A discussion prior to the Atheist Alliance of America convention in Denver.
That Atkins guy & the rest of the Repugnicant appologists! The kicker for me was the comments regarding rape pregnancies was “there should be punishment, but it shouldn’t be the child”. I guess it should be the victim then!?!?!?!
Drag Queens cooking yummy southern food? =D
This whole “Legitimate rape” thing sounds like an onion article to me. I can understand someone clarifying “genuine” rape cases, as in, people reporting real rape, and not just yelling wolf to get someone in trouble… but it would still be a pretty useless definition, considering it’s either rape or it isn’t.
Keep doin’ what you’re doin’! I love listening to you bitches! =D
A+ seems to have the same tenets as humanism, at least as it seems to be practiced by the humanist society of BC here in Vancouver, BC. Everyone in the group here with whom I’ve spoken has no problem whatsoever with feminism, atheist activism, LGBT issues, pressing church / state separation issues or vocally disagreeing with theist apologists — no matter how socially progressive they are. No one seems too concerned about accommodating progressive theists. Most (and certainly the leaders) seem to be pretty clear that religion is the root of most evil in the world.
I’m reading Glenn Hardie’s excellent little Kindle book “The Road to Reason” and the humanist proclamations he refers to all include a statement of atheism (ie lack of belief in gods or other supernatural agents), so from a ideological standpoint, I don’t see any difference between humanism and A+. Both are extensions of simple atheism by adding social progress issues. Just being a passive atheist is not a whole lot more useful (and obviously no more harmful) than being a passive theist.
I wonder if this is a change in humanism in response to the extreme theist militancy which has been manifesting all over the world in recent years.
In any case, I suspect there are many practical political actions which would attract A+ people, humanists, CFI members, Skepchicks, and progressive theists. I don’t think such common action requires accommodation to the extent of atheists shutting up about our philosophical problems with theism. I certainly would never agree to such a policy.
That said, if anyone feels more comfortable under the A+ or Bright or whatever other equivalent label than under humanism, go for it. We all (in the immortal words of Annie Laurie Gaylor — one of my heroes) “disbelieve in the same god”.
Keep up the good work, Bitches. I’ve been listening for about 6 months (slowly working my way through the backlog) and so far, I find myself sharing your outrage about every one of the issues you’ve brought up.
My mother (who died in 2003 at the ripe old age of 87) used to (when we were kids) get my sister and me to read feminist and progressive literature aloud to her while she did the ironing, so I got a pretty thorough education on women’s and non-wealthy people’s issues before I got to high school. Personally, I’m a tad squeamish about abortion, but I completely agree that there is no way that any consistent system of morality could force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term — no matter what her reasons. To suggest otherwise is equivalent to requiring every man to register with an organ donor database and then force them to give up a kidney if someone with whom one has a match required it. Abortion is a clear case of moral priorities. Sure, a fertilized egg is more “human” than a hangnail, but a woman of childbearing age is an actual human and even if she owns nothing else in this life, should at least own her own body.
“Welcome to Godless Bitches. What’s everybody drinkin?”
A preliminary transcript of this podcast is now available at:
Most of the caveats said about the last transcript apply (see episode 2.10 comment 12 for the caveats).