rape, and child abuse. The question is this: What is the best reaction on the part of society for these?

Several options were put forth as better than the current lock them up for a variable number of years and then release them.
 1)One suggestion was to lock them up permanently until a way can be found to permanently rehabilitate them. Arguments against this included that it is a fairly slim hope at this point, that it would be cruel to lock them up until death, and that it would be a burden on the rest of society that they should not have to bear.
2) Another, and counter, suggestion was that those who cannot be rehabilitated, or whose crimes go beyond restorative actions should be killed, thus removing them from further damaging the society or being a burden on it. The main argument against this was that it removed all hope from them.
 3) A less lethal option was put forth in that these offenders should be sterilized, to prevent them passing on these behaviours to potential offspring, and in the case of sexual offenders, mandatory castration (chemical). 4) Exile was also discussed as something that has been effective in smaller communities or tribal cultures, but was dismissed as ineffectual due to our present population density and ease of travel -it was deemed to be equivalent to imprisonment.

This is a topic of much controversy, and still requires a close examination of the effectiveness of the legal system to determine guilt or innocence. It was argued that the adversarial system is not effective or accurate enough, and that a better option was needed.

I myself tend to think that our society as a whole needs to start looking at our rules, laws and judicial system more critically. Punishment serves no-one. If questions of judicial precision can be addressed, then in the case of these offenses mentioned above, I think that options 2 or 3 would be viable. This also happened to be the majority consensus of the people involved in the discussion. Naturally, it would be better if rehabilitation methods could be developed, if society could start promoting rather than discouraging a sense of personal responsibility. Then we could begin moving towards a more restorative, and less retributive, justice system.

What do you think? Are there options that we have overlooked? Discuss!

Overpopulation and ethics

This post is inspired by a post and attendant comments by Martin Rundkvist at Sb
He posited:

• It is unethical for anyone to produce more than two children. (Adoption of orphans, on the other hand, is highly commendable.)

• It is unethical to limit the availability of contraceptives, abortion, surgical sterilisation, vasectomy and adoption.

• It is unethical to use public money to support infertility treatments. Let those unfortunate enough to need such treatment pay their own way or adopt. And let's put the money into subsidising contraceptives, abortion, surgical sterilisation, vasectomy and adoption instead.

In a comment, one person suggested that a mandatory reversible sterilization be implemented, until such time as the individual proved they were capable of responsibly rearing offspring. They were promptly jumped on for proposing eugenics, which was not the suggestion at all, as you can see. It was not a proposal to limit breeding to certain genetic material, only that people be prepared for the responsibility - something which anyone can accomplish.

I agree that having children is something that should require training. If we want to limit our population and improve our fitness as a species, the we need to collectively have fewer children, and raise them responsibly. I have seen too many mothers who, due to youth, poverty, neglect or ignorance have permanently sabotaged their children. Requiring people to be responsible when engaging in the most important job a species has is not eugenics. One might as well argue that requiring a driver's license or voting age is a violation of rights. We have these rules in place because we collectively saw that regulating certain activities benefits everyone. I would suggest that raising a child is a much more important activity than driving a car, drinking at a bar, voting, or even fighting for your country. Yet out of all these activities, raising a child is the only one for which no age or skill baseline is required. I am only suggesting that, at least, the childbearing age should not be lower than the drinking or voting age, and that potential parents be well informed of the needs of a child and the obligations they will have to the child, as well as certain basic skills pertaining to childbearing. This is not eugenics, this is not elitism, this is not based on income, disability, race, religion, gender, or level of education. It is simply beneficial to everyone, so I suspect that it will be hotly contested. If someone wants children, these circumstances will only ensure that they are prepared for them.

Another population growth solution is the one child per couple policy has been in effect and effectually enforced in China for quite some time now. It works because people are aware of the necessity for it. The problem that policy would have in North America are the large numbers of people who feel that clinging to their out-dated mythology is more important then the well-being of our species and ecosystem. I'd almost rather have eugenics than that type of 'ethics'.

Finally, regarding abortion, this comment was made:

This argument, more generally, is, "it is unethical to tax person X to pay for policy Q, but ethical to tax person X to pay for policy Z." It ignores the question of whether it is ethical to force people to pay for policies they disagree with. If it is ethical to force Christians to subsidize abortions, do they not have a claim that it is ethical to force me to subsidize printing of Bibles?

The first difference would be that legalized abortion benefits the population as a whole, even if the Christians refuse to admit it. Printing religious texts does not benefit the population as a whole (or anyone, IMHO).
The second point is that I pay taxes for things I don't use/agree with all the time, because they are a benefit to the population as a whole. I support the military, even though I am a pacifist. I pay for public education, even though I have no children. I pay for health care, even though I am healthy and don't need it myself. I also pay for abortions for people who need them, and free contraceptives, sex education, and I am mightily insulted that the religious institutions which oppose education and reduced population growth are tax-exempt. Religious views or programs should never be paid for by public money. Ever. Especially when they run counter to the good of the society as a whole.

In conclusion, I would venture to say that if your religion is advocating something that is obviously not (or no longer) beneficial to our species or society, maybe it's time to re-evaluate your beliefs. If your 'ethics' conflict with what is beneficial to our species as a whole, those should be re-evaluated too.

That is bigotry. That is Ignorance. That is Irony.

The following is an excerpt from a letter, the whole of which can be found at Pharyngula...

Addressed to Dr. P.Z. Myers from a wingnut:

"It is teachers like you that have exploded the growth of home schooling. It is professors like you that have encouraged the installation and growth of faith based and Christian Colleges. So for that, I guess I have people like you to thank. Thank God my children will have somewhere else to go. I don't want them learning the fairy tale of evolution, I want them to be free to investigate ALL available arguments. All of them. I mean, the theory of evolution is all you have? Seriously? Science isn't in the box, professor. You can't prove evolution and you can't prove creation. No one can. So why can't we talk about both? We rehash the same dead, unproven, broken theory when there are so many other questions out there to be asked, researched and experimented with? That sir, is intolerance. That is bigotry. That is ignorance."

And people ask why I am frustrated with the state of education in the world today... Can people get more brainwashed? Seriously? Read a biology book, you ignorant stain.

Lacy quoting Dawkins - nice viewpoint

Here is a highly relevant viewpoint for anyone interested in the atheist/christian debate. Well worth the listen for a short clip...