What Edna Adan is up to these days – she’s in Australia with a young Somali woman who needs facial reconstruction because of a bullet that destroyed one side of her face when she was two years old.

Edna has traveled with Ayaan to Brisbane, Australia, where Ayaan will receive facial reconstruction surgery to restore her face which was injured during the Somali Civil War.

Ayaan has lived all her life with a hole in the side of her face and now, after many years seeking help, she will undergo surgery this week to have the injuries repaired.

This case has touched Edna deeply and she is so relieved that now – with the support of the Brisbane Rotary Club, The Wesley Hospital, and Dr. John Arvier who will perform the surgery – Ayaan’s sad story will get its happy ending.

It’s good that there are Edna Adans in the world.

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

Somebody called Robert Cribb wrote a silly piece for the National Post in 2011 about men being the new underclass. (Jesus christ, people. Really? Are you serious?) He talked to Justin Trottier. There is a picture of Justin Trottier on it. Justin Trottier is front and center.

First for a sense of the careful thinking and research behind the article:

Proposition: In the shifting modern narrative of gender politics, men are the new women.

The once fortified white male empire, bowed and beaten by generations of women scorned by its bloated superciliousness, has born sons they barely recognize.

We, the offspring of assured, confident, self-realized men, are emerging as a new underclass.

Statistics Canada has gathered the data.

About 60 per cent of university grads today are women.

Following graduation ceremonies that have the feel of sorority house parties, the professional outlooks for women are on the distinct upswing compared to men, national data shows.

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

Oh gosh there was a fun occasion in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, at Ryerson University. Karen Straughan, aka GirlWritesWhat, gave a two hour talk on the kind of thing she talks about. (Men’s rights, that would be, and the evils of feminism.)

The introductory remarks were made by…Justin Trottier.

I haven’t watched it, because I’m not a fan of Straughan’s (or of Trottier’s, for that matter, though I did watch a few seconds of him just to confirm), but here it is in case you want to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xe57q1lqHE

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

Ben BazAziz shared a copy of the complaint that got him a year in jail in Kuwait, with a translation and commentary by D Duck.

plz share
the blog now has this url: benbazbuzz.blogspot.com" src="https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/p480x480/1688457_653739821351041_233804428_n.jpg" />

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

Meanwhile, in Abuja, a mob attacked gay people, the New York Times reports.

A mob attacked gay people in a neighborhood in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, dragging young men from their homes, beating them with nail-studded clubs and whips, and shouting that they were “cleansing the community” of gays, several Nigerian activists and a witness said Saturday.

The attack took place late Wednesday night in the Gishiri neighborhood, and one victim was beaten nearly to death, the witness said. Afterward, the mob of about 50 young men dragged four of the victims to a nearby police station, where the police further beat and insulted them, said the witness, who gave his name as John. His last name is being withheld for his safety.

That’s where homophobia gets you. Surprise! Preach hatred of people and you wind up with violence against those people.

The attack came in the wake of a new law signed by President Goodluck Jonathan prescribing prison sentences of up to 14 years for gay people. There have been recent episodes of similar mob violence in the Muslim-dominated north of Nigeria.

In Abuja, the witness and the activists said, some in the mob were shouting, “We are working for Jonathan!”

…

When the attack was over, the attackers wrote on the walls of the houses that were stormed, “Homosexuals, pack and leave,” according to an activist, Ifeanyi Kelly Orazulike, who went to help rescue some of the victims.

Activists said the mob violence was a sign that the new law appeared to have given mobs license to act on widespread antigay sentiment in Nigeria.

“The government has given a go-ahead authority to mob jungle justice,” said Mr. Orazulike of the International Center for Advocacy on the Right to Health. “This is unacceptable. You can’t attack people violently because of whom they choose to love.”

Bad times.

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

Boko Haram is still active. A few days ago it murdered dozens of people in a village in the northeast of Nigeria.

The senator for Borno state, where the attack took place, told the BBC’s Newsday programme that 106 people – 105 men and an elderly woman trying to protect her grandson – were killed in the latest attack.

Ali Ndume said around 100 Islamist militants attacked Izghe for five hours on Saturday evening, without any intervention from the army.

It sounds like the attack in Bombay – guys just wandering around killing people.

Other witnesses described how the attackers had arrived on Saturday evening in trucks and motorcycles.

They asked the men in the village to gather, and then they hacked and shot them to death.

Senator Ndume said it was very painful for him as he knew some of those who had been killed, yet it was too dangerous for him to pay his respects in person.

“I cannot interact with the people I represent. I feel very, very bad about it,” he said.

More than 30 people were killed in the town of Konduga, also in Borno state, earlier this week in an attack blamed on Boko Haram.

Allah is merciful.

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

From the You have got to be kidding file.

M H Haider in the Daily Star (Dhaka) talking about homeopathy in an absurdly “gosh how can one possibly tell either way” manner.

The Law of Similars holds that substances that cause healthy people to get symptoms can cure the medical condition that has these symptoms.

When you dice onions, you have watery eyes and a running nose. When you have hay fever, you face similar problems. A homeopath will tell you that since onions have had similar effects on you when you were healthy, onions should be able to cure the problem that is showing those very effects of running nose and watery eyes.

How does that follow? And if it did follow, why would that mean it applies to everything? A mosquito can transmit malaria, therefore a mosquito should be able to cure the malaria? How is that any kind of “Law”? Who cares that something “holds that” something; the issue is whether that’s accurate or not.

What’s hard to accept is the levels of dilution homeopathic remedies see. The original substance, the real medicine that is, goes through colossal dilutions (and a unique vigorous shaking). Often, the homeopathic remedies are diluted to the point where the original substance becomes chemically non-existent.

Then why on earth would homeopathy work, naysayers rightfully argue. The answer is not very clear. Homeopaths believe that even though the substance is not there, the ‘energy’ of the substance is; and it is this ‘energy’ that aids the healing energy and mechanisms of the body. The dilution and the vigorous shaking create the healing power homeopathic remedies have.
A proper understanding and knowledge of how it works is still underway, and many think that the answer may even lie in the realm of quantum physics.

Again, who cares what homeopaths “believe”? It’s an empirical subject; empirical investigation has not found evidence to support what homeopaths “believe”; the fact that quacks are still marketing the stuff doesn’t change that.

Maybe it’s the placebo effect, Haider concedes. And yet…

But may I ask you, good sir, that if placebo effect is what homeopathy is all about, how can it work with infants and animals? Hence, the placebo effect may not be a strong argument.

It can’t.

This kind of fatuous “who can tell either way” nonsense is why drugstore chains are selling homeopathic asthma “treatment” right next to actual medicine. It’s a fucking scandal.

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

John Paul 2 wrote (or his boys wrote and he put his name to) this encyclical because of his shock-horror at the fact that human beings, even Catholic human beings, were having the gall and foolhardiness to think about morality in human terms using human reasons. That would never do.

In particular, the question is asked: do the commandments of God, which are written on the human heart and are part of the Covenant, really have the capacity to clarify the daily decisions of individuals and entire societies? Is it possible to obey God and thus love God and neighbour, without respecting these commandments in all circumstances? Also, an opinion is frequently heard which questions the intrinsic and unbreakable bond between faith and morality, as if membership in the Church and her internal unity were to be decided on the basis of faith alone, while in the sphere of morality a pluralism of opinions and of kinds of behaviour could be tolerated, these being left to the judgment of the individual subjective conscience or to the diversity of social and cultural contexts.

5. Given these circumstances, which still exist, I came to the decision — as I announced in my Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini, issued on 1 August 1987 on the second centenary of the death of Saint Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori — to write an Encyclical with the aim of treating “more fully and more deeply the issues regarding the very foundations of moral theology”,⁹foundations which are being undermined by certain present day tendencies.

A pointless exercise from the start, because morality is not about theology, and theology does harm to morality.

We can be pretty sure we know where this is going, though. The point is to remind everyone, and to insist with a stamp of the red silk foot, that the church is the boss of morality, and what it says is absolute, and not accepting that is heresy and blasphemy and worse than murder (though not worse than abortion). Morality is absolute; we know what it is because of that book we can quote from; that’s all there is to be said.

32. Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

Whereas what everyone should be doing is just whatever the church tells them.

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

Comparative literature.

From that Jehovah’s Witness tract I told you about the other day:

CAN WE REALLY BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS?

Yes, for at least two reasons:

• God has the ability to fulfill the promise. In the Bible, Jehovah God alone is called “the Almighty,” for he has unlimited power. (Revelation 15:3) So he is fully able to keep his promise to change our world for the better. As the Bible says, “with God all things are possible.”—Matthew 19:26.

• God has the desire to fulfill the promise. For example, Jehovah has a longing to restore life to people who have died.—Job 14:14, 15.

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

A couple of studies found a correlation between belief in hell and unhappiness.

Both studies only showed a correlation between the belief in Hell and unhappiness. But does believing in Hell make a person unhappy, or are unhappy people more likely to believe in hell?

“While we suggest that a belief in Hell leads to lower levels of well-being, these data cannot rule out the possibility that individuals with low levels of well-being are more likely to adopt the belief in Hell or that some third variable is responsible for this pattern,” Shariff and Aknin explained.

It certainly seems to me a very grim thing to believe – a place of eternal punishment for things done during a very non-eternal life. It’s a nightmare belief, really.

Belief in Hell may persist — despite its tendency to reduce happiness — because it provides a social function, the researchers said. Namely, the belief in a punitive afterlife may help promote ethical behavior.

“Thus, the belief in Hell, and religious malevolence more generally, may contribute to the encouragement of rule following, through the deterrence value of supernatural punishment, but may do so at the cost of well-being,” Shariff and Aknin wrote.

I don’t see why you need hell for that. You could believe there’s supernatural punishment without believing it never ends.

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

Jamie Kilstein spends a few minutes explaining why being an asshole who is also an atheist isn’t a great marketing campaign for atheism.

He has a point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGwlGg-m4rc

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

Atheist Ireland is collecting accounts from parents about religious discrimination and indoctrination in schools.

The second story in that post is terrifying.

Both my boys have autism, one of them being an Aspie. They both attended Catholic schools, as state schools did not have places for them, and it has been interesting to see how religion affects their reasoning.

The worst case scenario was when our eldest boy was told the story of the Resurrection at Easter in his first year at school. He’s rather more compliant than his Asperger’s brother, which is always a worry on so many levels. This is the gist of the conversation that we were faced with that evening with an overly-trusting 5 year old.

Him: (Bright with excitement) I am going to kill myself.
Us: What! Why?
Him: So I can see my granddad again. (Reference to my father who died when our son was a week shy of his 3rd birthday.) But don’t worry, I will come back in three days.
Us: But where did you hear this?
Him: In school today. Jesus died and came back to life after three days.
Us: Well, yes, but according to that story, Jesus came back because he was God’s son.
Him: But the priest said we are all God’s children.

Jeeeeeeeeeezus. People with autism don’t tell lies because they don’t get the concept. That means they don’t get fiction or fantasy or myth. It means that child couldn’t grasp that what the priest said was not true. Not that he didn’t believe it when his parents told him but that he couldn’t understand it. They spent three horrible hours trying to get it across to him.

As I said: terrifying.

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

A good thing happened at the University of Missouri on Saturday. (My sister-in-law the historian taught there for a few years.)

Hundreds of students formed a human wall around the basketball stadium at the University of Missouri on Saturday because the Westboro Baptist Church had pledged to protest gay football player Michael Sam.

After Missouri defensive lineman Michael Sam came out last week last week, anti-LGBT members of the Westboro church vowed to show up at Missouri’s game against Tennessee. But a group of students wearing “Stand with Sam” pins made the extremist group’s demonstration impossible by surrounding the stadium.

Good. Non-violent, even cuddly – and it got the job done.

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

Elyse posted a picture of her dog on Facebook and it’s one of my favorite pictures ever. I asked her if I could post it and SHE SAID I COULD.

Do you not love that?

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

And now to consider the deep injustice of the way women dominate all the bimbo roles in popular culture.

If you have spent time on the Internet, you’re probably tired of hearing how we need more Strong Female Characters. For some reason, people don’t seem to realize that sexism no longer exists today and both sexes are treated with complete equality, especially in the entertainment industry. If anything, men are the ones being discriminated against.

Seriously, think about all those roles that women selfishly hog up (e.g., passive victims requiring rescue, femmes fatales, joyless nags) that are off-limits to even the most talented male actors. It’s time to stop this woman-centric hand-wringing on how to make female characters better and focus on helping the real victims of Hollywood sexism by asking: How can we make male characters worse?

Right? Where are all the Real ManCaveHusbands of Beverly Hills reality shows?

Cracked offers some suggested examples for your amusement.

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

According to CBS News, Hillary Clinton has given women some advice.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched a new project called “No Ceilings” with her daughter, Chelsea, and Melinda Gates. During a talk at New York University, Clinton told the students that women in the public eye need to form a thick skin.

I don’t think that’s the best advice, at least not unless it’s worded very carefully. A personal, individual thick skin is no doubt very useful, but a social thick skin is a terrible idea. A social thick skin just treats the status quo, in which women in the public eye are subject to torrents of abuse just because they are women in the public eye. That’s no good. We don’t want to deal with that by telling people to suck it up, just as we don’t want to deal with racism or homophobia or xenophobia that way. We want to deal with it by improving the culture so that it stops happening.

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

Michael Nugent has more about the release of Ben Baz, aka Abdel Aziz Mohamed Albaz, on his blog.

Ben Baz is a 28 year old Egyptian atheist, with a degree in commerce, who was working in Kuwait, and blogging about secularism and religion, when he was arrested over a year ago on charges of blasphemy. His friends highlighted his arrest, and said they suspected that a personal disagreement with his work sponsor, about work matters, may have been translated into a blasphemy accusation. This type of abuse of an already unjust law is common in Islamic countries.

This is a link to his blog, in Arabic, where he writes about the relationship of religion, the State and secularism.

An important subject to write about in Arabic. Also risky.

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

This guy? BenBaz Aziz?

Who is BenBaz?

Watch our video: http://youtu.be/2B_n7wo4Ji4

Abdul Aziz Mohamed El Baz, aka BenBaz, Egyptian, living & working in Kuwait, Born on 1985 in Kuwait. Aziz holds a Bachelor Degree in commerce Division of the English language and worked as an accountant until his arrest.

What happened to BenBaz?

BenBaz has been thrown in jail by the Kuwaiti Government since December 31, 2012. On February 7, 2012, he was sentenced by the same Kuwaiti Government for one year in jail plus forced labor, plus a fine, plus deportation from Kuwait.

The Kuwaiti Government charged BenBaz with contempt of religions & attempting to spread atheism, they have sentenced BenBaz for peacefully writing his views in a blog where he explained the benefits of secular values.

Why was BenBaz arrested?

The Mirrors of the Gulf Company owner, where BenBaz worked, reported BenBaz to Kuwaiti Authorities as a blasphemer.

He’s now free.

That’s a year of his life spent locked up, but it’s good that he’s now free.

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

An academic – an atheist – who teaches religion at a university is finding the job less rewarding than it used to be, because the students have come over all dogmatic.

When I first started teaching in my current institution, a decade or so ago, I was impressed by the diversity of students in lectures. Lots were believers of one sort or another, but many others would describe themselves as atheists and agnostics.

Whatever they thought about religion, they shared an intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness that made teaching the best part of my job: they enjoyed being challenged in their assumptions, and they loved exploring the ways religions have shaped and been shaped by cultural, social and political shifts.

Most noticeable of all, students rarely expressed a need to proclaim or defend their own faith perspectives in lectures.

But that was then.

at my institution, the fee-paying culture has given rise to a predominantly white, economically-privileged, middle class student body, in which any diversity of religious or non-religious students has been overpowered by a particularly influential form of evangelical Christianity. It is a belief system that is uncomfortable with the academic study of religion, and which will often explicitly resist it.

Students’ membership of this society is flattening the dynamics of lectures. Buying into the current claim that Christians suffer persecution in the UK, many appear compelled to resist the academic critique of the traditions and texts they hold dear. Recently, a group of students in a lecture refused to undertake the work set because they didn’t want to apply postmodern perspectives to what for them was a sacred text.

A female colleague was accused of being “stupid” and “lacking authority” by those who believe a woman has no right to teach others about religious texts.

Other colleagues have been marked out as heretics in lectures. Of the students who remain outside this group – identifying as atheist, agnostic, Catholic or Jewish – a number have confided they feel intimidated or silenced by the louder, assertively evangelical students in the class.

I’m amazed. It sounds more like the US than the UK.

H/t Chris Lawson

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