Why do these things happen?

• “… a boy whom she rejected for marriage threw acid on her in the middle of the street”
• “… [she] was burned by her father while she was sleeping, apparently because he didn’t want to have another girl in the family.”
• “… [she] was burned with acid one year ago by a boy whom she rejected for marriage.”
• “… familial dispute”

In some cases, attacks happened (from the Taliban) because girls just tried to go to school.

Here’s one of the less graphic images:

As the introduction to the article states:

Acid attacks and wife burnings are common in parts of Asia because the victims are the most voiceless in these societies: They are poor and female.

Even more disturbing is the statistic that in the Islamabad area alone, 7,800 cases of these attacks have been documented. (How many were undocumented? I wonder) Yet, someone was convicted in only 2% of the cases.

I feel like religion plays a role in this matter, though not the only one. I find it hard to believe that so many people could let this sort of injustice be ignored unless they felt it was part of God’s “divine plan.” Even worse, some of the men committing these crimes probably felt like they were justified in their actions because they were carrying out God’s wishes. Over time, people just get used to it happening and they feel too afraid to speak out against it. And then it becomes less about religion and more about the culture they live in.

Or maybe Islam is the justification given for this sort of crime when it isn’t really the primary cause.

Or maybe it has no role at all.

Is it unfair to blame religion at all in this matter?

ChurchOuting.org is a clearinghouse for reports of priests who are openly gay men in social settings yet professionally closeted in their parishes. The campaign will also accept reports of heterosexual priests who are involved in romantic or sexual relationships, yet support the Archbishop’s efforts to harm lesbian and gay families.

I’m all for it, and not just for Catholics. Let’s expose all pastors who tells their church that homosexuality is immoral while at the same time having an affair (gay or straight) of their own.

Call them out on their bullshit.

For what it’s worth, the website has good intentions and the creators are not simply anti-Catholic:

… we encourage every Catholic priest to trust in God and in the power of the Christ to help you through this difficult, but important act of truth, faith and love. It is not the intention of this site to complicate the lives of closeted gay priests, rather to help them make the difficult choice to stand up against the hateful and harmful new direction the Church hierarchy is taking the Holy Mother Church.

(Thanks to grazatt for the link!)

Do you remember how people insisted that the gays were trying to ruin marriage?  Well, they succeeded in Texas.  When the people of Texas passed a 2005 constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage, those clever, clever gays somehow forced them to word it poorly enough that it might prohibit ALL marriage in the state, same-sex or otherwise:

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.

Why, yes, I do believe that legal recognition of marriage is a legal status “identical or similar to marriage.”  By definition.

How in the world did that slip by people?  It’s a pretty big deal.  They might need a new constitutional amendment to fix the problem.

It’s absolutely legal to stop recognizing civil marriages.  The people (through the governmental processes) can decide what relationships to grant special recognition and benefits.  They decided to stop granting benefits to any relationships.  Kudos for leveling the playing field for all sexual orientations, Texas!

I’m guessing it’s not what the people of Texas thought they were agreeing to.  Their best options are an activist judge and revising their governing document.  Which idea do you think offends Texans more?

And now, we can add their politicians to the list of Reasons Australia is Better than Your Country.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he has concerns about the Church of Scientology but wants to see what material independent senator Nick Xenophon has before committing to a parliamentary inquiry.

Senator Xenophon told Parliament today there was criminal activity within the church and has called for a Senate inquiry into Scientology’s tax exempt status.

The Prime Minister throwing his voice to the mix is interesting enough, but take a look at the speech Xenophon made in the Senate yesterday.

It’s blunt, powerful, and another major blow to the Cult of Scientology:

What we are seeing is a worldwide pattern of abuse and criminality.

On the body of evidence this is not happening by accident; it is happening by design. Scientology is not a religious organisation. It is a criminal organisation that hides behind its so-called religious beliefs.

What you believe does not mean you are not accountable for how you behave.

…

I also believe the activities of this organisation should be scrutinised by parliament because Australian taxpayers are, in effect, supporting Scientology through its tax-exempt status. I say to all Australians: as you fill in your tax return next July or August, ask yourself how you feel knowing that you are paying tax and yet this criminal organisation is not…

…

Ultimately, this is not about religious freedom. In Australia there are no limits on what you can believe. But there are limits on how you can behave. It is called the law, and no one is above it.

That’s a profile of courage for you.

Now when are some of these politicians also going to go after the Catholic Church for covering up their criminal past (and present)?

(Thanks to Julie for the link!)

I won’t be buying any of those, of course, because I don’t support groups that discriminate against atheists or gays.

Unless…

Is there any way to use this stamp against them?

I would find it almost poetic if you could use a BSA stamp to send their headquarters your resignation form… if such a thing existed.

Maybe you can come up with better ideas?

Recent case in point:

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Wednesday rejected Ang Ladlad for party-list accreditation on the grounds that the party advocates “sexual immorality” and “immoral doctrines.”

Ang Ladlad is an organization of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT).

In a ruling dated November 11, the Comelec said that although the party presented proper documents and evidence for their accreditation, their petition is “dismissable on moral grounds.”

In short, the political party for LGBT people has been dismissed and will not become official because they are being accused of “sexual immorality” and being a threat to Filipino youth.

Not surprisingly, COMELAC quoted the Bible and Koran in its ruling.

Atheist Ryan Tani is appalled by this. He and other non-theists are taking a stand:

In any case, the religious biases of three (or six) individuals should not be imposed on the millions who have their own beliefs, not to mention their own equal, unalienable human rights.

I don’t want to spend any more time talking about why COMELEC’s ruling is an atrocity. This is no longer the time for talk. It’s time to take action.

If you support Ang Ladlad, the LGBT movement, and the Human Rights movement, if you want to protect the freedom and equality granted by our secular Constitution, then join us tomorrow.

The details on that meeting can be found here.

They have an uphill climb but it makes me proud that the non-theists represent the side that supports civil rights for everyone. We’re on the right side of history, regardless of the country. Even the religious people will come along… eventually. But groups like the Filipino Freethinkers and Filipinos for Secular Government are leading the way.

(Thanks to everyone for the link!)

Catholic Charities, a part of the Catholic Church, helps over 68,000 people in Washington D.C., including the homeless. It’s not just volunteer work — they get paid for this.

From 2006 through 2008, [council member David A.] Catania said, Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts, as well as several hundred thousand dollars’ worth this year through his committee.

But if a new bill gets passed by the city council next month which would make it illegal for groups receiving city money to discriminate against gay people, they will be “unable to continue the social service programs“?

How bigoted do you have to be to refuse to help people because you’re more concerned about restricting rights from other people?

At least some of the city council members are speaking out:

The church’s influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as “somewhat childish.” Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city’s relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

“They don’t represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure,” said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

End the relationship. Good riddance. Hopefully, other groups will step in to fill in the hole.

Listen to how Susan Gibbs, the spokesperson for the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, defends the Church’s actions:

She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.

Which makes sense. I think it was Jesus who said, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven… unless you treat the gays with any dignity.”

(Thanks to Steve for the link)

South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer is quite pissed off that a judge ruled the “I Believe” license plates were unconstitutional.

He writes on his website:

For those who say proclaiming “I believe” violates the constitution by giving preference to Christianity, I think this lawsuit clearly discriminates against persons of faith. I will ask the state Attorney General to vigorously appeal this ruling because it is time that people stand up for their beliefs. Enough is enough.

This is absurd. As Sandhya Bathija of Americans United writes, “This lawsuit actually prevents discrimination against persons of faith, and that’s more than evident.”

Bauer goes on:

I could say that this is yet another example of judicial activism, of federal judges out of control. My instincts tell me that it’s even deeper than that. I think it’s another attack on Christianity and I’m not going to sit by and watch this one happen.

Someone should tell Bauer that two of the plaintiffs, Rev. Tom Summers and Rev. Monty Knight, are Christians…

In fact, here’s what Summers said about the case:

“I received some emails that asked how I, as a Christian minister, could be involved with this,” Summers said.

“But what I told them is that it is very Christian to be involved in a matter like this,” Summers continued. “One of the core values of Christianity is equality and fairness. This case is wrapped up on a human level on the issue of fairness. For a license plate to be displayed that is government sanctioned only for one faith group, it makes other faith groups in our state feel very isolated.”

What does Bauer say about this again?

… I think it’s another attack on Christianity and I’m not going to sit by and watch this one happen.

Right.

One more excerpt from Bauer:

I am proud and unrelenting in my support of the Legislature’s unanimous enactment of this plate.
Why? Because the “I believe” plate reflects core values that are meaningful to our society, promoting love, joy, and comfort in our spiritual lives, and accommodating to every citizen’s right of free exercise of any and all religions

All religions? Then why is there a Christian cross on the plate? And what about people of no faith?

Bauer doesn’t care. He doesn’t get the notion that there are people who don’t subscribe to Christianity and some of us who find Christian beliefs offensive.

Separation of church and state benefits everybody. There’s no need for the state to issue this license plate. The judge made the right decision and Bauer doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The Lt. Gov. also mentions he doesn’t like how the judge awarded AU and another group their rightful attorneys’ fees. Bathija has a suggestion for him:

In the end, Bauer claims he is “offended” that Americans United was rewarded attorneys’ fees in this case. Well, here’s some advice to him and the South Carolina legislature on how to avoid that in the future: stop violating the Constitution.

They know their followers are gullible and will believe what they are told. They know their followers won’t bother doing research to factcheck what is being reported. They know they can get away with it within their own community.

Thankfully, the rest of us can call them out on their bullshit.

Take a look at this lede from a OneNewsNow article on abstinence-only sex education:

An abstinence advocate says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control shows that abstinence education is delaying sex among teens.

They quote Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association. What does her group’s press release say?

CDC Data Shows Abstinence Education Works

Abstinence education is delaying sex among teens. Data from an analysis conducted by the CDC shows positive evidence that abstinence education is delivering an effective message. These positive findings should be incorporated in any policy designed to reduce teen sexual activity in our nation,” noted Valerie Huber, Executive Director of NAEA. “This is a time to assess what is working and capitalize on solutions that make a difference in the lives of youth.”

They say that abstinence education works because it delays sex among teens… as if having sex a little later in life is going to fix everything. Notice they don’t mention anything about diseases or pregnancy or the overall effect of abstinence education.

So let’s go to the source — the report that is being referenced, a meta-analysis of CDC data (PDF). Note that the emphasis is theirs, not mine:

What follows represents our minority opinion as members of this study’s External Partners consultant panel and does not represent the views of the CDC or the Adolescent Sex Behavior Coordination Team.

…

The Task Force has made public its Recommendation Statements without also making available to the public the full set of study findings upon which the recommendations are based — both supporting and otherwise. The reason given for this decision is that the data from the study has not yet been scientifically cleared by the CDC for release to the public.

I wonder if there’s a more reliable source that will tell me what the CDC actually had to say about abstinence-only sex education…

Let’s go to WebMD’s Daniel J. DeNoon, who says something quite different:

Experts Find “Insufficient Evidence” for Abstinence-Only Programs

Nov. 6, 2009 — There’s no evidence that abstinence-only sexual education programs cut teens’ risk of sexually transmitted disease, HIV, or pregnancy, a task force of public health experts finds.

…

The CDC will publish the findings in a scientific journal in about a year’s time. But the task force today released its bottom-line recommendations:

…

• On abstinence-only strategies: “The task force concludes that there is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of group-based abstinence education delivered to adolescents to prevent pregnancy, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases.”

“The finding of insufficient evidence [for abstinence-based sex ed] really means that based on the evidence available, the task force could not come to any conclusions,” Randy Elder, PhD, the CDC’s scientific director of systematic reviews, tells WebMD. “It is really a big question mark, with the implication being we need more research in this area before we can make any determination whether this intervention does or doesn’t work.”

So while it may delay sex for a bit, it does little to help in every other area. Isn’t that a strike against abstinence-only sex education? Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach abstinence along with information about birth control and condoms?

I mean, what’s more important: having safer sex at a younger age or having unsafe sex at a slightly older age?

My money’s easily on the first option. I’m not advocating sex for minors, but if people are going to have it, better to do it safely.

The Washington Post quotes Elder once again:

Randy Elder of the CDC, who works with the task force, disputed [the minority] argument, saying the critics’ case was flawed.

“All of those points were considered by the task force. They reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of a systematic review process,” he said. “The whole point of what we are doing is to aggregate data from as many studies that are critical to answering the question. What they were doing was chopping up the evidence into very fine subsets to poke holes.”

So there are two people in a large panel who think abstinence-only education works because of results in one area. The panel itself says when all the data is considered — not just a select handful of studies looking at one factor — there’s insufficient evidence in favor of abstinence-only sex education.

Moral of the story: the conservative media says abstinence-only sex education works like a charm.

You see how this works?

It’s gotten to the point where I just assume whatever the religious right says is a lie. Then I do 10 seconds of research to find the truth.

Nearly a year later, the plates were back in the courtroom, and this time, the same judge says the plates are unconstitutional (PDF):

Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same,” Currie wrote. “The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.

Besides the obvious reason this there is an entanglement of church and state, why is the plate a bad idea? Because not all faiths get the same opportunity. Some state legislators even said they “would not vote for similar plates for minority faiths.”

Meanwhile, there’s no problem with the “In Reason We Trust” plates sponsored by the Secular Humanists of the Low Country. If you want it, you pay for it. Taxpayer money isn’t involved.

For some reason, the Christians pushing this “I Believe” plate think everyone else ought to pay for promotion of their religion. It’s pathetic and it’s illegal.

Thankfully, the judge has now put a stop to it.