Blasphemy Day

Mark it on your calendar: 30 September is going to be Blasphemy Day. Join the Facebook group, if that is your kind of thing.

Blasphemy Day International is an international campaign seeking to establish September 30th as a national day to promote free speech and stand up in a show of solidarity for the freedom to mock and insult religion without fear of murder, violence, and reprisal. It is the obligation of the world’s nations to safeguard dissent and the dissenters, not to side with the brutal interests of thugs who demand “respect” for their beliefs (i.e., immunity to being criticized or mocked or they threaten violence).

So if you support free speech, and the rights of those who disagree with religious views to voice their opinions peacefully, support our group and join the cause!

I like this take on the matter:

Blasphemy is a joyous, funny, socially progressive, and profoundly moral act. It deserves its own day. Join the group. Spread the word.

I only have one reservation. Every day should be Blasphemy Day.

(via The Freethinker)

Atheists now rule most of the world

Who knew that all you had to do is change the definition of “atheist”? Put on your sunglasses and visit this site—the color scheme is classic fluorescent kook—and you will discover that atheists are people who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Period. Which means…

  • James van Praagh, loopy psychic medium and newager, is an atheist!
  • All Jews…atheists!
  • Muslims…atheists!
  • Martin Luther King…atheist! (Wait, what?)

I like this game. Atheists also deny the divinity of Thor, which means…Christians are atheists!

There. Now that we’ve taken over the world, I think I deserve to go have some ice cream.

Tickets to Dawkins!

All you Minnesotans should know by now that Richard Dawkins will be speaking at UMTC, in Northrup Auditorium, at 7pm on Wednesday, 4 March…next week! If you haven’t got your tickets yet, you can join Minnesota Atheists and get one for free — so act fast.

As an additional inducement, guess who is going to introduce Dawkins at the lecture? Me! Now you might be saying, “Bleh, who wants to listen to Myers babble?”, but you’d be missing the important point: I’m only going to talk for 30 seconds to a minute, and then get out of the way. More Dawkins, less annoying functionary!

In fact, if we can get a full house at the Northrup, I’ll go one better — I’ll just say “Heeeeeeere’s Richard Dawkins!” and get off the stage. So buy more tickets, and shut me up (watch for the rush on the Northrup box office now).

Oh, and there will be a semi-secret pub night afterwards. I’m not advertising it too widely, to keep the riff-raff away…but you can email me and ask for directions.

As long as I’m abusing ‘framers’…

I might as well recommend this excellent rebuttal to Weiss and Nisbet. Weiss wrote an op-ed which was basically a baseless argument that these uppity New Atheists should sit down and shut up because Charles Darwin “knew there is plenty of room for God at the top”. It’s a stupid argument on many levels, and not just because we are none of us worshippers of Darwinian infallibility…but also because it misrepresents Darwin’s ideas about religion.

Weiss and Nisbet are trying to use Darwin as a positive example to contrast with their presumed negative example of the New Atheists. If they did this with regard to the public expression and aggressive style of the New Atheists, especially in their intolerance of all religions, they would have a good argument. Darwin and most atheists today are much more circumspect than the New Atheists and not so intolerant of all religions and religious philosophies. But instead, they criticized the New Atheists with the actual philosophical atheistic beliefs themselves, and here their argument fails, since Darwin was no different in this regard than Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, et al. By the end of his life, Darwin was a total agnostic, nontheist, and–concerning the Christian God–antitheist. When Darwin wrote, “The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject [the existence of an ineffable god] is beyond the scope of man’s intellect,” he was correct about generic gods in general, and I don’t think the New Atheists would disagree. Both they and Darwin would be nontheistic about generic gods. “Every man,” Darwin wrote, “must judge for himself, between conflicting vague probabilities.” For the most part this is obvious, and Darwin had judged for himself and chosen agnosticism and atheism–nontheism for god and antitheism for the Christian God (whose existence he thought had been disproved by the problem of evil).

Radio reminder

9am Central. Sunday morning. The evil atheists of the upper midwest will continue their nefarious plan to disseminate propaganda internationally by means of the radio waves, which will vibrate even within the walls of Minneapolis’s churches, synagogues, and temples, and also via the godless intertubes. This week, they will once again spread the infidel lie that atheists can “lead rich, ethical and fulfilling lives without appealing to gods or religious authority”, when every Christian knows deep in their heart that they want to murder, maim, rape, and steal, and only God’s holy extortion can keep them in line.

Go ahead, tune in if you want to lead hedonistic lives of ungodly self-indulgence. Click on that link if you want to make Jesus cry. Destroy all of Western civilization by letting the heathen weaken the shackles of your sacred servitude.

(Just don’t tune in before 9 or after 10, because Air America runs some awesomely stupid informercials before and after the hour of reason.)

Washington state kook wants a law to discriminate against atheists

While Arkansas takes a small step forward, a few people in my home state of Washington want to take a great leap backwards. Some crank named Kimberlie Struiksma, who is apparently associated with education, has proposed to put a remarkably clueless measure onto the ballot. Behold Initiative Measure No. 1040:

Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1040 concerns a supreme ruler of the universe.

This measure would prohibit state use of public money or lands for anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would require state government not to use public funds or property for anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the universe, including but not limited to appropriations for displays, textbooks, scientific endeavors, instruction, and research projects. The measure would provide that no person shall be questioned based on their personal values, beliefs, or opinions regarding the existence of a supreme ruler of the universe.

That’s just the abstract, and if you’re a masochist, you can read the whole thing; it’s long and tedious. You can get the gist of it, though, in a few paragraphs. It’s a weird document that tries to explicitly silence atheists and cut off any representation of godlessness, but at the same time flounces about and insists that this isn’t discrimination. It’s going to exclude atheists from everything.

Respecting no establishment of religion, yet with respect to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, whose existence has been declared in the preamble to the Constitution of the state of Washington, the state shall make no appropriation for nor apply any public moneys or property in support of anything, specifically including, but not limited to, any display, exercise, instruction, textbook, scientific endeavor, circulated document, or research project which denies or attempts to refute the existence of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.

There’s a clue to the motivation here in the restriction against “any display”: I bet this is aimed directly at the people who dared to put up an atheist sign alongside the Christmas tree at the Washington state capitol this past year. Many people fulminated against that, and here’s Ms. Struiksma trying to make it illegal for atheist ideas to be presented, while anyone who endorses a god will not be discriminated against.

Then it gets expanded to cover just about anything that might offend a devout Christian. If you read the definitions, for instance, you discover that one of the targets of the ban, “scientific endeavors”, is defined as “any act, idea, theory, intervention, conference, organization, or individual having to do with science.” Apparently, the state cannot support any atheist who is a scientist. There goes a large percentage of the faculty of the University of Washington!

There are also lots of frantic clauses to assure everyone that this is not a “government sponsored witch hunt” and that it wouldn’t “limit or infringe upon religious freedom” — which, of course, simply highlights the fact that that is exactly what it is intended to be and do, and that the author is fully aware of it.

Don’t panic yet, Washingtonians! This is only a proposed initiative. Ms. Struiksma must gather the signatures of 241,153 registered voters by July in order for it to actually be put on the ballot. There aren’t that many crazy stupid people in the state, are there?

On second thought, maybe you should worry a little bit.