Sex workers in Iraq are being murdered in wholesale lots.

AFP reporters were able to pass unchallenged through the main police checkpoint into Zayouna, where the previous evening police said gunmen stormed two apartment buildings and killed 27 women with silenced weapons.

“This is the fate of any prostitution,” read a inscription on the door of the one of the raided buildings.

Zayouna residents say that local apartments have long been used for prostitution and that alleged sex workers are found murdered every few months, with police unwilling or unable to prevent the attacks.

“If a person got shot right next to a policeman they wouldn’t say anything. They’re afraid. It’s the rule of the strong over the weak,” said a shopkeeper who declined to be identified.

“So what if they were prostitutes? It’s God who judges us, after all.”

Oh no, it’s religious fanatics who judge us, and murder us if the judgment is thumbs down.

Shiite militias with connections to political parties hold sway over parts of Baghdad, while suicide blasts by Sunni extremists are still frequent, with sectarian killings on both sides routine.

Both groups’ extreme antipathy to sex workers is probably one of the few things they have in common.

“Everyone’s afraid. Let me be killed but I have to say what’s in my heart. I’m a Shiite, and I’m telling you these were Shiite gangs. Who else controls Baghdad? They’re more powerful than the police and any other authority,” said tattooed taxi driver Hassan Assad, 36, who works in Zayouna.

“The prostitutes have been here since Saddam’s time. Why do you think they’re doing this? Because their husband has been imprisoned or killed and they’re trying to feed their kids. How did Iraq come to this?”

Well the US helped a lot with that.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Is it Islamophobic to point out the dangers to health of Ramadan, especially Ramadan in July? If so, prepare to be shocked by this June 27 article in the notoriously Islamophobic Guardian.

Tears ran down the cheeks of an elderly Asian man sitting in his hospital bed during Ramadan last year as he sought reassurance from Muslim chaplain Siddiq Diwan because he could not participate in the annual religious month-long fast.

“I know I am ill and do not have to fast, Imam,” the old man said to Diwan at Manchester Royal Infirmary. “But I have never missed one in seven decades, and I really feel bad about it.”

While this patient had reluctantly accepted that fasting was not an option for him, thousands of Muslims with diabetes in the UK go ahead regardless. Many will put themselves at risk of serious illness and dangerous complications by taking part in the Ramadan fast (beginning on 28 June) when they go without food, water and even medication between sunrise and sunset – despite the fact that the Qur’an makes exceptions for the sick, pregnant women, children and anyone for whom it would cause physical harm.

That spells out the problem pretty well right there. Ramadan is obviously way too onerous. It’s too coercive, too mandatory, too exceptionless, too demanding. That elderly Asian man with diabetes should not be feeling guilty or sad or anything of the kind about having to refrain from fasting; it shouldn’t be any kind of issue. Nobody should go without water (or medication ffs) between sunrise and sunset; it’s bad for the body.

And this idea (or none-too-subtle implication) that it’s “Islamophobic” to say so? Bullshit. Thinking people should have a less harsh and dangerous version of their religion is not a hostile act or even thought.

[An imam's] experiences are echoed in the UK’s first study on the beliefs and experiences of Muslims with diabetes during Ramadan, being carried out by Manchester University-based psychologist Dr Neesha Patel. The results, published in the journal Health Expectations, highlight the intense pressures felt by individuals with diabetes during the period, from family, culture, religion and their own conscience.

More than half the diabetics in Patel’s study still fasted; many continued to do so through a sense of obligation, the need to conform or a belief that the Qur’an demanded it. Some altered their own medication during the period of Ramadan – mostly without the advice of their GP or practice nurse. Some were put under family pressure to follow the fast, while others felt the need to conceal their decision not to fast by snacking in secret.

That’s awful. There’s nothing good to say about it. it’s just awful; it’s fucked up.

Patel says: “Ramadan is an annual event – it is going to be with us forever. There is a large Muslim population in the UK and the level of diabetes in some of the communities is many times higher than in the UK generally. This is a big issue. For change to happen there needs to be government support.”

The UK has a population of 2.7 million Muslims, of whom 325,000 have diabetes. The South Asian population has six times the general rate of the condition. This year the holy month of Ramadan falls in the summer, and fasters in parts of the northern hemisphere will face periods without food or water that last up to 21 hours. These long periods of abstinence will feature for the next 10 years.

That’s a death sentence for some people.

GP Dr Faizan Ahmed from Moss Side Family Medical Practice in Manchester agrees there is a need for clarity. He says: “At the moment there is a social stigma in some community groups about not fasting, and the onus is very much on the individual to make a decision.”

Since 2010, his practice has invited all patients known to be Muslim for a pre-Ramadan review of their health and medication. This he described as a “watershed”, with fewer patients ending up in A&E since, and some taking the decision for the first time not to fast because of their health problems.

In the absence of national health guidelines, Diabetes UK, in collaboration with the Muslim Council of Britain, has produced culturally-sensitive material for people who want to fast, and scripts for Imams. This year the charity is sending volunteers into five largely Islamic areas during Ramadan, with the aim of reducing diabetic complications.

The best outcome would be if the whole thing were optional. But clearly that’s way too much to ask…

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Hi, people in government, whether at the federal or state or local level, here’s something I don’t want you to do: tell us to “repent” and join together in prayer. Ok? Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa has been doing just that to the citizens in his state and I think he should apologize and stop and apologize again. It’s none of his god damn business. Repent, governor, not in the churchy sense but in the secular sense. You’re a governor, not a priest. You live in a secular democracy, not a theocracy. It’s not your job to tell citizens to repent.

An official proclamation signed by Gov. Terry Branstad (R-IA) has called on Iowans to pray and repent on a daily basis.

In a public ceremony earlier this year, Branstad signed the proclamation ahead of a July 14 revival at the Iowa Capitol:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Terry E Branstad, as Governor of the State of Iowa, do hereby invite all Iowans who choose to join in the thoughtful prayer and humble repentance according to II Chronicles 7:14 in favor of our state and nation to come together on July 14, 2014.

Well don’t. Don’t hereby invite. Do your own job, and don’t do more than your job. Don’t shove your benighted religious views on the citizens.

On Tuesday, Branstad was also one of the speakers at the 11-hour Christian event.

The governor explained that his proclamation “was very much in line with the great tradition” that started with President George Washington.

Branstad thanked the attendees for encouraging those who served in public office to “follow God’s will.”

Iowa Lt. Gov. Kim Reynold (R) also spoke, praising the crowd for “standing up for our rights, and for individual liberties.”

Except of course their rights to have a secular government.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Some detail on Feynman’s view of and behavior toward women.

In Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, chapter You Just Ask Them?, Richard Feynman frequented a bar and desired to have sexual intercourse with the women there. He discovered that the women in the bar did not provide sexual favors in exchange for monetary compensation in the form of drinks. Although he gained a reputation for spending money on drinks for women, he was frustrated at the fact that the women did not consider alcoholic drinks to be payment for sexual services.

So he got some advice, and followed it. The advice was to treat the women like shit.

On the way to her motel she says, “You know, I won’t have time to eat these sandwiches with you, because a lieutenant is coming over…” I think to myself, “See, I flunked. The master gave me a lesson on what to do, and I flunked. I bought her $1.10 worth of sandwiches, and hadn’t asked her anything, and now I know I’m gonna get nothing! I have to recover, if only for the pride of my teacher.”

I stop suddenly and I say to her, “You… are worse than a WHORE!”

“Whaddya mean?”

‘“You got me to buy these sandwiches, and what am I going to get for it?Nothing!”

So she reimbursed him for the sandwiches, and his guru said then she’ll have sex with you, and she did. Lesson learned: treat women like shit.

Feynman, like most self-professed Nice GuysTM, “learned” that women want to be disrespected, instead of learning that a woman’s sexual consent is not bought with money. Unfortunately, most of the male geeks who read his book will use this anecdote to rationalize calling women “bitches”, “whores”, and “worthless”. (Of course, a man who wants intellectual justification for disrespecting women thinks that women are “worthless” when they are not sexually available to him. The non-sexual worth of a woman never occurs to him.)

Feynman continues:

When I was back at Cornell in the fall, I was dancing with the sister of a grad student, who was visiting from Virginia. She was very nice, and suddenly I got this idea: “Let’s go to a bar and have a drink,” I said.

On the way to the bar I was working up nerve to try the master’s lesson on an ordinary girl. After all, you don’t feel so bad disrespecting a bar girl who’s trying to get you to buy her drinks — but a nice, ordinary, Southern girl?

We went into the bar, and before I sat down, I said, “Listen, before I buy you a drink, I want to know one thing: Will you sleep with me tonight?”

“Yes.”

So it worked even with an ordinary girl! But no matter how effective the lesson was, I never really used it after that. I didn’t enjoy doing it that way. But it was interesting to know that things worked much differently from how I was brought up.

Feynman initially assumed that if a man bought drinks for a woman, she owed him sex. After these experiences, he assumed that if a man “disrespected” a woman by not buying her anything, she provided him with sex because she was stupid or masochistic.

Sadly, in both these cases, he never considered the possibility that a woman’s sexual consent and worth should not be monetized in the first place.

But he’s seen by many as a mavericky hero.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Malala Yousafzai went to Nigeria in solidarity with girls who are prevented from going to school there.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Guardian on Nadine Gordimer.

Born in Gauteng, South Africa, in 1923 to immigrant European parents, Gordimer was awarded the Nobel prize for literature in 1991 for novels and short stories that reflected the drama of human life and emotion in a society warped by decades of white-minority rule.

Many of her stories dealt with the themes of love, hate and friendship under the pressures of the racially segregated system that ended in 1994, when Nelson Mandela became South Africa’s first black president.

She was called one of the great “guerrillas of the imagination” by the poet Seamus Heaney, and a “magnificent epic writer” by the Nobel committee.

Gordimer became active in the then banned African National Congress after the Sharpeville massacre, and was one of the first people Mandela asked to see when he was released in 1990.

She had three books banned under the apartheid regime’s censorship laws, along with an anthology of poetry by black South African writers that she collected and had published.

The first book to be banned was A World of Strangers, the story of an apolitical Briton drifting into friendships with black South Africans in segregated Johannesburg in the 1950s.

In 1979 Burger’s Daughter was banished from the shelves for its portrayal of a woman’s attempt to establish her own identity after her father’s death in jail makes him a political hero.

In later years, Gordimer became a vocal campaigner in the HIV/AIDS movement, lobbying and fund-raising on behalf of the Treatment Action Campaign, a group pushing for the South African government to provide free, life-saving drugs to sufferers.

She has a prominent place on the Mattering Map.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Bruce Gorton sent me the link to an excellent local tribute, which included this by Professor Adam Habib, Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of the Witwatersrand:

Gordimer epitomised all that Wits University holds dear

Wits University has learnt with deep sadness of the passing of one of its most illustrious alumni, a great South African writer, and one of the world’s most esteemed literary figures, Nadine Gordimer. The University wishes to extend its sincerest condolences to her family, friends and the entire South African literary and academic community.

Gordimer was a dear friend to Wits, maintaining a lifelong connection to the University, and giving generously of her time. She often appeared on campus to participate in colloquia and alumni events. In addition, the Nadine Gordimer Lectures brought other luminaries such as Susan Sontag, Amartya Sen and Carlos Fuentes to Wits.

Gordimer studied at Wits where she mixed for the first time with fellow professionals from diverse racial, class and national backgrounds. She received an Honorary Doctorate in Literature from the University in 1984, in recognition of her immense contribution to literature and the transformation of South African society.

As a Nobel Prize-winning author, a powerful political activist, and a revered intellect, she epitomised all that Wits University holds dear. She will be greatly missed by the Wits community.

And by many other people, I should think. Salman Rushdie posted a photo on Facebook of himself with Gordimer and Gunter Grass, linking arms.

Gordimer was born in 1923.

Her mother was from an assimilated Jewish family, and thus her upbringing was secular.

She entered the anti-Apartheid movement in the 1960s, following her friend Bettie du Toit’s arrest.

In 1962 she helped edit Nelson Mandela’s famous I am prepared to die speech.

Gordimer won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1991, for a long career in literature that saw many of her books banned by the Apartheid Government.

“I used the life around me and the life around me was racist,” she said in a 1990 interview.

“I would have been a writer anywhere, but in my country, writing meant confronting racism.

“She wrote as if censorship didn’t exist,” one critic posted on a South African website.

One of the greats.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Janet Stemwedel has a brilliant post at the SciAm blog about the perils of idolizing human people.

The coordinated effort to build a reliable body of knowledge about the world depends on a baseline level of trust between scientists. Without that trust, you are left having to take on the entire project yourself, and that seriously diminishe[s] the chances that the knowledge you’re building will be objective.

That also applies to the rest of life. Morality is a product of the benefits of co-operation; if you’re not moral you’re not trustworthy, so unless you’ve very good at dissimulation, you’ll lose the benefits of co-operation if you’re not moral.

What about someone who is scrupulously honest about his scientific contributions but whose behavior towards women or members of underrepresented minorities demonstrates that he does not regard them as being as capable, as smart, or as worthy of respect? What if, moreover, most of these behaviors are displayed outside of scientific contexts (owing to the general lack of women or members of underrepresented minorities in the scientific contexts this scientist encounters)? Intended or not, such attitudes and behaviors can have the effect of excluding people from the scientific community. Even if you think you’re actively working to improve outreach/inclusion, your regular treatment of people you’re trying to help as “less than” can have the effect of exclusion. It also sets a tone within your community where it’s predictable that simply having more women and members of underrepresented minorities there won’t result in their full participation, whether because you and your likeminded colleagues are disinclined to waste your time interacting with them or because they get burnt out interacting with people like you who treat them as “less than”.

Well then you get…a situation we’re all too familiar with.

This last description of a hypothetical scientist is not too far from famous physicist Richard Feynman, something that we know not just from the testimony of his contemporaries but from Feynman’s own accounts. As it happens, Feynman is enough of a hero to scientists and people who do science outreach that many seem compelled to insist that the net effect of his legacy is positive. Ironically, the efforts to paint Feynman as a net-good guy can inflict harms similar to the behavior Feynman’s defenders seem to minimize.

In an excellent, nuanced post on Feynman, Matthew Francis writes:

Richard Feynman casts the longest shadow in the collective psyche of modern physicists. He plays the nearly same role within the community that Einstein does in the world beyond science: the Physicist’s Physicist, someone almost as important as a symbol as he was as a researcher. Many of our professors in school told Feynman stories, and many of us acquired copies of his lecture notes in physics. …

Feynman was a pioneer of quantum field theory, one of a small group of researchers who worked out quantum electrodynamics (QED): the theory governing the behavior of light, matter, and their interactions. QED shows up everywhere from the spectrum of atoms to the collisions of electrons inside particle accelerators, but Feynman’s calculation techniques proved useful well beyond the particular theory.

Not only that, his explanations of quantum physics were deep and cogent, in a field where clarity can be hard to come by.
Feynman stories that get passed around physics departments aren’t usually about science, though. They’re about his safecracking, his antics, his refusal to wear neckties, his bongos, his rejection of authority, his sexual predation on vulnerable women.

The predation in question here included actively targeting female students as sex partners, a behavior that rather conveys that you don’t view them primarily in terms of their potential to contribute to science.

And, you see, that’s a really bad thing. But way too many people think it’s not a bad thing at all.

Stemwedel lists some of the ways that dismissing the harm of this kind of thing can itself do harm, then sums up:

You may be intending to convey the message that this was an interesting guy who made some important contributions to science, but the message that people may take away is that great scientific achievement totally outweighs sexism, racism, and other petty problems.

This is what quite a few people tried to tell me about Shermer. It’s what gets said and implied about various other sexually predatory Famous Thought-Leader Dudes.

There is a special danger lurking here if you are doing science outreach by using a hero like Feynman and you are not a member of a group likely to have been hurt by his behavior. You may believe that the net effect of his story casts science and scientists in a way that will draw people in, but it’s possible you are fooling yourself.

Maybe you aren’t the kind of person whose opinion about science or eagerness to participate in science would be influenced by the character flaws of the “scientific heroes” on offer, but if you’re already interested in science perhaps you’re not the main target for outreach efforts. And if members of the groups who are targeted for outreach tell you that they find these “scientific heroes” and the glorification of them by science fans alienating, perhaps listening to them would help you to devise more effective outreach strategies.

Oh, yes.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The IHEU reports that a humanist group in Uganda that does terrific important work needs help in the wake of a robbery.

The Humanist Association for Leadership, Equality and Accountability (HALEA) runs education and support services for children in some of the poorest parts of Kampala.

They go into schools running workshops centered around human rights and the rights of the child in particular, as well as democracy, confidence-building, and other issues. They run debates on ethical and humanist topics that otherwise may never be discussed. HALEA even publish a regular magazine written and produced by school students; it’s a rare and valuable opportunity for children to see themselves in print and to be heard! Through leadership training at their offices HALEA support some of the brightest and most able students to learn new skills, and through their IHEU-supported public debate series they air topics and arguments among adult participants which otherwise are often heard only from a one-sided perspective.

And we know how desperately Uganda needs that.

But this week HALEA have suffered a major setback. On Tuesday Kato Mukasa the director of HALEA told us:

“We woke up today to the sad news that our offices had been broken into and lots of property and cash taken. The first people to reach the office found [the building security guard] unconscious lying at the upper/ behind part of the building. Our offices were wide open.”

The thieves have taken all 6 computers, 2 laptops, power cables, their projector and camera, three guitars, a desktop printer, and even the office phone was taken. Some cash due to be paid for rent was also stolen. (The security guard is now conscious again, by the way!)

“HALEA staff and members are devastated with this development, we have lost the important tools that enable us to operate and surely this is a great set back in the history of the organization. This has happened at a time when we had so many vital activities going on and many pending.”

The main school holiday in Uganda is over the Christmas period, not the summer months of the northern hemisphere, which means that HALEA’s work is at its peak and the need is urgent.

There’s a donate button on the IHEU page.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Southall Black Sisters point out a bad new bit of proposed legislation.

Earlier this week, the House of Commons approved regulations which are intended to implement residence test for most of the 46 forms of civil legal aid.

Civil legal aid was first introduced through the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1949. Since then, its availability has always depended on three things: the type of case must be prioritized in the legal aid scheme; it must be strong and important enough to justify public money being spent on it; and the financial resources of the person involved must be so limited that it would be impossible for them to pay for a lawyer themselves.

If implemented, the residence test will fundamentally change all this. For identical, equally strong and important cases, all of which are prioritised for funding in the legal aid scheme, some people will receive legal aid whereas others will receive no help at all. The only difference will be ‘residence’ status i.e. whether those who need legal aid are physically here and can prove they have lived here lawfully for more than 12 months. Who will be excluded is obvious: they will be recent migrants and their children, irregular migrants and their children (including those born in the UK many years ago) and those who cannot prove where they have been living for practical reasons e.g. domestic violence victims who have been driven out of their homes, homeless people and pre-school age children.

The worst-off people will be penalized and deprived for being the worst-off. Bad.

Today, 28 of the U.K.’s leading NGOs united to brief peers on the 10 compelling reasons why they should vote against the regulations on 21st of July in what is known as a ‘fatal motion’.

Fatal motions are rare, but not unknown. For example, the House of Lords rejected regulations to remove legal aid from certain welfare benefits appeals in December 2012, in March 2007 it rejected statutory instrument which would have set up a super casino in Manchester and in 2000 it twice rejected GLA election rules. There are especially strong grounds for a fatal motion on this occasion because two Parliamentary committees (the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Joint Statutory Instruments Committee) have already reported that the residence test is unlawful.

Click here to download the full House of Lord briefing.

There are 10 reasons to vote against the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014:

It introduces a fundamental change that was not contemplated by Parliament;
It is a misuse of the delegated legislation-making powers in LASPO;
It introduces a discriminatory test that targets ‘foreigners’;
The discriminatory test it introduces is wholly unjustified;
The test will have a particular effect on vulnerable children;
The test flouts the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;
The test will leave mentally and physically incapacitated people without legal aid for cases concerning their welfare;
The test will make it impossible for victims of abuse and crime to hold those responsible to account;
The test will serve to immunise the State from the Rule of Law; and
The test creates a mockery of a fundamental British value: equality before the law.

28 NGOs unite to call on peers to vote against the legal aid residence test

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

And now, the NHS’s FAQ page for Ramadan.

Is fasting harmful when a woman is expecting a baby? Must pregnant women fast?
There’s medical evidence to show that fasting in pregnancy is not a good idea. If a pregnant woman feels strong and healthy enough to fast, especially during the early part of the pregnancy, she may do so.

Wtf? It’s not a good idea, but she may do so if she’s strong? Why would they say that?! That’s not medical advice – it’s contrary to medical advice. But it gets worse.

If she doesn’t feel well enough to fast, Islamic law gives her clear permission not to fast, and to make up the missed fasts later. If she is unable to do this, she must perform fidyah (a method of compensation for a missed act of worship).

That’s not medical advice at all. That’s a goddy thing, and it has nothing to do with the NHS. As far as the NHS is concerned it’s not remotely true that “she must perform fidyah.”

From what age can children fast safely?

Children are required to fast upon reaching puberty. It isn’t harmful. Fasting before this age is tolerated differently depending on the attitude of the parents and the child’s general health and nutrition.

Fasting for children under the age of seven or eight isn’t advisable. It’s a good idea to make children aware of what fasting involves and to practise fasting for a few hours at a time.

Irresponsible; bad. Giving parents permission (which is not the NHS’s to give) to force their children to do an unhealthy thing because of religious commands. That is not the job of the NHS.

And then a real shocker.

Can I use an asthma inhaler during Ramadan?

Muslim experts have differing opinions on this issue. Some say that using an asthma inhaler isn’t the same as eating or drinking, and is therefore permitted during fasting. In their view, people with asthma can fast and use their inhalers whenever they need to.

However, other scholars say that the inhaler provides small amounts of liquid medicine to the lungs, so it breaks the fast. They say that people with poor control of their asthma must not fast until good control is achieved. Some people with asthma may opt for longer-acting inhalers so that they can fast. See your GP for further advice.

Oh good god. I find that hard to believe.

There’s plenty more garbage – this is written absolutely from the point of view of taking the supposed rules of Ramadan as completely binding and beyond question.

Can I swim during fasting?

Yes, but do not drink the water. A bath or shower, or swimming, has no effect on the fast. However, no water should be swallowed during any of these activities as that would break the fast.

See what I mean?

Does a breastfeeding woman have to fast?

No. Islamic law says a breastfeeding mother does not have to fast. Missed fasts must be compensated for by fasting at a later date, or fidyah, once breastfeeding has stopped.

Can a Muslim patient take tablets, have injections or use patches while fasting?

Taking tablets breaks the fast. However, injections, patches, eardrops and eyedrops do not break the fast as they are not considered to be food and drink (though there are differences of opinion among Muslim scholars on these issues). Islamic law says sick people should not fast.

Could dehydration become so bad that you have to break the fast?

Yes. You could become very dehydrated if you do not drink enough water before the fast. Poor hydration can be made worse by weather conditions, and even everyday activities such as walking to work or housework.

If you produce very little or no urine, feel disoriented and confused, or faint due to dehydration, you must stop fasting and have a drink of water or other fluid. Islam doesn’t require you to harm yourself in fulfilling the fast. If a fast is broken, it will need to be compensated for by fasting at a later date.

No it won’t “need” to be compensated for by fasting at a later date. That’s a religious “requirement” and it’s nothing to do with the NHS.

What a chaotic mess.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Student Secular Alliance had a conference – SSA Con East – this weekend.

Look who met there – three of the best!

Via Facebook

That’s Heina, Leo, and Hiba.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Diana Darke reports for BBC News Magazine on the destruction of Syria’s ancient treasures. There are many photographs.

The Krak des Chevaliers has been bombed and shelled.

The Great Mosque in Damascus took a hit to some gorgeous mosaics.

The Temple of Bel in Palmyra has been battered.

The temple is one of the most important religious buildings of its time in the Middle East – it represents a synthesis of Roman with Greco-Persian-Babylonian architecture.

Many finely carved sculptures and blocks formerly stood inside the sanctuary, including a crowd scene with fully veiled women centuries before Islam. Whether they are still there, and still intact, is unknown.

Aleppo’s Great Mosque has also taken a hit, and its minaret was completely destroyed. The souks were set on fire by shelling, and much of them reduced to ash.

The livelihoods of over 35,000 people went up in smoke.

And then…

The famous tells or archaeological mounds of Mesopotamia – rich repositories of man’s earliest history once carefully dug by the likes of Agatha Christie’s archaeologist husband Max Mallowan – are now systematically being plundered with heavy machinery to fill the coffers of Islamist militant group Isis. While some ancient artefacts are traded for weapons or cash, others that represent humans or animal gods are seen by Isis as heretical to Islam and destroyed.

The BBC posted this photo of an 8th Century BC Assyrian statue on Facebook.

Unbearable to look at.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

This is a bit weird. I don’t mean in a “help help omigod US soldiers are being told to be polite to Moooslims” way, but in a “wait what about the health and safety of the soldiers themselves” way. US troops have been told to respect Ramadan.

Some 5 million people live in Baghdad but its busy sidewalk restaurants are now empty. No smoking, no drinking — not even water.

And yes, no sex. At least not during daylight hours.

“When I’m fasting and I see someone who is eating or smoking,” said a merchant on Karada Street, “I get very irritated.”

It’s clear that U.S. soldiers, including those with the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, are getting the message.

“The eating in front of the locals or the drinking or the smoking of cigarettes or things like that have been prohibited,” said Sgt. Larry Green.

Just to make sure, all soldiers in the 82nd all received a pamphlet titled “Ramadan: A Guide for Soldiers.” It explains the religious significance of Ramadan — to honor Allah — and provides helpful tips. “After sundown when the fast is broken,” it reads, “do not be alarmed if you see large groups gathering to share a meal.”

I can see telling them not to stuff their faces in front of people who are fasting. But no drinking water? In Baghdad?

I hope what they’ve been told is more flexible than that.

But then I also wish Ramadan didn’t mandate no drinking. It’s a terrible, disgusting, inhuman prohibition, created at a time when knowledge of physiology wasn’t great.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Kiran Opal is calling on all closeted Ex-Muslims who are forced to fast during Ramadan to send her their stories.

Are you someone who’s been fasting, pretending to fast, or forced to lie about fasting to your Muslim family and friends? Are you under pressure to stay hungry and thirsty for several hours in the hottest part of the year? Are you someone who doesn’t believe in Islam anymore, but has to remain ‘in the closet’ about it?

If so, I want to hear from you.

I am working on an idea for a blog article to be posted soon for Ramadan on ExMuslimBlogs.com.

Similar to the International Women’s Day post from a few months ago, this one requires participation from as many Exmuslims as possible. I’ve compiled a few questions down below, and if you are a closeted Exmuslim, I’d love to hear your responses to them.

I’d like to hear a lot about this too, especially the thirst part. The prohibition on drinking – not “drinking” meaning consuming alcohol, but just plain drinking, as in, water – makes me really angry. It’s very unhealthy, and in hot climates and/or for extended periods it’s plain dangerous.

So spread the word, and if you’re a closeted Ex-Muslim and you want to do this, send something to Kiran by July 16. Detalls in her post.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Meet Meggan Somerville, who actually works for Hobby Lobby.

Customers were coming in after the ruling and high-fiving her, and she was forcing a smile while not letting on that she wasn’t all that pleased.

Sommerville has worked there for 16 years. She loves her job and the store, which she said pays a good wage and carries supplies that she’s used for many of her own crafting projects.

Still, the congratulations from customers were hard to swallow. “I’d smile and nod and say, ‘Yes, it’s a victory for the company,’ and then I’d push my real feelings down and not think about it anymore.”

Sommerville is a transgender woman, and back in 2011, she filed a complaint against Hobby Lobby with the Illinois Department of Human Rights after the company refused to allow her to use the women’s bathroom either as a customer or an employee.

Well that’s nice. Do they think women go into the stalls in pairs? In my experience with women’s restrooms at work, they have either stalls or locks on the doors; they’re not set up in such a way so that you have to watch your colleagues pee. To put it crudely, I’ve never been in a position to check a co-worker’s personal plumbing in the restrooms. It just doesn’t happen. So what the hell is Hobby Lobby’s problem?

Sommerville transitioned to living as a woman in 2010. For the most part, colleagues and management were supportive, trying their best to use her new name and the right pronoun. That summer, she formally changed her name in court and received a new Social Security card and driver’s license. A month later, Hobby Lobby provided her with a new name tag that finally matched how she saw herself.

But management refused to budge on one issue: They insisted that Sommerville continue to use the men’s restroom. According to Sommerville, she was told she would only be allowed to use the women’s restroom if she provided proof that she had undergone genital reconstructive surgery. Neither the state of Illinois nor the federal government require this surgery for a person to legally change his or her gender.

“I was devastated,” Sommerville said. “I just want to be treated like all the other women. To do anything else diminishes who I am in the eyes of customers and employees.”

Going to the bathroom became an embarrassing ordeal, where she was constantly worried about outing herself to customers or colleagues who didn’t know her history. “There have been a few times when a customer has come in and I have essentially been trapped in the stall while I wait for the person to leave,” she said. “The stories of trans women that have come under attack are always on my mind when I am forced to use the men’s room. At the very least, I don’t want to make a scene.”

What the hell is their point?

Hobby Lobby has not argued that religious principles influenced its refusal to allow Sommerville to use the women’s bathroom. But her lawyer, Jacob Meister, pointed to a recent Salon.com article on how Hobby Lobby, its executives and affiliated companies are pouring millions of dollars into organizations and causes that seek to advance conservative Christian values and oppose lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights.

“I think the facts speak for themselves. Hobby Lobby has very actively sought to impose what it believes the law should be wherever possible, and it has thrown a lot of money behind these efforts,” Meister said.

“I have absolutely no possible explanation for why they would so flagrantly ignore what’s very clear in Illinois law,” Meister continued. “Meggan is a female, she’s been full-time for many years, and they will not allow her to use the women’s restroom, which is something that is afforded to every female employee that they have except for Meggan, every female customer they have except for transgender folk.”

Ok so their point is…if god had wanted you to be a woman god would have given you the right plumbing so we get to make you use the men’s john because god’s feelings are hurt. Do I have that right?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

More “Not us, not us! We get special rules because we’re special! We get to exclude people because god!” bullshit.

PQ Monthly reports that George Fox University has successfully obtained a religious exemption from the Department of Education (DOE) to deny a transgender student named Jayce a place in the campus’ single-sex residence halls. When Jayce first filed his complaint in April, the university said that it had offered him a single apartment as an accommodation, but that it stood by its refusal to allow him to live with other men on religious grounds.

What religious grounds? What religious grounds are there? But the government can’t ask that, because of the Establishment Clause, but it makes no difference anyway, because of RFRA and Hobby Lobby. Heads they win tails we lose.

By conceding to the university’s intention to discriminate, it seems that the DOE was simply following the letter of the law. Title IX has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex since it passed in 1972, and in 2010, the DOE issued guidance clarifying that Title IX also protects LGBT students from sex discrimination, which would include cases like Jayce’s. But the original 1972 law includes a broad exemption for religious universities: “This section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.”

But how does anyone know the application of the subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of George Fox University? I don’t think anyone does know, I think everyone is just taking George Fox University’s word for it.

In other words, religious universities are free to ignore any sex nondiscrimination protection they disagree with, and George Fox has just used that exemption to discriminate against a transgender student.

On its website, the university identifies one of its key values as representing “the ethnic, socio-economic, cultural, and gender diversity of the broader Kingdom of God.”

Ha! GFU has a great sense of humor.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)