I’m at the airport. Way too early. I can see the top of the Capitol from this desk-plug-in spot.

There are sparrows in here. They fly along the windows as if they want to get out but maybe they’re used to being here. Maybe they’re like children raised wearing a burqa.

Taslima talked yesterday about being a child who said No, a child who was curious, a child who always asked questions.

Taslima is so amazing.

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

What an amazing evening. I was sitting talking to Stacy and others at the reception and someone came up behind me and gave me a standing mini-hug, I turned and there was Taslima.

And after her came a bunch of other exes. It was exciting. Things are happening.

Taslima told a funny story about Mohammed bargaining with Allah to cut down the prayers from 50 a day – 50!! a day!! – to something more tolerable. 40? No no. 30? No no. 20?

Mohammed was a merchant.

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

Sorry about weird disappearing posts and comments and whatever else is weird. I’ll straighten it out late tomorrow when I get home, or Monday. They were only tiny posts anyway.

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

Hahahahaha me on a panel discussing multiculturalism with Taslima Nasreen and Katha Pollitt and Rebecca Goldstein – what a great wish-fulfillment dream. Perfect.

Wait…

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

What an amazing evening. I was sitting talking to Stacy and others at the reception and someone came up behind me and gave me a standing mini-hug, I turned and there was Taslima.

And after her came a bunch of other exes. It was exciting. Things are happening.

Taslima told a funny story about Mohammed bargaining with Allah to cut down the prayers from 50 a day – 50!! a day!! – to something more tolerable. 40? No no. 30? No no. 20?

Mohammed was a merchant.

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

I’m here. Rumpled, plane-battered, hungry and foodless, grumpy, but here.

There’s a party of Young Communists staying. Alas they’re all on my floor. They’ve been shouting in the halls.

Did I mention I’m hungry?

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

Oh hey, I forgot to mention I’m leaving. taking airplanes, busy, so things will be quiet for a few days. I’m off to Women in Secularism 3.

Now’s the time for you to talk about anything you’ve been wanting to get off your chest; nothing is off topic. And your time starts

NOW

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

The Times-Picayune reports:

Legislation that will further limit access to abortion in Louisiana and would likely close three of the state’s five abortion clinics overwhelmingly passed the state Senate with a vote of 34-3 Wednesday.

Due to the addition of technical amendments, the bill will head back the state House of Representatives for another vote before going to the governor’s desk. The lower chamber voted overwhelmingly to pass the legislation — which is more or less the same now — the last time they saw it. So the bill is expected to face little to no opposition as it crosses the finish line in the Legislature.

Back to forced pregnancy and unsafe abortions! Back to women having no way out of the trap. Back to women being unable to plan their own lives.

Gov. Bobby Jindal has backed the proposed abortion restrictions since the beginning of this year’s legislative session in Louisiana. It is expected that he will sign the measure quickly into law.

But…Roe v Wade?

Tough shit, suckers!

Sponsored by Rep. Katrina Jackson, D-Monroe, the legislation would require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the procedures take place. It also imposes the same restrictions — such as a requirement for a 24-hour waiting period — on abortion-inducing medication as  apply to surgical abortions.

Bit by bit, faster and faster, they’re reimposing a total ban on abortion.

Jackson largely based her proposal on a Texas law that has been upheld by a federal court.  The Texas provision has led to widespread closure of abortion clinics in the Lone Star state.

Which was the plan.

Fuck them all.

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

The Russian Orthodox Church is annoyed that a guy in a dress won the Eurovision song contest. This strikes Russians as hilarious, because The Russian Orthodox Church features guys in dresses.

The drag queen’s performance and its enthusiastic reception was a sign of the world’s moral decline and part the aggressive assertion of Western cultural norms, according to Vladimir Legoyda.

The chairman of the church’s information department told Interfax news agency: ““The process of the legalisation of that to which the Bible refers to as nothing less than an abomination is already long not news in the contemporary world.”

Yup. It’s a hot mess. People going in for abomination everywhere you look, and nobody but priests in dresses to tell them no.

Can they dance in those things?

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

Sinister.

Imagine that a little-known but increasingly powerful group of ideologues had hatched a plan to transform the United States into a Christian theocracy harkening back to the Dark Ages of Europe, a time when society was governed by the laws and officials of the Catholic Church.

Suppose further that this plan had a scary simple strategy: Recruit bright, young law students; put them through an intensive indoctrination program; place them in plum internships across the country; and watch as they swim upstream until they reach the top of the legal system, where they can create, enforce, and interpret laws according to a legal philosophy infused with fundamentalist Christian theology.

Got it?

Now learn that it’s already here. Sofia Resnick and Sharona Coutts at RH Reality Check report:

Welcome to the world of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, an annual program established in 2000 by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based nonprofit that is swiftly emerging as a major behind-the-scenes player in many of the nation’s most controversial legal cases involving reproductive rights, sexual justice, and a vast range of other moral and social disputes.

“[T]he Blackstone Fellowship inspires a distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law, and particularly in the areas of public policy and religious liberty,” states the Alliance’s public tax filing. “With this ongoing program, it’s [the Alliance’s] goal to train a new generation of lawyers who will rise to positions of influence and leadership as legal scholars, litigators, judges—perhaps even Supreme Court Justices—who will work to ensure that justice is carried out in America’s courtrooms.”

Um…help.

In Missouri, a former Blackstone Fellow, Kevin Corlew, is running for the state’s 14th congressional district in this year’s elections. Another, Bradley Cowan, is the chief of the administrative law division at the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky,according to his profile on LinkedIn. And based on our review of public records, the offices of attorneys and solicitors general in at least eight states—Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia—have hosted Blackstones as interns, jobs in which fellows help draft memos and pleadings for the most powerful lawmakers in their states and, more importantly, forge the contacts that will propel them to their own positions of power.

Mind you, it’s a small number of people, however creepy. But it’s insinuated itself into some key places.

Through legal actions and its various legal training programs, the nonprofit focuses on fighting for the criminalization of abortion; against the rights of LGBT people; for so-called religious liberty (which often comes in the form of defending clients who wish to discriminate against gay people based on their religious beliefs); and for organized Christian prayer in government or public-school settings, such as its most recent victory—last week’s Supreme Court ruling upholding legislative prayer in Town of Greece v. Galloway, in which the Alliance represented the plaintiffs.

Theocrats on the march. I don’t like it.

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

Another one from Anj.

Anjem Choudary @anjemchoudary

MCB Spokesman says he doesn’t believe in segregation between men & women but Allah (SWT) & the Prophet said they must be e.g. in gatherings

MCB Spokesman says that wife’s don’t need to obey their husbands but Allah (SWT) says that they must [Qur'an 4:34] i.e husbands have Qawama!

So I was curious about Qawama, so I looked it up. I found an article at Women Living Under Muslim Laws by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im.

 The most important principle of Shari’a influencing the status and rights of women is the notion of qawama. Qawama has its origin in verse 4:34 of the Koran which states that:

“Men have qawama (guardianship and authority) over women because of the advantage they (men) have over them (women) and because they (men) spend their property in supporting them (women)”.

According to Shari’a interpretations of this verse, men as a group are the guardians of and are superior to women as a group, and the men of a particular family are the guardians of and are superior to the women of that family.

This notion of general and specific qawama has had far reaching consequences for the status and rights of women in both the private and public domains. For example, Shari’a provides that women are disqualified from holding general public office, which involves the exercise of authority over men, because, in keeping with verse 4:34 of the Qur’an men are entitled to exercise authority over women and not the reverse.

It’s in a book; it’s a sentence in a book; therefore millions of women for hundreds of years have had their lives stunted and confined.

I have a really easy solution to this problem of men spending their property in supporting women and thus having “guardianship” over them and being superior to them. Share the support duties, and share the power and the equality. See? See how easy that is? Men shouldn’t be required to do all the money-providing, and women shouldn’t be required to be inferior. Both should be free to arrange things the way both want to. Both should be free to ignore the sentence in the 1700-years-old book. It’s just a book. There are a lot of books. Nobody has to obey that book. It’s an illusion to think you have to.

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

A terrific event in London on August 6 – so all you people who are gathering for the World Humanist Congress in Oxford August 8th could go to this:

“How to Make Enemies and Alienate People – the Philosophy of Offensive and Inappropriate Language”

It’s hosted by our friend Bernard Hurley.

The growth of social media has given an unprecedented opportunity for those who wish to gratuitously offend to actually do so but it has also given an opportunity for those who wish to take offence at mere criticism to express such offence. It’s clear that someone who uses offensive language is doing more than just conveying information, but what exactly are they doing? The job of the philosopher is to clarify, rather than to prescribe and it seems to me that there is urgent need for clarification today. However there has been very little discussion about how offensive language fits into the Philosophy of Language. Drawing on some ideas of Michael Dummett, I shall make some suggestion about how such language might work.

This lecture is part of the 2014 Kant’s Cave Lecture series. As is usual at these lectures there will be plenty of time for discussion afterwards.

http://pfalondon.org/kant.html

Wednesday August 6 at 7:30 p.m.

Exmouth Arms, 1 Starcross Street, NW1 2HR London

I would go to that like a shot if it weren’t 6000 miles away. For many of you it’s just around the corner or a few stops on the tube.

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

More Choudary, because he’s just that good.

Anjem Choudary @anjemchoudary

Some images from the “Rally against Hindu Oppression of Muslims in India” http://www.demotix.com/news/4699759/anjem-choudray-protests-hindu-oppression-muslims#media-4699699 … Khilafah is the answer to India’s problems!

See what he did there? He presents a photo from a Rally against Hindu Oppression of Muslims in India and in the photo we see a poster that shouts ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD! So the idea is that Hindu oppression of Muslims will end because it will be replaced by Muslim oppression of Hindus and everyone else.

What could possibly go wrong?

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

How about a little exegesis on a short sermon by Anjem Choudary:

Anjem Choudary @anjemchoudary

VOTING for anyone to legislate laws is an Act of SHIRK. Remember that Allah will forgive all sins except that partners be set up besides him

Spoken like a true boss-man, Mafia don, tyrant, dictator, king. The one thing that’s not forgivable is the failure to be submissive enough to The One Top Guy. Everything else – torture, murder, enslaving schoolgirls, gang-rape – is forgivable, but not bowing down to Just That One Dude is not forgivable. Why is that?

It’s the principle of the thing.

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

Eg-zactly.

Via Muslim and Exmuslim Women for Secularism

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

That nonsense about Obama not wanting to call Boko Haram terrorists? It’s just another stupid right-wing talking point.

Aside from attacking Michelle Obama for publicly showing concern and lying about President Obama, one of the major spokes in the conservative effort to politicize the kidnapping of 284 schoolgirls in Nigeria has been to criticize the Obama administration for not designating Boko Haram (the group responsible for the abductions) a terrorist organization.

Why, then, is there all this video of President Obama calling Boko Haram a terrorist organization, long before the State Department changed its designation?

The mainstream media has also picked up the narrative. In fact, way back in July of 2013, CNN asked “Why hasn’t the Obama administration labeled ‘Boko Haram’ a terrorist organization?”, when, the month before, there actually was an Obama administration official who called Boko Haram a terrorist organization. Maybe you recognize him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JovoLb5HnhA

Another playful lie shot down.

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

And Jon Stewart retorted.

Stewart tore into Boko Haram and said that #BringBackOurGirls actually proves Twitter can be more useful than you might think at pressuring people to do something. And so in reaction to Limbaugh rolling his eyes at the hashtag activism, Stewart came up with a new hashtag for people to use: #F*ckYouRush. Stewart even contrasted the people speaking out on the girls’ behalf with “that f*cking guy” Limbaugh to show what the two sides are in this argument.

I don’t know. Some people just really should get better hobbies.

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

Via

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

The Law Society is not going to withdraw its practice note on what it takes to be the correct interpretation of “Sharia succession rules.” The Lawyers’ Secular Society has a response.

The LSS had written a detailed open letter to the Law Society on 24 April 2014 with very specific questions (here). Two weeks later, on 8 May 2014, the Law Society eventually responded to that letter (here) but it failed to answer almost all of the LSS’s questions, with no explanation for this refusal.

The LSS also took part in a large public protest outside the Law Society’s offices in Chancery Lane, London on 28 April 2014, alongside human rights campaigners and women’s rights campaigners, but this appears to have had no effect on the Law Society. (You can listen to LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian’s speech here and you can read it here.)

Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, has now intervened in the debate and told the Law Society it must not “undermine” British legal principles with its guidance.

Commenting, LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian said:

“Naturally we are very disappointed – and actually shocked – at the Law Society’s decision to keep its disturbing sharia practice note despite huge public criticism.

“It is not the Law Society’s business to offer guidance on Islamic theology, even if there is “demand” for it, because this gives sharia law the respectability and credibility of a legal discipline within our jurisdiction. And it is not the business of any organisation which claims, as the Law Society does, to have a “strong record” on equalities, and which says it aims “to help the profession to promote equalities, inclusion and diversity”, to give guidance to its members which explicitly discriminates against women, non-Muslims, “illegitimate children” and adopted children. The reality is that sharia law is anything but equality, inclusion and diversity.”

Well it is diversity. It’s diverse from things like equality and inclusion.

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