Is the vocabulary to properly talk about our own bodies too sophisticated a topic for children to be introduced to as early as kindergarten? Bill O’Reilly seems to think so, at least in regard to the word “uterus”, which apparently the mere knowledge that a woman has one is enough to “blast” a child out of their childhood.

It’s interesting how taboo words get rationalized by terms like “sophisticated” and stigmatized as being harmful for kids, especially when a basic knowledge of the term (that babies come from a part inside a woman called a uterus, for instance) is something that can help build a strong foundation for us to know our own bodies and what they do.

What do y’all think? Should we introduce children to the correct terms for their bodies, even the taboo parts, early on, or should we use/invent sanitized words that mean the same thing (like “wee-wee” instead of “penis”)?

Via Iris forums.

So, December is right around the corner and it seems like it’s that time again. Yes, time for the fundamentalist Christians who are hell bent on giving all Christians a bad name, interpreting “freedom of religion” as “freedom for my religion only“, and in general asserting their Christian privilege in an attempt to oppress non-Christians.

In the past two days, I’ve gotten two pieces of near-identical spam hawking the same product.

Here’s the first one:

A new comment on the post #93 “The War Against Non-Christians” is waiting for your approval

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2005-12-20_93

Author : Bruce (IP: 70.92.97.82 , cpe-70-92-97-82.bak.res.rr.com)
E-mail : [xxx]
URI : [don't want to accidently advertise for them]
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=70.92.97.82
Comment:
Speaking of the war on Christmas, Best Buy has just dug their heels in and returned to the trenches by banning the greeting, “Merry Christmas” from their advertising campaign this Christmas.

I’ve been fighting back with this song (feel free to use it in your campaign if you like it):[cut because I'm not actually endorsing the spamming]

Here’s the second one:

A new comment on the post #186 “When will I get arrested for “driving while atheist”?” is waiting for your approval

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-26_186

Author : Dr BLT (IP: 70.92.97.82 , cpe-70-92-97-82.bak.res.rr.com)
E-mail : [xxx]
URI : [don't want to accidently advertise for them]
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=70.92.97.82
Comment:
Thanks for keeping the spirit of Christmas alive. Believe it or not, blogs like these empower soldiers fighting for Christmas. I’ve been fighting on the Best Buy front on the war on Christmas with an original song that seems to be generating lots of interest.

As you may know, Best Buy banned the use of “Merry Christmas” in their ads this year. It caused me to wonder what kind of an Inn Best Buy would be if it were an Inn, and not a department store, back in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. That thought gave birth to this song: [cut because I'm not actually endorsing the spamming]

I’m very glad to hear that my efforts to expose the “War on Christmas” as the oppressive, anti-freedom of religion BS that it actually is “empower[s] soldiers fighting for Christmas”. Onward Christian soldiers! Fight against those fundamentalists besmirching your good name! Fight for inclusive language such as “Happy Holidays” that acknowledges that not everyone is a Christian, nor does everyone celebrate Christmas! Go, fight, win!

[Crossposted to my Vox blog.]

It’s been a while since I’ve heard good news on the reproductive rights front – it’s been abortion bans and “conscience clauses” for so long.

Yesterday the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision in Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio upholding a provision of the Women’s Health and Wellness Act which requires all but a narrowly defined category of religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception if they provide prescription drug coverage.

Read the rest…

The Catholic League in response to former congressman Mark Foley remarking that he was abused by a clergyman:

“As for the alleged abuse, it’s time to ask some tough questions. First, there is a huge difference between being groped and being raped, so which was it Mr. Foley? Second, why didn’t you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn’t allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?”

Getting victim blamed for abuse and molestation ain’t just for the girls, apparently. Not exactly the kind of “gender parity” I’d like to see, though.

Via Darth Sidhe.

The Center for Biological Reform was invited to my school on Tuesday and Wednesday by Western for Life, my university’s anti-choice club. They put up a display comparing abortion to genocide in the center-most public area of campus. There were signs that read, “Warning, Genocide Ahead,” but the area is difficult to avoid and many students told me they proceeded expecting something about a real genocide.

I took a few pictures of the displays. They are graphic and probably not work safe, so you may want to skip this post if you’re not up for being in a bad mood.

I took these pictures on the second day. On the first day, there were small children behind the barricade, in the sun, and infants being carried by women.

Read the rest…

So, apparently the University of Minnesota did a study that found what every American atheist, and really anyone who keeps up with the Religious Wrong, already knows: Americans hate atheists. And think that religion is the only way to have morals. Because, you know, people are only interested in being good human beings when the threat of punishment looms over them.

If you’re wondering about the snarky title to this post, however, it’s a reaction to the title that UMNnews choose to put on the piece: “Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study”. While the people taking the survey apparently put atheists at the bottom of their list (below “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups”) in terms of “sharing their vision of American society,” I don’t think that’s enough to qualify us as the “most distrusted minority”.

Just a guess, but I’d say it’s less that we’re actually the most distrusted minority and more that people feel okay in admitting they are prejudiced against us. Which is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, they don’t have any reason to even pretend to respect us. On the other, they, well, don’t pretend to respect us. But, really, just because someone thinks that they aren’t prejudiced against other minorities, doesn’t mean that it’s the case. So, I’ll think I’ll bow out of the “which minority is the most distrusted” game and simply say that, you know, life isn’t as simple as one survey makes it seem.

Via Bitch | Lab

Emma has written a thought-provoking post on her brief foray into fundamentalism.

Although most UK fundamentalists are middle-class their theologies do not appear to be influenced by their access to education. Fundamentalist thinking forces every issue, problem, idea, challenge, ideology, and state into a framework in which things are either good or evil. Complexity, not Satan, is the real enemy. “Secular” sources of information and analysis are viewed with extreme caution, and I have witnessed more than one repentant bonfire of “secular” music.

This black and white thinking is taken into the area of gender. I was involved with a particular church that viewed non gender-stereotyped behaviours and clothing as a sign of spiritual immaturity. One particular women was forbidden by the church hierarchy from using tools around the house (masculine behaviour) until she adopted the modest dress they felt befitted a Christian woman.

Clearly this is batshit crazy, but a gender gap was observable in all of the churches I attended. Men filled the spots within the church leadership, except those posts that related to women and children. Women ran the creche, typed up the church newsletter, and provided and cleared up after refreshments. Men taught, women learned. Men led, women followed. Men protected, women obeyed.

I think the most chilling, though unfortunately not unexpected, part of the post came when she talked about some of her actual experiences with the church. Debates over which tea was more holy were fought with more fervor than that of the plight of domestic violence victims. That, and the emphasis on marriage/childbearing being the only acceptable goal for women, is as good an indicator as any for what kind of “morality” those kinds of institutions teach. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing good, right, or moral about treating human beings the way that Emma describes.

This just in… a Christian who said “Happy Holidays” was read her rights by an angry God Warrior.

dear customer: when i am ringing you up, i do not say happy holidays to upset you. i do not hate christmas. i celebrate christmas myself. i can’t WAIT til christmas comes. i am EXCITED about christmas. but you might not be, and i DON’T WANT YOU TO FEEL EXCLUDED. it’s not because i hate your holiday, your religion, your people or your general welfare. it’s the EXACT OPPOSITE. i care enough not to ass-ume that you are one thing and not another.

i am so, so fucking sick of the asinine phrase “PC”. i am not being POLITICALLY CORRECT, i am being considerate of the fact that BILLIONS OF PEOPLE DO NOT CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS. that goes for ANY term “pc” term. yeah, i say mailperson, not mailman. sometimes when i refer to god, i say she. sometimes i say he. sometimes i say (zomg!) IT. i say handicapped instead of disabled.

it’s something i learned in kindergarten.

it’s fucking called MANNERS and COMMON SENSE.

[From feminist_rage post by alexstra]

By now, I’m sure y’all have heard about the so-called War on Christmas. Because, you know, Christians in America are an oppressed group. Unlike Jews, Muslims, pagans of various stripes, or atheists. It’s not like their God is in the pledge that children have to speak every day… oh, wait, it is. Well, it’s not like the majority of their religious holidays are national holidays… oh, wait, they are. Uh. Er. They’re oppressed, really! I mean, prayer in school has been outlawed, evolution is taught in science class, the god-given commandments are not allowed to be in public buildings, and now… now they have to put up with “PC” phrases such as “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” being said alongside “Merry Christmas”. If this continues, people of other faiths (or lack of faith) might start thinking that their beliefs are equal to those of the God Warriors!

I, myself, became a casualty of this vicious war when I was dealing with a credit card issue just a few days ago.

I was on the phone with the representative and after we had resolved everything she said, “Ha… Merry Christmas.”

I replied, “And a Happy Holidays to you.” Truth be told, what I really had wanted to say was, “Where the hell do you get off assuming that I celebrate Christmas?” But, really, it might not have been the rep’s fault. From the way she started saying something else, it sounds like it’s company policy. And that, my friends, is just not cool.

Read the rest…

Finally, people are researching the claim that I’ve observed anecdotally for years: all this “god” stuff hurts more than it helps. An article in The Times reports on a new study recently published examining the assertion that religion is necessary for a healthy society.

The study comes from a US academic journal called the Journal of Religion and Society and was authored by Gregory Paul. From the article, it seems that he took data from several respected research bodies and used them to create correlational data between several social factors and religion. Without the study, I can’t verify for myself how strong of a correlation he would have been able to draw, but before anyone gets too excited, I want to point out that there’s too many variables to be able to prove a causational model in this area.

From the article:

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

I highly recommend reading the entire article. I would love to get my hands on the paper itself, as I’m very interested in this learning more study. (Darn you, UBC library!) Heck, I’m very interested in the journal itself, seeing as the title of it leads me to believe that it focuses on the examination of how religion and society interact. I hope that Paul’s research here leads to a more in-depth examination between the impacts of various belief systems on societies and the people who live in them.

Via Pandagon.

Update: Found the study, it’s available for public viewing on the Journal’s website: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look.

Sidenote: I am so pissed at WordPress right now. I was having some trouble updating this, and it had gone through, so I closed the unsaved file that I was keeping my update in and logged out. Guess what? The entire post went from published to unpublished status and lost the update I had written! ARGH.

So, I just got back from writing my first final (one down, two to go) where I wrote a masterful essay on “church-state” relations in Japan. In this achievement of literary prose that is sure to achieve me full marks on that section (yeah, right), I posited that, as things existed, neither religion nor the state could ever reign supreme without acknowledging the power of the other. Now, we all know that talking out of one’s ass is a time honoured university tradition, but I must confess that it made perfect sense in the context of the essay. Having had all of twenty minutes to think about it, I’ve begun to wonder: do religion and the state really need each other?

Read the rest…

Amanda over at Pandagon takes on the “morality” of the so-called “conscience clause” pharmacists. I’ve been trying for so long to explain that someone else’s morality should in no way trump my morality when it comes to issues of my body, but I think Amanda has really hit the issue at its heart.

Read the rest…