An Egyptian blogger wrote about Waleed Al Husseini more than two years ago, when he was arrested by the Palestinian authorities.

Palestinian blogger Waleed Al Husseini has been detained by the Palestinian authorities for creating a Facebook page named “Allah”! it was reported and shut down and Waleed created this page, that page, and that page, that is already hacked, to fight those who keep censoring his thoughts.

Waleed Khalid Hasayen is a 26 year old blogger who was arrested in the West Bank city of Qalqilya by the Palestinian authorities on the grounds of religious contempt and promoting atheism. On his blog “Nour Al Akl” or The enlightened Mind, he refuted all religious arguments – specially Islam – and he wrote long detailed posts on the fallacy of religions.

Now he’s out of jail, and at a distance from the people who arrested him, but his situation is precarious. I’m hoping we (the community) can help him.

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

Well this sums it up…

via Dr Jim’s Thinking Shop.

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

It’s not just mouthy atheist feminist women. It’s not just mouthy atheist feminist me. It’s not just mouthy feminist gamers, or programmers, or columnists. It’s everywhere.

Like theology, for instance, I see via Marlowe Filippov. JTB at rudetruth:

I’ve been following with some interest, given my previous interaction with the blog on the limerick thing, the conversation on Theoblogy in response to Tony’s question, “where are the women.” My first reaction to this post was positive–despite what some criticized as a prejudicial phrasing of the question–because, after all, concern about the unintended homogeneity of our communities, particularly our Christian communities, is a commendable concern. Moreover, it seemed clear from the post that Tony felt the absence of women’s voices on his blog commentary to be a lack and that he was asking for feedback to rectify what he considered a problem.

Very quickly, as the comment thread spun itself out, a couple of things became clear. The first was that many women did not feel like the comment threads were a space they could enter and be heard or respected; various reasons were offered for this. The second was that Tony was quick to defend his good intentions against these proffered possible reasons for the lack of women’s voices in the blog comments.

Since I myself had dared to enter the fray on the limerick discussion, and had been hard put to defend my (and Julie’s) critique of the limerick contest in conversation with Tony and others, including having to absorb without retaliation more than a few unconstructive and personal comments, I think the suggestion that the general atmosphere of the blog as hostile to women’s voices is pretty accurate. That’s not to suggest that this is anyone’s intention; on the contrary–it’s clearly unintentional. But it is something that can be intentionally addressed, which is what I took Tony’s post “where are the women”
to be a step toward.

It is something that can be intentionally addressed – or it can be called a “witch hunt” and vigorously shouted down by furious defensive men.

JTB decided to do an experiment.

So I commented under the name “James.” And wrote exactly what I would have written as JTB. That is to say, I was myself. With a pretend penis.

And lo and behold! Not only was I respectfully engaged, I actually won agreement from someone who challenged my original comment.

As JTB, in response to my numerous comments on the limerick contest post, I was told my critique was ludicrous; that to  hold my opinion suggested I lacked even a modicum of common sense; that I labored under various mistaken assumptions; that I was a buzz kill; that I was vaginal retentive (as opposed to anal, that’s for boys only?); I was even limericked about (a particularly sly dig, given the context); I was never acknowledged by name or as a colleague; and genuine follow-up questions went unanswered completely.

As James, I was addressed by name; asked genuinely critical questions; received an affirmation of the importance of my point; and when I defended my original point, received a concession from my respectful challenger.

That’s stereotype in action. It’s obviously poisonous. Yet mention of the problem – if it has the temerity to include an example – is greeted with roars of rage and wild accusations.

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

Meet Waleed Alhusseini.

I ran a blog in Arabic called Nour Alakl. I was also active on Facebook, running a satirical page under the pseudonym of Allah. In October 2010 I was arrested in the street near an internet cafe. I had believed that I had a right to the freedom of speech and to the freedom of belief.

But in jail I was told that my online statements about religion and Islam were illegal. I was told that society didn’t accept such criticisms. I was beaten by prison guards who demanded to know who had made me write against Islam. In their minds, I could only say these things as the result of some plot, some conspiracy. That I might simply want to express my independent thoughts was alien to them.

I spent the worst 10 months of my life in a Palestinian jail, facing constant pressure to say I was sorry. I was told they had removed my blog and that I must apologise for publishing it. Even once I free I was told I should never again use the internet, nor meet the media. For months after my release I was harassed by the security services, who further interrogated me and detained me without cause. I received letters from people saying they wanted to kill me.

It’s a familiar story, but no less horrifying for that.

He’s not changing his mind though. He’s still an ex-Muslim, an atheist, a believer in human rights.

Eventually, I left the West Bank for Jordan. I obtained a visa from the French embassy. I am now in Paris, having applied for asylum. I am still awaiting an answer after six months. It has become harder and harder. From here I do have chance to blog in Arabic and in English as “Proud Atheist”. But I am now effectively in exile. I am living alone in a foreign city, cut off from friends and family. All over words.

I still do not feel safe. If I cannot stay, if I am not protected, then maybe the Palestinian authorities will arrest me again. That is my fear. I want to be active, but safety is my priority. I want the international community to care for those like me who are persecuted simply for speaking their minds, to stand against the laws in any country which limits basic freedoms of thought and expression. For we are human and freedom only means living our lives without hurting others.

When I had read that far I stopped reading and went to Facebook to see if I could find him. I could, and I did a friend request, and he accepted within seconds. This dude needs allies and friends and solidarity! Make friends with him. Maybe we can help him get asylum. I’ve already emailed people at CFI. We blew it with Alex Aan; let’s try to help Waleed Al-Husseini.

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

Alyson Miers has a good post on the “god didn’t prevent the shootings at Sandy Hook because secularism” meme.

To those of us who believe in no God at all, you’re saying that your God is an asshole. You’re telling us that making everyone worship Him is more important to God than saving children’s lives.

To those who believe in different gods, or different ideas of the same God, you’re telling them that they are part of the problem because they want their children to go to school in a non-sectarian environment. You are asking them to think there would be less violence in the world if they allowed your religious traditions to be honored in the public sphere, at taxpayer expense, above their own.

The more you think about the claim, the weirder it gets. God is that childish? Really? You want to go with that?

This is an omniscient god, don’t forget. An omniscient god would be aware of the reasons people have for favoring secularism, including our long history of religious wars and persecution. It seems odd to think that such a god would be so put out by not being invited into public school classrooms that it would simply refuse to prevent Adam Lanza from killing all those children.

It seems odd to believe in – and worship – a god who would refuse to prevent things like that out of sheer spite. Abortion is supposed to be such a terrible crime, but god letting murders and earthquakes and wars do their worst is perfectly fine.

They don’t see it that way. I know. But it’s odd that they don’t. (Well, some do, and thus you get Teresa McBains and Jerry DeWitts.)

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

Ohhhhh lordy. Sometimes the viciousness makes my head want to explode – I can feel it trying to.

He actually does say it.

We’ve kicked God out of our public school system.

And I think God would say to us…”Hey I’ll be glad to protect your children but you got to invite me back into your world first. I’m not gonna go where I’m not wanted, I am a gentleman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is2x7QTZ8AI

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

Here’s a nice item if you want an Atheists Doing a Good Thing Just Because It’s a Good Thing thing. We need some of those right now.

Atheists of Maine jump in the freezing water to raise money for Camp Sunshine.

For those of you that don’t know, I have waded in the icy waters of our ocean to benefit Camp Sunshine for the past two years. This year, I’m mixing it up a bit: I’m looking to form a team to take the plunge with me. My goal is 10 people, including myself. That means you.

The minimum per person is $100 but last year I was able to raise over $700 with only $100 of it being my own. The goal I’ve set for the amount of money we raise is $1,500 which is entirely within the realm of possibility so I’m hoping to over deliver!

Camp Sunshine supports children with life threatening illnesses and their families. The camp has the distinction of being the only program in the nation whose mission is to address the impact of a life threatening illness on every member of the immediate family—the ill child, the parents, and the siblings. Since its inception, Camp Sunshine has provided a haven for over 30,000 individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds.

You can join in, or you can donate.

So with that being said, I know you’re excited to join me in this years Polar Dip! Well wait no longer! Send us an e-mail at atheistsofmaine@gmail.com and you will be sent an invite where you’ll be able to make your own profile and join the official team.

Not one for frigid waters and just want to donate? That is just as important and don’t worry if it’s just a dollar, every amount helps. Just go to the Team Page and click on the big blue “Donate” button on the top right corner and it’ll guide you through the steps to donate with your debit or credit card.

The date is February 9, 2013.

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

Mystifyingly, the UK government is going to make it illegal for the Church of England to perform same-sex marriages.

The Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages, the government has announced.

Other religious organisations will be able to “opt in” to holding ceremonies, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said.

But she added that the Church of England and Church in Wales had “explicitly” stated strong opposition and would not be included.

Labour said the exemption for the established Church was “disappointing”.

I can’t even make sense of that. The government is making it illegal, yet it’s an exemption. What? And the government is making it illegal because the churchs had stated strong opposition?

It gets worse.

Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had “explicitly stated” their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would “explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples”.

She also said: “I am absolutely clear that no religious organisation will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, and I would not bring in a bill which would allow that.

“European law already puts religious freedoms beyond doubt, and we will go even further by bringing in an additional ‘quadruple legal lock’. But it is also a key aspect of religious freedom that those bodies who want to opt in should be able to do so.”

It’s a matter of religious freedom therefore the government is making it illegal for particular churches to do it.

So “religious freedom” here is taken to mean the government passing a law that the Top Bosses in the national church like, which will make it impossible for rebel churches to disobey the church’s Top Bosses.

That’s a funny understanding of religious freedom, if you ask me.

This is a good one -

Sir Tony Baldry, who speaks for the Church of England in Parliament, said: “For the Church of England, the uniqueness of marriage is that it does embody the distinctiveness of men and women.

“So removing from the definition of marriage this complementarity is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.”

Oh noes! Now there will be not one social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged – !! The horror!

But sure there will. Atheism. Gaming. Needlepoint.

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

Since the pope has been so busy and people have been humming it, here it is for your convenience -

Tim Minchin’s fuck the motherfucking pope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0

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

Another guy – a judge this time – thinks women’s bodies have magical little portcullises that slam down during attempted rape.

A Southern California judge is being publicly admonished for saying a rape victim “didn’t put up a fight” during her assault and that if someone doesn’t want sexual intercourse, the body “will not permit that to happen.”

Which is why rape is so extremely rare – it’s hard to bash through the portcullis.

Johnson made the comments in the case of a man who threatened to mutilate the face and genitals of his ex-girlfriend with a heated screwdriver, beat her with a metal baton and made other violent threats before committing rape, forced oral copulation, and other crimes.

Though the woman reported the criminal threats the next day, the woman did not report the rape until 17 days later.

Johnson, a former prosecutor in the Orange County district attorney’s sex crimes unit, said during the man’s 2008 sentencing that he had seen violent cases on that unit in which women’s vaginas were “shredded” by rape.

“I’m not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case,” Johnson said.

I suppose he’s talking about lubrication, and saying the lack of it will leave marks. I’ve watched enough Law and Order: SVU to know that tv cops, at least, treat that as part of the picture. (But I also know they have consultants, so they probably get details like that right, however much they simplify and dramatize.) But it’s not symmetrical – marks may indicate rape, but absence of marks doesn’t indicate no rape. There, I’m a lawyer because tv! Straightened all that out for him.

The commission found that Johnson’s view that a victim must resist to be a real victim of sexual assault was his opinion, not the law. Since 1980, California law doesn’t require rape victims to prove they resisted or were prevented from resisting because of threats.

In an apology to the commission, Johnson said his comments were inappropriate. He said his comments were the result of his frustration during an argument with a prosecutor over the defendant’s sentence.

Well ok, but be more careful.

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

The dear dear pope, so consistently hateful and harmful and bad. Yesterday he launched his new Twitter account and blessed the Ugandan legislator pushing the “kill the gays” bill.

Pope Benedict XVI has given blessings to Uganda Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga during a mass attended by thousands of pilgrims at the Vatican,” Nsimbe Kasim at the Ugandan New Vision news reports.

He hates secularists and loves people who want the state to kill gays. What a mensch.

Then today – how productive he is! – he used his “peace day” message to bash same-sex marriage.

The pontiff said on Friday: “There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union.

“Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilise marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society”, the Pope told worshipers.

That’s not peace.

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

There is one bit of good news, or not really exactly good, but a delay of bad…

The Parliament of Uganda is about to go on Christmas holiday, returning in February, and the Kill The Gays bill is slated to be taken up then. The Parliament has a daily business list, called the “order paper” which shows what legislation is to be considered and in what order. The Kill The Gays bill was number one on that list, but superseded by an important and contentious oil and gas bill. Remarkably, the Kill The Gays bill, known also as the Anti-Homosexuality bill, has dropped in importance to number seven.

That’s a few weeks more to oppose the bill.

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

Paul Elam and “Agent Mauve” at A Voice for Men have done what they said they were going to do, and found the identity of one of the University of Toronto students who protested a talk by Warren Farrell. They’ve plastered her picture on the site, and named her, and posted a long angry rant about her. (In reading it, I see in the right-hand margin something claiming that I have my “knickers in a twist.” Oh goody, a new front opens in the great WarOnMe.)

They conclude in their usual threatening manner.

In the coming days, [redacted - OB] will have her profile as a bigot placed at Register-her.com. But she will not be alone.

We will continue to work until we have identified every violence promoting, property destroying, bigotry spouting ideologue associated with that protest and placed them all on the pages of AVfM, as well as Register-her.com

We have a long way to go.

And then there are the comments…

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

Hahahahahaha Justin Vacula explains why what Michael Shermer said about atheism as a guy thing was totally reasonable and ok and fine. He explains it in a comment on Jacques Rousseau’s post accusing me of misrepresenting Shermer, hyperbole, and failure to read charitably.

Unfortunatly, the principle of charity is not something Ophelia (and her commenters) are considering. As you note, the most charitable interpretation of Shermer’s observation — a statement of what he sees — is that men are quite active. Atheism is a ‘guy thing,’ I would say, like needlepoint is a ‘girl thing.’ This isn’t to say men are being excluded from the ‘needlepoint community’ or that some inherent gender ‘thing’ makes men not attracted to needlepoint…and it is not to say that women aren’t rational thinkers or whatever spin was put on Shermer’s comment.

Isn’t that great? Needlepoint is a girl thing, atheism is a guy thing. Nothing sexist about that! Nothing to see here folks, go on home, take your needlepoint with you. (more…)

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

Scalia’s a funny guy, as any fule kno. On Monday he was talking at Princeton (which is in Princeton, which is where I grew up, or at least where I spent the years from 0 to 17) and he explained about why same-sex sex is a no-no.

A gay student named Duncan Hosie got up and asked Scalia about his avid support for bans on “sodomy,” i.e. same-sex couples doing it, and Scalia answered with this:

“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,’” Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.

That’s a reductio ad absurdum? To say that if we can’t have “moral feelings against homosexuality” then we also can’t have moral feelings against murder? Talk about random. He might as well say if we can’t have moral feelings against jelly babies we can’t have moral feelings against murder.

But maybe it’s witch-hunty of me to criticize what he said. Maybe I should email him and ask him what he meant, first.

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