Dawkins Wants To Share Eroticism, Tim Stanley That Devil Intervenes

Richard Dawkins suggested that broadcasting loving erotica might help to tackle misogyny generally in theocratic states.

This was in response to what Boris Johnson said regarding blue balls theory that by not getting laid, this led to wanking at porn and then jihadists (I debunk the theory here.)

Clearly that was not what Dawkins was expressing. Rather, it was that women and men should be viewed in loving ways whether sexually or otherwise. Erotica that stressed that would be a contrast to repressive religious cultures that insisted on men and women being segregated, with women being covered up as a temptresses in need of modesty to preserve herself, and protect men from themselves.

Dear Richard Dawkins, my people WROTE the book on this. Most of it is athletic, if quite gentle, erotica. Didn't stop our violent tendencies

— Sunny Singh (@sunnysingh_nw3) January 31, 2015

Last year ended with Richard Dawkins being quartered, drawn and hung by the harridans. This year begins with his self-censorship for SWJs.

— Mduduzi Dlamini (@Quibbie_) January 31, 2015

In homage to Richard Dawkins's plan to beat Islamic extremism with porn, here's an excerpt from "Pride & Prejudice" pic.twitter.com/oTdcaVfVLl

— Paul Anthony Ward (@PaulAnthonyWard) January 31, 2015

Dawkins ended up deleting his tweet, following unloving mounting derision at the idea.

Tim Stanley seemed to find sadistic delight in laying the boot in:

After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.

Time was when it looked like Dawkins was about to go the full “nut-job 180” and declare that, upon reflection, there actually is a God and it’s Richard Dawkins – and have himself blasted into space on the back of a dolphin singing Onward Christian Soldiers. As you can tell, I’ve come to regard Dick with a great deal of affection. He’s just a mad uncle – a genius academic with monomania who probably isn’t a bad person just a rather naïve one. And his capacity for dreaming up new ways to irritate the religious is, at least, not boring.

So how did Tim show that he was far from a nut job or mad uncle himself? By trying to tell us the answer to Stephen Fry’s how could a loving God let children be born with bone cancer was already in the bible.

Not only has theology dedicated itself for thousands of years to unpicking that problem but the answer to it is there in the very Bible itself. Since Adam and Eve ate the apple, we’ve been living in a fallen world full of pain. God granted us free will not only to do bad things but also good things – like finding a cure for cancer or caring for those dying from it.
Terrible things happen because of a) random acts of nature, b) the intervention of the Devil or c) the corruption of man.

“I’m not saying anyone has to believe what I write…” goes on Tim, but I would like him to go further and write more. Does he literally believe there was an Adam and Eve that ate an apple? Was it a just God that then allowed all their offspring to suffer for such a transgression by being cast out of paradise? Did God not set the randomness of nature, or was it beyond his capacity to control? Does the devil intervene by controlling nature, us or influencing directly our thoughts and actions, even using children and loved ones let alone heads of state or Telegraph journalists? Does the corruption of man mean children must expect getting bone cancer, or a worm burrowing out of their eye, and still praise God while in pain thus accepting their corruption?

“…please don’t act like it’s never been said before or that the answer to Fry’s facile question doesn’t exist.” That is the problem – they are not answers. What evidence does Stanley have, significant insight to know this is of God, that he can use without sounding like a nut job mad uncle? He cannot, though he can say this is my belief and that is enough for me. Thing is,he sees this as an answer for everyone, one we should embrace in our wretchedness.

So the choice of spreading around the world loving erotica or the good news that children are responsible for their bone cancer because they are born corrupted. It truly is a mad world where Dawkins feels the need to delete his tweet, but Stanley can let stand dogma that is truly pernicious.

I appreciate some people wondering at the tweets by Dawkins. However, there are far worse things said as religion, which seems to make people authorities while standing on sand by a lapping sea of faith.

Watch for the tides, in case your reason is lost far out to sea.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Stephen Fry: What He Would Say To God

Gay Byrne rolls his eyes to heaven as if looking for consolation, to an elegant response by Stephen Fry to why most atheists would reject a God:

“The god who created this universe, if he created this universe, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish.

“We have to spend our lives on our knees thanking him. What kind of god would do that?

“Yes the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind.”

Misotheism, that is the hatred of the Gods and denying they are worthy of obedience or acquiescence, may not be the basis of most people’s atheism. (My own is lack of evidence to suggest it is other than humanity creating God). Rather, Stephen articulates why the idea that people would want God to be true needs countering with what that means.

Praise a God that created a worm that burrows into a child’s eye? On your own. Does piety make you want to spend eternity with such a being?

Goodness and happiness makes humanity better, and life less harsh. Belief in God will not add to that for me.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Video: How Do We know What Is True?

Short two minute animated video narrated by Stephen Fry contrasting a humanistic view of the world compared to a supernatural view of existence.

Enjoy!

Hat tip Jerry Coyne

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Clarifying My James Kirchick Post

Some have asked why the cross post for “James Kirchick Takes On Russia Today” was removed from Harry’s Place. As my clarification comments are no longer visible I thought would summarise them here.

I was amazed how people jumped to conclusions about the post – and indeed my own sexuality or attitudes. Simply stating if he had stuck to two minutes, and talked about specifics of what is happening in Russia it would have been better – seemed to be misconstrued as a personal homophobic or alternatively “queen V queen” assault.

That people had two polar responses to my post suggests it was never going to have the fair hearing of what was actually said.

Shame some had not read this post of mine tackling homophobia.

Or this one praising James Kirchick defending Christopher Hitchens.

Or others like challenging Mehdi Hasan on Gay rights and attitudes for Muslims.

People filled in the gaps about motivation, who I am as a person, and in some cases wrong impression what the post was about. Still, that happens when blogging.

Having shown “Russia Today” coverage in the post, and agreed serious issues in Russia because of government attitudes to gay people – and issues in some UK schools too that must not be forgotten – seems incredible some thought I was disagreeing or belittling him.

Someone mentored by Hitchens should have done better. He would have quoted government officials like the sports minister, he would have said the names of journalists murdered in Russia.

Above all Hitch would not have hijacked the show with a non stop rant because that would be the story – not what he said.

Laws are not the only thing that need changing. Attitudes on the street too. That was my problem – I think this made people feel good. My post was trying to prick that bubble of euphoria – much to be done still.

So please, if you were moved by Kirchick’s stand then get involved in showing solidarity with gay, lesbian, bi sexual and transgender people not just in Russia.

EDIT: Section 28

I have been reminded some were claiming I was comparing Russia’s anti-gay legislation with section 28.

Absolutely not – where I mention it I make very clear a journalist in the second featured video (on Russia Today) and quote Peter Tatchell making, to a lesser extent than the journalist, the comparison. As you can see in the extract below:

In the second video above what is happening in Russia is compared to Section 28 in the UK about banning the promotion of homosexuality in school. In 2003 it was repealed by a Labour Government.

However, only yesterday The Independent reported:

Campaigners have identified more than 40 schools across the country that stress in their sex-education guidelines that governors will not allow teachers to “promote” homosexuality, or are ambiguous on the issue.

…

The campaigner Peter Tatchell said: “This is spookily similar to Section 28 in Britain and the new anti-gay law in Russia. These schools are abusing their new freedoms to pressure teachers to teach gay issues in a way that will discourage them from saying anything positive that could be construed as ‘promotion’.”

UPDATE: Mic Wright: Russia might not be the worst place to be gay, but that shouldn’t mean ignoring Putin’s bigotry is spot on with the details of what is happening in Russia.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

James Kirchick Takes On Russia Today On Gay Rights

James Kirchick with his rainbow braces has gone viral as he hijacked an assembled panel to talk about gay rights in Russia rather than what he was presumably paid to, the sentencing of Brad Manning:

I thought it might be worth seeing some Russia Today coverage as well:

Covering Stephen Fry call for a boycott of Olympic event:

In an article on their website they quoted the Russian Sports Minister:

[Mutko] also accused the Western media of overplaying the anti-gay issue, while saying that Russia wanted to protect its children from the propaganda of “drug addiction, alcohol abuse and non-traditional sexual orientation.”

Media coverage of the Athletics Championships, which closed Sunday in Moscow, has been overshadowed in the West by comments over Russia’s “gay propaganda law.”

Clearly that deserved condemning to a Russian audience that comparison. He was given more than the two minutes he wanted to talk about anti-gay legislation. Then he continued to refuse to talk about what he had been invited to discuss. In his rant featured above he made no such direct points on legislation instead critiquing Russia Today (hope he did later but I doubt it). Open opportunity given to him by the programme to discuss and frankly he blew it. Sorry, he made himself the story here not what is happening in Russia.

The story being that homosexuality is like being a drug user or an alcoholic according to the Russian Government – a social scourge to be discouraged. That needed articulating.

In the second video above what is happening in Russia is compared to Section 28 in the UK about banning the promotion of homosexuality in school. In 2003 it was repealed by a Labour Government.

However, only yesterday The Independent reported:

Campaigners have identified more than 40 schools across the country that stress in their sex-education guidelines that governors will not allow teachers to “promote” homosexuality, or are ambiguous on the issue.

…

The campaigner Peter Tatchell said: “This is spookily similar to Section 28 in Britain and the new anti-gay law in Russia. These schools are abusing their new freedoms to pressure teachers to teach gay issues in a way that will discourage them from saying anything positive that could be construed as ‘promotion’.”

Any mention of this by Jamie Kirchick on Twitter? Er, no at time of publishing this post.

Only a matter of time I am sure. Brace yourself.

Follow Up Post: Clarifying My James Kirchick Post

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog