Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1845

After Investigation, Georgia University Warns Professor Not to Preach Creationism Again or He Will Be Fired

Back in October, a group of science advocates including Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, with the help of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote a letter to Georgia Southern University.

It turned out that History professor Dr. Emerson T. McMullen (below) was teaching courses in which he advocated Creationism.

McMullen allegedly uses extra-credit assignments to try to “convert” students by inviting them to write about McMullen’s religious beliefs. He has reportedly also promoted Christian propaganda such as the recent movie “God Is Not Dead,” which pits an atheist professor against a Christian student.

Coyne examined some of the class material FFRF uncovered and expertly took apart the unscientific claims, noting that most of what McMullen said on the topic was “completely wrong.”

“A teacher should be free to express opinions, however ill-informed, so long as he or she makes it clear that they are no more than his opinions. He should not be free to penalize students who fail to parrot his opinions,” Dawkins noted. “And if his opinions include Young Earth Creationism, my personal opinion is that he is no more qualified to teach history than a ‘flat earther’ is to teach geography or a proponent of the ‘stork theory’ is to teach reproductive physiology.”

FFRF reported yesterday that the university completed its investigation and sent McMullen the results… It doesn’t look very good for him:

The memo directed McMullen to “cease religious discussion unrelated to the subject matter of [his] curriculum” and threatened termination if he did not comply.

…

The university confirmed the allegations, and uncovered other troubling practices. These include adding an extra credit question asking students to identify one of the Ten Commandments in each exam McMullen gave between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014. The memo said that McMullen is “directed to avoid asking religion-based questions on examinations where such questions are not related to the curriculum of the course.”

…

Please review this memo closely and make certain to comply with the restrictions contained therein. Failure to do so will place the University at risk of violating the Establishment Clause and will result in undue pressure on the students in your courses to conform to your personal religious views. Because of those risks, failure to comply with the directives herein may also subject you to personnel action, up to and including efforts to terminate your employment with the University. Please inform me immediately should you have any questions concerning this matter.

It’s amazing that, after all he’s done, he’s basically getting off with a warning… but maybe he’ll finally change his ways now that he knows people are watching him closely.

Even if he doesn’t, he’ll always have a job speaking to church groups as a victim of anti-Christian discrimination.

Missouri Republican’s Bill Would Ban Abortions Without Father’s Permission… Unless It Was a “Legitimate Rape”

Suppose you encountered a circumstance where your right to bodily autonomy, to control your own reproductive choices, was disregarded. Your first thought probably wouldn’t be “now how can I deprive someone else of similar rights?”

Then again, you’re not Missouri Republican state representative Rick Brattin.

Brattin, a “devoted Christian” legislator with a history of promoting Intelligent Design and anti-abortion legislation, claims that he needed his wife’s permission to get a recent vasectomy. While Missouri Planned Parenthood notes that this is not a legal requirement in Missouri, some clinics (not Planned Parenthood) do make this procedure’s availability contingent on a wife’s permission. This, too, is an appalling disregard for a person’s autonomy and right to make his own reproductive choices.

But Brattin used that experience to make a point about why his state needed to come down even harder against such decisions:

Here I was getting a normal procedure that has nothing to do with another human being’s life, and I needed to get a signed form… But on ending a life, you don’t. I think that’s pretty twisted.

To that end, he wrote a bill that would impose such a requirement on women: that if they want an abortion, they must first get the permission of the man with whom they got pregnant. The bill requires that

No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion, except in cases in which the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced was the victim of rape or incest and the pregnancy resulted from the rape or incest.

Despite putting forth such an awful plan, Brattin recognized there might be some difficulty in shifting the power of a woman’s reproductive choices to her male partner. His solutions range from bad to terrible.

His answer to “what if he’s dead?” for instance, is forcing the pregnant woman to sign an affidavit to that effect.

It’s in his solution to “what if the man who impregnated her was a rapist?” where Brattin really hits rock bottom, though:

“Just like any rape, you have to report it, and you have to prove it,” Brattin tells Mother Jones. “So you couldn’t just go and say, ‘Oh yeah, I was raped’ and get an abortion. It has to be a legitimate rape.“

He actually used those words. But don’t get him confused with notorious gynotician Todd Akin. Brattin assures us that his use of the phrase isn’t to imply that women can magically shut down rape pregnancies. He’s not a monster, after all. He’s just awfully worried about women faking rape:

“I’m just saying if there was a legitimate rape, you’re going to make a police report, just as if you were robbed,” Brattin says. “That’s just common sense.” Under his bill, he adds, “you have to take steps to show that you were raped… And I’d think you’d be able to prove that.“

Mother Jones points out that “the bill contains no provision establishing standards for claiming the rape or incest exceptions,” so we’re left to guess at what Brattin might consider a reasonable guideline for weeding out the illegitimate rapes from the supposed legitimate ones.

But it’s also worth noting that the entire premise — that it’s just “common sense” that a victim of rape would report and prove it, if indeed the rape was “legitimate” — is simply false.

There are a number of factors that go into the decision not to report rape — including fear, shame, and a fear that the accusation won’t be taken seriously. But that doesn’t mean that rape didn’t happen in those cases (or wasn’t “legitimate”).

Furthermore, most reported rapes do not net convictions. Only 1 in 4 reported rapes result in arrests, and only about 3% of rapists serve jail time for their crimes. So to suggest that a rape victim could easily, during the period of time that an abortion was still legal, “prove” that she’d been raped is ludicrous.

Which Brattin should know if he’s trying to create law surrounding rape.

Brattin spent even less time considering victims of domestic violence:

When asked if he would support an exception for women whose partners are abusive, Brattin says, “I haven’t really thought about that aspect of it.” But he adds, “What does that have to do with the child’s life? Just because it was an abusive relationship, does that mean the child should die?” Brattin notes that women in these situations can obtain protective custody once the child is born.

Never mind that financial dependency and threats against children are weapons in an abuser’s arsenal, to coerce a victim to stay, or that proving domestic violence is hardly an easy thing. That an abused woman might not want to have her abuser’s child is irrelevant; Brattin sees no issue with giving an abuser the right to decide whether his victim has access to an abortion or not. What, after all, would any of that have to do with abortion?!

The Christian pro-life crowd often couches its rhetoric in sweet sounding phrases, claiming to care about women, saying they’re motivated by a desire to “protect life,” etc. But the desire to control the reproductive rights (and, through them, lives) of women, as God intended, is often just beneath the surface. Sometimes, as with Brattin’s bill, a little more visibly than others.

Judge Voids Verdict in Case of Young Black Boy Who Died on Electric Chair, Perhaps With the Bible as a Booster Seat

Justice received posthumously is no justice at all. But maybe it’s better than nothing?

A South Carolina judge on Wednesday took the unusual step of vacating the 1944 conviction of a black 14-year-old boy, the youngest person executed in the United States in the past century, saying he did not receive a fair trial in the murders of two white girls.

George Stinney Jr. was convicted by an all-white jury after a one-day trial and a 10-minute jury deliberation during a time when racial segregation prevailed in much of the United States. Stinney died in the electric chair less than three months after the killings of Betty June Binnicker, 11, and Mary Emma Thames, 7.

In her ruling, Judge Carmen Tevis Mullen said she was not overturning the case on its merits, which scant records made nearly impossible to relitigate, but on the failure of the court to grant Stinney a fair trial. She said few or no defense witnesses testified and that it was “highly likely” that Stinney’s confession to white police officers was coerced.

His sister, Amie Ruffner, 77, testified in a January hearing that he could not have killed the girls because he had been with her on that day.

One detail that stands out about Stinney’s execution is that he was too slight to fit into the electric chair, a contraption built for adults. According to Wikipedia,

Standing 5 foot 2 inches (157 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg), his size (relative to the fully grown prisoners) presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes.

What to do? Christianity’s Good Book to the rescue!

Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair.

But to be honest, I’ve wondered about that part of the story. At the moment of death, people often lose control of their bodily functions (this must especially be common knowledge in prisons with execution chambers). Would the warden, the pastor, and others present have allowed their Holy Book to be so defiled? Would Stinney, who was also a Christian?

Some sources, including NBC News, say that the boy did need a makeshift booster seat, but that a plain old phone book was used.

Whatever the case, considering that even today South Carolina’s population is about 93% Christian, seventy years ago the state certainly had no shortage of Bible-loving judges, prosecutors, and juries — many of whom would send a black boy to his death in a matter of hours, no evidence needed.

Surviving the Holidays as an Atheist

Openly Secular has released a helpful guide to surviving the holidays as an atheist. It covers everything from coping with religious family members to whether or not you should even celebrate the occasions:

Regardless of your ethnic heritage and cultural background, holidays are a source of meaning that reminds us who we are and where we come from. Therein lies a dilemma for those who don’t adhere to a faith tradition. All around us are celebrations in the making — centered around beliefs that we don’t share. What’s a nonbeliever to do? Many of us struggle with how to react to and participate in holiday celebrations.

It’s an excellent resource for anyone who’s new to dealing with these questions.

Looks Like I’ll Have To Return to Missouri Next Year…

If you needed any encouragement to attend Skepticon 8 next year, this video ought to do the trick!

(via The P.A.S.T.A. Foundation)

Atheist Billboard and Tree of Knowledge To Go Up in Las Vegas

The newly-formed Las Vegas Coalition of Reason will soon put up a billboard (“Godless? So are we!”) to announce its formation. It already erected a Tree of Knowledge (with book-cover ornaments):

… this Tree of Knowledge has received the endorsement of famed Rio Las Vegas magician Teller, half of the Penn & Teller team. Teller writes: “This boffo tree has the balls to have books.”

…

“We want to make our presence in the community known,” said Ray Johnson, coordinator of Las Vegas CoR. “Non-theistic people are your family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers. We may not believe in a deity or the supernatural, but we are compassionate, ethical members of this community.“

The billboard, which will be up for a month beginning next week, cost $6,500 and was funded by the United Coalition of Reason, a group that has now placed signs in 38 states in addition to the District of Columbia.

If anything, it beats the last time there was a billboard in Vegas declaring God to be a myth…

Atheists Sue Franklin County (Indiana) Over Nativity Scene on Courthouse Grounds

Last week, I mention that there was a Nativity Scene in Brookville, Indiana that has been up for over 50 years, despite warning letters (over the course of several years) from the Freedom From Religion Foundation to take it down.

Here are the only details that matter: The display is owned by the Town of Brookville and sits on the grounds of the Franklin County Courthouse.

The defenders of the display cling to the same old arguments as usual: It’s tradition. Just look away. Why do you hate Christmas?!

None of them care to address the legal issues.

The commissioners said they have been ignoring the letters, and instead rallying and fighting to keep the nativity there.

“If people don’t like the look of it I think they can look the other way, or don’t look at all. It’s been a tradition here for many, many years and I hope it’s for many more years. I think we deserve the right to put up what the community wants and I don’t think anybody else should tell us what to do,” Brookville resident Wayne Monroe said.

“We” is the key word there. Residents can put up whatever they want on their own property. The city, however, can’t promote a particular religion. It’s that simple.

Yesterday, after years of politely asking local officials to take care of this matter and nothing changing, FFRF filed a federal lawsuit against the county:

After receiving complaints by local residents, FFRF first contacted Franklin County about its unconstitutional nativity in 2010. That year the nativity scene was erected at the foot of the flag pole. FFRF renewed complaints in 2011 and 2013. The county refused to take down the religious scene, moving it closer to the courthouse entrance in 2011. Community members have held annual rallies around it, where a commissioner was quoted this year as saying, “The atheists and the liberals are taking over our country.”

…

“There are ample private and church grounds where religious displays may be freely placed, said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Once Franklin County enters into the religion business, conferring endorsement and preference for one religion over others, it strikes a blow at religious liberty, forcing citizens of all faiths and of no religion to support a particular expression of religion.”

As far as I can tell, the county has provided no way for non-Christian groups to put up their own displays using the same government resources.

The lawsuit calls for the display to be taken down immediately and for the county to pay all of FFRF’s relevant legal bills.

(Large portions of this article were posted earlier)

Now Who’s Waging War on Christmas? To the Dismay of Other Christians, Pastor Claims that Santa = Satan

Pastor Edward Carothers seems like a barrel of laughs. He’s the man behind a church sign outside the Born Again Independent Baptist Church in Harlem, Georgia, that’s been raising eyebrows. It reads:

SANTA IS SATAN

Also:

SANTA GREAT IMPOSTER

So what’s Carothers’ beef with the big-bellied gift-giver from the North Pole?

“We believe that Santa Claus is robbing Christ of his glory,” the pastor said. … “We have come to the point where we have replaced Jesus Christ and his birthday with a fictitious character named ‘Santa’ and we have lifted him up instead of lifting up the savior.”

Fine. But by equating Santa with the Evil One, pastor Carothers seems to have bitten off a little more than he can chew. People were annoyed beyond reason, he says incredulously.

“It’s amazing to me that people would get this upset over a fictitious creature,” he [told] News 12.

Read that line again. Isn’t the lack of self-awareness just precious?

“They grow up believing in Santa Claus, they grow up believing in the Tooth Fairy, they grow up believing in the Easter Bunny, they grow up in some homes believing in Jesus Christ. Well when they get older they find out the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus ain’t real. So, what about this fourth person called Jesus?” he said.

Good question, kids! Keep asking it!

In case you hadn’t noticed, Carothers is miffed.

“You look all over the country and people have Santa Claus and reindeer and everything else up but no Jesus,” the pastor said.

Except in millions of mangers, in hundreds of thousands of Christmas sermons, and on the lips of about 150 million prayerful Christians.

For the folks who have spoken out against him, he has a message. “I want them to know that we believe in Jesus and we’re going to lift up and magnify him on his birthday. It’s his birthday. It’s not Santa’s birthday,” he said.

I’m confused. Weren’t atheists supposed to be the Grinches?

Arizona School Board Decides Against Redacting Honors Biology Textbook Page Mentioning Birth Control

Last month, the board members of the Gilbert Public Schools in Arizona voted 3-2 in favor of removing a page from an honors biology textbook because it contained information about birth control and abortion.

Mind you, it also said “Complete abstinence (avoiding intercourse) is the only totally effective method of birth control,” but the textbook upset conservatives because it suggested there were non-abstinence options when it came to birth control.

After the district became the subject of mockery — Rachel Maddow‘s team even bought the domain ArizonaHonorsBiology.com so that everyone could read the controversial page from the textbook — Superintendent Christina Kishimoto urged the board to reconsider their decision.

It worked. Yesterday, the board agreed not to change the books:

Although it did not take a formal vote, the Gilbert Public Schools governing board on Tuesday decided school staff does not need to edit biology books that mention abortion after all.

I wish I could say this was all because they realized they made a mistake… but Kishimoto persuaded them with not-so-academic reasons:

Kishimoto said because the textbooks are copyrighted, editing the books could create legal issues. In addition, a redaction effort would involve thousands of books and a special process that could involve hiring teachers to work over the summer.

A better solution, Kishimoto said, would be to have teachers provide supplemental information to students about childbirth and adoption and not change the books. GPS staff could insert additional material into books if the board desires.

That’s kind of like saying, “We would totally remove this page if we could… but it’d be a lot of work. So let’s not.”

Not exactly the sort of strong leadership you want in a superintendent.

But maybe it was just strategic. Kishimoto alluded to the board putting politics above students’ needs in a letter to them:

“Additionally, I want to share with you that in my conversations with teachers there is significant teacher concern that there is a breakdown of trust between the board and teachers … This perception of mistrust can erode the positive work environment that is the cornerstone of my leadership. Therefore, my request to the Board is to consider turning this matter back to me as the Superintendent to handle as an administrative matter, i.e. curriculum implementation.”

It’s the sort of tone you expect from a patient coach to a student who has no business being on the team: I know you’re working really hard, but I’m the coach here and you need to trust my decision-making.

The board ultimately made the right decision. If only they had the right reasons for doing it. In any case, the students learned a valuable lesson: Go vote. That’s the only way to get these kinds of conservatives off the school board so that they can’t do any further damage.

(Thanks to Avery for the link)

Kennesaw (GA) Officials Hypocritically Rejected Mosque’s New Location, but They’ve Finally Come to Their Senses

Earlier this month, the Kennesaw City Council (in Georgia) voted down a proposed Islamic center located in a strip mall… but even that was an obstacle in itself:

… when the time came, Kennesaw Mayor Mark Matthews had trouble getting the council to take a vote at all. No member would second the motion to proceed.

After several very awkward pauses, the council finally voted. Four of the five members voted “no”.

Why would they say no when the Muslims fulfilled all the requirements of any group looking to acquire the space? Council member Debra Williams (below) made clear this had nothing to do with anti-Islamic prejudice:

Williams said she voted against the application because she did not think a religious center should operate inside a retail shopping center.

“I believe it’s a retail space. It’s as plain and simple as that,” Williams said.

Just one problem with that:

Yet Williams and all four other council members voted unanimously in July to allow a Pentecostal church in a retail center when the council approved Redeemed Christian Fellowship Church to use a 4,000 square-foot unit in a center on the corner of Ben King Road and Cherokee Street.

Don’t you understand? The rules just don’t apply to Christians because they’re special.

Well, there’s finally a happy ending to this story. The council members who voted no weeks ago have changed their minds. They said it’s because of legal advice they received from their attorney… though I’m sure the fact that the criticism they received for their hypocrisy from everyone who heard this story played a part in their decision.

Now, those council members who voted no say they approve, citing just a newly adopted vision statement focused on creating a welcoming environment and a more inclusive city.

Yep, inclusive and welcoming… but only after city officials were caught not being inclusive and welcoming.

(Image via Facebook. Thanks to Justin for the link. Large portions of this article were posted earlier)