Friday, April 30, 2010

Tim Minchin On The Pope, Mo Boobs and Jesus and Mo ....

While the video and the cartoons are quite hilarious, all have the potential of being extremely offensive to some.

If you are:
1. easily offended
2. object to swearing
3. are religious (particularly Catholic or Muslim)
4. are a religious accommodationist

And/Or are humor challenged...

Do Not Watch This Video Or View The Rest Of This Post.

Now, you can't say you haven't been warned ....

Note that the entire point of Free Speech rights is the right to be critical, no matter how offensive others may perceive that criticism.

Since this is a right that I take seriously, and choose to exercise freely, anyone who has objections to that should not read this post or this blog.






Since I don't want to single out the Catholics ....


In honor of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (May 20) the following cartoon posted originally on and belonging to Blazing Cat Fur, and in honor of BoobQuake follows.



And then there's the famous (and one of my favorite) cartoon series: 



Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Freethinking Woman : A Historical Perspective. Pt. 1 of 3

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." --Rebecca West

Trying to define the term Feminism is challenging because it means many different things to many different people.

My definition is quite simple.

Feminism is the movement for equal rights for women whatever that might entail during any given period in history.

Given my definition I don't accept the concept of "protofeminism" nor do I believe that there were only three "waves" of feminism.

That said, for now and in the interests of clarity, I will make my comments within the context of accepted historical standards.

Historically speaking there have been three "waves" of feminism defined.

The first wave began in the 18th century along with the development of the FreeThought movement and Rationalism and was supported by many FreeThinkers from it's inception.

It's neither an accident nor a coincidence that the suffragette leaders were FreeThinkers for the most part.

The reason for this is that it was the FreeThinkers who were questioning the standards and the existing beliefs, holding them up to the light of reason, discarding that which didn't meet rational standards and upholding that which did.

That's not to say that Christian women didn't play a role in fighting for the right to vote. They did. It was, in fact, the one unifying issue between Christian feminists and FreeThinking feminists.

However, there was a divergence of interest on other issues where the Christian feminists focused on Temperance (prohibition of alcohol) whereas the FreeThinking feminists focused on Abolition (banning slavery) amongst other issues.

While the stated focus of this First Wave was womens suffrage, the right to vote, it's real focus was much more than that.

It was about the right of women to recognized as persons under the law.

After all, that's precisely why women didn't have suffrage. We were legally considered chattel, the property of the men who were in charge of us whether they were our fathers, husbands, uncles, brothers, caretakers, etc.

Note that according to Amendment XIV of the US Constitution, citizens were persons and on those grounds granted the privileges defined by the Constitution including the right to vote. Since women were not given the right to vote they were not considered persons under the law or citizens as defined by the XIVth Amendment.

Amendment XIV

(The proposed amendment was sent to the states June 16, 1866, by the Thirty-ninth Congress. It was ratified July 9, 1868.)
Section 1

[Citizenship defined; privileges of citizens.]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html

While the women of the day who posed arguments to support their right to equality did so within the context of the times and in relation to the existing social theories which kept them enslaved, the real issue was glaringly obvious and while unstated, was reflected clearly in Marion Kirkland Reid's, A Plea For Women (1843), where she elucidated three issues which stood in the way of women's rights. These three issues formed the foundation for both the First and Second Wave Feminist movements.

They were:
1. Lack of civil rights
2. Unjust laws against women
3. Inability to obtain an education

If women were considered human beings, people under the law, the above would have resulted in violations of the existing Constitutions in various western countries.

In addition, it was implicit in the existing social theories of the day which Reid also addressed:

1. women and domesticity
2. women and Christianity.

Reid spoke to these in the context of "women's appropriate role in society".

Source: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2003/reid.html

So Reid's major contribution was to objectify through these issues the real problem which was that women were not considered to be persons under the law, by the society of the day.

Reid's document, combined with the shunning of women from around the world, who attended the first World Anti-Slavery Convention in 1840 led to the Seneca Falls Convention in the US, on women's rights. The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments was authored here by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and became the foundation for American feminism.

Excerpt:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

***

"Closing Remarks
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sentiments

Once suffrage, the right to vote, was won, a major hurdle was overcome. This right, through the XIXth Amendment of the US Constitution legally established that women were persons under the law.

Amendment XIX

(The proposed amendment was sent to the states June 4, 1919, by the Sixty-sixth Congress. It was ratified Aug. 18, 1920.)

[The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied because of sex.]

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

[Congress given power to enforce this article.]

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html

This allowed women to move things to the next level, to establish legal and social equality in other areas.

Women now began the process of establishing an identity through media and culture,  legal rights, employment inclusion and equity, reproductive rights, exploration of gender issues and female sexuality, fighting for social reform on many fronts including Family and Property Law.

None of these issues was won easily and at times resulted in the imprisonment of advocates.

In addition, many rights were removed after WWII since women were no longer needed in the work force.

This environment led to the Second Wave of Feminism.

Simone de Beauvoir, mother of modern feminism, existentialist philosopher, feminist, polyamorist, bisexual, lover of and inspiration to Jean Paul Sartre wrote the ground-breaking book, The Second Sex in 1949 which laid the foundation for this Second Wave of Feminism.

Beauvoir's critique of First Wave Feminism corrected errors in and advanced the philosophical approaches originally adopted by First Wave Feminism.

She established the concept that women's goal wasn't to be like men but to be equal to men, that equality was established by the freedom to choose, and was responsible for coining the term, Women's Liberation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism

Monday, April 26, 2010

In Honor Of BoobQuake -Updated

My Boobies - Censored ;-D


Event initiated by Blag Hag

BoobQuake Cartoon - Hilarious

Facebook 

eSarcasms' news and views on BoobQuake - Hilarious

Mo' Boobs for BoobQuake - Do not click if you are easily offended!

 I'll be updating all day with links to blogs, sites and news....

Saturday, April 24, 2010

BoobQuake Promises a Shake-Up on April 26!

The BoobQuake event which started as a joke by skeptic atheist feminist blogger, Blah Hag, has taken hold with nearly 130,000 Facebook participants and thousands of tweets on Twitter, as of this moment. (Yes Skeptic Feminists *do* have a sense of humor!).

"In the name of science, I offer my boobs" says she :-) who is also a Biology/Evolution major.

Blag Hag has proposed that women around the world dress immodestly (show cleavage, etc.) on Monday April 26, 2010 to determine if Iranian cleric Sedighi's claims that feminine immodesty causes earthquakes (yes he actually said that!).

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Sedighi is Tehran's acting Friday prayer leader."

One tweet on Twitter commented that this was a win-win event for women because if there wasn't an earthquake we have dispelled a very silly superstition and if there was an earthquake we will have established boobs as Lethal Weapons of the WMD (weapons of mass distraction) variety :-).

It works for me either way.

The media has become quite entranced with the event being reported everywhere from the US, Canada, Australia, India, et al.

Vancouver has decided to have a rally on April 26 called BoobQuake in front of the Art Gallery. Immodestly (but legally) dressed women will parade their immodesty from 4PM to 8PM.

The organizer of the Vancouver rally will have a computer with a geiger counter to test for any shaking in the area.

Blag Hag was quoted by CNN as saying:

“It’s not supposed to be serious activism that is going to revolutionize women’s rights, but just a bit of fun juvenile humor,” she wrote. “I’m a firm believer that when someone says something so stupid and hateful, serious discourse isn't going to accomplish anything - sometimes light-hearted mockery is worthwhile.”

And I couldn't agree more.

Participate and Enjoy!



Friday, April 16, 2010

Indian Freethought On The Move

The Indian Freethought Community is getting busy organizing and building the Freethought movement in India.

At the forefront of this movement is a group called Nirmukta, many of whom are members on various atheist sites like Atheist Nexus, alt.atheism, Atheism versus Christianity (theism), etc.

One member has actively organized campaigns to go into the countryside and teach the villagers science in order to educate them on superstitious beliefs and the damage they do.

They've started a website and Forum which some of you might be interested in reading or joining.

I don't think there's any requirement that you be Indian to join the Forums.

They are located here:

Forum
http://nirmukta.net/index.php

Website
http://nirmukta.com/

One of the Nirmukta articles was picked up and Tweeted by Richard Dawkins recently.
http://twitter.com/RIchardDawkins

And posted on Dawkins.net
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5414

India is a land entrenched in superstitious belief but it is also a land which gave rise to the earliest known atheistic, materialist, naturalist and secular belief system known to humanity, Carvaka.

Best wishes to the Indian Atheists and may they enjoy the same successes that have occurred with other atheistic groups around the world in recent years.

Trance Gemini of Atheist Nexus, Atheism vs Christianity, alt.atheism, Nirmukta, et al :-)

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Christopher Maloney Is A Quack

From Pharyngula:

"Maloney is a naturopath in the state of Maine, where quacks like him get to call themselves "doctors". These so-called "doctors" get to make recommendations like this, in which he disparages standard flu vaccines and suggests these useless prescriptions:

 Parents waiting for vaccinations can provide their children with black elderberry, which blocks the H1N1 virus. A single garlic capsule daily cuts in half the incidence and the severity of a flu episode for children.

There's another way you can tell he's a quack. When a student, Michael Hawkins, dared to criticize him, pointing out that "Naturopathic medicine is pure bull" and stating that naturopaths are underqualified and do not deserve the title of "doctor," Maloney took action to silence him. After all, we can't have people questioning quacks — that just makes them look even more ridiculous, which could lead to a loss of business.

So Maloney complained to Wordpress, where Hawkins blog was located, and got them to shut it down. This does not speak well of craven Wordpress; if you're using Wordpress hosting, you might want to reconsider it and move elsewhere. You know, to someplace that respects reality.

Now not only is Maloney a quack, but he's a stupid quack. Shutting down blogs that criticize him? That never, ever works. In fact, it tends to backfire rather severely — because now a much bigger blog is going to spread the word that Christopher Maloney is a quack. I'm also going to ask all of you out there who reads this to echo the message: Christopher Maloney is a quack. Won't that be fun? Poke the net, and the net pushes back.

Share the message. Let the whole world know that Christopher Maloney is a cowardly quack.

He's also tasteless. This is possibly the ugliest youtube video ever."


Sunday, February 7, 2010

The Biblical God Concept : A Logical Disproof

The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident. One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.

The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality. Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness.  Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do.  Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality.  Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time. Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.

The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist.  In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.

The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

We shall proceed with a logical technique that involves reductio ad absurdum.  That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition.  This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete.  As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.

By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it.  By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so.  Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence.  However, they are beings.  By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions.  Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect.  In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.

This is the absurdity.  Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed.  Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived.  Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect.  That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate.  In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this writing.  It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good. As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that our ability to know an external reality (if there is one) is scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature and, in this, meaningful development as the entities we are may only be realized in the form of internal rewards.  That is, it may only be realized through decisions that challenge the self in goodness of motive.  Only these afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.

John Jubinsky, MA–Mathematics, CPA, Atheism vs Christianity