Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
by Matthew Cobb
Yesterday we claimed that a headline involving frogs was the best headline in the history of the world. This piece of hyperbole was soon disputed on Tw*tter:
https://twitter.com/DrLindseyFitz/status/672149263627997184/photo/1
https://twitter.com/DougSaunders/status/672150534837571584/photo/1
The full story behind the frog headline:
https://twitter.com/wunderkamercast/status/672153379439689728/photo/1
Via Matthew Cobb, who uses Twi**er and therefore has access to this stuff:
https://twitter.com/wunderkamercast/status/671748112214392832/photo/1
by Grania Spingies
Regular contributor Pliny The In Between has created a new satirical poke at the strange logical contortions from the school of Special Pleading.
As Jerry noted recently, there is nothing particularly liberal about the Pope’s position on anything; not unless you apply a really low standard to what liberal is: his organization bars women from all high level management positions, in spite of his saying “women are more important than men because the church is woman” (whatever that is supposed to mean). Uttering the phrase “who am I to judge?” is on charitable interpretation only basic human decency on the question of homosexuality, it is not liberal. When put in context of the entire of the entire comment the tone takes a certain slide towards the Right:
A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will—well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation—we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.
That is not a liberal position. That is a I’ll tolerate you so long as you don’t ask for legal equality position. Not so liberal now, eh?
I’m still unsure if I understand exactly why the media fawns so much over religious leaders; but then they also fawn over the Kardashians (and I hate that I had to investigate who they are, thanks America) so perhaps that isn’t the right question.
Perhaps the question is: when did sounding like a mostly decent human being rather than a Westboro Baptist Church representative suddenly get re-branded as liberal?
UPDATE: As a reader below points out, Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, has sussed out that this is a fake account. So, sadly, I issue this correction, realizing that the hilarity was not unintentional.
________________
Speaking of odious folks on Twi**er, apparently jailed Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who is still sitting in jail for refusing an order to issue marriage licenses to gays, is tw**ting, but via her husband Joe, who’s using her account. Go have a look at some of the LOLz on her Twi**er feed. Here are a few examples:
This one is great: we sure can’t let those Muslims, gays, and baby killers walk the streets!
h/t: Saladin Ahmed via Matthew Cobb.
Addendum by Grania
Salman Rushdie’s response to people trying to claim that this is all about religious freedom.
It’s not often that commercials on a big television station so clearly spoof religion. This series, compiled in the video below, was produced by Legal Seafoods, a once-reputed restaurant in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I used to get my parents to take me to the first restaruant when I was in grad school. and it’s now expanded to a chain with branches in 7 states. I don’t know if it’s still as good as it once was.
That aside, Legal Seafoods has produced a series of commercials extolling a new religion, Pescitarianism, which is based on the premise of eating fish constantly. (I wonder if Olive Garden will now ape them and propose Pastafarianism.) The interesting thing is that the series of commercials, shown below, show no respect for existing religion. That could take place only in liberal states like Massachusetts. Here’s what’s satirized in the ads:
Roger Berkowitz, the chief executive of Legal Sea Foods, calls himself the “high priest” of the fish-eating church. “I’m converted,” said Berkowitz, who is Jewish. “We love the idea that we’re elevating seafood to a religious experience.”
Legal Sea Foods is known for eccentric and sometimes controversial ad campaigns that push the envelope, compared with more traditional advertising.
. . . Television advertisements, which begin airing next week, feature stock video of peaceful waves rolling onto a beach, high mountains, clouds, and a prairie with the sun beaming in the distance. A male voice-over says catch phrases like “In our book, gluttony isn’t a sin. It’s a commandment.” The ads end with a call to become a pescatarian.
A gag website for the would-be faith [JAC: here] lists famous pescatarians (“Noah, probably”) and lays out the religion’s creed to spread its beliefs, shun imitation crab meat, and eat fish and seafood at all times.
“If I cannot find such items, or I am stuck in a landlocked state filled with beef and poultry, such as Nebraska or Iowa,” the creed states, “I shalt resist temptation and order a salad instead.”
It’s a sign of our increasingly secular times that Legal Seafoods can not only get away with this, but thinks it will appeal to viewers. Of course there are those Christians who simply can’t stand these parodies. Here’s a pair of The Offended from the YouTube site:
h/t: Tom
Here’s a short piece that just appeared in The Onion; click on the headline to go to it, but I’ll reproduce it in its entirety:
THE HEAVENS—Saying that the various belief systems had a “good run” over the last few millennia but that it was probably time for humans to get by on their own, the Lord Our God, He Who Is Seen And Unseen, proclaimed Monday that He would begin slowly weaning humanity off religion. “Religion was definitely helpful for humans when they first started out, but now it seems like it’s pretty much served its purpose—time to take the training wheels off,” said God, who argued that while the transition from religion might be difficult for a large segment of the population, ultimately humankind would be better off without it in the long run. “It’s not like I’m going to get rid of religion all in one go or anything; I’ll wind it down gradually over the next 500 years or so. Really, when you take a good look at it, the negatives are starting to outweigh the positives anyway.” At press time, God was implementing the first stage of His plan by effecting the opposite outcome of every prayer He received.
Need I say more? I’ll just quote 1 Corinthians 13:11:
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
It’s in the Bible!
A reader who will remain unnamed sent me an email that made me chuckle:
I’m currently about half way through your Faith vs. Fact and finding it a most pleasurable experience to read something which is at once so authoritative and so totally in accord with everything I already believe about the relationship between science and religion.
All the more disquieting then, to report that my reaction to the very first line of text in Chapter One was a guffaw of disbelief:
‘There are no heated discussions about reconciling sport and religion…’
I’m glad I overcome my initial scorn and persisted with your excellent book, but I do have to ask you a simple question:
‘Have you ever been to Glasgow?’