151. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189679 by Rachel Holmes on June 7, 2008 at 1:05 am

the supposed absolute equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Would that be the same equality that you affirmed under 30 posts ago?

(Really must stop coming back here - it's like gawping at a train wreck.)

152. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189101 by Rachel Holmes on June 5, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Please re-read my post 1017, Appleby. Seriously, your brain must be Teflon-coated!

As I said before, you only get to play the "consent is irrelevant" card if you are trying to justify bestiality on the grounds that we do much worse things to animals without their consent.

However, this argument is based on the premise that sexual relationships between humans are fundamentally different from sexual relationships between humans and animals (since you are - correctly - adamant that consent is a necessary ingredient for ethical human sexual encounters).

Therefore, by using this argument, you are admitting that bestiality is not equivalent to homosexuality.

Therefore your equating homosexuality with bestiality remains what it aways was - wholly fallacious.

This, I'm afraid, is the logical conclusion that flows from trying to remove consent from the debate, so far as sex with animals is concerned.

Incidentally, the status quo has nothing to do with what is ethical - it just describes what is. So you can't justify treating people less favourably on the grounds the grounds that their behaviour is not part of that status quo (even though, as people have pointed out on several occasions, acceptance of homosexuals is now part of the status quo in many countries.)

By all means, continue to feel revolted at the idea of two men having sex. (Better still, just don't think about it.) But please, give up this bizarre thought experiment - you're never going to justify your contempt for homosexuality rationally. Ever. Seriously.

I'm out of here.

153. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188551 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 7:46 am

You really think that evidence will be forthcoming? Can't say I agree but we'll see, eh?

154. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188547 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 7:41 am

On what grounds do you think zoophilia should be permitted, Appleby?

Because it is ethically equivalent to relations between adults humans? Fine - but to prove that you will have to show that it ticks the same ethical boxes as adult human relationships, i.e. that it is consensual and non-harmful. Given that, with our current state of knowledge, it is reasonable to suppose that bestiality is non-consensual and harmful to animals, you can't do that. Ergo, unless contrary evidence turns up, they are not ethically equivalent.

Or perhaps you want to make the case that it should be permitted because it is no more unethical than other things the law allows humans to do to animals. Great - NOW you get to play your "consent is irrelevant" card, and you have a better (though not unanswerable) argument.

Nevertheless, by taking that tack, you are conceding that bestality is not ethically equivalent to adult human relationships, since you are effectively saying that human/animal relationships are so different that it is acceptable to do something to an animal that would be morally repugnant if done to a human being.

155. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188461 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:50 am

Thank you Colwyn!

Right, I'm off. I've got feck loads of work to do.

Happy bantering, all.

156. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188458 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:46 am

Taking another tack...

Given that we allow animals to be hunted and to be killed for food, surely it should not only be acceptable for us to inflict suffering on them by raping them but we should also be allowed to inflict any form of torture and cruelty on them.

Yes or no?

EDIT: Thanks for making that basic point, irate.

157. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188455 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:39 am

Colwyn,

I would give special pleading to a kitten that cute.

Appleby, are you as cute as that kitten?

158. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188452 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:38 am

The consent issue can only apply to humans? Why? You yourself have been making the hypothetical case for bestiality in part on the grounds that humans and other animals aren't so very different.

Why is consent material when it comes to sexual relations between humans (including humans who are incapable of granting consent) but not between humans and animals?

159. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188449 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:35 am

I did answer that point, Appleby: I said that it shows inconsistency in the way the law treats animals, but is irrelevant to the question of whether we should endorse sexual relations between animals and humans.

Yes, that would be one way of addressing the inconsistency. Another would be to ban hunting and the killing of animals for food. And another would be to allow humans to be hunted and killed for food.

160. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188444 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:31 am

You are the only one who thinks it is invalid, and the reason you gave for that stance is itself invalid. I wrote a post on this a page or so back. EDIT: Post 725

However, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that consent is irrelevant.

P1. A four-year-old child cannot consent to sex with an adult.
P2. Consent is irrelevant to the question of whether a sexual act is morally acceptable.
C: Therefore it is acceptable for an adult to have sex with a four-year-old child.

Replace the idea of sex with a child with references to sex with a animal and there we have your argument in favour of bestiality.

Do you agree with the above argument or not?

161. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188438 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:24 am

No. My point is this: both animals and young children are unable to give informed consent to sexual relations and it is reasonable for us, on the evidence we currently have, to suppose that such sexual activity is harmful to them.

Unless you dispute that, on what grounds would you allow bestiality but not paedophilia?

162. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188432 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:19 am

Rational distinctions between homosexuality and padeophilia have been presented to you on numerous occasions. Your inability to understand the harm and informed consent principles is a weakness on your part. You cannot claim the arguments haven't been put to you.

Perhaps you can tell me whether you think sex betwen adults and young children should be endorsed, given that you appear to think that consent and harm are irrelevant. If not, why not?

163. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188424 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:11 am

If research came forward to show that animals were able to give meaningful consent to sex with humans and that it was not harmful (in health/psychological terms), I would accept it.

On similar grounds, I'd accept sex between an adult and a four-year-old.

In other words, you can bring on the evidence, but I won't be holding my breath.

164. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188410 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 4:20 am

I'm now confused. Your premise throughout this thread has been that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality (unless everyone here has seriously misunderstood you). Yet you are now saying (whether in answer to the hetero-v-homo or hetero-v-bestiality question, I don't know) that you "didn't say it was better".

If you are answering the hetero-v-homo question, then unless "I didn't say it was better" is a politicianesque way of saying "I'm not going to answer that question", you are saying you think heterosexuality and homosexuality are equivalent.

If you are answering the hetero-v-bestiality question, then the same applies: with the same caveat, if you believe that heterosexuality and bestiality are equivalent, then given that you appear to think that homosexuality and bestiality are equivalent, you are - by implication - saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equivalent.

Can you clarify?

165. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188401 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 3:56 am

Well come on then, tell me why it is. Or, as I say, tell me why your heterosexual relationships are better than my homosexual relationship.

166. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188399 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 3:50 am

Did you actually read my post? I gave reasons, based on the harm principle, that differentiate homosexuaity from bestiality. I very much doubt that the issue of informed consent has ever been raised as an objection to homosexuality, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

I don't think my - or anyone's - sense of revulsion is sufficient by itself to justify discrimination against those who practise it. To be honest, I find the idea of a man and a woman getting it on to be pretty revolting. Can't say I waste too much time thinking about it.

But answer the question: how is your relationship with your girlfriend different from bestiality? Or why not cut straight to the chase: on what grounds do you think your heterosexuality (complete with your love of delowering virgins) is superior to the committed love between me and my fiancee?

167. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188331 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 12:02 am

I wonder, I really do, why you persist in equating homosexuality with zoophilia. Heterosexuality bears just as much similarity

Exactly, Cartomancer.

Come on Appleby - tell us why your relationship with your girlfriend is different to a 'bestial' (to use your word) entanglement, and there you'll have the answer to your question "in what way is homosexuality different from bestiality?"

Perhaps, given your comments, you don't think there is any difference.

For what it's worth, if a bloke could prove to me that his cat was happy being shafted by him, then I might accept it. It'd still turn my stomach and I do not see how a relationship between a human and an animal can reasonably be said to involve the same level of communication and informed consent as a relationship between two human adults. At its core, it's unequal and exploitative. Mitchell mentioned that the justifications for zoophilia resemble those used to justify paedophilia, and I think that's a good point.

168. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188219 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 11:34 am

You're very naughty, Philip. Have a cup of tea and calm yourself.

:-)

169. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188212 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 11:10 am

Appleby,

If you think you're not getting any real answers to your questions, does that mean you consider that my relationship with my fiancee really is no different to goat-fucking?

I really hope not, because that would point to some seriously fucked up thinking on your part.

170. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188130 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 8:50 am

Thank you Philip. She proposed to me on the edge of a cliff, so I felt it would be wise to say "yes".

EDIT: And thank you Steve!

171. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188109 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 8:30 am

hungarianelephant,

Oh please tell me I've not invented yet another term for an erection!

172. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188107 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 8:28 am

Of course you're coming across as homophobic. The assumption underlying your questions was homophobic. I agree that difficult questions can and should be asked, but frankly, I think it's safe to assume that someone who even feels it necessary to ask a question like, say, "are black people any more intelligent than baboons?" has racist views.

In any event, I hope my point about my relationship -v- bestiality has shown you how misbegotten your question was.

173. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188100 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 8:17 am

I am simply trying to establish whether or not homosexuals view themselves (and consequently their rights) as somehow different from those who practice bestiality. If so, I would like to know what criteria they use and if these criteria have any basis in science, for one thing.

Oh go on then, I'll take this. I realise that, as a gay woman, I don't suffer quite so much contempt from you as my male brethren. (Charitable of you, dear chap.)

Ok, well I'm engaged to my girlfriend and we plan to get CP'd in the next couple of years.

So...

What distinguishes my loving, monogamous, mutually supportive committed relationship with my partner from goat-fucking?

Gee, its a toughie.

Seriously Appleby, do you even realise (or care) how daft and offensive you are being?

174. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188086 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 7:59 am

Yes, it is questionable whether animals can give informed consent to sex with a human. However, that has no bearing on the validity of the consent issue as a characteristic that distinguishes homosexuality from bestiality. Severely mentally disabled people, young children and coma patients are unable to give informed consent to sex, but I hope we can agree that it would be wrong to jump them without consent.

As for us subjecting animals to worse treatment than non-consensual sex, well: first of all there's a debate to be had about whether killing for food (which exists throughout the animal kingdom and is related to survival) can really be put in the same category as bestiality. Still, pointing this out for the purposes of showing that the law govering human/animal relations are logically incoherent is valid. For what it's wrth, I agree that there's inconsistency.

It's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether homosexuality is distinguishable from bestiality, though.

175. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187985 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 5:34 am

I must confess that I have a special loathing for people like Appleby who are not only bigoted, but also dense, and yet think they are clever and enlightened. His failure to see the difference between homosexuality and bestiality - when he himself gave an example of how they are different - is particuarly obtuse. I do hope he keeps his word and stays away.

Incidentally, if he thinks that the inability of a potential fuckee to give informed consent somehow implies that it's ok to press ahead and give said fuckee a jolly good rogering, I can only hope to god that he doesn't work with mentally disabled people.

176. 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas

Comment #185885 by Rachel Holmes on May 29, 2008 at 12:30 am

Quine,

I thnk that's a great idea.

I'm not sure how much money the RDFRS has, but it might be worth pitching the idea to them.

177. In God's Name

Comment #183360 by Rachel Holmes on May 22, 2008 at 1:04 am

Why, funny you should ask, SOAS.

Carmel is an independent school, which means that it doesn't have to follow the national curriculum or have teachers who have been through approved teacher training. It does, however, have to meet the independent education standards, as set out in the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2003 (as amended). Ofsted will be checking for compliance with those standards when it inspects the school.

One of the standards is to do with the quality of education provided.

It apears that Ofsted inspected this school fairly recently (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/pdf/?inspectionNumber=296790&providerCategoryID=16384&fileName=\\school\\132\\s163_132774_20070213.pdf) where it didn't fare brilliantly but not badly either. I hope to goondess Ofsted didn't find evidence of creationism being taught and sweep it under the carpet.

In any event, it may be worth contacting Ofsted to tell them that ids are being taugt this dross as science. Their website is www.ofsted.gov.uk.

178. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169871 by Rachel Holmes on April 27, 2008 at 2:41 am

Whilst I think it's fair to ask schools to educate kids into not being crybabies, I kind of expect them to educate kids into not being insensitive, bigoted dickheads, as well. In my opinion, any teacher who refused to stop constant name-calling and teasing on the grounds that he didn't want to infringe on the kids' freedom of speech, or that those in minorities needed to learn some sangfroid, would be unworthy of his post.

Personally, I think all bullying should be stomped on. Yes, that leaves open the question of how you define "bullying", but at least it gets round the question of whether some types of bullying are less acceptable than others.

179. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169430 by Rachel Holmes on April 26, 2008 at 4:45 am

Be happy, not gay, eh?

Hmmm.

Can't I be both? That option doesn't seem to have crossed his mind [sic].

180. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #165862 by Rachel Holmes on April 22, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Hmm. The tab for the SciAm link on my Firefox toolbar reads "A Conversation with Expelled's Ass".

Coincidence? Proof of God?

You decide.

181. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161213 by Rachel Holmes on April 15, 2008 at 3:25 am

David,

Regarding the question of whether the scientists you know should be fired, I can only repeat what others have said: this would only be appropriate if their beliefs prevented them from doing their jobs properly. That doesn't seem to be the case, from what you have said.

You also mention that they have doubts about aspects of evolutionary theory, rather than rejecting it outright. Questioning aspects of a theory is one thing; rejecting it wholesale and promulgating an unsupported hypothesis in its place is another.

Also, as others have again pointed out (and they seem to have researched this more closely than I have), it appears that it is incorrect to say that the scientists mentioned in "Expelled" lost their jobs on account of their views on evolution. They lost their jobs for various reasons, or simply left them. If this is true, the discrimination claim is the lie at the heart of the film.

182. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161166 by Rachel Holmes on April 15, 2008 at 1:52 am

Firstly you actually miss the point of Expelled. Its major charge is that there are scientists in academia who are being 'expelled' or discriminated against because they dare to question some aspects of Darwinism (the hint is in the title of the film). If this accusation is false then that is the 'falsehood at the heart of expelled'. If the accusation is correct then it is profoundly disturbing.

183. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #155938 by Rachel Holmes on April 6, 2008 at 11:09 am

Glad to be of service, dear boy.

Don't tell a soul, but I'm working on something spectacular for Yellowstone...

184. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #155839 by Rachel Holmes on April 6, 2008 at 3:49 am

Cartomancer and Raiko,

Does it not bother you even slightly that Sally Kern is onto us? Does this point to infiltration within the Enclave?

As Head of Geological Gay Terrorism, I am worried. I shall await further instructions from our glorious (but satanic) Leaders.

In the meantime, don't anyone piss me off, or I'll sneeze in the direction of a faultline near you.

185. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151876 by Rachel Holmes on March 29, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Clearthinker,

The group is called "Humanist Community", not "Atheist Community."

As has been pointed out to you on numerous occassions, atheists are defined solely by their lack of belief in deities. Secular humanists are, if you like, a sub-set of atheists, who subscribe to certain positive (humanistic) ethics. I would put myself in their camp.

So you are wrong to say that this is an "atheist church". Moreover, there is quite a distinction between subscribing to a set of ethics and having religious or quasi-religious "faith". There is also a huge difference between encouraging people to think critically and hammering inviolable doctrine into their heads. Can you genuinely not see that?

186. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147398 by Rachel Holmes on March 20, 2008 at 9:30 am

The Daily Telegraph? That's advanced kama sutra-ing is that, Philip.

Don't underestimate Scrabble, though. I shall never forget the first time my girlfriend gave me a triple word score. Whew!

187. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147386 by Rachel Holmes on March 20, 2008 at 8:57 am

Honestly, esuther - I can't believe you'd blithely give out the lesbian daily routine like that.

However, if we're opening our secret box (so to speak)...

I would add that, in answer to all those (startlingly unimaginitive) people who wonder what lesbians do in bed, the answer is "Scrabble".

Or, if we want to go all night, The Times cryptic crossword.

188. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146954 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Mitchell - my apologies. I didn't mean to cause offence. Japanese animation is a whole unknown area to me!

funkybeatt, I think you'll find that a lot of us here, of all sexual orientations, found escaping from religion (or from a supposed "relationship with God", if that's how you prefer to think of your faith) to be liberating. I know I did.

189. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146919 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Hi Mitchell, that's why I didn't want us to move onto hentai! I find your avatar pleasant, which hentai isn't.

190. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146905 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Thank you mundusvultdecipi - that's exactly the sort of stuff I need.

191. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146889 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm

See Al, this just shows how manly you are.

My girlfriend would be even prouder of you. It's all I can do to stop her turning the living room into something Barbie would find tasteless.

Glad to see you're into pink as well, Mitchell. I'm still trying to take in the manga refs. Let's not go onto hentai, eh?

192. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146880 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Al,

My view is that it takes a man who is very sure of his masculinity to don a pink shirt.

Go for it!

193. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146815 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Thank you Mitchell. And can I just say how much I like your avatar? ;-)

194. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146808 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for the welcome back!

I'd like to include some testimonials as an appendix to my submission, to put a human face on the issue. If anyone here is gay/bi and had a rough time at the hands of homophobic religites, I'd be interested in reading your story. If I used it, I'd only refer to your age, sex and orientation, so you'd be reasonably anonymous.

If anyone wants to put in their own submission, the consultation is available on www.charitycommission.gov.uk. There's a link on the right side of the page. There are plenty of other things to have a go about: JWs and blood donation, Catholic teachings on contraception etc.

Not sure any of this will mke a jot of difference: public bodies seem terrified of upsetting religious folks, even when their practices are patently harmful (and certainly not for the public benefit). Worth raising the point though - you can be damned sure the fundies will be putting their ideas forward.

195. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146767 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 11:39 am

Ygern,

I'm in England and not only is this legal, the True Freedom Trust (sic) (which tries to turn people straight) is actually a registered charity.

It is interesting, in terms of timing, that this story has turned up now. English charities are required, by law, to provide public benefit. In assessing public benefit, the Charity Commission must take account of any harm an organisation does. The Commission is currently running a consultation on the advancement of religion (as a charitable purpose) and public benefit.

I am a charity law specialist and gay woman who had the joy of being brought up in an evangelical Christian home. (Yes, it was a major headfuck.) I am putting together a personal response to the consultation, showing how conservative religious teachings on homosexuality are harmful.

Research on so-called "reparative", or "conversion" therapy shows that the best that can be said of it is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is ineffective. At worst, it promotes self-loathing in those who fail to get "cured".

Incidentally, the "hate the sin, love the sinner" schtick is crap. For a start, homosexuality isn't about what you do, it's about who you are. Moreover, it goes to a pretty central part of being human - the desire to love and be loved, and to experience intimacy with another human being.

In that context, trying to separate identity from deeds is daft. If you tell a young gay person that something as core as their love is perverted and corrupt, how is that young person supposed to infer anything than other that *they* are perverted and corrupt? As a beardy man once said: bad fruit, bad tree.

Research has also shown conservative religious views to be a significant factor in gay teen depression and suicide.

196. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74252 by Rachel Holmes on September 28, 2007 at 1:30 am

Of course no-one aked him what the movie was about. "Rampart" had already lied to the interviewees by telling them it was about the intersection between science and religion. The article tells us that this is what Rampart's website said.

Is there no depth to which these creeps won't stoop?

And has it never crossed their minds that an argument that can't be made without resorting to deception probably is't a very good argument?

197. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72102 by Rachel Holmes on September 20, 2007 at 10:33 am

revcort,

regarding homosexuality... what you have proven to me is that there are homosexual tendencies that exist in some animals on some occasions. I admit I was ignorant of this. However, here is the true question of nature in my estimation- will a homosexual union ever produce an offspring? The answer is no. Therefore, it is not the "preferred" sexual orientation of nature. It has always been male and female from the beginning.

The part I highlighted is not an argument against homosexuality, it is an argument against fruitless unions. As such, it condemns childless couples, celibates and contraceptive users as much as it does homosexual couples (of whom I know several that have given loving homes to the unwanted or abused offspring of heterosexuals).

Personally, I find it hard to see how failure to reproduce is a moral issue.

I must say, however, I commend you on keeping such good humour in the face of so much opposition. :-)

198. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71304 by Rachel Holmes on September 18, 2007 at 10:40 am

Thank you, Richard. Feel free to use it. If it is income-producing, I shall of course demand royalties. :-)

Eh? Reading that as 'The last thing I want, when I'm dead is...' Unless you believe in a life after death (lol), what business is it of yours what your mourners do?

Ah, Flagellant, but if I'd been talking about my post-mortem wishes, I'd have used the future tense, not the present!

In my post, I was trying to express that my concerns were based on how my friends and family might feel. Obviously, by the time of my funeral I won't care very much about anything at all (unless the Christians are right, in which case I'll be too busy getting backshafted with a pitchfork to worry about what kind of send-off I'm getting).

Apparently, I didn't put that across very well.

I've sat through religious funerals of non-religious friends. For me, the disconnect between the personality and beliefs of the friend and the religious words being spoken about them made the service feel as though it was nothing to do with the person being grieved.

My parents are committed Christians. If I am responsible for organising their funerals, they will be Christian funerals. I may think Christianity is a load of bunkum but it is central to their lives. To me, it would feel not only inaproppriate but dishonoring to their memory to give them anything other than a Christian burial.

I freely admit that not everyone may feel this way and that it is quite possible that, when my time comes, the folk responsible for arranging my funeral will find a religious service most comforting. Presumably the minister won't bang on about how I'm rotting in hell because I was an evil atheist. I'm fairly certain he won't be taking about demonic backshafting, at any rate...

199. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71153 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2007 at 11:31 pm

First, I welcome the alternative of humanist funerals. The last thing I want, when I die, is for my family and friends to have to sit though a religious service, knowing full well that what the guy in the dress is saying is totally at odds with the ethos of the person they're remembering.

I also see nothing wrong with fostering a sense of community. Humanism is not synonymous with atheism, but I bet there'd be a big overlap if you drew a Venn diagram of the two groups. There are plenty of humanist organisations out there providing a forum for people to socialise with like-minded people. What's so sinister about that?

What I do find odd is the idea of creating an atheist community whose structure/meetings resemble those of religious bodies, with a professional "pastor" etc. Nevertheless, to dismiss it out of hand simply because it resembles a religious set-up seems nothing more than an emotional knee-jerk to me.

200. Messiah

Comment #52847 by Rachel Holmes on June 28, 2007 at 8:05 am

Interesting post, Hal9000. Still not in a hurry to try the glass-walking thing, though...