I’m reading a piece about discourse and persuasion in the Atlantic, and my attention is snagged by a peripheral point.

A friend taught me this.

He’s an orthodox Catholic. I am not. I went to 14 years of Catholic school and decided that it wasn’t for me. As you can imagine, I’ve heard all the arguments for Catholicism. So when my friend, Nick, argues with me about Catholic doctrine, he is very unlikely to persuade me of anything. But Nick happens to be one of the best people I know. Even though I don’t have faith in the same things that he does, I see how his faith makes him a better person. I see how he makes the world a better place, and how his belief system drives him to do it. And whenever I think about Nick, I think to myself, you know, I disagree with the Catholic faith on a lot of particulars, but there must be nuggets of truth within it if it inspires people like Nick to be this good. It makes me so much more open to the notion that I can learn something from the Catholic faith—just as the molestation scandal took a lot of people and closed them off to the idea that Catholics had anything to teach them.

I don’t think that’s it. I don’t think there are any nuggets of truth in the religion (or “faith”) itself. I think it’s rather that people think the whole thing is about goodness, so they are drawn to the church for that reason, so there are good people in it. I think that’s really what inspires people like that. The author (Conor Friedersdorf) says it is “his belief system [that] drives him to do it” and it’s his story not mine, so he would know better than I would…But I think he might be misidentifying the source. I think it’s not so much the belief system or putative nuggets of truth in the belief system, but the beliefs about the system and the institution – that it’s where especially good people belong.

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

The Cellular Solutions staff page – does something seem a bit unusual here?

Scroll down.

Keep going.

More.

Ah! There we go!

Via Helen Dale

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

Another useful item from the UN: a statement that states that have ratified the UN Women’s Rights Convention have to uphold women’s rights even when there’s a war on. Imagine that.

States that have ratified the UN Women’s Rights Convention are obliged to uphold women’s rights before, during and after conflict when they are directly involved in fighting, are providing peacekeeping troops or donor assistance for conflict prevention, humanitarian aid or post-conflict reconstruction, a key UN women’s rights committee has said in a landmark document.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) also said that ratifying States should exercise due diligence in ensuring that non-State actors, such as armed groups and private security contractors, be held accountable for crimes against women.

…

“This document is comprehensive. It includes recognition of women’s central role in preventing conflict and in rebuilding devastated countries,” said CEDAW Chair Nicole Ameline.

“Women’s experiences are regularly dismissed as irrelevant for predicting conflict, and women’s participation in conflict prevention has historically been low,” Ms. Ameline said. “But in reality, there is for example a strong correlation between an increase in gender-based violence and the outbreak of conflict.”

Of course my own country is exempt from all of this, since it didn’t ratify CEDAW…

H/t Michael DeDora

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

There’s a difference between authoritarian morality and let’s call it reasoned morality. What’s the difference? Well obviously, the first is commands and the second gives reasons.

When bishops moan about attacks on the “religious freedom” of Catholics to punish gay people by refusing to officiate at their marriages or rent them rooms at bed&breakfasts, they cite “church teachings” as their reason for treating homosexuality as wrong and deserving of punishment. That’s authoritarian. “The church teaches that homosexuality is evil” is not reasons, it’s a detour around reasons.

That’s why the habit of punishing people for being gay is gradually (yet also, historically speaking, rapidly) crumbling away: it’s because once it’s pointed out that there are no real reasons for this stupid habit, people start looking for reasons and then finding that there aren’t any. Those people end up changing their minds, some slowly and some overnight.

The people who don’t change their minds are the ones who consider the invocation of phrases like “church teachings” adequate.

This thought is familiar from discussions and practice of child-rearing, too. Some command morality is needed for emergency situations and in the early years when the cortex isn’t developed enough to understand the reasons. But as the child grows and learns and develops the capability to understand reasons, it becomes practical for parents to explain reasons for doing one thing rather than another. It remains possible to have just rules with no explanations or reasons, but many parents prefer to shift more and more to reasons over time.

It’s possible to find some proffered reasons for some church teachings by browsing the Vatican’s website, but the putative reasons are not very convincing. The people who write the encyclicals probably don’t get enough practice in giving reasons for their commands.

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

Mother Jones has a “Richard Cohen’s 10 Worst Moments” piece, which is good, because I have hitherto neglected this rich vein of bad moments.

1 (tied). Richard Cohen goes to the movies, finds out slavery is wrong.

I sometimes think I have spent years unlearning what I learned earlier in my life…slavery was not a benign institution in which mostly benevolent whites owned innocent and grateful blacks. Slavery was a lifetime’s condemnation to an often violent hell in which people were deprived of life, liberty and, too often, their own children.

About a week ago, Richard Cohen went to see 12 Years a Slave and came out surprised by the brutal depiction of slavery in America. He defended himself by saying that he learned slaves “were sort of content” and “slave owners were mostly nice people” in school. Cohen graduated high school in the class of ’58. No, 1958.

Jesus hopping Christ, what? He learned slaves were content and owners were nice in school and nothing since? Are you kidding me? A guy who writes a column for the Washington fucking Post hasn’t managed to learn more about slavery than what he claims he learned in school? He had learned absolutely nothing about it since until last week when he went to a movie?

That alone is enough to get him demoted to a paper route.

1 (tied). Richard Cohen defends Clarence Thomas because boys will be boys.

Thomas stands nearly alone on the court in his shallowness of his scholarship and the narrowness of his compassion. But when it comes to his alleged sexual boorishness, he stands condemned of being a man.

In a 2010 column, Cohen dismissed any allegations of sexual misconduct that occurred during the 1980s, since that was “a bit before the modern era,” and argued that Thomas’ alleged actions—including asking a woman at work for her bra size and making other sexual comments—were just typical guy stuff.

Uh huh. It’s just typical, and women have to just put up with it, and whaddyagonnado, and these things just are the way they are.

Cohen claimed that Anita Hill couldn’t have been harassed, because “why did she follow her abuser, Thomas, from one job to the next?” But maybe that’s unfair to Cohen. After all, it’s not like he was ever accused of sexual harassment in the workplace.

1 (tied). Richard Cohen is accused of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Stand up and turn around.

According to a Washington Post staffer, Cohen said the above to 23-year-old editorial aide Devon Spurgeon. Staffers said he also told her she “looks good in black” and engaged her in an offensive discussion about oral sex following the Monica Lewinsky scandal. (Cohen denies the first comment and says the others were made innocently.) Spurgeon took a leave of absence, and Washington Post management found that Cohen committed “inappropriate behavior,” but Cohen maintained, “it was a personality dispute [that] had nothing to do with sexual harassment as the term applies today.” For further reading, see Cohen’s creepy screed on how terrible it is that women in movies don’t fall for men decades their elder as much as they used to.

Now what does that remind me of? Oh yes. That.

That’s just the first four; enjoy the final six.

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

So Toys “R” Us has this ad about how boring trees are and how ecstatically enthralling Toys “R” Us is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SXybm6bss

Note the little girl saying, “A princess is loyal, and never gives up, and always follows her dreams.” Unless of course her dreams have anything to do with learning about trees as opposed to toys in shiny boxes.

Peter Gleick at the Huffington Post is forthright.

This ad is offensive on so many levels:

• It insults science and environmental education teachers.
• It insults science and environmental education programs and field trips.
• It insults science and nature in general
• It insults children (though no doubt these kids got free toys, and maybe even money, to be in the ad — how awesome).
• It promotes blind commercialism and consumerism (OK, I know that’s the society we live in, and the purpose of ads, and the only real goal of Toys “R” Us, but to be so blatantly offensive and insensitive?)
• It sends the message, as Colbert so cogently notes that “The great outdoors is nothing compared to the majesty of a strip mall.”

Colbert? Yes, Colbert.

One doesn’t expect toy companies to advertise science, but I think it’s reasonable to expect them not to go out of their way to piss on it. Peter Gleick goes on:

My wife is an overworked, underpaid science educator, teaching university students how to teach science to elementary school children. It is an uphill battle: not because kids don’t love science. They do. Frankly, young children are wonderful, curious, wide-eyed natural scientists. It is an uphill battle because the resources our society devotes to science education are pathetic. Elementary school teachers get little or no support or training for science education. Materials are outdated or confusing. There is no funding for decent field trips. And our kids are bombarded with subtle (and here, blatant) messages promoting blind, thoughtless, consumerism.

The results are beginning to show, as the United States falls farther and farther behind other countries in producing top-quality science, technology, engineering, and math students (STEM).

All of us, including major corporations, could change this. Some companies actually play an important and valuable role in supporting science and nature education in this country. But sending the messages that Toys “R” Us sent with this despicable ad only hurts that effort. I wonder: What did it cost to produce this ad, and what is being spent to air it? And how much does Toys”R”Us contribute to science and environmental education? It couldn’t possibly be enough to counter the damage of this kind of message.

Guy must be some kind of communist.

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

Bad news from Uganda.

Activists in Uganda report that police have arrested Sam K. Ganafa, executive director of Spectrum Uganda Initiatives and board chair for the Sexual Minorities Uganda coalition.

Charges against Ganafa have not yet been determined.  He was handcuffed after he reported to the Kasangati police station in response to a call from the district police commander.

Police also searched his home and took two of Ganafa’s guests to the police station for interrogation.

Activists said Ganafa has opened his home to many homeless LGBTI persons and it was also used as a Spectrum Uganda office for more than eight years.

I hope he will be all right.

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

A sandwich-board sign outside a coffee shop in my neighborhood. Written on it was

What if this sign didn’t say anything?

I live in a witty neighborhood.

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

From the petition to free Sherif Gaber:

20-year-old Egyptian student at Suez Canal University in Ismailia, Jaber Cherif, has been arrested and is being inverstigated for alledgely starting a Facebook group calling for atheism.

Jaber was arrested after a muslim reported him to the university administration who then filed a complaint against him with Egyptian authorities.

The newspaper Al Watan online and The Newspaper Ahramonline reported that Jaber was arrested and was being inverstigated by Egyptian national security officials. 

This is what Sherif published:

Hi, my name is sherif gaber (Yamirasu) from Egypt. I was taught to be a Muslim; for that my dad sent me to some Sheiks, so I memorised the Quran and more than 1000 (Hadith) until I became very religious but then I started to see the contradictions between the Quran and scientific facts, and day by day for 2 years after searching and reading I knew the truth. Then I became an atheist and hid it for a few months. Then I admit it despite knowing that I might get killed any moment .. My family hasn’t talked to me for more than 4 months and I lost the majority of the people I thought were my friends and for about a year now half the people on my street don’t talk to me .. I’ve got threats every single day on my phone and my Facebook account… Here in Egypt, a lot of young atheists were sent to jail for 10 sometimes 20 years and if they have evidence that you insulted Islam you will be executed! That’s if the Islamic organisations don’t murder you & your family before that! .. Even though I’m not afraid to say I’m an atheist to everyone who asks about my religion… To die for the truth is much much better to live in a lie!

Should one be arrested and punished simply for holding atheistic views?

We are calling on you to please sign and share our petition to help us free Sherif Gaber.

Thank YOU!

To read this post in other languages please visit Alber Saber’s Blog

The petition has only 344 signatures.

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

From a public Facebook page:

What happened to BenBaz?

BenBaz has been thrown in jail by the Kuwaiti Government since  December 31, 2012. On February 7, 2013*, 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.

Kuwaiti Official documents of BenBaz’s case attached below. We have hidden BenBaz info.

Why was BenBaz arrested?

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

Why did his employer report him for blasphemy? 

Because BenBaz planned to leave his company The Mirrors of the Gulf  and join another firm. Aziz was not happy about the low wages he was  paid, and he told his employer who informed the police about Aziz blog,  accusing BenBaz of contempt of religions and blasphemy. All of which was  retaliation against BenBaz for wanting to improve his income and  advance his career.

What are the evidence against BenBaz?

• Excerpts from articles by the Egyptian writer Alaa Al Aswany plublished on his blog
• A graphic depicting Abraham about to slay his son, a current image in the Western media
• Excerpts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free ……”

Here is a link to BenBaz’s blog: http://www.benbaz.info

Why is this important?

Aziz is in prison simply because he holds atheistic, humanistic, and secular views.

Whether you are an Atheist or a Muslim or a Christian, nobody  deserves to be jailed or punished for having atheistic views. He did not  hurt anybody. He did not steal, he did not assault anyone, he did not  vandalize someone’s property. He is simply a well articulated gentle  soft spoken Egyptian Atheist who speaks his mind. He expressed himself  peacefully writing a rather gentle blog. We need your help to pressure  the Kuwaiti government to release him from this unjust imprisonment.

What can you do to help?

We need your help to get the words out, gather support for this peaceful atheist humanist activist

• Sign FreeBenBaz petition: http://tinyurl.com/BenBazPetition

• Join FreeBenBaz group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FreeBenBaz/

• Like FreeBenBaz community page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Freebenbazpage

• Tweet hastag: #FreeBenBaz

• If you can organize a protest in front of Kuwait Embassy or  Consulate if there is one in your city let us know and we will help you.  Join the FreeBenBazProtest community page on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/BenBazProtest

• Please help us by making videos, writing in your blogs, writing articles, calling the media, calling your representatives, etc,

• Our video on youtube sums it up please view and share: http://youtu.be/2B_n7wo4Ji4

Help us free BenBaz!

*Corrected

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

Originally a comment on Why the Catholic church is an intrinsically immoral institution.

Minow (#22):

No it isn’t, it could reform to be less or more authoritarian, as the Anglican church did.

There are two issues here regarding the authoritarianism of the Church. Firstly, there’s one of authoritarianism in practice – the fact that it is a hierarchical organisation which emphasises obediance to the teachings promulgated from the top, and which traditionally has had a low tolerance of dissent from those teachings. This might be capable of reform, although I’m not holding my breath. There’s an awful lot of institutional and doctrinal inertia to be overcome, and any reform is (at least initially) going to have to be top-down. And I’m far from convinced that Senor Bergoglio has the moral imagination for the kind of radical transformation required – he’s at best a moderate conservative with a very selective view of what needs fixing, not a serious, root-and-branch reformer.

Secondly, there’s the issue of authoritarianism in principle. Theism itself is inherently authoritarian, in that it teaches that human fulfilment must be based on the adoption of a subservient attitude towards an unaccountable authority. Some theists (the Quakers spring to mind) manage to erect a kind of egalitarian firewall between this core principle and their day-to-day values and teachings, but it still remains the case that the tendency even in the more egalitarian sects is to teach that it is up to the individual to determine what God wants him/her to do. I.e., for all their talk of “conscience”, the underlying belief-system remains a deeply authoritarian one.

The Catholic Church is an organisation that is built on this kind of thinking. There may be Protestant sects that emphasise the submission to divine power rather more explicitly and with rather more frothing at the mouth, but the Church has constructed itself on the basis of a self-image in which it is a necessary part of the divine hierarchy. Its structure and doctrines are highly dependent on metaphysical assumptions about power, authority and submission, with God at the top, the Church in the middle, and the punters in the pews at the bottom. In other words, the authoritarianism of the Church isn’t just a matter of institutional organisation – it’s an integral part of the very mindset that gives it its raison d’etre. And while the former might possibly be reformable whilst still retaining the substance of Catholicism, the latter … not so much.

In fact, I think human rights is really a religious idea, it comes from Christianity.

There’s an element of truth in this, but only a very small one. The idea of natural law as developed by medieval Christian theologians is often seen as being influential on the later development of the idea of human rights, but the main work was done by secular thinkers like Locke, Spinoza, Rousseau, Paine, Godwin, J.S. Mill and others, some of whom were Christians and some of whom weren’t.

More to the point, the influence of Christianity is at best a contingent fact of history rather than a necessary requirement. The concept of universal human rights is a secular one in that it does not presuppose any religious assumptions, and can be derived without reference to any religious ideas – all you need to do is recognise reciprocation as the foundation of human moral behaviour and be willing to universalise consistently. Just as the Golden Rule crops up independently in many different cultures, human rights is not dependent on any one historical belief system.

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

Richard Cohen, a political columnist for the Washington Post, wrote a very…surprising thing in a column yesterday. The column is about the familiar (and very dull) subject of the Republican party and whether it can ever achieve happiness when it combines normal mainstream country club only slightly racist conservatism and the off the wall fanatics of the Tea Party and the theocracy faction. Oh gosh I don’t know, can it? Let me know when you figure it out.

So there we are: the moderates turn off the barn-burners while the barn-burners turn off the swing voters lalalala chorus and finish.

Iowa not only is a serious obstacle for Christie and other Republican moderates, it also suggests something more ominous: the Dixiecrats of old. Officially the States’ Rights Democratic Party, they were breakaway Democrats whose primary issue was racial segregation. In its cause, they ran their own presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond, and almost cost Harry Truman the 1948 election. They didn’t care. Their objective was not to win — although that would have been nice — but to retain institutional, legal racism. They saw a way of life under attack and they feared its loss.

Yes, got it, moderates v fanatics, and how the competition between them is a threat to normal average mainstream moderateness.

Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.

Excuse me?

These not-racist people with their conventional views “must repress a gag reflex” when they think about an interracial marriage? One with – gasp – some former being a lesbian hiding in its already gag-worthy closet? And that’s not racism? It’s not racism to have a gag reflex at the thought of a white person married to a black person? How, exactly, is that not racist?

And what are the “conventional views” that entail having a gag reflex when thinking about an interracial marriage? Oh I know, I get it – the gag reflex is a manifestation of disgust, one of the core universal emotions. So the “conventional views” must be that Other Races are disgusting and the thought of close contact with someone of an Other Race is disgusting and triggers a gag reflex.

But that’s not racist.

Oh.

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

Originally a comment by Gordon Willis on Why the Catholic church is an intrinsically immoral institution.

Let’s look at Christian doctrine. Because of the sin of Adam (he believed a woman who believed a snake) we are fallen creatures, which means that we cannot obey the Law. This means that we are all condemned to eternal torment. But God, in his mercy, sends his only begotten Son to redeem us: his willing self-sacrifice on the cross expiates our sinfulness and makes us one with God, as we were before the Fall. Therefore, whoever believes in Jesus as the Saviour of the world will inherit eternal life. Jesus reduces the Law to two commandments (love God, love your neighbour) and Paul goes on at great length about the impossibility of observing the Law and the consequent necessity of faith in Christ’s sacrifice to attain redemption.

And that’s it. That is what the Church is all about. It is not in the least concerned with rights, with care. Love is of God, it is God who provides it. So however the Church tortures you to recant or believe, God still loves you, while the Church does its holy duty to ensure your salvation, whatever it takes.

This is the mission, the goal, of the Church: that everyone should believe this insidious drivel. You can inculcate belief by force, by fear, by kindness. You can mix up all three, and as far as I can see, the last is what actually happens. The combined result is cruelty.

You can only go so far in reforming this, without doing away with it completely. This is where Christianity sticks, and this is the core that can never be changed, and from which the excesses and the cruelties result.

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

So what’s the psychology of the gigantic princess eyes? Olga Khazan explains at the Atlantic.

The debate over the merits of Disney princesses is as old as time, but it’s fairly undeniable that the animated films’ female leads tend to look like a “pretty girl” cliche.

There’s some research behind why the princess formula is so effective: Enlarged eyes, tiny chins, and short noses make them look more like babies, which creates an air of innocence and vulnerability. There’s evidence that adults who have such “babyfacedness” characteristics are seen as less smart, more congenial, and less likely to be guilty of crimes.

Well what could be more wonderful than illustrations and cartoons that make women look like babies? What a brave new world we live in now that feminism has worked and we are all equal and anything that feminists object to now just shows that they’re radical and deranged. The ideal woman has a face like a baby’s and a rack like a moose’s.

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

Ed Brayton publicizes the Foundation Beyond Belief’s page for donations to disaster relief in the Philippines.

The Foundation Beyond Belief is launching a new Humanist Crisis Response for the victims of Typhoon Haiyan, which has been rated as the most powerful storm ever recorded by the US Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center. The power of this storm is mind-blowing, sustained winds of 195 mph and gusts up to 235 — with 10 million people in its path. The aftermath is absolutely devastating. After much research, FBB decided on the Citizens Disaster Response Center as the beneficiary. They’re based in the Philippines and on the ground already. Any help you can give is obviously very badly needed. You can find a link to donate here. Every dollar will go to the CDRC. It isn’t enough to be anti-religion; if we are serious about our humanist principles, we must put them into action and help others whenever possible.

Helping people isn’t one of the Ten Commandments. So much the worse for the Ten Commandments.

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

Spiegel Online reports an EU survey on fears of rising anti-Semitism in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

A vast survey conducted by the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights and published Friday contains troubling results almost exactly 75 years after Kristallnacht: Jews in Germany and seven other EU countries continue to live in fear of verbal or physical abuse — whether in public or, increasingly, online.

“I find it almost unbearable that religious services can only take place with police protection.”

“Anti-Semitism is one reason for me to leave Germany because I want to protect my family from any danger.”

“The anti-Semitic insults I have experienced were not from neo-Nazis or from leftists, but from ordinary people of the political center.”

Maybe this is just the human normal – group hatreds splashing around all over the place and everyone except those lucky enough to be privileged in all categories just having to put up with it…or be killed by it, as the case may be.

The survey’s results provide insight into the perceptions, experiences and self-conception of European Jews. Rather than supplying absolute figures on anti-Semitic attacks, the study focuses on the perceived danger of such attacks and how much the anxiety this causes affects their lives.

• Two-thirds of respondents (66%) said that anti-Semitism is a problem in Europe, and over three-quarters (76%) noted that there had been an increase in anti-Semitic hostility in their home countries over the last five years.
• Close to half of respondents (46%) are afraid of being verbally attacked or harassed in a public place because they are Jewish, while a third (33%) worry that such attacks could turn physical.
• Roughly 50 percent of surveyed parents or grandparents of school-aged children worry that their children could be victims of anti-Semitic verbal insults or harassment at or on the way to or from school if they wore visible Jewish symbols in public.

Of course perceptions and fears can be different from reality; they can be, in short, mistaken. But still the numbers are disquietingly high.

• More than half of respondents (57%) said that, over the last 12 months, they had heard or seen someone claim that the Holocaust was a myth or that it has been exaggerated.
• About a quarter (26%) of respondents said that they had experienced some form of anti-Semitic harassment over the previous year, while 4 percent said they had experienced physical violence or threats of attack in the same period.
• Almost one-fourth (23%) said they had been discriminated against in the last 12-month period for being Jewish.
• Among employed respondents, 11 percent said they are most likely to experience discrimination for being Jewish at the workplace, while 10 percent said this was the case when looking for work.

So fears are at about 50% and experiences are around 25%…In a way, with the experiences being at 25% (assuming the claims are accurate) you’d expect the fears to be even higher.

The study also found that respondents claimed that they had been increasingly exposed to negative statements about Jews online, including on blogs and social-networking sites. Three-quarters (75%) of all respondents in the eight countries identified the Internet as “the most common forum for negative statements” and a place where such statements could be made with virtual impunity. This was particularly true for respondents between the ages of 16 and 29, of whom 88 percent said that they saw or heard negative comments about Jews online.

Worries about suffering verbal or physical attacks, the study notes, have been found to have negative effects on physical, social and emotional well-being by prompting people to restrict their movements or activities.

Yeah.

The survey also found that Jews living in Germany were particularly concerned with two issues that have sparked much debate in recent years: the prohibition of circumcision (brit mila) and traditional Jewish rituals associated with slaughtering animals (shechita). Almost three-quarters (71%) said that banning circumcision would be a “very big” or “fairly big” problem for them, while half (50%) held the same view regarding prohibitions on traditional slaughter.

“I will wait for the developments concerning a statutory regulation on the Brit Mila. This will be crucial for my decision on whether or not to leave Germany.”

Oh dear. I wish the two could be disaggregated. I wish no one saw wanting to prevent infant and child genital mutilation as any kind of group antagonism.

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

Ok, so is the Catholic church an intrinsically immoral institution? I say it is, and Minow in a comment on Poland’s AG has received files says it isn’t. So let’s discuss that.

I say it is, because it is a powerful but wholly unaccountable institution which tries to impose its dogmatic rules on everyone. It’s authoritarian, and it’s officially all-male. The source of its power and authority is its imaginary relationship to an imaginary god.

Those features taken together are enough on their own to make it an intrinsically immoral institution. It bosses people, on the basis of an invisible unaccountable god, and it answers to no one. That’s a god-based dictatorship, and that’s intrinsically immoral. It excludes half of humanity from even the possibility of sharing its power, and that’s intrinsically immoral.

And those features aren’t all. There’s its long long history of murderous persecution of “heretics” and other rebels against its arbitrary unaccountable power. There’s the squalid history of the Vatican as a state. There’s the blood-chilling history of Ireland’s industrial “schools” and Magdalen laundries. There’s Savita Halappanavar. And there is of course the sprawling history of child-rape by priests and the church’s refusal to obey the law and report its child-raping employees to the police.

What’s on the other side of the ledger? Well there’s charity work. Yes, there’s charity work, but it comes with strings attached – it’s Catholic charity work. It’s anti-abortion charity work, which can be way too high a price to pay. It’s charity work that can cloak child-raping priests. It’s charity work that gives the church a toehold in desperately poor countries, so that it can spread its power even more. Above all it’s charity work that doesn’t need to be theistic in nature, and shouldn’t depend on compliance with theistic rules to be available. It’s charity work in exchange for obedience, and that’s not a good exchange.

On the other hand there are generous, liberal Catholics who do the charity without making it depend on compliance. But then it’s just charity; it’s independent of the “Catholic” part; it’s often in outright defiance of the Catholic part. (Hence the Vatican’s bullying of the US nuns.)

If the church were a golf club that formally excluded women, I would say that was immoral but not necessarily intrinsically immoral. But the Catholic church has more power over people than does a golf club. Much more. It has enormous power, and it has no truck with democracy or equality or accountability at all. Yes, that’s intrinsically immoral.

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

A Polish friend tells me that the Catholic church in Poland is about to get slammed with its very own child abuse scandal.

There’s this place called the Dominican Republic, see…

Poland’s attorney general has received investigation files concerning two Polish clerics accused of child abuse in the Dominican Republic. 

“A cursory look at them has confirmed that they will be of value in the case, as we had hoped,” said Maciej Kujawski, spokesman for the attorney general.

The 650 documents have been passed on to the district prosecutor’s office in Warsaw, but the office has declined to reveal whether any extradition request has been made.

Yes but – uh – look over there! Pope Francis!! He’s a really nice guy!!!

Father Wojciech Gil, who in recent months has been staying with family in a village near Krakow, stands accused of sexually abusing at least seven boys while he headed a parish in the highland town of Juncalito.

Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, former Vatican nuncio in the Dominican Republic, faces similar accusations, although his current whereabouts are unknown.

As a Vatican ambassador, Archbishop Wesolowski possessed diplomatic immunity, although he has already been replaced in his post, after being recalled by the Vatican in August.

But the church loves little children! It proves that every day by forcing women to stay pregnant when they don’t want to. Forced pregnancy and child rape, that’s life in God’s jurisdiction.

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