Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1937

Please Support the Work I Do Through This Site

I’ve posted this in the past. If you’ve already responded, there’s no need to do it again. Thanks!

…

Over the past couple of years, what began as a personal blog has turned into a hub with several contributors and multiple posts per day. As always, I’d like to continue expanding the reach of this site. That entails bringing on additional contributors with different voices, creating more YouTube videos, and making the podcasts sound more professional.

In order to facilitate all of this, I’ve created a page at Patreon.

If you’d like to help out, you can pledge a certain amount every month (with rewards along the way!) from $1 to $100.

As always, I’m grateful for the kind words and support you all send my way. I don’t usually post about them, but trust me: they never go unnoticed. Many of you have emailed me asking if there’s any way to donate to this page, and I always say no, but I think Patreon offers a really incredible approach to reach out to more people in different ways. Thanks in advance for your help.

Which Christian Sculpture Are We Arguing About?

***Edit***: The mystery has been solved. See below.

…

I just posted earlier today about a Christian sculpture at Whitewater Memorial State Park in Liberty, Indiana:

Part of the negative reaction, in addition to the presence of a Christian cross, was the amateur look of the kneeling farmboy/soldier.

You can see that same image on the Palladium-Item‘s website right here, where it says the picture was “submitted.” (By whom? We don’t know.)

A more recent article, in the same newspaper, features a completely different version of the sculpture. (This one is also “Submitted”)

You know what? I’ll say it. Not bad. The cross is still there on the bottom right, so the problems still need to be fixed, but it doesn’t look all that bad. Nicely done,

(Thanks to cozmothemagician for the link)

Another American Reporter, Steven Sotloff, Believed to Have Been Beheaded in New ISIS Video

Steven Sotloff‘s family is in mourning after footage emerged that appears to show the 31-year-old journalist’s beheading at the hands of ISIS terrorists.

“I’m back, Obama, because of your arrogant foreign policy towards the Islamic State, because of your insistence on continuing your bombings,” the English-accented executioner says as he holds a knife to Sotloff’s neck. “Our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people.”

Then, as the reporter struggles to get off his knees, the killer starts sawing at his neck with a knife.

Sotloff’s mother, Shirley, last week pleaded with ISIS’ leadership to spare her son.

“He’s an innocent journalist,” she said in a videotaped address to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi that was broadcast on the Al Arabiya network. Addressing the murderous ISIS chief as “the caliph of the Islamic State,” the Florida mom said, “My son, Steven, is in your hands. I ask you to use your authority to spare his life and to set the example of the Prophet Muhammed, who protected ‘People of the Book,’” she said, referring to a Muslim term for Jews and Christians.

‘”I want what every mother wants: to live to see her children’s children. I plead with you to grant me this.”

Steven Sotloff’s death comes on the heels of the brutal killing of his colleague James Foley by what is assumed to be the same executioner.

The Daily News reports that the masked murderer, who speaks British English, is thought to be John, “one of a trio of British-born militants who have been dubbed the Killer Beatles.” That’s some awfully grim humor.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

When I heard the news, I suddenly remembered the landmark speech that President Obama gave in Cairo five years ago, in which he reverently quoted from the Qur’an:

“Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.”

That’s one pretty passage, isn’t it? So full of humanity and respect for life.

Now, let’s look at the full Qur’anic verse, and thereby at the context of that nicey-nice one-liner. In none of the translations that I checked does the Qur’an use the word innocent, but instead the word person; and then it specifies that “persons” (more to the point, “Children of Israel,” or Jews) may indeed be killed for “manslaughter or for mischief in the land.”

And can you guess what constitutes such “mischief”? It is to deny the “clear signs” provided by Allah’s messengers. In other words, infidels may be butchered.

As the humanist historian and writer Luis Granados reminds us,

The next verse prescribes the punishment for those who make “mischief in the land” by opposing Muhammad: “They should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides.”

Back in Cairo, President Obama also noted:

Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace

At this point, that seems to me to be as demonstrably wrong as it is to throw around falsified quotes.

I wish we could indeed pander our way to peace. With death-crazed fundamentalists, that plan always had zero chance.

The Difference Between Science and Religion in One Comic Strip

This comic by Redditor jerfoo does an excellent job of explaining the difference between science and religion (only the first panel is below):

It reminds me of another drawing by Saint Gasoline:

(via Reddit)

Navajo Kindergartener Sent Home Because His Long Hair Violated the Dress Code

Malachi Wilson, a five-year-old citizen of the Navajo Nation, was turned away from his first day at a Texas public school because his hair was too long.

Malachi playing with his mother

School officials ordered him to cut his hair short before returning to the classroom to avoid running afoul of the school’s dress code. The child’s long hair is symbolic of his spiritual and cultural identity; however, his parents had to produce official documentation to demonstrate his official status as a registered member of the Navajo nation before he was allowed to rejoin his classmates in school.

Malachi’s mother April produced the requested documentation, and Malachi was admitted to class, solving the immediate crisis. However, complications trail in the wake of this case, which has led to the involvement of the American Indian Movement, an advocacy organization dedicated to carving out space for the renewal of traditional American Indian culture.

The controversy became a major topic of conversation on social media, with several users pointing out that schools in Seminole, Texas, are well known for appropriating and misusing images of feather-wearing Indians as school mascots. Many netizens wanted to know why long hair was a violation of the school dress code but T-shirts depicting school mascots did not violate the prohibition on “offensive images.”

Before you dismiss this case as having already resolved itself, or decide that spiritual feelings about hair are no fair basis for challenging a dress code, consider some of the implications of this situation.

A large part of the controversy revolves around what is considered “appropriate” for students. The school’s dress code prohibits “hairstyles or designs that are disruptive or distractive to the school environment,” citing a variety of hairstyles such as Mohawks, dreadlocks, or rattails. Apparently long braids on little boys are also considered “disruptive,” though one imagines a little girl with a similar hairstyle would face no opposition. Thus, there’s a gender-stereotyping component here, too.

But even more to the point, these criteria for “disruptive or distractive” hairstyles have strong cultural biases that favor students from a white, Christian background. They ignore the complexities of racial differences in hair type and texture as well as different cultural meanings attached to the length of hair: for instance, in this case, long hair on a boy is considered “disruptive” because of the assumption that girls’ hair is long but boys’ hair is short — an assumption that does not exist or make sense in many Aboriginal communities.

Requirements to cut one’s hair have a particular historical resonance from an Aboriginal perspective as well, because of the methods used across North America to try to eradicate Native culture through assimilation. Aboriginal children were brought to boarding schools (famously known as residential schools in Canada) for the express purpose of entrenching European Christian culture in the children by forbidding access to Native languages, traditions, and ceremonies. Religious institutions were often involved in these undertakings.

Generally, a young boy’s induction into these boarding school systems involved a cleric or other authority figure cutting his hair as a visible, tangible symbol of the expectation that these children would succumb to European ways and altogether cease to be part of his traditional community. With that in mind, it surely doesn’t take much imagination to see why Malachi’s first-day-of-school experience would be deeply upsetting or why his mother would find the whole situation appallingly racist and shockingly mishandled.

It also raises the problem that, were Malachi not able to produce evidence of his Navajo ancestry and group membership, his spiritual and cultural beliefs could apparently be disregarded and he could be barred from school attendance for refusing to comply with the dress code and cut his hair. To put this into perspective, keep in mind that other people do not have to provide identity cards or documentation to gain permission to express a belief or system of beliefs. Agree with his belief system or don’t; the fact that only one group is required to provide official recognition of their belief system to qualify for exemptions is, in fact, racist.

Given the vast potential for missteps on grounds of race, gender, culture, and other complex areas of human diversity, the schools of Seminole, Texas may wish to consider a less strict dress code. There’s no reason students should have to go through this hassle.

Helen Ukpabio, Nigerian Witch Hunter, Sues Her Critics for £500,000,000

Helen Ukpabio is an evangelical Christian from Nigeria who holds some despicable beliefs:

Ukpabio advertising for a 2012 U.S. appearance

… Ms. Ukpabio’s critics say her teachings have contributed to the torture or abandonment of thousands of Nigerian children — including infants and toddlers — suspected of being witches and warlocks.

That’s the mark of a pretty horrible human being right there. Her reasoning, as you might imagine, doesn’t even make sense. For example, she claims that when children under the age of two cry at night because of a fever — something that’s perfectly normal — it’s because they’re “possessed with black, red and vampire witchcraft spirits.”

As you can imagine, she’s had her share of critics over the years. But some of them conflated vampires with Satan. Not only does she believe that’s defamation, she believes that “defamation” is worth £500,000,000.

She is accusing them of defamation, in part due to a difference in wording. Campaigners have accused Mrs Ukpabio, in her book Unveiling the Mysteries of Witchcraft, of writing “a child under two years of age that cries at night and deteriorates in health is an agent of Satan”.

But according to her solicitors, her actual words describe how such children can be possessed by “vampire witchcraft spirits”…

Yep. Huge difference comparing two mythical beings…

Thankfully, the British Humanist Association, one of the groups named in the lawsuit, isn’t budging:

Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, commented, ‘Given her baseless identification of features of “possessed children” and her dangerous and irresponsible teachings we feel a strong moral duty to point this out and will not be deflected by libel suits from wealthy “witch-finders”.

‘The fact that she is threatening to launch a legal claim for half a billion pounds over an alleged distinction between being accused of exorcising “Satan” or “Vampires” tells you all you need to know about Mrs Ukpabio. Threats of legal action like this are blatant attempts to silence critics of the harms done by these religious and superstitious beliefs and rituals. Rather than entertaining her vexatious claims in the courts, we believe the UK should be ensuring that Mrs Ukpabio and her ilk are denied entry to our country to protect children from their degrading practices.’

As much as I’d love to see this argument play out in the courts, it shouldn’t go forward at all. It’s frivolous at best. More importantly, children are getting hurt because of her absurd beliefs. She needs to be stopped, not given fuel to expand her reach. Her critics mistaking one form of bullshit for another shouldn’t work to her benefit.

(via The Freethinker. Thanks to Brian for the link)

Survey Shows That More Than a Third of Americans Support a Pledge of Allegiance Without “Under God”

Earlier this year, LifeWay Research (an evangelical Christian polling group) asked Americans whether or not they prefer to keep “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and, to no one’s surprise, they overwhelmingly said yes:

The American Humanist Association felt those results were skewed, in part because Americans didn’t really understand the Pledge’s history. So in May, they commissioned The Seidewitz Group to run a similar survey. But this time, before asking whether “Under God” should remain in the Pledge, responders were made aware of when it was put in there in the first place:

For its first 62 years, the Pledge of Allegiance did not include the phrase “under God.” During the Cold War, in 1954, the phrase “one nation indivisible” was changed to read “one nation, under God, indivisible.” Some people feel this phrase in our national pledge should focus on unity rather than religion.

…

Do you believe the Pledge of Allegiance should: Return to the unchanged version: “one nation indivisible” [or] Continue with the changed version: “one nation, under God, indivisible”?

With that introduction, there was a dramatic shift in results: It turns out more than a third of Americans support a return to the original Pledge:

Whoa! That’s a dramatic shift from the 8% who felt that way in LifeWay’s poll.

When you break the results down by religious belief, most “Nones” want “Under God” out of the Pledge (shocking!), but so do 20% of Christians — more than double what LifeWay said about the entire population:

While both research organizations have ways of controlling for this, it’s worth noting that LifeWay did a phone survey while The Seidewitz Group did an online survey.

Also interesting: While age and gender didn’t matter too much in these results, there were some groups that leaned heavily in the direction of removing the phrase: Asian-Americans, those with a four-year college degree (or beyond), wealthier Americans ($75,000+/year), and people who live in the western part of the country.

The key difference, though, is that understanding of the Pledge’s history. When Americans are taught that “Under God” wasn’t always in the Pledge, they are much more likely to support reverting back to the original version. It’s a detail the Religious Right loves to gloss over.

“The current wording of the Pledge marginalizes atheists, agnostics, humanists and other nontheists because it presents them as less patriotic, simply because they do not believe in God,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “We are encouraged by these findings, which suggest with even a small amount of education, more Americans are in favor of restoring the Pledge to its original wording.”

None of that means the Pledge is going to change anytime soon. But it’s important to realize that, just like with any Todd Starnes article, people often side with Christians because they don’t have the whole story (or it’s withheld from them). Better journalists would provide a proper context.

In this case, giving respondents that information led to a four-fold change in how many of them support a Pledge of Allegiance without a reference to God.

FFRF Prompts Further Scrutiny of Indiana State Park’s Statue of a Kneeling Soldier in Front of a Christian Cross

Last month, we learned that Whitewater Memorial State Park in Liberty, Indiana was going to receive a large veterans memorial statue featuring a kneeling soldier next to a cross, all underneath a giant eagle:

That sculpture was designed by

Bill Nye/Neil deGrasse Tyson 2016

On a recent episode of Star Talk Radio, guest hosted by comedian Eugene Mirman, Bill Nye was asked if he’d ever consider running for higher office.

To which he responded: “Neil deGrasse Tyson and I are working on our cabinet.”

Make it happen, America.

I don’t know what their foreign policies would be, but at least our science classes would be safe!

(Thanks to Jaynee for the link)

A Perfect Response to That Line About God Not Creating “Adam and Steve”

Zack Weiner offers a terrific response to the tired old line about “Adam & Steve”:

You’ll have to click here to see what it is!

(via Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal)