sweet baby space jesus

The full text of the very quickly infamous Dallin Oaks BYU-I speech has much more crazy in it that just the extremely racist, homophobic, ethnocentric statements about the post Prop 8 Mormon "persecution" being the same as blacks in the south in the 60s. Just as crazy, and perhaps more dangerous are his arguments about religious freedoms, and how they apparently trump the freedoms of the non-religious or gays (who apparently are all non-religious).

The problem for him is that Oaks is stumbling into dangerous waters with his religious vs. gay framing of the debate - because it's a false dichotomy. There are quite a few religions which strongly favour gay equality, gay marriage, total equality for all. His arguments therefore lose their potency because the only grounds upon which he has to argue against gay rights are religious, and indeed, are the only grounds upon which he even tries to argue, in this particular speech. What he forgets to mention is why his specific, Mormon, religious beliefs should be able to trump, in secular society, the religious beliefs of the UU, Church of Christ, liberal Quakers, or Episcopalians, etc., let alone non-Christians.

Because of the constitutional issue of separation of church and state, the state cannot favour one religion over another. Even if we were to allow it to favour religion over non-religion (which we don't allow, or are trying not to at least), it still could not constitutionally or legally allow conservative religions to overrule liberal religions on this or any other issue.

And I just can't believe he's stupid enough to not have realised this - though perhaps I'm over estimating his intelligence - but I have to assume he knows how fundamentally flawed his entire argument is. I am forced to conclude he's only using it to cynically manipulate those who won't question his words or fault him for his massive illogic. Oaks, Hafen, et al. are just not so cleverly or subtly giving the faithful ways to not feel guilty about being homophobes. They are making the members perform their dirty work by filling their heads with lies and half-truths and faulty logic, and then telling them it's their godly duty to oppose equal human rights for all.

I think it is also clear that Oaks believes (or at least says he does) that gays shouldn't be allowed to even protest. The church clearly believes they have some imaginary right to be immune to all criticism. They seem also to think that they have a right to fund votes on which minorities get which rights, and receive no legal or social consequences, simply on the basis that they're a religion. This mentality stems from the idea Mormons are brought up with that they're special, better, and more righteous than EVERYONE ELSE EVERYWHERE, EVER. They have the "ONE TRUE TRUTH" from sweet baby jesus, and that gives them the right to lord it over everyone else. They simply don't comprehend why society can't function when people act or think like that, or why they should be subject to the same secular laws as all the heathens and fags. They just don't understand that their apostles aren't in charge of the country, that their imaginary space-jesus isn't really running things on earth from his perch on Kolob, and that they're on the very, very wrong side of this issue, as so often in the past.

If we were to give into his and the church's ideas of religious "rights" (and the evangelicals', etc.) we would swiftly have several fundamentalist Christian theocracies warring with each other, rather than a free, democratic, secular, and pluralistic society where individuals and minorities have (at least some) rights.

And that is why Oaks is full of shit, why his ideas are dangerous, and why I hate him and his ilk.

what the fuck?

Mormon Church Leader : "Mormonism is the new black"

i has a food blog!

Which is here. It's pretty naked right now, but I'm working on it. Look for developments in the near future.

recipe of the week

Beer Braised Chicken with Herbed Dumplings

8-10 chicken thighs, skin on
2 12 oz bottles of beer* (see below)
4 C low sodium or unsalted chicken broth
1 bunch flat-leaf Italian parsley
20 g (one .7 oz pkg) fresh thyme on the stem
15 g (3/4 of a .7 oz pkg) fresh rosemary
2-3 dried bay leaves or 8-10 fresh
5 garlic cloves
kosher salt
1 large onion
3-4 large ribs celery (with leaves if possible)
8-12 oz cremini mushrooms (baby portobello)
fresh ground black pepper
celery seed

Dumplings:
3 C flour
4 t baking powder
1 1/2 t kosher salt
freshly ground pepper to taste
4-5 scallions (green onions)
1/2 C milk
1-1.5 C beer (8-12 oz)
reserved herbs

Wash the chicken thighs and pat dry with paper towels. Season liberally on both sides with kosher salt, pepper and celery seed. Lightly oil a very large, at least 4 inch deep skillet, pot, or electric frying pan and pan fry the thighs on both sides until well browned and the skin is crispy. You may have to remove some of the grease half-way through.

While the chicken browns, chop the herbs, stripping the thyme and rosemary leaves from their stems. Mix the dough for the dumplings, adding in about 2/3 of the rosemary and thyme and 1/2 of the parsley to the dumpling batter as well as all of the scallions, reserving the rest of the herbs for the gravy/garnish. Add in the liquid, adding in more beer if needed to make a slightly stiff dough. Dice the onion and celery, mince the garlic, and halve (or quarter if large) the mushrooms.

Once well browned (don't worry about cooking through, because you'll braise them later) remove the chicken, set aside, and then remove most of grease without disturbing the cooked-on remnants. Leave enough fat to sauté the onions, celery, mushrooms and garlic in. Add in the onion and celery and season with salt and pepper, scraping up the browned bits. Sweat until soft and slightly caramelised, then add in the garlic and mushrooms, being careful not to let the garlic burn. Add more of the chicken fat if needed. If using fresh bay leaves, add them in with the garlic and sauté them slightly being careful also to not allow them to burn either. Once cooked, deglaze the pan with one of the bottles of beer*. Again scrape up any browned bits on the bottom of the pan, and then add in the chicken stock. Check for saltiness and add more salt if needed (if you use unsalted or low-sodium stock it will definitely need salt). Add the chicken back in at this point, as well as the reserved herbs (keeping 1/4 of the parsley until the end as a garnish for the whole dish), cover so as not to lose liquid volume, and let braise on medium-low heat for about 20-30 minutes.

At this point, spoon the dumpling dough into the spaces between the chicken (into the broth). The starch from the dumplings, as well as evaporation, will begin to greatly thicken up the broth and turn in into a gravy. Replace the cover, and steam/braise the dumplings for about 7 minutes, and then add in the second beer and (if any) left over which you didn't put in the dumpling batter. Cook for another 10-15 minutes until the gravy is thickened, but not too thick (add in more stock and/or beer if the gravy evaporates too much/gets too thick). If too watery, remove the cover and let simmer for a few minutes until thickened. Remove the bay leaves.

At this point, serve the dumpling and chicken, spooning gravy over the dumplings. You might want to also serve this with a light salad or carrots, or green vegetable, as this is quite heavy (but goddamn amazingly flavourful). Garnish with the reserved chopped fresh parsley.

*Ideally a medium-heavy bodied, hoppy & malty ale such as an amber ale, red ale, pale ale, Belgian ale, or some types of non-stout medium dark porters). You definitely don't want to use either a light lager or dark stout - something in between. In Utah we have beers called Polygamy Porter and Evolution Amber Ale, either of which would would be ideal for this dish.

One of the benefits of cooking with alcohol (besides the addition of tons of delicious flavour) is the fact that while alcohol has a lower boiling point than water, all of the alcohol won't cook out, and it acts as a natural flavour-enhancer (like salt, but obviously without the sodium/salt taste). I add in the second beer later to keep in more of the alcohol in the gravy so the flavour is that much more enhanced, and to ensure the gravy doesn't cook down too much.

Furthermore, I love to use the beer in the dumplings because the acid in the beer reacts with the baking soda to create fluffier, more flavourful dumplings than one would get with using milk only.

Using fresh herbs in this is a real must if at all possible. Dried herbs in the dumplings especially would create a different texture and be too bitter and strong. When cooking with fresh herbs, use 3-4 times as much as you were to normally use dried. Some herbs (like parsley and cilantro) lose their flavour when dried, and so are really only useful fresh. Other more woody herbs (thyme, rosemary, oregano) intensify when dried, and are good in some dishes/in some instances. I keep dried herbs in my pantry, but regularly purchase fresh herbs for most uses.

just so you know

Einstein was not a theist. He wasn't even a deist. No matter how often theists try to pretend he was one of them by quote mining him out of context, he was not, so stop it.

And we have proof.

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.

Suck on that, theists.

and it came to pass jesus did cum down and did most vigorously fuck mohammed in the ass, and god looked down and said, oh me that is so fucking hot.

Tomorrow is International Blasphemy Day. Why is it important? Well, the Center for Inquiry has more than a few ideas, and so does PZ Myers of Pharyngula - all of which I agree with.

From the article on the CFI website,

Blasphemy Day International is a campaign seeking to establish September 30th as a day to promote free speech and stand up in a show of solidarity for the freedom to challenge, criticize, and satirize religion without fear of murder, litigation, 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 those who demand "respect" for their beliefs (i.e., immunity to being criticized or mocked or they threaten violence).

The right to free speech, which includes the right to criticise any idea, is one of the most important human rights.

Certain religious people, groups and countries seem to think that religion should be exempt from criticism (i.e. blasphemy) because religious ideas are somehow deserving of immunity from criticism. Of course, that's utter bullshit, but that fact hasn't kept the UN from giving into pressure specifically from Islamic nations to do the exact opposite of what makes sense, and declare the "defamation of religion" a human rights violation. The problem is, human rights are about protecting humans, not human ideas. Not one single idea, concept, or belief should ever be exempted from the most intense scrutiny or criticism.

It is grossly disturbing that free speech is being so constricted by the international community. No idea should ever be exempt from criticism, no matter how "sacred" or important it is to a society.

Though this was specifically instigated by Muslims' freak-out over the Mohammed cartoons of 2005, Islam is far from the only offender, though perhaps currently the worst. Christianity has just as bad a history as Islam does in allowing free inquiry, and the vast majority of religions curtail in to one degree or another.

While in most parts of the world physical violence is no longer likely if one blasphemes Christianity specifically, it is still very taboo in many cultures and countries, where it enjoys a very privileged status. For example in Ireland, it is even now illegal to blaspheme. From wikipedia,

In Ireland, blasphemy is prohibited by the constitution and carries a maximum fine of €25,000. A controversial law was brought into law on 9 July 2009 making blasphemous libel a crime for material "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage"blasphemy is prohibited by the constitution and carries a maximum fine of €25,000. A controversial law was brought into law on 9 July 2009 making blasphemous libel a crime for material "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage"

In some countries the right to free speech is curtailed under existing "hate speech" laws where "inciting hatred" against specific groups is illegal, and while certain degrees of hate speech should be illegal (inciting murder for example), far too often it is applied to something as trivial but important as the right to "insult" religious groups, through criticising or attacking their beliefs and traditions. This happens routinely in Canada and Europe especially.

I do my best to blaspheme daily, but I think it deserves a little extra attention tomorrow. The only way we'll ever bring about tolerance for others' right to be and believe different is to allow complete and open criticism, comment and speech on every topic imaginable. Notice I didn't say tolerance for other's beliefs, but rather their right to those beliefs. I believe in being utterly intolerant and disrespectful of bad beliefs, non-scientific beliefs, and harmful beliefs. But beliefs and their expression cannot ever be curtailed.

In this one instance, the laws of the US are ahead of the rest of the world - because of the first amendment. But the cultural ramifications of blasphemy are still very real in the US, and conservative Christians specifically seem unable to grasp why they don't deserve any sort of special respect for their beliefs, nor why when they preach against other creeds (atheism, Islam, polytheism, etc.) they're doing exactly what they want to be exempted from.

Unabashed and unending blasphemy is one of the best solutions to bring awareness to the importance of the right to free speech and right to criticise any and all ideas. Free inquiry and free thought are the foundations of rational thought, science as well as are the core of the very idea of human rights.

So to start off,

Joseph Smith was a paedophile, con-artist, and all-around fuck-tard, Tommy Monson and his cronies are in charge of one of the cleverest, richest and brainwashiest pyramid schemes/cults of all time, and aren't fooling anyone as to the real reason of their obsession with attacking gay rights.

Any other takers?

i am rubber and you are glue

As I've read this thread over at Mind on Fire, I've been thinking about why it is that there, in a space that is dedicated to open-thought, scepticism, and the breaking down of social norms, that those who seem to be against those things to whatever degree, go into that space and try to invalidate our experiences by saying they're not representative of the "true" Mormonism - whatever the hell that is.

I've been considering why some of those who are part of the Mormon system, the hierarchy, the organisation often seem to evidence the need to both further alienate the disenfranchised as well as attack and discredit our experiences in and feelings about Mormonism.

This is not by any means specific to Mormonism, nor religion, and is in fact something that I've found to be very common throughout every level of our society. As an atheist, as an ex-Mormon, and especially as a gay, I've experienced constant attack by those in the mainstream (the religious, the Mormon, and the straight) telling me that my experiences aren't real, that they are outliers, that they don't have the right kind of meaning or usefulness, that I deserve to be ostracised and reprimanded for not conforming, and discredited for not having the same beliefs, wants, needs, feelings and experiences as the majority.

The pressure to conform to society is extremely pervasive and invasive. It is a threat to those in power to let heretics of whatever flavour (religious, political, sexual etc.) have an equal part in society. The need of the majority to overwhelm and suppress the minorities seems to be a strong drive in human societies.

I've seen that evidenced, both in John Remy's excommunication as well as much of the discussion which followed on Mind on Fire and elsewhere on the blogosphere. It is a fundamental threat to the hierarchy and power structure of Mormonism to allow anyone to get away with any sort of criticism, or to allow critics to have the tiniest degree legitimacy. So the church tries to silence us, discredit us, slander us, and ostracise us for daring to think and speak outside the pre-approved box. And there are very many individuals whose own beliefs and perceptions are threatened by what we discuss, and seem to feel the need to defend that which is indefensible and wrong.

I've seen this with certain of my own family members, who a more than a few times have been angry with me or offended because I have posted things critical of Mormonism or religion in general. Even if we're in no way attacking an individual, that fact that anyone is attacking a world-view they espouse feels personally threatening to them - and that is exactly what the church wants.

There are very, very few religionists who are able to handle any bit of criticism of their particular brand of superstition - whether religious, political, cultural, it's the same - no matter how true, accurate, or well-meaning the critique, because they've integrated their beliefs about the outside world into their sense of self. For them to have to change a belief or admit that any belief, let alone an entire belief system is incorrect is like being forced to rip off an arm or leg.

Mormonism is stuck in that space where admitting fault to any degree would invalidate one of the main premises upon which church is built, namely that the organisation is perfect and led by ALMIGHTY GOD. The fact that the the church has changed numerous times in the past and abandoned problematic dogmas is conveniently ignored or explained away with the most dubious of logic. The important thing is that it is completely true and inspired NOW - whenever that now takes place. In 20 years the church will doubtless pretend it was never officially homophobic, that its anti-gay commandments, doctrines, and policies were just the mistaken and bigoted teachings of men and try to explain away its official endorsement of those ideas just as it has unsuccessfully attempted to explain away its racist ones.

Most adherents to Mormonism are stuck in the same trap, not only are unable to accept personal criticism, but institutional. A typical individual Mormon feels the need to defend the church against any and all perceived attacks because the good (even perfect) reputation of the church is a part of their self-identity. To admit the church ever has been or could be wrong, let alone on the massive scale on which it actually is, would be psychologically devastating to most members of the church.

So rather than let those of us who have left or have broken out of that paradigm own our experiences and express them freely, those committed to the status quo feel the intense need to ignore the problem, pretend it's not nearly as bad as we anti-Mormons make it out to be, or otherwise ameliorate our criticism into oblivion so that they can stay in their blissful ignorant little box and not have to see the world as it really is: fundamentally flawed and dirty and beautiful, needing none of the nonsensical hypocritical rules and regulations.

Thankfully, it doesn't work.

finally

Internets, I'm very excited for I have a job.

As an office assistant, miscellaneous staff person, and whatnot at a marketing company.

That is all.

*whacks head on desk*

UPDATED & CLARIFIED

I thoroughly confused as to why theists try to argue against atheism by saying that atheism is just another brand of faith. I find it odd, annoying, and either completely cynical, or just plain stupid - either that, or one has stretched the definition of the word "faith" to be so broad as to have become completely synonymous with belief in general, and therefore useless.

I am personally offended when someone tells me that I "really" do have faith. To me that's an insult because faith is totally unwarranted and ridiculous. To say that my atheistic, rationalist, secularist, naturalist belief-system is in any way faith-based is to tell me that I'm 1) a giant hypocrite and 2) I'm an idiot. Obviously, those things are offensive.

First off in order to be able to discuss this coherently I need some definitions. To me religion and faith are nearly interchangeable, in that all religions are to one degree or another fundamentally based on faith. Faith is a non-reality based belief or set of beliefs.

An organisation which doesn't use faith I don't think is truly a religion - though I don't have a word yet for historicially religious traditions which have now rejected faith and dogma. (Most UU congregations fit into this - while historically religious, are more like community groups than a religion.) An organisation which originally wasn't a religion but adopts faith does, I think, become at least partly a religion (the American conservative Republican party is an example of this in many ways - especially in the past few years.)

Atheism is technically only the lack of belief in gods. In my own writing and philosophy, I generally use it a little more broadly - to me it is also a belief that there are no gods, nor anything supernatural. Though I do try to make it clear that I'm not speaking for all atheists, everywhere, and that some atheists believe to varying degrees in the supernatural and even religion, for example Buddhism, a religion, is technically mostly atheistic. There are no gods, but it makes supernatural unverifiable non-reality based claims.

So, to the topic at hand.

Over on Mind on Fire, one of my favourite blogs, a commenter said the following as a way to (as I interpret it) argue that theism is just as valid as atheism, and just another side of the faith-coin, or something like that.

As a former atheist, I’ve seen that humanism is just another faith system that is as prone to insular thinking, subjectivity, agendas, moralizing, etc.

There were so many things which bothered me about that statement that I didn't know where to begin, and ended up writing a long response which I decided would best be posted here, highly modified - despite the fact that I've reiterated these thoughts here a few times. Mostly I just thought it would be a shame to delete hours worth of writing and thinking.

First off, it seems he's trying to use the argument from authority - he was an atheist, so he can make valid judgements about what atheism is. Well, he's wrong. If he truly was an atheist, then he totally missed the entire point of both atheism and even more so of secularism. Right after saying "I don't believe in gods/I don't believe there are gods", the second inherent part of secularism is that faith is just so much nonsense.

Atheism is (most often) coupled with a complete rejection of the entire concept of faith. I find it odd when religionists try to characterise atheism or secularism or any other belief or belief system which is not religious as just another type of religion or faith. That is just simply not the case. Faith is fundamentally based on the idea that there are truths which are not objectively verifiable through any natural, observable, or scientific means. Atheism & secularism reject the concepts of religion and faith as being inherently false and unverifiable. The truth claims of every single religion, ever are either in contradiction with reality, and are therefore false, or cannot be backed up with any sort reality or facts.

Atheism, especially atheism as it exists in our society (as contrasted with the technical atheism that some Buddhists and sundry others follow), is a total rejection of religion, faith, all non-reality based beliefs, and the supernatural. If a belief is in conflict with reality, or cannot be supported with any evidence, then it is a useless and potentially harmful one.

The commenter went on to try and say that while he admits that religionists are judgemental, so are atheists, and while Mormons are admittedly guilty of "pious absolutism", so are humanists, secularists, and atheists. He went on to compare atheists' critique of religion as invalid because of the "whole pot/kettle and mote/beam thing".

In his attempt to characterise atheism as just another brand of faith, he seems to be arguing that the atheist critique of religion is further invalidated because he thinks atheists are guilty of the same kind of blind belief that religionists are. Unfortunately for him and his argument, that doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny, nor indeed, reality.

First of all, those proverbs have to do with hypocrisy on the part of the criticiser. I, as an atheist, criticise beliefs which are not based in reality, especially when those beliefs motivate people to harm others, infringe on other's rights, or cause people to ignore or otherwise discount reality and science. That is not hypocritical because I substantiate my beliefs, and if I'm shown that I'm wrong, and given convincing evidence, will change that belief. That is, to me, the essence of atheism's critique of religion - that even when a belief is shown to be wrong or harmful, or both, it is often impervious to scrutiny, critique, or change.

There is a fundamental difference between religious "truths", which are more accurately described as faith-beliefs and scientific, reality-based truth - in that one is based on reality, and the other on conjecture, subjective emotional experiences, and often complete and utter fantasy. That is something which is simple fact, it is provable, it is scientific, it is real.

I think there are, objectively, four categories of things/beliefs:
1) things which have proven to be true or have significant amounts of evidence supporting them
2) things which have been proven false, or have significant amounts of evidence contradicting them, or supporting a conflicting view
3) things which have yet to be sorted into either category #1 or #2 but are verifiable
4) things which are not verifiable as either true or false, real or imaginary

Science - the thing most (but unfortunately not all) atheists believe is able to describe reality because it has proven itself able to, you know, because of REALITY - is about finding the difference between category #1 and #2, examining #3 to try and sort it into either #1 or #2 and ignoring everything in #4. There is some seeming overlap between categories #3 and #4, as we gain more knowledge and are more able to analyse our world, our perception of what was in #4 shrinks. #4 seemed to be a much larger category just a few centuries ago. While it has shrunk considerably, I do think there will likely always be some things in category #4 - things like whether there is an afterlife, whether gods exist, whether there are magical and secret handshakes and passwords which allow one into heaven, etc.

Religion's claims - i.e. those which are unique to religion and aren't found secularly - fit either into #2 or #4- which means according to science they are either completely wrong or useless ideas. Ideas in religion which happen to be verifiably true aren't there not because of religion/faith but in spite of it. Now, that's not to say the claims aren't or haven't been useful for some (unfortunately many) people - some of those uses arguably good, many bad, but there is just no way to determine if any particular claim is indicative of reality or not - which makes it absolutely useless to me as well as most atheists.

In addition, there is no way to discern the difference between the claims of one religion over another because there is no objective difference between religions. Mormonism's claims are fundamentally in conflict with Catholicism's for example, but neither can be verified, neither is more correct because neither are based on anything real or measurable in any useful way.

There is no way to find out if god really did speak to Joseph Smith as the Mormons claim, or whether it was "really" Moses or Jesus or Mohammed.

Or perhaps god(s) spoke to Moses, Joseph, & Jesus, but not Mohammed, or Mohammed, Jesus & Moses but not Joseph, or Jesus and Moses but neither Joseph nor Mohammed, or just Moses, or (and this scenario is most likely of all) none of the above because there is no such thing as gods, and all those men were either lying, crazy, and/or never said anything close to what is now attributed to them, and may not even have existed.

As I've discussed previously, the ways in which Mormonism gives to find spiritual "truth" are the exact same ways nearly every other religion give: read our holy writings, pray to some deity, attend our fellowship, and have a subjective emotional and/or psychosomatic experience which (inexplicably) means our truth-claims are true.

The problem (as if there were only one) is the verifiable and verified fact that one can (and many have) get the same promised result from any religion. Which means either that they're all equally true - which is impossible because one of the truth claims of most religions is that all others are false - or that indeed all religions are equally false (ding, ding ding!). None of them have objective truths, and all offer certain subjective and, obviously for many, rewarding experiences, but are not, in any way, true or indicative of reality in useful ways - which are the ways which atheists and secularists care about.

I do not discount the fact that many people find important things in religion, find solace, comfort, hope, community, etc., but it is entirely, utterly and wholly false to argue that religion offers "truth" in any way that is comparable to non-theism and science.

Atheism is not faith in any useful definition of the word. To water it down enough to have it include the type of belief atheists have, it would have to become completely synonymous for all types of belief, which would make it a redundant and useless word. Atheism is, rather, a logical, rational, scientific stance which, while not 100% proven, is by far the most likely scenario. It is supported by the fact that scepticism is scientifically the default stance, (that gods are, for example, no more likely than invisible pink unicorns or invisible tea-ware), by the ability of science to more than adequately explain our existence without positing the existence of any religion or gods, and by the fact the chance of gods existing ever, at all, is so infinitesimally small to make the chances of life arising on our planet look like the most boring and every day of common occurrences.

Finally, and to sum up,

ATHEISM IS NOT A TYPE OF FAITH AND IT IS NOT ANOTHER KIND OF RELIGION!!!

under rug swept