Where is this Big Book of God’s Rules where God spells out all these new rules that some people know all about but I’ve never heard of? Like the rule that a girl who works at Burger King has to wear a long skirt instead of trousers? I seriously have no idea where that rule is but apparently it’s such an important and real and binding rule that Burger King has to hire her because of it and it has to let her wear a long skirt instead of trousers on the job. Also if it slips up and fires her instead it has to give her 25 thousand dollars.

Burger King has agreed to pay $25,000 to a Pentecostal teenage girl who was fired because she wished to a wear a long skirt instead of pants.

In August, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on behalf of Ashanti McShan, who had been hired to work at a Burger King restaurant in Texas. “At the time of her interview for the job, Ms. McShan asked to wear a skirt instead of uniform pants as a religious accommodation,” the EEOC lawsuit stated. “Defendant assured her that she could wear a skirt to work. However, when she arrived at work for orientation, the store management informed Ms. McShan that she could not wear a skirt and that she had to leave the store … The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive Ashanti McShan of equal employment opportunities because of her religious beliefs and observances as a Christian Pentecostal.”

What beliefs? What observances? In what sense “religious”? Is it an official “religious belief” that women have to wear skirts and not trousers? Are you sure? Are you sure it’s not just a stupid prejudice in favor of the way women used to dress before they got so god damn uppity, disguised as a pretend religious belief? Because I’m not. I remember battles over skirts v jeans when I was a child. I remember always always always wanting to be allowed to stay in jeans at all times because skirts are so damn inhibiting. I didn’t use that word, of course, but I hated wearing skirts and that was why. Skirts are an invention to make girls and women unable to move freely. The whole point is that if you make a wrong move everybody will be able to peer at your crotch! Gotcha! I see Spain, I see France, I see Sally’s underpants. It’s the underage version of talk about kicking women in the cunt.

So I want to see this mysterious Big Book of God’s Rules where God says women and girls can’t wear trousers. Then I want it tested for authenticity.

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

Massimo goes a few rounds with the ol’ science can whup philosophy story.

Oh my, I thought I was done for a while chastising skeptics like Sam Harris on the relationship between philosophy, science and morality, and I just found out that my friend Michael Shermer has incurred a similar (though not quite as egregious as Harris’) bit of questionable thinking. As I explained in my review of Harris’ book for Skeptic, one learns
precisely nothing about morality by reading The Moral Landscape. Indeed, one’s time on that topic is much better spent by leafing through Michael Sandel’s On Justice, for example.

I too reviewed Harris’s book, and I too thought it was way too dismissive of philosophy and way too short on argument as a result. I thought that as a non-philosopher, of course, while Massimo thinks it as a philosopher (and a biologist too!), but I’ve read a little moral philosophy here and there, and I found it a lot more enlightening than I found The Moral Landscape.

Shermer proceeds immediately by blaming the is/ought problem as the main culprit for scientists’ misguided concession to philosophers (even though I bet dollars to donuts that the overwhelming majority of scientists has never heard of the is/ought problem). Indeed, Michael claims that the problem is a fallacy (I take it he is using the term colloquially, since I don’t see that entry listed in the vast catalogue of fallacies that professional philosophers and logicians have accumulated.)

Why is the is/ought problem a fallacy, according to Shermer? Because “morals and values must be based on the way things are in order to establish the best conditions for human flourishing.” Let’s unpack (as philosophers are fond of saying) that loaded phrase. First off, there is a prescriptive claim (“must”) that is not actually argued for. Sounds like Michael is engaging in some a priori philosophizing of his own. Why exactly must we base morals and values on the way things are (as opposed to, say, they way we would like them to be)?

Second, “the way things are” has, of course, changed dramatically across centuries and cultures (science tells us this!). Which point in the space-time continuum are we going to pick as our reference to ground our scientific study of morality? We better not just assume that the our own current time and place represent the best of all possible worlds.

Third, “human flourishing” is a surprisingly slippery (and philosophically loaded!) concept, not at all easy to handle by straightforward quantitative analyses. (If you want an idea of the sort of complications I have in mind, take a look here and here.) And of course it should go without mention that the goal of increasing human flourishing is itself the result of a value choice that cannot possibly be grounded in empirical evidence. Nothing wrong with that, unless you insist on a scientistic take on the study of morality.

I think that’s a good sample for seeing why philosophy is useful for thinking about morality, and why just talking about the way things are isn’t adequate.

One more sample:

Shermer then goes on to add a market economy to the mix of his favorite ideologies, claiming that “it decreases violence and increases peace significantly” (hardly surprising, coming from a well known libertarian). Once more, without even going to question the empirical assertion, shouldn’t we at least admit that “market economy” is a highly heterogeneous category (think US vs China), and that some market economies decrease fairness, do not provide universal access to health care and education, lower workers’ wages, and overall negatively affect human flourishing? How should we rank our values in order to make sense of the data? How do the data by themselves establish a guide to which values we should hold? And why should we follow whatever the current science says, as opposed to having discussions about where we would like science and technology (and economics) themselves to go?

How should we rank our values - that’s a question that Harris gave astonishingly short shrift in his book.

Read the whole thing; it’s long and rewarding.

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

Oh how interesting. Catholic hospitals don’t always say that a fetus is a person. For instance, how about when an on-call obstetrician doesn’t answer the page when a pregnant woman is in the ER having a heart attack and she ends up dying? And then her husband files a wrongful death suit?

No, not then.

The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

You know, the Ethical and Religious Directives that say St Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix did a wicked wicked thing by terminating a pregnancy to save the woman’s life. Those Ethical and Religious Directives.

…when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

Innnnnnteresting.

To be fair, maybe Catholic Health isn’t being hypocritical; maybe Catholic Health, like the administration of St Joseph’s Hospital, refuses to obey the bishops on this issue.

Who knows. There shouldn’t be any ambiguity on the subject either way. The Ethical and Religious Directives should be a dead letter.

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

A great new Jesus and Mo. First, a word from their sponsor -

You may notice the return of the “Help J&M pay their hosting fees” button in the r/h column. This is because our current host – the magnificent
nearlyfreespeech.net – have changed their billing system to make it fairer for
sites which don’t use up many resources. Unfortunately, J&M is not one of those
sites, and  our monthly bill has increased substantially – so if you have a few
bucks spare to throw into our hosting account, that would be much appreciated.

And now, see them finally get through to the barmaid.

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

A trade group called the American Beverage Association is in court trying to prevent a New York City law limiting the size of sugar drinks from going into effect on March 12. Well they would, wouldn’t they. But they have some odd allies.

Opponents also are raising questions of racial fairness alongside other complaints as the novel restriction faces a court test.

The NAACP’s New York state branch and the Hispanic Federation have joined beverage makers and sellers in trying to stop the rule from taking effect March 12. Critics are attacking what they call an inconsistent and undemocratic regulation, while city officials and health experts defend it as a pioneering and proper move to fight obesity.

The issue is complex for the minority advocates, especially given that obesity rates are higher than average among blacks and Hispanics, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The groups say in court papers they’re concerned about the discrepancy, but the soda rule will unduly harm minority businesses and “freedom of choice in low-income communities.”

I wonder what “unduly” means there. I also wonder what on earth the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation are thinking. They want sugar drinks to be extra-special cheap so that blacks and Hispanics can have higher than average rates of Type 2 diabetes? Do they also wish lead-based paint were still legal and readily available? Do they long for the old days when toddlers could munch on paint chips full of lead?

The NAACP and the Hispanic Federation, a network of 100 northeastern groups, say minority-owned delis and corner stores will end up at a disadvantage compared to grocery chains.

“This sweeping regulation will no doubt burden and disproportionally impact minority-owned businesses at a time when these businesses can least afford it,” they said in court papers. They say the city should focus instead on increasing physical education in schools.

So it’s about the businesses but not about the people who shop there. Maybe not the best choice.

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

A New Year’s message from Maryam Namazie.

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

Because the technology to get to the moon existed in 1969, but the technology to fake a moon landing in a studio did not.

The takeaway -

Why does any of this matter? Well my concern is with the ultimate fate of knowing, of seeing the difference between what you can know and what you wish for…The urge to believe drives people to trade in part of their soul in exchange for the comfort of being a rebel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

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

Via the Ex-Muslims Forum – “perhaps the only time when the misogyny of Islamic Fiqh could ever be described as a relief.”

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said, “The female apostate is not killed.”  This is because the unbelief of the woman is not equal to the unbelief of the man – which leads to (physical) devastation.  So, she is not equal in the liability to be killed, as is known.

- Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 AH/ 983 CE). Mukhtalaf al-Riwayah,, vol 3, p. 1299

Makes sense. The woman’s belief is puny and weak compared to the man’s, so her unbelief is the same way, so meh – nobody cares. No need to kill her; keep her to do the dishes.

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

On Twitter -

This is a public information announcement: If you self-identify as a “freethinker” or a “progressive” it can seem just a tad conceited.

So does that mean it’s conceited to write for The Freethinker? Probably. Oh well.

(The truth is I don’t self-identify as either of those, because it’s true, it does sound conceited. I don’t like self-flattering labels, and I do avoid them. I prefer neutral, factual ones, when I can find them. That’s part of why I found Shermer’s jeers about “self-declared secular feminists” bizarre, when surely both words are factual more than they are self-flattering. But not calling oneself a freethinker doesn’t preserve one from doing things like writing for The Freethinker. What is one supposed to do? Ask them to change the name? But it’s a good name, and it’s been that name since the 19th century.

Anyway patrolling other people’s vanity can seem just a tad conceited, too. “Just saying.”)

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

So they do it to Mary Beard, too. Mary Beard! A classics don! Makes me want to get my friend Euripides to give them a dam’ good scolding.

But why, you might say, am I so fussed by this. One tv programme of no moment, a bit of flak, and some great waves of support on twitter (thank you all…Tony Law even, bizarrely, got Sulla martialed in the fight last night…). Why not just “move on”?

One reason, it has introduced me to a side on internet trolling that I haven’t experienced before, and is worth thinking about. My appearance on Question Time prompted a web post that has in the last few days discussed my pubic hair (do I brush the floor with it), whether I need rogering (that comment was taken down, as was the speculation about the capaciousness of my vagina, and the plan to plant a d*** in my mouth).

It is headed with the picture above (that’s me….or in the words of one contributor:” A vile, spiteful excuse for a woman, who eats too much cabbage and has cheese straws for teeth.”)

There’s worse to come.

Of course there is. That’s barely noticeable.

The stuff about me is predictable enough, as a further sample will show:

“Undergrowth, like a mound, ladyshave free, a womble, a Cambridge Don, common ain’t she.”

“Hello Mary, we dont fear you and you’re not intelligent. All in all, a complete failure of a sentence/ Top tip: Try looking closer to home for the reason people dislike you, you arrogant twat”

” She’s an idiot who’s a disgrace to Cambridge Uni and Woman-kind. We let her get away with it by calling her a Lezzie which she obviously isn’t as she’s married.”

“Fucking hell, she’s only 57. She looks at least 70.”

“Mary, Mary quite Clunge-hairy, how does your Lady Garden grow?”

“Hairy Beard, Professor of Farts at Cunstsford University, living the dream.”

“An ignorant cunt.”

“Being a cunt transcends gender, Mary.”

Ths is interspersed with quotes from all kinds of things I’ve written, jibes at my kids (one of whomintervened, independently, to my defence) and husband. The photo on the right (also now taken down) gives you the flavour (there’s an X certificate on clicking on the pop up — but I think it’s important for people to see what the bottom line is).Another one shows a pair of really hairy legs, as if they were mine.

All the same, you may say … why pay it any attention, still less give it publicity?

Several reasons. First, the misogyny here is truly gobsmacking. The whole site is pretty hateful (and what some of the comments say about Andrew Marr since he’s been ill are almost worse than anything).. but the whole “cunt” talk and the kind of stuff represented by the photo on right is more than a few steps into sadism.  It would be quite enough to put many women off appearing in public, contributing to political debate, especially as all of this comes up on google..

Yes it god damn well would, and does, and is. Michael Shermer please note. Get this kind of shit every day for going on two years and it becomes very tempting to stop appearing in public and contributing to political debate – which is the goal.

Oh no, it’s all just a joke, isn’t it? Can’t you take one? Or a hundred, or ten thousand?

But reading through it (and yes you get tipped off about it whether you search or not.. and no you cant resist looking at it), it is absolutely plain as day that this is meant to hurt and wound (“If all else, we got to her” as one commenter says). It shows the classic signs of vile playground bullying — claiming to know about the victim, sneering at things they could not possibly know but claim they do, destabilising by using names in the thread that are those of your friends or even anagrams of your own, suggesting that they are watching you… that’s all part of the bullying repertoire.

Check check check check.

So how to stop it? I am sure that there is some clever way if we put our heads together.Could we flood the site with comments, or Latin poetry…so they went behind a wall (if they want to chat like this on their own, well fine.. or at least better). Or does anyone reading this post know anyone involved in this and can just say ‘no’?

Nobody’s been able to think of a clever way yet.

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

It turns out that Jerry Conlon didn’t threaten me when he said maybe a vial of acid would do me some good. No, it turns out I threatened him. A friend sent me this screen shot from the mildew pit.

I don’t know who it was who posted the comment with some biographical information about Jerry Conlon; it was someone who has never commented here before. The comment was a peculiar kind of “doxxing” since Jerry Conlon had used the name Jerry Conlon himself on that threat (or “joke”) and since there was no address or phone number.

Given the first-timeness of the commenter, I suspect the comment was a plant. At any rate, I haven’t threatened anyone. I haven’t even threatened to report him to the police, even though a lot of people have strongly urged me to report him, because Canadian law enforcement sees that kind of thing as a danger to people in general, not just to the recipient. (And he’s Canadian. Ooh I’m doxxing him!! Except that’s on his Facebook page. Visible to all.)

I haven’t threatened anyone. He did threaten me.

I’m very very very very very tired of this shit. My life is shit, thanks to these people. That’s what they want, and they get what they want. I’m a blogger and writer, so the work I do I do online. That means taking “a break” from online isn’t a happy little vacation, it’s being locked out of the work I do. Yes no doubt it’s pathetic contemptible nerdy “work” but I like doing it, and I don’t like being forced out of it by sadistic pseudonymous shits.

But some good does come out of it. Bjarte Foshaug was motivated by the acid threat to send $150 to Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan. He says a friend of his Sheila is also going to donate. So Jerry Conlon did some good after all!

But I want my life back. And I can’t have it. That makes me angry.

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

PZ is optimistic about the bigger picture.

I am constantly dunned by email and tweets from the haters and sick scumbags, and I read stuff by my colleagues who get far worse, and at times it is just too depressing and dismal — there really are reactionary fanatics within atheism who refuse to recognize the responsibility to work towards equality. And I just want to give up.

But then…perspective. Step away from the smears and assaults and slime and look at the movement as a whole: look at the leading organizations of the godless. You know what you’ll see? None of them support these loons. They’re all progressive and committed to improving the diversity of the atheist community and broadening our engagement with the greater culture.

Hm. I’d like to agree, but – the leading organizations don’t support them, but they don’t disavow them, either (except in broad general terms that don’t grip on anything). I think most of the organizations don’t know much about them and their project, but I kind of think maybe they should try to find out.

Rebecca is more definite about it.

For the most part, these organizations work on their causes while pointedly avoiding what they see as a divisive quagmire. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, no. For years, I defended the JREF’s pointed disinterest in atheist topics because while I do think atheism is the natural outcome of skepticism and that the two are ultimately inextricably linked, I understand that there’s a benefit to an organization focusing resources on a particular goal while also appealing to a larger audience. But it would be silly to then congratulate the JREF on working toward some atheist or secular goal, just as it’s silly to congratulate these organizations that are not focused on fighting for women.

I think that’s pretty much right. The organizations aren’t against us, but they’re not really for us either. They’re doing other things.

So while PZ finds optimism in the work these organizations do, I, for the most part, do not. I see anti-feminists who think those organizations stand for them. (Hell, I’ve seen misogynists cite feminist and Freedom from Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor as an inspiration.) I don’t think these people are stupid (though yes, many are – just look at the people populating my Twitter @ replies) – I think that secular organizations aren’t being loud enough in their support of women. I think often these organizations are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century by a few progressive employees who want to do good at the risk of being seen as radical troublemakers.

And that’s where I find my inspiration: not in the large organizations but in the individuals who are strong enough to stand up for what’s right despite the endless hateful shit thrown their way. People like Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Greta Christina, and Melody Hensley. People like Surly Amy and all the other Skepchick Network contributors. People like Amanda Marcotte, who in December recounted what it’s like to be a writer who happens to be a feminist…

Yes. We find our inspiration in each other. Not at all a bad place to find it, either.

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

Another article not to miss is Lauryn Oates’s To tell the world his daughter’s name.

When the father of Jyoti Singh Pandey decided to tell the world his daughter’s name this week, he said he did so to give other women who have been raped courage.

His is a message directed at an untold number of women and girls. Rape is the most under-reported form of violent crime in the world. It consistently has the worst statistical reporting, with many countries keeping no rape statistics at all.

Somalian activist Hawa Aden Mohammed estimates that in her country, experiencing a torrent of sexual violence, 90% of rapes go unreported. She says the reason is that women know that nothing will be done, while they risk being shamed and ostracized for speaking out. Women in camps for the internally displaced are particularly at risk, and camp leaders are reportedly indifferent to the fact that women under their watch are hunted down like animals to satisfy the savagery of merciless, violent men.

People can get used to anything. People can harden their hearts. We all can. If there’s anything we need to resist it’s that.

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

I’m being Twitter-mean to Rick Warren. Well not really mean – I’m not calling him ugly or anything. But I’m teasing the crap out of something he said. Wull it was silly.

Rick Warren‏

Christians founded America. Ever since, Presidents (& most offices) take their oath with their hand on God’s Word #TheBible

My teasings.

And NOTHING CAN EVER CHANGE. We always do all the things exactly the way we always have done them.

Travel, medicine, architecture, communication, race relations, lighting – all, all done the same way forever.

So if somebody did something one way a few centuries ago (they didn’t, but never mind) END OF STORY.

How to do everything, according to Rick Warren. The way they did. Back then. #simple

No, blood-sucking zombies founded America, so we have to do WHAT THEY DID.

If bats had founded America, would you tell us to roost upside down during the day and hunt for insects at night?

Amazingly, he hasn’t replied.

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

Speaking of children being seen as “witches,” and witch hunts, and cruelty to putative witches, don’t miss Leo Igwe’s new article, Kukuo: Inside a ‘Witch Camp’ in Ghana.

Here is a sample.

Many of the alleged witches said they would like to return to their original homes but were afraid for their lives. Some did not want to go back at all. They felt safe and at peace in Kukuo.

But that is because they do not have a better alternative. In Kukuo, life is hard. Survival is difficult. Most of the women survive by farming for others, but many of them are getting too old and could not farm any longer. Some of them were sick. One of the women could not walk, and she was living alone. She crawled around to cook and to attend to her daily chores. Some have resorted to begging for survival.

Leo tells the story of Fusa, a widow who had just finished building a house and was about to move into it when she was accused of making a neighbor’s child ill. Gee, what a coincidence. Now she’s in Kukuo, heart broken and traumatized.

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

In Sweden this time, not in London.

The couple, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, “think their daughter is a witch and reject the accusation” of abuse, Daniel Larson, a prosecutor in the western Swedish town of Boraas, said on Friday.

Which is the problem with thinking people are “witches” – then abuse isn’t abuse, because witches have to be cleaned out, kind of like a sewer. It gets a little rough, but that’s not abuse.

The girl, who claims she is not the couple’s biological daughter though the parents say otherwise, was allegedly beaten unconscious and forced to drink a concoction made up of a cleaning product and her own urine, according to the charge sheet.

Social services removed the girl, born in 1997, from her parents’ custody in 2008 and she has since been living with a foster family. The girl only recently opened up about the alleged abuse “once she felt safe,” the prosecutor said.

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