You may have noticed that my Speaking page has been growing. I thought I’d point out some of my upcoming speaking events, in case you’re in the area:

11/13/2010 – Seattle, WA
Society for Sensible Explanation – Boobquake and its Aftershocks

2/05/2011 – San Diego, CA
Secular Student Alliance Regional Leadership Conference – Topic TBA

3/24/2011 – Minneapolis, MN
Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists (CASH) at UM – Atheism & Feminism (snazzier name forthcoming)

TBA 2011 (tentative) – Ft. Bragg, NC
Fort Bragg Freedom Festival – Topic TBA

I’ll give more details about times and locations when we’re closer to the event.

A note to people who are interested in having me speak to their group:

– If you’re not near Seattle, I probably can only travel during official UW breaks or on weekends.
– My visit to UM is during my spring break. If you’re near Minneapolis, I’d be happy to speak to your group while I’m out there! Hey, if I’m going back to the Midwest during my vacation, I might as well make it worth it ;)
– If you’re within driving distance of Seattle, I’m much more likely to be able to come. Wink nudge Portland and Vancouver.
– If you’re a student group affiliated with the Secular Student Alliance, they may be able to help you fund some of my trip because I’m on their speakers bureau.
– If you have any questions, email me at blaghagblog(at)gmail(dot)com.

Tune in to League of Reason here. Feel free to treat this post as an open discussion about the podcast. Show will be going until 2pm PST.

Sexduction.

Coitus interruptus.

Erotic induction.

…I swear this is a Nobel prize winning paper on bacterial gene regulation and not a nerdy porno script. Though just think what’s going to happen when I’m allowed to name things.

Feel free to share giggle inducing terms from your fields.

Take it away, Senator:

[Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) ] went further and “said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom.”

Controversy over DeMint’s position on this issue first arose in 2004 during a Senate debate, when he was asked whether he agreed with the state party’s platform that said openly gay teachers should be barred from teaching public school. DeMint said he agreed with that position because government shouldn’t be endorsing certain behaviors.

[…]”(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense,” DeMint said on Friday in Spartanburg. “But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn’t back down. They don’t want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion.”

So, let me get this logic straight:

1. Your religion thinks homosexuality and sex before marriage is a sin.

2. Freedom of religion makes it so your religion must be followed by every person in this country, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

3. Therefore, allowing these sinful people to have jobs and interact with children is repressing your beliefs.

…

Yeah, can someone please this Senator how our Constitution works?

This would be laughable if he was just some kook for thinking this way. Unfortunately, this sense of entitlement is common and has real effects on people. An Oregon teacher was just reassigned to a different school district because he answered a 4th grader honestly when asked why he wasn’t married – because he loves a man and marriage is not legal for them in Oregon.

Yep, because it’s better that we extoll the virtues of lying than be honest about something any 4th grader probably already knows about just from watching tv. Gotta love those traditional, Christian values that deem certain types of love inappropriate.

Happy Blasphemy Day, everyone! Here’s an irreverent comic for you:

Feel free to blaspheme in the comments, though I suppose that’s typical here. Remember, blasphemy is a victimless crime – giggle at the gods and the supernatural, but no attacking their human believers.

I’m easily amused:

Cue cheesy song about finally feeling like you belong.

Some of you seemed surprised that I defended Park51, more infamously known as the “Ground Zero Mosque,” after my visit there. You commented that Islam, on average, is more violent and oppressive of women. You were shocked that I saw the latter first hand – by being told I’d be segregated at dinner and must dress modestly – and yet I still supported Park51. It seemed ironic to you that someone who’s 15 minutes of fame is based on contesting the standards of modest dress would be okay with all of this. You claimed that defending Muslims’ right to freedom of religion implicitly agrees with their beliefs.

For those of you who are surprised, you don’t know me very well.

What makes inalienable rights like freedom of speech and religion work is when they’re truly inalienable. Once you start making judgement calls on who really gets to say something or what you’re allowed to believe, everyone is in trouble. It doesn’t matter if something is offensive or stupid. I will defend the freedom of speech of conservatives, Neo-Nazis, and misogynists as much as it may personally pain me to do so. And I may be an atheist, but if Muslims, Mormons, or Jehova’s Witnesses are having their religious freedom taken away, I’ll be the first to defend them.

Why? It’s simple. Who gets to make the judgment calls on what’s offensive or inappropriate?What happens when one of my beliefs is being censored because popular vote deems it too controversial? Just imagine if atheism was put up to a vote in the United States. Would we still be able to have atheist books or organizations? Hopefully you see why freedom of speech and religion need to be so adamantly defended.

But again, defense does not automatically equal agreement. Nor does defense automatically equal respect. Muslims can build their community centers and mosques, but I’ll still vocally say that their beliefs are wrong. Allah almost certainly does not exist. Islam is, on average, more violent than other current religions – it’s like getting in a time machine and seeing Christianity in the middle ages. Islam is one of the most oppressive religions toward women, and hijabs and burkas are tools of that oppression.

But Muslims should be able to build mosques and wear burkas if they want, because censorship is never the answer. If we want to defend the rights of some minorities, we must defend the rights of all minorities. And if you’re truly concerned with making Islam more progressive or having more Muslims become less religious, taking away their rights isn’t exactly the best way to open up communication.

Trust me, as an atheist, I’d be very happy to see fewer mosques, churches, and temples springing up around the country… If it was because less people feel the need for organized religion and superstitious thinking, not because we fearmongered them out of organizing.

Hemant wants to crush my blogathon fundraising?! How dare he! I… I… well, I guess I’ll help him out. It is for a good cause (the Secular Student Alliance). And he’s giving away prizes! Go check it out.

My talk from the Secular Student Alliance conference is now online! I talk about walking the fine line between controversial, interesting events and needlessly offending people. Enjoy!

I’m currently sitting in the Las Vegas airport waiting for my flight home (yay for finally having Internet access!). TAM8 was absolutely amazing, and I’ll be making posts about it over the next couple of days. But in the mean time, here’s one more discussion question for you guys, since you seemed to enjoy the last couple.

Let’s assume you have proof that God exists. You’re now a believer for whatever reason. But believing in God is totally different from following his laws and living your life the way he desires.

Would you actually worship him? Would your life change in any way? Or would you rebel for any ethical, philosophical, or personal reasons?

Now, this depends on what definition of God we’re using. A Protestant Christian God would be very different from a deist God, which would be very different from Zeus, etc. Feel free to discuss all, but unless you clarify in your comment, let’s assume you’re talking about the traditional Judeo-Christian God.