Atheism+: Welcome to the third wave of godlessness

It’s no secret to anyone who deems themself part of the atheist movement that our ranks have been suffering through several (and no longer facetiously named) Deep Rifts^TM over the past couple of years. More and more godless activists and bloggers are taking up the mantle of social justice issues, including that bugaboo of far too many so-called peers, feminism. An increasing number of women (and male allies) are daring to speak up about such controversial subjects as the need for anti-sexual harassment policies at major conferences and the importance of keeping in mind how one shouldn’t allow their carnal desires to affect anyone else’s public experience. Because, as we’ve all seen, merely asking people to display a modicum of respect and consideration for others is now cause for years’ worth of arguments, broken alliances, and death threats.

There’s a staggering amount more to be said about the matter, but it’s all pretty much been discussed, debated and (for some) settled by people far more involved and pertinent than myself, so I shall abstain. But in the meantime, these Rifts continue to grow, with some people declaring that secular activists should limit their focus to purely atheism-related matters and ignore anything else regarding diversity and inequality, and ever-more who passionately disagree. At this, I command you to read Jen McCreight’s utterly brilliant post on the matter, and why it’s time to let those Deep Rifts continue to spread and form our own, grander, healthier movement:

I don’t want good causes like secularism and skepticism to die because they’re infested with people who see issues of equality as mission drift. I want Deep Rifts. I want to be able to truthfully say that I feel safe in this movement. I want the misogynists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and downright trolls out of the movement for the same reason I wouldn’t invite them over for dinner or to play Mario Kart: because they’re not good people. We throw up billboards claiming we’re Good Without God, but how are we proving that as a movement? Litter clean-ups and blood drives can only say so much when you’re simultaneously threatening your fellow activists with rape and death.

It’s time for a new wave of atheism, just like there were different waves of feminism. I’d argue that it’s already happened before. The “first wave” of atheism were the traditional philosophers, freethinkers, and academics. Then came the second wave of “New Atheists” like Dawkins and Hitchens, whose trademark was their unabashed public criticism of religion. Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists. It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime. We can criticize religion and irrational thinking just as unabashedly and just as publicly, but we need to stop exempting ourselves from that criticism.

Gene Burmington | The Gay Agenda, or How Homosexuals Want to Destroy America

The following is a guest post by Gene Burmington.

---

I've seen numerous opinions and tenuous experiments basically describing everything from the destruction of American values and weakening of our overall power down to how the intentions of homosexuals are mainly focused on destroying the tenets of Christianity through the alterations of marriage.

The former listed explanations by well-meaning persons ass-backwards fools of religious convictions are concepts worth bearing some discussion, if there are any issues caused by the demands of the homosexual demographic. That is, if there are, which there are not. Pundits railing against these attempts at justice really need to ask themselves certain serious questions before they assert the existence of some kind of nasty hidden agenda by a minority group that badly needs government protections and whom would otherwise be trampled on by people who have neither love nor respect to give for such maligned persons.

The following questions are (reverse the terms if you are a woman):

How would I feel if my wife and I were denied our right to marry despite loving each other very much?

How would I feel if my wife and I couldn't produce offspring due to infertility, and weren't allowed to adopt because of government regulation?

How would I feel if I were bullied in school because I only had one ear or some other birth defect that was out of my control?

How would I feel if I couldn't feel safe out in public because Schizophrenia or some other illness made me appear strange and threatening to persons who might cause me harm from how they perceive me (in Africa, they call these witch hunts)?

How would I feel if I couldn't go to church or engage in any social activity just because I have a tumor or some other medical anomaly, and I felt that the right thing to do was be honest and up front about my condition?

How would I feel if I were not treated the same way as everyone else because of something outside of my own control?

Before you blame homosexuals or blatantly disclose your negative opinion on how you believe they are poisoning America's wells with their hidden covenants, ask yourself those questions and be honest. If one of those fundamental desires up there were an infringement on your liberty, wouldn't you stand up for your equality as well?

Because if your answer is no, then you're either dumb or dishonest, because these are the fundamental rights that most any given American takes for granted. If someone gave the matter all the serious and unbiased thought that it requires, they would realize that we are paving a new road in a similar manner to the way that we removed the blemish of segregation from our lives and made all races equal under the law. Now is the age where we make everyone else so.

Tags: gays • lesbians • homophobia • homophobes • anti-gay

Study: The relative (actual) harm of drugs

It’s obvious that the heavily politicized and increasingly militarized anti-drug effort in the U.S. (and to a lesser extent, elsewhere) has very little to do with the actual threat to individuals and society presented by the illicit substances, themselves. But for all the fear-mongering propaganda, it’s nonetheless evident that some drugs are more dangerous than others. Wouldn’t it be nice to have some sort of side-by-side comparison to see how different types of mind-altering chemicals rank in terms of the actual dangers they pose?

Well, a team of researchers and Britain’s Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs did just that, publishing a new study that summarizes their findings thus:

[full size (944×786)]

And here, the effects of society’s irrational approach to different drugs becomes clear. Some of the most dangerous and destructive substances (alcohol, cigarettes) are some of the most widely accepted and commercially available products sold over-the-counter practically on every street corner, whereas some of the more genuinely innocuous drugs with little or no actual harm (marijuana, LSD, even ’shrooms) will get you thrown behind bars for years merely for using them on your own time and dime. It all brings a new level of evidentiary support to the idea that were alcohol introduced just today, it would be universally decried as the greatest danger to society since the Commies – yet because it’s been such an integral part of human history, watch them rage (not that they shouldn’t) if anyone ever tried to take it away from them.

Zon | Mat Jones – You are a fucking moron

The following is a guest post by Zon.

(Note from Joé: The game in question is obviously and explicitly intended to satirize Hentai-style tentacle rape porn. Whether or not you personally believe it is amusing or appropriate has no bearing on A) any actual merits of the game, nor B) whether or not the game has the right to exist. Kindly keep this in mind during any ensuing discussion. Thanks.)

---

When it comes to current events, I'm lucky if I'm following news while it's still breaking. I almost never catch a news story when it first surfaces. I usually find out about it a few months later, and then spend some time on Google searching for everything I missed.

To that end, I'm certain that a few of you are familiar with Tentacle Bento. If not, it's a card game about tentacle rape. Now, if you haven’t heard of that, well, welcome to the internet.

It's exactly what it sounds like. Japanese schoolgirls getting raped by tentacles. From what I know of it, it came into existence to fight Japanese censorship laws; a penis needs to be censored. A tentacle that looks like a penis? Nope.

Hilarious loopholes aside, Tentacle Bento is a card game where the point is to “snatch” as many schoolgirls as possible. I think most people share the opinion that the game is certainly in poor taste. Despite its tasteless nature, I find the concept at least to be a bit funny, though I have no interest in playing it. Even if I owned a copy, I wouldn't know what to do with it, beyond putting it on one of my bookshelves as a conversation starter. No matter which way you look at it, however, the game has a right to exist. You know, that whole pesky freedom of speech thing.

John Cadice, the creator of the game, ran a Kickstarter campaign to get the funds to produce and distribute the game, which wound up getting canceled. It was moved to another site, funds continued to be raised, and people continued to either complain or compliment it.

Enter Penny Arcade's Mike Krahulik (aka Gabe), and the main subject of this post, Mat Jones.

Now, I've written about Penny Arcade (and Mike) before. I'm sure If I know Joé like I think I do, he'll be adding links to my previous posts here and here. [Mental note: Zon knows too much. —JM]

Mat, however, is new to me. I don't know anything about the guy, other than the article he wrote on the Tentacle Bento controversy. It is this article, however, that led me to form the opinion that he is a fucking moron. Please read through it. I don't mind waiting.

Daily Blend: Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Pres. Barack Obama

PZ Myers debunks an incredibly shoddy Salon article claiming that science has explained near-death experiences (NDEs).

President Obama ^[pictured] lies about lying about breaking his campaign promise to stop federal prosecution of legal medical marijuana providers.
(via @radleybalko)

Five gender stereotypes that used to be the exact opposite (often until only recently).

The responses to Greta Christina’s call for sex worker testimonials are utterly fascinating. General theme: The biggest problem with the sex industry isn’t sex work, but all the “anti”s and abolitionists who give sex workers a hard time.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: PZ Myers • Salon.com • near-death experiences • NDEs • Mario Beauregard • neuroscience • Barack Obama • medical marijuana • medicinal marijuana • stereotypes • gender stereotypes • gender roles • gender norms • heteronormativity • Cracked.com • sex workers • prostitution • stripping • sex industry • Greta Christina • abolitionists

Poll: Most voters don’t care about abortion or gay marriage

Here, according to the latest Pew survey, is why the Republican Party’s endless regressive schtick just isn’t cutting it with the majority of voters:

My transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

Economic Issues Top Voters’ Agenda

Percentage rating each as “very important” to their vote

Economy: 86
Jobs: 84
Budget deficit: 74
Health care: 74
Education: 72
Medicare: 66
Energy: 61
Taxes: 61
Terrorism: 59
Foreign policy: 52
Environment: 51
Iran: 47
Gun control: 47
Afghanistan: 46
Immigration: 42
Abortion: 39
Birth control: 34
Gay marriage: 28

PEW RESEARCH CENTER Apr. 4-15, 2012.
Based on registered voters.

I guess the far-Right just hasn’t done enough to convince people that allowing gays to marry and women to have control over their own bodies will somehow harken Armageddon.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Tags: Pew Research Center • gay marriage • same-sex marriage

Daily Blend: Monday, April 16, 2012

Joe Muto

Connecticut predictably outlaws the death penalty.
(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

How the Right sees a record drop in teen pregnancies thanks to contraception and responds by calling for more abstinence-only sex ed.
(via @ebertchicago)

Gawker’s Fox Mole ^[pictured] reveals Sean Hannity’s blatant teleprompter hypocrisy and journalistic partisan hackery.
(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

James Randi exposes TLC’s “Long Island Medium”, Theresa Caputo.
(via The Daily Grail)

Tweeps who didn’t know the Titanic was real ^{[caveat: Daily Mail]}.
(via @ebertchicago)

The story behind that delightfully odd Frasier closing song, ‘Tossed Salad and Scrambled Eggs’.
(via The Agitator)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Connecticut • capital punishment • death penalty • abstinence • sex ed • sex education • teen pregnancy • teen births • conservatives • Joe Muto • Fox News • Fox News Channel • Sean Hannity • teleprompters • Barack Obama • James Randi • Long Island Medium • Theresa Caputo • cold reading • frauds • psychics • mediums • Titanic • Titanic Disaster • Twitter • Frasier • Tossed Salad and Scrambled Eggs • Ken Levine

Fail Quote: Penn Jillette calls social welfare “immoral self-righteous bullying laziness”

Penn Jillette

I saw this quote being floated around by libertarian tweeps this morning, and while I was hoping it was quote-mined or otherwise fake, I was able to track it down to this CNN opinion piece, confirming its veracity – and the reason why, yet again, so many people hold libertarianism in contempt. From Penn Jillette (again, sadly), after explaining that he’s both an atheist and a libertarian because he “doesn’t know”:

It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

So, voting to have your elected representatives take a pathetically tiny slice of the overall financial pie and use it to provide critical assistance to the poor, homeless and starving is actually a form of “immoral self-righteous bullying laziness”. Because we’re all totally able to end poverty right this minute if only we’d stop being selfish prigs and give our own money to the poor. I mean, sure, ending government intervention in the matter and relying on private citizens to provide the only aid to the downtrodden would only result in a catastrophically inefficient quagmire with thousands and millions of the very poor suffering and dying in even greater numbers, but hey, at least we’d experience “great joy” for our “moral credit” in refusing to “forc[e] other people” – who we elected to do just that – to “do what [we] think is right”.

Look, I’m all for encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their own actions and to do things themselves rather than rely on others, but this sort of libertarian “government is bad and shouldn’t be relied on for nothin’!” rhetoric is as ridiculous as any other fringe schtick. Living in society is a contract: You are protected and served by the collective, with your interests watched over by an overarching organization of, by and for the people; and in turn, you must donate some of your own resources (in time and money) in order to keep the wheels turning for everyone. Of course, there will always be faults and points of failure – that’s inherent to any system that relies on people, and the bigger the system (and the more people in it), the greater the problems. But acting like it’s morally condemnable for the more helpless classes of people to rely on said system to do essentially the very job it’s intended to do – keeping them alive and safe to the best of collective’s ability – is more than just irrational; it’s frankly bizarre (not to mention incredibly petty).

The government is, essentially, an extension of all of us, formed by people we select to work for us. What sense does it make to then turn around and condemn this very group we create and task with the responsibility of watching over us for doing just that – and even moreso, to accuse those who demand just that from it of being “lazy”, “immoral” “bullies”? Or do libertarians really believe that we’d all be better off without any real governing entity and left to our own devices? As caricaturized as that sounds, it’s increasingly similar to the inevitable logical outcome of so many of these ridiculous deregulation and “free market” arguments. (No, the people will not always choose the right thing. In fact, they mostly seem not to. Seriously, what planet do these naive bozos come from?)

It’s becoming remarkably difficult to defend libertarians when the irrational attacks aimed at them are proving increasingly on the mark.

(via @maysae)

Tags: Penn Jillette • libertarianism • libertarians • social security • welfare • government

Homeless in a houseful land

From Daily Kos (for what it’s worth):

Ah, the marvels of red tape.

(via Uzza)

Tags: homelessness • USA • United States

Zon: ‘My Little Pony’, Derpy and ableism

The following is a guest post by Zon.

Full disclosure: I am a bit of a “brony”, myself; I enjoy the show, though I don’t take any part in the fandom.

---

I've been a huge fan of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic since the middle of the first season. I found the characters creative, real, and endearing, the writing solid and well-planned, and the animation pleasing to the eye. For a kids show, it manages to work quite well for any age group.

The matter that I have decided to chime in on is the first vocal appearance of a well known background pony, named Derpy Hooves by the fandom. I'm going to skip the history of this character, since there is a lot that would need to be said. I was confused, however, when I found out that there were quite a few people who were offended by her appearance, saying that she was perpetuating an ableist stereotype. After reading these posts, however, I have decided that I do not agree.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended by this. I don't care if you get offended by anything, provided that when you start talking about why you're offended, you keep your argument reasonable. I can even understand why Derpy's appearance can be seen as offensive. Personally, I don't think it is, but I can't speak for everyone.

I really think that everyone is reading a bit too deep into this. I can't imagine that anyone from the studio would be so insensitive as to think “Well, let's give her the voice of a retarded person”. As for the clumsiness, I think everyone needs to keep in mind that this is a kids' show; it started as a kids' show, and will continue to be a kids' show for its entire existence. The fact that adults started enjoying it was more of an accident, really. To a kid, clumsy is funny. Ask any parent if they ever dropped something in front of their kid, and if the kid started laughing about it. To a child, it's funny. I remember a moment from my childhood where my father slipped on ice and accidentally whacked my mother with the snow shovel. I thought it was the funniest thing I had ever seen.

Daily Blend: Friday, July 22, 2011

Rush Limbaugh

• US Senate Democrats successfully shelve House Republicans’ latest idiotic anti-spending, anti-tax bill.
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Keep the gubmint outta my brane!: Half of US social program recipients think they “have not used a government social program”.
  (via Rob F)

• Rush Limbaugh [pictured]: Dangerous heat index is a government conspiracy!

• Information is Beautiful: How safe is the HPV vaccine? (Hint: Very.)

• Macy’s stores deliberately install changing room doors backwards, allowing anyone to peer in unseen.
  (via @anonymoose420)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: US Senate • US House of Representatives • US Congress • Democrats • Republicans • Cut, Cap and Balance bill • USA • welfare • Rush Limbaugh • heat index • HPV • Information is Beautiful • Florida • Macy's

Donohue misses the point on “Weinergate” and pervy clergy

Bill Donohue

Here’s yet another instance of the Catholic League’s whiner-in-chief, Bill Donahue, utterly missing the mark when it comes to why critics are going fairly easy on Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) for his inane online indiscretions compared to when clergymen commit lewd acts:

Priests who engage in lewd conversations with teenagers are suspended from ministry for committing a "boundary violation," and are charged with sexual abuse. But Rep. Anthony Weiner can send pornographic images of himself to young girls and he is free as a bird. Indeed, the majority of New Yorkers say he should not resign.

Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle says Weiner's "biggest sin may not have been sexual"—it was "lying." Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine says that "Lying is unforgivable," but has no comment on his sexual offenses. Joan Walsh of Salon confesses that "The lying is what disturbs me." S.E. Cupp's article in the New York Daily News is flagged, "The disgraced congressman should resign, but immorality has nothing to do with it." Similarly, Leslie Savan of the Nation wonders, "How can you be so stupid?"

Ilene Angel of the Huffington Post opines, "I honestly don’t care" what Weiner did. Glenn Greenwald of Salon chalks it all up to "voyeuristic fun." Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic contends that we, the people, are the problem: we spend too much time "focusing on the sexual behavior of egocentric alpha males who spend a lot of time traveling far from home." In a Time interview, Erica Jong not only gives Weiner a pass, she exculpates Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Arnold Schwarzenenegger, Rep. Chris Lee, John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer: they all suffer from "a form of mental illness."

To top things off, Joy Behar believes that "Somebody is out to get him, apparently 'cause they don’t like his politics." Weiner agrees: he told a donor last week that this was all due to a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

In other words, if the guilty party were Rev. Weiner, he would be sanctioned by the Catholic Church's "zero tolerance" policy. But because he is Rep. Weiner, there are no penalties. As usual, it's not the offense that matters—it's the status of the offender.

I’m sure this has been explained to him many times already, but the reason why people generally react more harshly towards misbehaving priests – especially when their conduct breaches sexual propriety towards minors – is that priests are held up to a higher standard due to the very nature of their position. One cannot claim to represent the voice of God on Earth and then be surprised when people observe one’s actions – and criticize one’s failings – with more passion and judgment than are reserved towards other lowly laical offenders. This may be seen as a bit of a double standard, but in this case, it is absolutely merited. If you claim to be a paragon of morality, then you’d better rise up to those expectations, or else be exposed as being full of shit when you don’t.

Also, it’s worth noting that contrary to Donohue’s skeevy insinuation, the recipient of Rep. Weiner’s “pornographic images of himself” (because one shot of bulging underwear is considered “porn” now?) was a 21-year-old college student, not some poor little “young girl”, as if he made a habit of sending out crotch-shots to third-graders. But then, no-one expects Donohue not to try and exaggerate the facts a little against whoever he’s bitching against at the moment. That’s just what sleazebags like him do.

Tags: Bill Donohue • Anthony Weiner • clergy • priests

Poor if you do, unemployed if you don’t

To have money, you gotta make money. To make money, you gotta have money. To have money, you gotta have a job. To have a job, you gotta have money. Isn’t that just a fun little catch-22?

Those stupid, inconsiderate poor people! They should all just get a job.

Oh, riiight …

(via Political Irony)

Tags: Ted Rall • comics

Daily Blend: Sunday, June 05, 2011

Tyell Morton (18)

• Australian religious groups gets Victoria government to overturn anti-discrimination laws over religion, marital status and gender.

• Flipping off cops makes you a dick, yes. A criminal, no.

• This week in holy crimes: 14 counts.

• Rushville, Indiana high school senior [pictured] jailed and facing felony charges over harmless school prank.
  (via @todayspolitics)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Australia • Australian Christian Lobby • anti-discrimination laws • Victoria, Australia • Shane Boor • holy crimes • Rushville, IN • Tyell Morton

Facebook protest gets Australian pro-safe sex ads restored

Men embracing at “Rip & Roll” counter-protest

I do love news like this. Only yesterday did I blog about how the Australian Christian Lobby, a typically prudish pearl-clutching group, was able to raise enough of a hissy fit over a new pro-sexual protection ad campaign featuring two men embracing and holding an unopened condom wrapper to get the ads yanked. But while the advertizing company caved in after only 30 complaints, the move created enough outrage, including a massive Facebook counter-protest, that about 40,000 Aussies made their voices heard and convinced the advertizing company to cancel its cancellation of the ads [my emphasis]:

MORE than 35,000 people have joined a "Rip and Roll'' Facebook support group after their safe sex advertisement targeting gay men was pulled down from Brisbane bus stops because of 30 complaints.

The Queensland Association for Healthy Communities started the group after Adshel - the company that provides advertising for Brisbane's bus shelters - buckled after pressure from the Christian lobby and removed the ad featuring an image of a gay couple embracing, holding an unopened red condom packet.

The "Homophobia - NOT HERE - Adshel Caves to Homophobic Pressure'' Facebook campaign has generated a big public response after Michael James who appeared in the ad with his partner asked the public to join their petition.

[…]

A group of about 20 people gathered outside Adshell’s office on Agnes St in Fortitude Valley this afternoon, chanting “equal rights, equal love, equal people”.

The organiser of the protest, Michael O’Brien, said a Facebook event advertising the protest was set up about 8pm last night.

[…]

The protest drew immediate results, with Adshel this afternoon reversing its decision to pull the ads.

Of course, as heartening (and schadenfreudelicious) as this turn of events is, it could never realistically happen in the Unites States, especially in anywhere near the Bible Belt. Any advert featuring a gay couple (!) kissing (!!) while holding a condom (!!!) would never see the light of day, and even if it somehow did, the fundamentalist move against it would undoubtedly garner hundreds or even thousands of pearl-clutching voices of protest that no pro-LGBT counter-protest could really match.

Oh, well. Baby steps, I suppose.

(via Uzza's Notes)

Daily Blend: Saturday, May 28, 2011

“Sexting”

• Texas bill reducing “sexting” [pictured] charges from felony to misdemeanor goes to Gov. Perry for signing.

• Self-parody: Detroit crime lab ordered closed due to “sloppy investigations”, subsequently left open to the elements, with evidence still inside.

• The bottomless stupidity of WND: Obama’s birth certificate is fake because tiny random markings in signature look like a smiley face. Journalism!
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Five things that make poor people’s lives that much more difficult.

• China takes a decidedly bizarre approach to prison “hard labor”.
  (via @ebertchicago)

• Facebookers who actually believe Onion articles. What a sad spectacle.
  (via @jennifurret)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Supplemental tags: Weird • Prisons • The Onion • Satire/Parody

Daily Blend: Thursday, May 26, 2011

Jerome Corsi

• Philadelphia police spokesman: If we see a citizen exercising their Constitutional right to open carry, we’ll aggressively subdue them until we prove they aren’t a threat.

• Disgraced nutjob Jerome Corsi [pictured] claims Donald Trump was “working with Obama” to neutralize Birtherism. Uh … huh.
  (via Right Wing Watch)

• Vox Day: PZ Myers declares that atheist and progressive goals match → Indians and Chinese abort more female fetuses → feminists and egalitarians are mass murderers.

• The 7 Most Terrifyingly Huge Things in the History of Nature.

• If Movies Were Realistic.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Supplemental tags: Liberalism • Abortion • Feminism • History • Animals • Cracked.com • Movies • Humor • Satire/Parody

How not to tell if a man is a rape apologist

What is rape? Any explicit sexual contact instigated by an individual upon a victim who is either non-consenting or whose judgment is currently impaired as to prohibit them from giving their informed consent.

What is a rape supporter? Every single man alive.

What, don’t believe me? Don’t take my word for it. It’s what Eve’s Daughter over at Eve Bit First apparently believes, seeing as she published a list of ways to tell if a given man actually condones or encourages rape (presumably in any and all forms), using such descriptions that ultimately and deliberately apply to every single male person on this planet. Now, I strive to be a good egalitarian, and I feel that I would be terribly remiss if I didn’t seize this opportunity to verify that I wasn’t actually a rape apologist of some sort. (How embarrassing that would be.) So, I thought I’d take a gander at miss Daughter’s list, here, and check where I stand on each individual point (30 in all).

A man is a rape-supporter if…

• He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.

Huh. Kinda vague, at least on some points. I can understand it being non-consenting if the woman is unconscious or forced into having sex against her will, but if she’s “high” or “drunk”? Is any altered mental state, no matter how minor, enough to void a woman’s consent and make anyone who has sex with her while she’s in that state a rapist? Does that mean that every single hippie who’s ever had sex is therefore a rape victim or perpetrator? And what about “underage”? Where is the limit? Is it a legal or moral one? Is a mature 17-year-old girl who lives in a state where the legal age of consent is currently set at 18 automatically a rape victim if she knowingly and willingly chooses to have sex anyway? (Does it cancel itself out if her partner is also underage?)

I see we have some definitional problems, here, but nonetheless, I can safely say that, being a virgin, I am absolutely not a rape supporter. Yet. 0/1.

• He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.

Daily Blend: Saturday, April 30, 2011

William Lane Craig

• William Lane Craig [pictured]: Murdering babies is fine, because they get to go to Heaven. Greta Christina and PZ Myers do a good job of eviscerating this.
  (via Diaphanitas)

• Um, no: Bryan Fischer says many vile things, but he’s clearly talking about killing Islamists who “threaten [Americans]”, not Muslims who refuse to convert.

• Fox Nation reaches: President Obama is a narcissist because he said “I’ve never seen devastation like this” [my emphasis] about the recent tornado outbreak.
  (via Right Wing Watch)

• Warm and fuzzy opinion post at The Washington Post asks about why Americans still dislike atheists.
  (via RichardDawkins.net)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Catholic adoption agency prioritizes anti-gay discrimination over child well-being

This is sadly nothing new. The English adoption agency Catholic Care is declaring that they’d rather give up on finding loving homes for children than be forced to stop discriminating against same-sex couples:

A tribunal has thrown out a Catholic charity’s bid to be exempted from equality laws which make it illegal to discriminate against gay couples who wish to adopt.

Leeds-based Catholic Care have said they will have no choice but to end their work finding homes for children if they are forced to comply with the new equality regulations which prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples wanting to adopt.

The case went to the High Court last year before being referred to the Charity Commission, who would not back Catholic Care’s position. And the Charity Commission’s stance was upheld today by a first-tier tribunal which dismissed the appeal.

Although the tribunal acknowledged that the potential loss of any children’s charity was a negative thing, the threatened closure from Catholic Care – which is not certain – had to be balanced against “the detriment to same-sex couples and the detriment to society generally of permitting the discrimination proposed.”

Once again, more proof that religion and child-care do not mix. Never have, never will. There can only be one winner, and it won’t be the side that actually needs protection and devotion.

(via Joe. My. God.)