Breaking news: the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution.

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

Next stop: the Supreme Court.

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

Meet Opinionista. She has a great post about “the double whammy of disadvantage one faces for being a secular minded individual from a Muslim community living in the UK.”

Identity anti-racists such as the Stop the War Coalition have dismissed and continue to dismiss secular activist voices like those of Gita Sahgal or secular organisations such as Just Peace (a young organisation founded by progressive and secular Muslim activists) and Women Against Fundamentalism. Instead they befriend the likes of Muslim Association of Britain which is an offshoot of the Arab Muslim Brotherhood. It makes my blood boil. It’s a form of racism masquerading as cultural cohesion and tolerance. In reality, such high tolerance for fundamentalists in the UK  just  exacerbates some of the inaccurate national (and global) perceptions of what all British Muslims are like. Such  alliances completely ignore the fact that people like me do exist. There are  secular, non-religious Agnostic (or Atheist) cultural Muslims who have needs that can not be served by Muslim fundamentalists, conservative Muslim values, nor by the Ken Livingstones of the world.

Read the whole thing. Tell her she rocks.

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

Rebecca has a post about a Facebook clash on Saturday, in which Jessica Ahlquist posted a witty picture of herself imitating the emoticon

and a bunch of men came along to say she was hot and should go post on the “Sexy Atheists” page. Rhys Morgan commented that that was creepy, and the clash ensued. I happened to see it at an early stage so I chimed in, and soon afterward so did Rebecca. The usual thing – lots of squawking about humorless feminazi arglebargle blah – lots of guys posting 50 comments to say “why are you making such a fuss?!” The usual the usual; you could write it in your sleep. But Rebecca has a good analysis (and she has Jessica’s permission to post the whole thing).

I particularly like the opening paragraphs:

A lot of atheists who were once religious talk about their de-conversion as a metaphorical opening of their own eyes. Of course, those who find religion often feel the same way: “I once was blind but now I see.” This is an obvious way of describing what happens when you have a sudden realization that changes your entire outlook on life.

It would be wonderful if those who experience that change took as a lesson the fact that there may always be something big and obvious about the way the world works, that we may be missing. But instead it seems as though it’s more common that once someone has their particular realization, they assume that now they’ve got it all figured out.

Read on.

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

Poor Ireland – it just can’t escape from the Vatican, it seems. It can try but then the theocrats will raise a stink and it will be dragged back.

The Irish government faces a potential Holy War over the  decision to close the country’s Vatican embassy.

Coalition party leaders Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore are at loggerheads over the  closure, announced after the attack by Kenny on the Vatican’s failure to act on  child abuse in the Cloyne diocese.

Kenny has given in to calls from Fine Gael backbenchers to reconsider the decision to remove the Irish embassy from the Vatican.

The calls also come from a group called, risibly, Ireland Stand Up. Yes Ireland stand up and grovel to the Vatican again!

An Irish Catholic lay group has met with politicians  to voice their frustration over the closure of Ireland’s embassy to the  Vatican.

…

The protesters, from the group Ireland Stand Up, met with 50 TDs, 25 senators, and seven  representatives of ministers in Dublin.

…

Ireland Stand Up also asked that the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny issue  a formal invitation to Pope Benedict XVI to visit Dublin during the  International Eucharistic Congress this summer.

Stand up the better to fall prostrate. Ooooookay.

[smothered laughter] The link to Ireland Stand Up goes to a twitter account! It has 400 followers – I have more than that! So…82 politicians met with a Twitter group? That’s hilarious.

Anyway, Fine Gael apparently takes them seriously.

TANAISTE Eamon Gilmore is facing growing demands from Fine Gael backbenchers for a rethink about his closure of the Ireland’s Vatican Embassy.

The closure has cast doubt over the prospects of the Pope coming here in summer for the Eucharistic Congress.

The decision to close the embassy is particularly sensitive in Fine Gael, with some party sources privately suggesting Taoiseach Enda Kenny should not have allowed it to happen.

But why? Why this slavish love for the Catholic church and the Vatican? Given the history, why on earth? Does the Vatican act as if it loves its dear Irish subjects?

Maybe it’s a new syndrome, to go with Stockholm Syndrome. We could call it Dublin Syndrome.

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

Sometimes they admit it. Sometimes they admit, “no it’s not just practice, it’s not just being good – it’s belief.” The Spectator does.

It is certainly the case, as AN Wilson says in a Spectator review, that, until relatively recently, religious  ritual did include unbelievers as a matter of course since those rites focused on participation rather than subscribing explicitly to a creed. But the ‘consoling subtle or just charming  rituals’ of religion that Mr de Botton would like to co-opt for unbelievers are not, I’d say, detachable from the beliefs that inspired them. It’s a little like saying that the music and  poetry of love are too charming, too consoling to be confined to those who love and should be extended to those who have never been in love or who find themselves incapable of it. The benefits of  religion flow, I’d say, from the things believers believe.

We agree with you, except that we think that most of the benefits aren’t really benefits. We think believing there is an omnipotent being who wants us to believe it exists but refuses to give us any good reason to do so is not a benefit but a mind-impeding device.

Christians believe in the brotherhood of man, for instance, because we believe in the Fatherhood of God, or its feminist equivalent.

But believing in the Fatherhood of God entails believing that the male sex is the better one. The brotherhood of man is not entirely a benefit to women. “Its feminist equivalent” is a throwaway phrase which makes little dent in the existing patriarchal arrangements.

And so on. We can go on for hours in this vein. But the point is, they think what we’ve always said they think: that the beliefs do matter and that they do take them seriously.

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

I want to say a little more about George Pitcher…

There’s the way he began his nasty squib about the putative “shrillness” of Richard Dawkins.

There’s something divine in the air. Agnostics and atheists are beginning to nod respectfully in the direction of the Almighty, while still, of course, maintaining that He’s not there.

Jokey, in a way, but he also means it. He especially means the assumption that underlies it: that we (we atheists, we humans in general) owe “the Almighty” our respectful nods. That the Almighty is entitled to them, and that we are obliged to give them.

That’s a stupid assumption, but more than that, it’s an inherently authoritarian, illiberal, hierarchical, dictatorial one. It may seem less so than the demands of a physical, present dictator or mob boss, but in a way it’s more so because the dictator is not physical and present. Pitcher’s “Almighty” is explicitly absent; it’s unavailable; it’s hidden away and mysterious and sekrit. This means we can’t negotiate with it or protest its decisions, much less boot it out or send it to prison for crimes against humanity.

Pitcher is attempting to shore up the principle of submission. There’s nothing “divine” about that.

The same applies to his boneless gesture at the epistemology of theism -

The problem is that faith isn’t primarily evidential, as he demands it to be, but revelatory…

If that’s true, you see, it makes “faith” fundamentally arbitrary and incorrigible, and thus authoritarian and dictatorial. “Revelation” is in fact often treated as “dictation” by the deity. This is a bad way to think about things that people are supposed to heed and respect and obey. It’s morally bad, epistemically bad, politically bad – it’s bad all around.

That’s what the god-botherers need to start realizing. It’s not that atheists need to start to “nod respectfully in the direction of the Almighty,” it’s that theists need to stop trying to make everyone bow to the principle of arbitrary authority.

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

I get envious of people in other countries quite often. The other day on the CBC’s The National I saw an item about a politician suggesting that certain criminals should be given a rope, so that they could decide to hang themselves if they liked. There was outrage from all parties. Here in the US the outrage is all for people who want to get rid of the death penalty.

And in the UK – the Advertising Standards Authority has told a Christian group it can’t tell people God will heal them.

The ASA said the leaflet read: “Need Healing? God can heal today! Do you suffer from Back Pain, Arthritis, MS, Addiction … Ulcers, Depression, Allergies, Fibromyalgia, Asthma, Paralysis, Crippling Disease, Phobias, Sleeping disorders or any other sickness?

“We’d love to pray for your healing right now!

“We’re Christian from churches in Bath and we pray in the name of Jesus. We believe that God loves you and can heal you from any sickness.”

The ASA said it had been alerted to the adverts by a complainant, and concluded that they could encourage false hope and were irresponsible.

That would never happen here.

[gazes longingly out the window toward distant lands]

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

Ah it is sweet of Mehr to provide so many pretty pictures of Khomeini’s re-enacted Return to Iran as Cardboard Dude.

It’s cool that Khomeini is a giant. It’s cool that he has no feet. It’s cool the way his two handlers’ white gloves appear discreetly on his shoulders and at his sides, while his own hands don’t appear at all. It’s just all so dignified and holy and impressive.

 The New York Times likes it too.

Shortly after the airport arrival, another cardboard cutout made an appearance in southern Tehran at Refah School, which served as Ayatollah Khomeini’s base of operations. There, it was joined by officials, including the education minister, who sat in a large circle with the silent version of the revered leader and awkwardly drank tea.

Well now I don’t see why that would be awkward, do you? Officials sitting around with a giant cardboard Dude, drinking tea? Where does the awkwardness come in?

(Oh I bet I know. They didn’t dare burst into shrieks of laughter, yet it must have been so hard not to. Of course; that would do it.)

There’s something missing though. There should be a giant cardboard Khomeini issuing a giant cardboard Fatwa.

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

No really, it does.

It sits in on meetings and everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38-ifm9-nxI

h/t Sigmund.

Update: I should have included a picture.

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

There was an extraordinary discussion on the Rally for Free Expression Facebook page a couple of days ago. The rally, of course, is a project of One Law for All and Maryam. The discussion started when a KCL student asked, “Whose idea was it to use a Jesus and Mo picture to advertise this rally?” and when told it was One Law for All’s, said, “Bad move. Very bad move.”

Uh. Seriously? But that was the whole point – to say that Jesus and Mo is not the kind of thing that should be banned or bullied into silence or concealment.

Maryam replied, sardonically,

I decided to use it. I couldn’t find a photo of us kneeling down in submission and agreeing not to offend but that also showed a demand for free expression. I guess that’s because it doesn’t exist… Jesus and Mo is the point.

Along with a post on the subject.

But another student who thought it was a bad move entered the fray -

It was an idiotic, attention seeking, and potentially dangerous decision. The point of this rally is free speech. The point of this rally is not to inflame. The original publishing of the cartoons was satirical, funny and definitely not an attempt to offend, whereas this is either an attempt to offend or sheer idiocy. If the leaflets get onto campuses then it certainly won’t help Athiest societies’ causes, with the union and with fellow students. There’s no issue with saying, at the rally, “ooh look, this isn’t offensive at all, but some people got offended and tried to stop this being published” and showing the pictures, but distributing the pictures on leaflets in this fashion is, as [student #1] said, a very bad move.

So the rally shouldn’t advertise the rally with the picture that is the very issue the rally is about. So if there’s a violent racist incident and people call a rally to protest racist violence, the rally shouldn’t be advertised with photographs of the violent racist incident? War protests shouldn’t mention The War? Occupy Wall Street shouldn’t mention Wall Street?

It’s mind-boggling.

From Maryam’s post:

Some atheists are not happy with One Law for All’s use of the Jesus and Mo cartoon on leaflets to promote the 11 February Day in defence of free expression. They feel that since the Jesus and Mo cartoons have been deemed offensive, it is best not to use them.

But that’s the whole point isn’t it?

We’re rallying in order to say that the right to offend is part of free expression. No one needs to rally for inoffensive speech, do they?

And if I hear one more hypothetical on why we shouldn’t offend if we can avoid it, I might just scream. The latest one: ‘If a Muslim comes to your house you will not plaster the Jesus and Mo cartoon all over to offend them on purpose now will you?’