Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1853

Finally, a (Mormon) Porn Site Where Fictional LDS Leaders “Stuff Magic Underwear In Each Other’s Mouths”

I borrowed that laugh-out-loud line from the aptly named Vice; the site has a story on Mormon-themed porn, claiming that it’s a booming business.

Getting off on watching Mormons doing the dirty is a very specific taste, obviously, but catering to such niches is currently where the (porn) money is.

The founder of the pay site Mormonboyz.com, the pseudonymous Legrand Wolf,

… had his first locker-room experience at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah. …

“Getting ready for my mission, I was finally exposed to [naked dudes] and I figured it out pretty quickly,” he told me. “But then I was around all these straight hot men, and I had to hide the fact that I was gay despite all this intimacy.”

Wolf eventually had sex with his mission trip partner, which the Mormons suggestively enough call a “companion.” After months of dropped hints and excruciating build-up, Wolf’s sexy French partner finally put the moves on him and they developed a loving relationship. Although his former companion is now married with kids, Wolf says their affair — and the sexual tension leading up to it — changed his life. At the very least, it’s the inspiration for ​MormonBoyz.com, the only gay porn site that caters to some very specific religious fantasies.

There’s also a sister pay site called Mormongirlz.com, started by Wolf’s friend Brooke Hunter. The front page features a photo of a wholesome-looking bare-breasted believer engaged in what looks to be the Book of Mormon.

(Heads-up to Hemant: I’m about to submit a $30 expense report under the heading web research. Hope that’s OK.)

So, what’s appealing about Mormon nookie? There’s the kinky connotation of polygamy, for starters. Joseph Smith loved him a wife or two (or fifty).

And to some,

… Mormon rituals definitely have an erotic flavor. When a young Mormon gets inducted into the temple, he or she gets “anointed” while wearing a sheet with a hole in the top. The elder then washes the newbie’s body, including his or her thighs and groin area. Then they put on the Temple Garment — or dowdy white underwear that devotees are required to wear at all times after the ceremony.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this ceremony is a common set on the site.

But Wolf and Hunter hope to never stop innovating. On Mormongirlz.com, we may soon see a recurring new storyline involving not just naughty fresh-faced missionaries, but also a “Mormon MILF.”

Sounds divine.

(Image via Shutterstock)

The Producer of The Principle, the Documentary Promoting Geocentrism, Finally Answered My Questions

Last week marked the release of a new documentary called The Principle… which is better known as the movie that claims Copernicus was wrong about the whole “Earth revolves around the sun” thing.

Star Trek‘s Kate Mulgrew is the narrator, but after finding out what the movie was really about, she distanced herself from it immediately, saying on Facebook, “I am not a geocentrist.”

Scientists like Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku are also featured in the movie, but they’ve made it clear they didn’t know what the movie was really about either.

So you can imagine my surprise when I received an email last week offering me an interview with the film’s producer Rick DeLano.

Couldn’t say no to that!

I sent along my questions, which I thought were pretty straight-forward. I mean, given the nature of the film, he had to know they were coming…

However, a day later, I received this response:

I pushed back a bit, suggesting that I wasn’t sure how he was going to be able to do any interviews if he couldn’t handle my questions. At that point, I didn’t think I’d hear back from him. But then, yesterday afternoon, a week after those initial messages, I finally got his responses. As I promised I would, I’m reprinting them in full, with only minor edits for grammar and the addition of links where I felt they would be helpful:

Do you consider yourself well versed in science? What’s your scientific background?

I have been researching the scientific aspects of the Copernican Principle for this film for seven years, and my knowledge of these scientific aspects has been obtained directly from the writings — including peer reviewed and published papers — of leading scientists, a number of whom appear in “The Principle.”

As we know, the Copernican Principle involves a very broad discussion about the Earth’s place in the cosmos. In, “The Principle,” many different viewpoints have contributed to this dialogue.

I am not a scientist, however, this is not an issue because there is no need to be a scientist to produce a film about a question involving science.

If you really want to challenge the Copernican Principle, why not write a scientific paper?

Because of the latest findings in cosmology, some scientists have at least considered the idea that the earth may be in a favored or special place in the universe. Because of new research concerning the cosmic microwave background, for example, papers are being written that we believe will reinforce this reality. With, “The Principle,” we are trying to expose what we, and some mainstream physicists, believe could be a new frontier in astronomy, and so it is our goal to use the film to foster a public and professional dialogue with regard to these new fundamental questions.

And keep in mind that represented in the film are wide ranging and varied viewpoints concerning the Copernican Principle.

What is it about science that you understand but every other scientist (who accepts that the Earth is not the center of the universe) ignores?

The process of evaluating the Copernican Principle has raised questions which have caused scientists to want to investigate further, and these investigations have increased, not decreased, the validity of our view concerning the specialness of earth.

The purpose of ‘The Principle” is to bring this process to the attention of the broader public for consideration.

Some of these scientists include:

1. George Ellis, in Scientific American [Hemant's note: This is from an October, 1995 issue]:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

2. Timothy Clifton, in Physical Review Letters [2008]:

“A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle; that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. Studies of Type Ia supernovae, together with the Copernican Principle, have led to the inference that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must exist a `Dark Energy’, to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical frame-work. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations could be accounted for without the addition of dark energy.”

3. Lawrence Krauss, in “The Edge“:

“But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”

[Hemant's note: This is merely a hypothetical that Krauss raises. He goes on to say in the very next paragraph that he doesn't believe this particular theory.]

Who are the scientists who agree with you on this issue?

If by “this issue”, you mean the necessity of continuing scientific tests of the Copernican Principle, there are many.

In addition to the above scientists, we have:

Hirano, Komiya, (2010):

“A natural interpretation is that concentric spherical shells of higher galaxy number densities surround us, with their individual centers situated at our location. However, if this interpretation reflected the actual physical concentration of galaxies existing at certain distances from us, it would definitely be incompatible with the cosmological principle that presumes uniformity and isotropy of our space–time.”

Ashkok Singal (2013):

“Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic. This alignment has been dubbed the “axis of evil” with very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon… The axis of evil passes very close to the line joining the two equinox points, and so does the dipole direction representing the overall motion of the solar system in the universe. Also our plane dividing the two regions of asymmetry passes through the same two equinox points… there is no denying that from the large anisotropies present in the radio sky, independently seen both in the discrete source distribution and in the diffuse CMBR, the Copernican principle seems to be in jeopardy… There is certainly a cause for worry. Is there a breakdown of the Copernican principle as things seen in two regions of sky divided purely by a coordinate system based on earth’s orientation in space, shows a very large anisotropy in source distribution? Why should the equinox points and the NCP should have any bearing on the large scale distribution of matter in the universe… The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in one particular direction through space is called “evil” because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model.”

There are of course many scores of other examples.

Were you up front about your film’s intentions with Kate Mulgrew, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, George Ellis, and others?

Of course we were.

Each participant who was contacted was informed of our intention to make a documentary examining complex aspects of cosmology, was given a full opportunity to ask questions about the project in any way desired, and was supplied with requested information.

All participants, including scientists, signed a full and clear release form.

Why do you think all of those people have distanced themselves from your movie?

Unfortunately, there was a lot of misinformation about what was contained in “The Principle” movie when the trailer was released.

None of this misinformation was based on having actually seen the movie, but instead was based on conjecture and prejudice.

The scientists who commented were confronted by this misinformation and reacted personally and emotionally to what they were told the movie was about.

All of the scientists have been given the opportunity to see the completed movie, and as positive support for the film and the broad range of viewpoints presented in it continues to build, we look forward to an ongoing dialogue.

The facts are set forth at [this link], as they have been in the movie.

What’s the best evidence you have for geocentrism?

This is not the issue, or the purpose of “The Principle.”

Geocentrism is one of many viewpoints presented in “The Principle.”

That being said, it is interesting to note that no experiment was ever able to directly measure the universally assumed orbital motion of Earth around sun, and this puzzling question resulted in the adoption of entirely new theories of physics and cosmology- which are themselves the subject of further discussion and analysis.

Are you aware that the fine tuning argument, which you make in the film, has been debunked repeatedly?

The arguments related to fine tuning are made by the participants, notably including Bernard Carr and George Ellis.

Ellis is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the University of Capetown, and the co-author (with Stephen Hawking) of “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time.”

Carr received his undergraduate degree at Trinity College, Cambridge, and studied under Stephen Hawking at the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge, and is professor of mathematics and astronomy at Queen Mary University of London.

In one memorable exchange from “The Principle,” Carr says to Ellis:

“The fine tunings, George, are really hard to explain unless you want to invoke a creator…”

It is clear that many scientists — including, even, multiverse theorists like Bernard Carr — simply do not agree with your conclusion above, and they speak for themselves in “The Principle.”

Much of what DeLano says about the voluntary participation of different scientists is in stark contrast to what they themselves have said. Krauss said that if he filmed anything for this film, it was under “false pretenses.”

More obviously, there’s no question about Earth revolving around the sun. There’s as much doubt about that among scientists as there is about evolution – which is to say there are crackpots, but not very many of them. DeLano managed to scoop up a couple of folks on the fringe of this issue and is now passing their views off as if they’re mainstream. If you want to claim we’re somehow special, that may be an interesting theological debate, but it’s not a scientific one.

It should also be noted that the papers published on arXiv, many of which DeLano cites, are not peer reviewed. Some of them may end up in journals in the future, but the papers on that site are posted by their authors without editorial oversight.

Ken Ham Claims That I Believe Christ Came to Earth For Us

Ken Ham, who’s still not my friend, is unhappy with American Atheists’ recent billboard campaign:

… it’s the atheists who are destroying children’s lives by trying to force their anti-God, meaningless religion on generations of kids. People need to understand that atheists are not trying to stop children from being taught religion — they just don’t want them being taught the Christian religion, because they want to impose their own atheist religion on them.

That’s… just plain dumb. If I wanted children to become atheists, the best way to do it would be to expose them to as many religions as possible, including the most popular one in the U.S. Once they saw how similarly silly they all were, they’d want nothing to do with any of them. (At least in theory.) But there’s no need to exclude Christianity from that mix.

But here’s my biggest problem with Ken Ham’s rant.

When I saw American Atheists’ billboard, I brought up a quick criticism:

For the billboards to make sense, though, you have to let a couple of things slide.

Like: if the girl is too old for fairy tales, then why is she writing to Santa Claus…?

And does it really make* sense for a budding atheist to be celebrating Christmas?

I’m sure no one will notice.

*Typo fixed

Since it wasn’t clear in my original post, let me say it now: I was referring to the religious holiday of “Christmas” with that line, not the secular celebration of it. I enjoy the traditions and gift-giving and gathering with my family — and Jesus never enters into any of that.

But anyway, check out what Ham does with that passage — without linking to it, of course, because then his readers might start asking questions, and he can’t let that happen:

Ironically, these billboards are pressuring kids to skip church because they’re “too old for fairytales,” but they seem to have no problem with kids writing letters to Santa Claus, an obviously mythical character. Even an atheist blogger commented on the irony when he wrote, “If the girl is too old for fairy tales, then why is she writing to Santa Claus…?” He also noted, “It doesn’t! After all, Christmas is a holiday set aside to remember Christ coming to Earth for us!

This is what’s known as lying. It’s Ham’s specialty.

I never suggested that last line. I sure as hell never wrote that last line. I don’t know where that quotation came from, but it wasn’t me.

And why the fuck would any atheist say Christmas is all about “Christ coming to Earth for us”? It makes no sense.

Not that Ham’s fans noticed. That would require critical thinking and reading comprehension.

Or, you know, a link to the source material, which Ham refused to provide because then people might find out how he’s lying to them.

I know he has Google Alerts out on his name, so I’m sure he’ll see this.

Ken, I want an apology. Explain how you screwed up. And if you want to quote me in the future, have the decency to link to my original article, you coward.

Times Columnist Tom Friedman Claims ISIS Repels Muslim Youths, and Turns Some Toward Atheism

I hope Thomas Friedman is right:

The Islamic State has visibly attracted young Muslims from all over the world to its violent movement to build a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. But here’s what’s less visible — the online backlash against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, by young Muslims declaring their opposition to rule by Islamic law, or Shariah, and even proudly avowing their atheism. Nadia Oweidat, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, who tracks how Arab youths use the Internet, says the phenomenon “is mushrooming — the brutality of the Islamic State is exacerbating the issue and even pushing some young Muslims away from Islam.”

Last month, BBC.com sounded a similarly optimistic note:

“A growing social media conversation in Arabic is calling for the implementation of Shariah, or Islamic law, to be abandoned. Discussing religious law is a sensitive topic in many Muslim countries. But on Twitter, a hashtag which translates as ‘why we reject implementing Shariah’ has been used 5,000 times in 24 hours. The conversation is mainly taking place in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The debate is about whether religious law is suitable for the needs of Arab countries and modern legal systems.

Friedman, for his part, also quotes the Moroccan activist Brother Rachid, an ex-Muslim who has embraced Christianity. Rachid’s YouTube address to President Obama is pretty excellent:

“Dear Mr. President, I must tell you that you are wrong about ISIL. You said ISIL speaks for no religion. I am a former Muslim. My dad is an imam. I have spent more than 20 years studying Islam… I can tell you with confidence that ISIL speaks for Islam… They are following Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in every detail…

I ask you, Mr. President, to stop being politically correct — to call things by their names. ISIL, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab in Somalia, the Taliban, and their sister brand names, are all made in Islam. Unless the Muslim world deals with Islam and separates religion from state, we will never end this cycle… If Islam is not the problem, then why is it there are millions of Christians in the Middle East and yet none of them has ever blown up himself to become a martyr, even though they live under the same economic and political circumstances and even worse?

Good question.

Friedman concludes:

Clearly there is a significant group of Muslims who feel that their government-backed preachers and religious hierarchies have handed them a brand of Islam that does not speak to them. These same authorities have also denied them the critical thinking tools and religious space to imagine new interpretations. So a few, like Brother Rachid, leave Islam for a different faith and invite others to come along. And some seem to be quietly detaching from religion entirely — fed up with being patronized by politically correct Westerners telling them what Islam is not and with being tyrannized by self-appointed Islamist authoritarians telling them what Islam is.

Now that the Internet has created free, safe, alternative spaces and platforms to discuss these issues, outside the mosques and government-owned media, this war of ideas is on.

It’s not a movement yet, I think, but neither are Muslims locked into the stinking cesspool of Islam as defined by ISIS and Boko Haram. For every reaction by religious fundies, there may well be a counter-reaction from people who aren’t — and as this one by moderate and ex-Muslims picks up steam, I’m certainly cheering them on from the sidelines.

New Creationist Billboard Campaign Aimed at “Our Intolerant Liberal Friends”

Ken Ham is trying to drum up more publicity for his Noah’s Ark Theme Park with a new billboard campaign lovingly targeting his “intolerant liberal friends.”

Atheists and secularists do not want to see Ark Encounter built and are doing everything they can think of to stop it — including spreading blatant lies and misinformation. They do not want anyone to learn that the Bible can be trusted and that observational science confirms the Bible’s account of history. They also don’t want people to be exposed to the life-changing messages of the Bible that will be boldly presented at Ark Encounter. They especially don’t want our kids—the next generation—to hear this truth…

These attacks on Ark Encounter highlight their intolerance of religion. Secularists are trying to keep any mention of Christianity out of the culture, and this includes the Ark of the Bible. In recent blog posts and articles we’ve pointed out numerous instances of the growing intolerance toward religion, especially Christianity, throughout our culture.

A few things about that statement:

1) Of course no one can sink that ship. It’s sitting on land. You don’t need God to keep that thing “afloat.”

2) Ken, we’re not friends. Sorry.

3) No one’s stopping you from building your theme park. We just want you to play by the same rules as everyone else,

The only thing “intolerant” atheists have done is point out that you’re illegally adding religious restrictions to your hiring process even though Ark Encounter wants to be eligible for up to $18,000,000 in tax breaks. You can’t have both. Either hiring must be open to everyone or you give up the tax benefits.

4) We’re never going to be friends.

5) There’s no intolerance toward religion. You don’t see atheists working to shut down churches or ban Christians from holding public office. There’s only frustration with blissful ignorance, which Ham possesses in spades.

6) Still not friends.

Those Christian Persecution billboards — all 16 of them — will go up throughout Kentucky, along with a digital version in Times Square.

Through Selective Hiring at Public Hospitals, Vatican Restricts Italian Women’s Access to Abortion Services

Since 1978, Italy has had a law stating that every woman is guaranteed access to abortion within 90 days of getting pregnant. But that’s a paper promise, because guess what? Thanks to the vise grip the Catholic Church has on health care in Italy,

Nine out of 10 obstetricians and gynaecologists working in public hospitals in some districts are now publicly refusing

… to perform the procedure, reports the Independent.

And so,

In one case this year, 28-year-old Valentina Magnanti was left to give birth to a severely-malformed child in a hospital toilet in Rome because none of the doctors would treat her. The woman’s request for medically induced abortion had been granted. But after taking the drugs needed to induce the termination process, the hospital was unable to find willing medical and nursing staff to complete the procedure.

One women’s advocate pointed out the cause of the problem: it has to do, she says, with

… the influence of the Catholic Church on reproductive health, particularly in and around Rome where many major hospitals — although funded by the state — are owned and run by the Church, which determines hiring policy. Pope Francis came out in support of [anti-abortion] objectors earlier this year, giving fresh impetus to anti-abortion groups.

There’s nothing illegal about the Vatican working to hollow out the 1978 law, as the text contains a provision saying that medical staffers who’d be troubled by their conscience if they performed abortions may refuse to render such services.

As bad as the situation currently is for women who don’t want to carry a child to term, it’s still better than it was before the law become effective:

Prior to 1978, abortions were banned in Italy under a Mussolini-era law that labelled them a “crime against the purity of the Italian race“.

Speaking of purity: Though widely ignored, the Church’s rule against “artificial” birth control still drives a lot of the demand for abortion. Should the Pope and his padres do away with that prohibition, the number of aborted foetuses would likely plummet.

(Thanks to Brian for the link. Image via Shutterstock)

The Bible Doesn’t Always Change Your Life as Intended…

Click over to the Far Left Side and hover your cursor over the comic to see the bonus panel

Friendly Atheist Podcast Episode 32: Horus Gilgamesh, Author of The Awkward Moments Children’s Bible

Our latest podcast guest is Horus Gilgamesh, author of The Awkward Moments Children’s Bible. (Which is really not for children.)

His book features beautiful illustrations of the most disturbing biblical passages you’re ever read. Volume 2 came out recently and I suspect we’ll be seeing more volumes in the future because, well, there’s so much source material.

We spoke with Horus about why he uses a pen name, whether his books could have been written by Christians, and if there are any Bible verses he wouldn’t include in the book.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. If you have any suggestions for people we should chat with, please leave them in the comments, too.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, get the MP3 directly, check it out on Stitcher, or just listen to the whole thing below.

And if you like what you’re hearing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon and leaving us a positive rating!

Indiana City, for Some Reason, Keeps Putting Up a Nativity Scene on Courthouse Grounds Every Year

There’s 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.

Book on the Irish Priesthood Reveals Struggles with Teachings on Celibacy, Homosexuality

Last week, the Huffington Post published a story about Dr. John Weafer‘s book Thirty-Three Good Men. The book surveys thirty-three Irish priests, both current and former, and examines a number of issues related to life in the priesthood. Recurring themes are celibacy and sexuality.

Weafer, a sociologist, examines the lives of men from different walks of life, choosing priests of “diverse backgrounds, personalities, behaviours and attitudes.” While his findings are not groundbreaking, they do provide a view of the dismal reality for priests resulting from the church’s attitude on celibacy and homosexuality.

Speaking of the isolation a life of celibacy entails, the Irish Independent quotes a

… parish priest, who was ordained in the 1970s, [who] said: “Because of a Church law that is a ‘kind of a deformity’, [priests] now lack the support that other men receive from their wives and families. It is an unnecessarily lonely life.“

The book also recounts the story of a gay priest, “Fr L.” While he later discovered a ‘clerical gay scene in Ireland,” his struggle with mandatory celibacy was compounded by the church’s stance on homosexuality.

[Fr L] was ordained in the 1990s and later ended up sleeping with another priest.

“Although we both vowed it would never happen again, it did and I was really very confused,” he said in the book.

While he has not read the book in question, the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, concedes that the church’s celibacy requirements can be difficult for priests. Still, he maintains, “I don’t think if people fail that you abolish celibacy.”