I just added a video to the audio/video page. If you haven’t visited that page in a while you may want to click over and view a few of the more recent additions.
I prefer to keep videos on their own page as I know some RSS readers have a hard time displaying them properly. When I write a post that requires a video to help make a point I’ll include it on the home page. But that isn’t a frequent occurrence. Generally an image serves the same purpose and can be displayed in your favorite reader more easily than a video can be.
I’m also aware that videos are occasionally pulled from YouTube for one reason or another, and if one disappears from the feed I’d rather that happened on a separate page than in my main feed.
The video I added today is a casual conversation between Adam Carolla and Seth MacFarlane, the creator of Family Guy among other accomplishments. They wander into a discussion of their common disbelief in gods and the implications of that on their thinking. They bring up some of the more common objections to atheism and how they deal with them. It reminds me of several conversations I’ve had with fellow non-believers over beer (usually, for them) and coffee (always, for me).
So if you have the time, click over and enjoy a few of the videos. And if you encounter any you think I should include there, please drop me a line and let me know. We can all use a little entertainment these days.
In an effort to rebuild our relationship with the United Nations, an effort that is being questioned by many Americans, the Obama administration has chosen to support an agenda that contradicts our own Constitution.
The United States has backed a new UN resolution on free expression which would be considered unconstitutional under its First Amendment — which protects freedom of expression and bans sanctioning of religions.
The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.
While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.
“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”
France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.
On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.
“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”
Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”
The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship)
Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.
While I respect the right of any person to believe as they wish, I also believe that the right to speak our minds freely and without fear of reprisal, intimidation or sanction is a hallmark of Western democracy. We should not surrender our rights in order to provide uncertain security in the face of violent opposition to contrary opinions. Ben Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
There is no reason to provide special protection to religious beliefs. The fear that religious believers will suffer “incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them” is nonsensical. The majority of people on the planet are religious. Religious believers hold most of the positions of power in both the East and West. They have no reason to fear the opinions of the minority. The most immediate danger to any believer in a particular god are those who believe in another god.
Criticism is not necessarily an act of hatred. Quite often criticism is an act of love. If a family member has become enslaved to drug addiction, is it an act of discrimination or hatred to criticize their addiction? If I firmly believe my country, a country I willingly served to defend, is headed in a dangerous and unconstitutional direction, should I remain mute?
Religious belief in a generic sense is predominant among humans around the globe. But there is little agreement as to the nature of the god the religious believe in. What anti-blasphemy resolutions seek to achieve will result in the inability of Baptists to speak out against the Catholic Church or reasonable people to object to the foolishness of Scientology. We will have to remain silent when Iran decides to execute those who oppose their theocracy or happen to be homosexual. Any theocratic government will be exempt from criticism by anyone for any reason.
The philosophical and legal quagmire with such legislation centers around the definition of “blasphemy.” Practically every religion, sect and cult possesses concepts that are blasphemous to another. As an important example, while Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Muslims consider him a mere prophet, albeit an important one. Calling Christ the “Son of God,” however, is viewed as “blasphemous” within Islam, as is not believing in Mohammed as Allah’s final and most important prophet. Under such anti-blasphemy legislation, therefore, all Christian literature could be confiscated and Christians arrested, because at its very core, Christianity would represent “blasphemous material” that could cause—and has caused—outrage many times in the Muslim world, explaining in part why the Bible is banned in such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia.
This subject both fascinates me and fills me with dread. It’s fairly obvious that Christians in the West are growing just as intolerant of criticism and challenge as the Muslims in the East. When our government bows to pressure from the theists and supports blasphemy laws that directly contradict our Constitution the groundwork is being laid for the further erosion of our freedom of speech. I worry for the future of our secular and pluralistic republic.
BORN AGAIN is the story of Director Markie Hancock’s evangelical upbringing and her 20-year struggle to get out. Excerpts from Hancock’s journals, home movies and student films reveal the strong grip of fundamentalist religion.
As a child, she revels in the security that promises of eternal salvation bring to both her and her family. Hancock only slowly begins to question the narrow path she has fervently followed when she falls in love with a woman. It is in Berlin when she finally begins to free herself from religion and from the family she loves.
Ultimately, BORN AGAIN asks, at what price do we believe what we believe and how do we live with others who believe differently?
Visit SnagFilms for more thought-provoking independent films.
It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving website. The Grand Ayatollah of Iraqi Shiites, Sayyid Ali Husaini al-Sistani, had his video replaced by one from Bill Maher’s show. Maher is exposing the weird advice Sistani hands out on the site. Now, if someone would only do something similar to the Vatican’s site and Scientology’s main page.
An interesting documentary on the origins of Scientology. If you have any doubt as to the dishonesty and underhandedness of the organization, perhaps this will free you to think more clearly. Scientology is a larger pile of steaming, rank bullshit than many other religions.
I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously.
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. The Radical Atheist blog makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site & will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.All information is provided on an as-is basis.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=741c4f40-1160-4a97-b0fe-303968daec8a)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=346ae042-e8f3-4566-a422-0efe82294b79)
