Circumcision: A brief comparsion between the sexes

Edit - Big thanks to Laura MacDonald for highlighting a mistake I'd made. Purely due to ignorance on my part, so thank you for letting me know. It's also reminded me that I'd meant to put a note before each piece:


If I'm factually wrong about something then I'd like to know. If you have information or a link that show that I've got something wrong or I'm assuming something I shouldn't, then please let me know in a comment or email. I'm all for accuracy! Thanks.

In recent years I've taken quite an interest, if that's the right word, in the practice of circumcision.
Specifically male circumcision, though this would be the thought present in most heads, as the general public is conditioned to think of female circumcision as "Female Genital Mutilation" (FGM). And quite rightly too as pretty much all cutting of a child's genitals falls directly under the definition of mutilation. An exception might be made for a pin-prick or small nick, but that's clouding the issue somewhat: often a discussion can devolve into what "really counts as mutilation".

There is a mental disconnect in minds throughout the world, though it seems in the USA in particular, concerning the cutting of a boy's genitals when compared to the cutting of a girl's. I single out the US as non-therapeutic routine male infant circumcision is more common in America than any other 'Western' country (or so I'm lead to believe - corrections welcome). While cutting off the foreskin more or less right after birth dwindled in practice in the UK, Europe and Australia (to a lesser extent) after the second world war, the habit has persisted in the US and has only seen a decline in recent years.

FGM is illegal in the US and the UK: all types (I-IV) are banned and have been for some time. The most well known type of FGM involves a clitoridectomy, whereby some or all of the clitoris is removed. The persistent image is that this is done with a rusty blade or a sharp stone, on the dirty floor of a mud hut while a young girl is held down, fully aware and without anesthetic, screaming in pain and crying. I won't deny that this happens, because it does, and in any case it's not something I'm trying to contend. Rather I'm trying to demonstrate how and why people react so strongly when someone tries to compare cutting boys and cutting girls.

FGM is seen as backward, barbaric, evil and done only to deprive women of sexual function and sexual pleasure. The first three qualities are subjective, but I would agree with the description: it's wrong and reprehensible to remove part of someone's genitals without their consent and for no good medical reason. No-one who knows the first thing about female genitalia or FGM can deny the last two: removing the clitoris takes away a large collection of sexual nerve endings and the oft accompanying infibulation damages and restricts function too. However there follows an assumption that women who have had such a procedure are totally unable to enjoy sex of any kind, with claims to the contrary often met by suspicion ("Why would you defend it?") and refusal to accept the possibility. But it is not the case that all pleasure is lost: at least one study has shown that circumcised women can enjoy sexual intercourse. Not that I personally think that matters, as I don't think it gives FGM a positive spin in any way. But there is nothing wrong with accuracy, as often the outright denial of such aspects of reality will bolster the opposition into believing that their detractors spread lies and untruths. It's also intellectually dishonest to ignore the facts, particularly when does undermine one's argument: If someone cuts off one of my toes with an axe, they are unlikely to be let off simply because I am still able to walk properly. Similarly, there have been the occasional findings that imply FGM can protect against diseases like HIV. The correct reaction is not to ignore it, but say: "So what?"

So why hand anyone a weapon to hit you with when there's no need? Being corrected on even a trivial point like that could be seen to undermine an argument. In the majority of cases a circumcised male doesn't lose all sexual function or pleasure (some is lost - always), but neither does a woman always lose all feeling or function. But of course when it comes to FGM very often other factors are at play, for instance the aforementioned infibulation. Essentially this involves the sewing up of the vagina, leaving a small hole for urine and menstrual blood to pass.  This hole can be used as evidence that a woman is a virgin on her wedding night, and is cut open for the consummation. Obviously this will make the act of intercourse painful, to say the least.

Bringing us back to male circumcision, it should be obvious why some people have a knee jerk reaction when someone says that FGM and MGM have similarities:

"What?! No way! Boys aren't held down and cut with a rusty knife and then have the end of their penis sewn up! It's clean, it's done in a hospital. And it's done for the right reasons!"

The reasons? Well, I'll get to them, extensively, in the future. But for now let's focus on the basics:

• Female circumcision, or FGM: A girl is cut, we'll assume without her consent (FGM often takes place on older girls), and in a number cases has some part of her genitals removed, while another form is a ritual nick, or cut, on or around the clitoral hood. The removal of tissue will mean a loss of sexual function, but all forms are a violation of autonomy.

Whereas:

• Male circumcision, or MGM: A boy is cut, without his consent (the vast majority of cases are within days of birth), and in most cases has part of his genitals removed (very few circumcisions in the male case are 'only'a nick or pinprick to draw blood on the penis). This means a loss of sexual function, but all forms are a violation of autonomy.

Let's condense the two somewhat to make my point even clearer:

• A child is cut, without its consent, and in many cases has part of its genitals removed, though in many others a small amount of blood is drawn via a nick or a pinprick. The former will mean a loss of sexual function, but all are a violation of autonomy.

From this starting point, it should be clear how, if not why, people are able to draw comparisons between male and female circumcision. It should also be quite clear why the automatic denial, (faux?) outrage and dismissal by those who think they know better is seriously misplaced. Considering that the majority of female circumcisions do not involve the removal of tissue, it is confusing as to how FGM is seen as absolutely and unutterably 'worse' than MGM.

My point with this short piece is to try and establish the idea that cutting a child's genitals should be viewed as wrong (in non-medical cases) regardless of the sex.  However, there are a number of reasons why there is continued resistance to the idea of equating the two practices and I shall attempt to address them in future posts: namely the motives behind circumcision.

Do scientists ignore Creationist evidence?

I should begin by acknowledging that the majority of people in the world likely do not have an opinion one way or the other when it comes to the "Science vs. Creationism" debate. However, I would imagine that most people who are not 'in the know' will most likely support the guys in the white coats over the book wavers. Also in case anybody was in any doubt, I'll outright state without source that the vast majority of scientists (particularly in the relevant fields) are most emphatically not Creationists in any way, shape or form. With that 'disclaimer', as it were, out of the way, let us begin:

I would imagine that most people who read this will at some time or another have heard or heard about people who accuse scientists of being closed minded when it comes to certain issues. Generally the accusers are those whose beliefs occupy what I shall refer to as fringe areas. They range from alternative medicine advocates who 'believe' in the wonders of homeopathy, chiropractic or similar, to people with certain faith based ideas concerning the age of the Universe, earth and humanity. It is the latter I wish to address here.

If you have ever heard or seen a Creationist talk or quoted then you will no doubt know that they think scientists, in general, ignore data that conflicts with their (the scientists') 'belief' that the earth is old. Very old. They (the scientists) don't want to admit that the evidence points to a young earth and a certain world wide flood (some might say a flood of biblical proportions). Instead scientists cling to radiometric dating, fossils, ice-cores - techniques that give the age of the earth to be around 4 billion years. You know the kind of thing. "But," the Creationists say "What about the human footprints next to dinosaur prints? What about the 'fossilised' boots of miners from the USA? What about all the evidence that points to the earth being only a few thousand years old? What about the marine animals newly dead being dated to tens of thousands of years old by carbon dating?!" You know the kind of thing.

One of the main reasons given for why scientists would do this - ignore the flood evidence and by extension the Creationist god - is that they do not wish to be held accountable to that god (normally Jahweh, sometimes Allah) and want to live a life of sin etc. I'll make it clear: Scientists (who are of course likely to be atheists) do not want to acknowledge Yahweh, favouring instead a debauched and godless existence, living a lie to avoid It and Its teachings. I have to wonder at the thought processes at work to conclude in such a manner. All but the most asinine Creationist (wot there are other kinds?) must agree that the majority of scientists are (academically) fairly bright people: intelligent and educated with a healthy dose of smarts. Not necessarily geniuses in social situations or even able to tie their own shoelaces, but competent when it comes to comprehension and rational thought. Of course the entire Creationist argument is that most scientists are willfully ignorant and/or liars about the nature of the data, but I have no doubt that most will acknowledge the intelligence of their 'opponents'. But scientists being somewhat intelligent surely conflicts with the main Creationist assertion that they have their fingers in their ears, singing "La la la!" and seemingly blind to the 'obvious' reality of the world wide flood etc. I might have just straw-manned, but on balance I think I'm right. If scientists in general are intelligent, then why would they ignore obvious evidence and spurn a Creator who, if certain texts are to be believed, will deal out infinite punishment to those who don't acknowledge It? This does not make any sort of sense. While I am not implying that I'm one of the smarties, I would like to think that I am intelligent enough to understand that I might get my arse kicked by Jesus in the afterlife if I don't ask him to forgive me of my sins. But I don't see the evidence for the Christian (or any) god whatsoever. I'm not ignoring any evidence, I just don't accept the (religiously motivated) conclusions drawn from that data.

So we have a bright group of people who number in the millions who are, according to Creationists, dismissing or ignoring blatant evidence because they want to live a lie. My own opinion is that this assertion is, to be blunt, moronic. I could say it more plainly, but I think you get the picture.

Something that Creationists don't even appear to have considered is that the dismissal of their conclusions - which really means dismissal of their religious beliefs - is nothing personal. I think this is a very important point. They seem to take the assertion from the scientific method that the age of the earth is billions of years as a personal affront to their faith and their god. This is a completely nonsensical and rather egotistical stance: Science is directly attacking them and their beliefs. In reality science is making an unbiased statement of what apparently 'is'. "These rocks are, to the best degree attainable, x billion years old." "This sample is, to the most accurate assessment, y millions years old."

Scientists (by which I actually mean the scientific method) do not dismiss or ignore the Creationist religion alone. In fact they ignore all religion and belief systems. It matters not one jot to the scientific world what a certain set of ancient texts say, as taking those into consideration would be entirely antithetical to the scientific method. To illustrate this I've included the very well known and brilliantly simple cartoon concerning Science 'versus' Creationism.

In helpful arrow form:

Science: Facts → Conclusions.
Creationism: Conclusions → Facts.

Anyone with an ounce of reason and logic under their belt without faith in their eyes will be able to immediately see which method is sound and which has a certain 'issue'. Consider this method being employed in a murder trial: "This guy did it. Does he have an alibi? No? Brilliant, so he could have been at the house and done it. Any finger prints? No? Must have wiped them off before he left, the cunning bugger." etc. You get the idea I'm sure.

It is important to make the point that just because a certain religion is "the norm" in a country it does not mean that it is the starting point for everyone, particularly scientists. In the USA, Creationists are Christian. In the middle east, Creationism is described from a Muslim perspective. Funny that. Of course the arguments are similar, mainly due to the god being the same in both religions, but it is difference is not generally noted by Creationists: We do not all have, or have even had, the same beliefs as them. Personally I've never had a faith, religion or believed in a god of any kind, so my own stance is one of bemusement when I am told that I am denying the existence of Yahweh. Again there appears to be an underlying egocentricity at play which is not entirely healthy in my opinion.

So to reiterate: Science is not concerned that Creationist believe certain things about world formation and what not: It does not care and nor do most scientists. Creationism, and by extension religion, is not at the forefront of most scientists' minds and they do not spend their time actively trying to denying Christianity et al and its assertions. This is a very important point that the apparently self important Creationist should take on board. Their religion is not the only one, their god is not the only proposed god, their faith is not special or unique and their beliefs are not the oldest.

Science doesn't care about them and for Creationists to think that it does only underlines how deluded they really are.

The Atheist Biker: Plagiarism part 2

Dec 2011 - TheAtheistBiker blog no longer exists. Deleted, rather than simply private. Also, TAB's real name profile has disappeared from Facebook too. How odd.


update - Wed 26/10/11: after I publicly revealed late on Monday (24th) on the NSS Facebook page concerning TAB's habits, his whole blog was set to private by Tuesday (25th) afternoon and his recent comments on his Facebook profile concerning 'How awesome it is when groups like the NSS like your musings' were removed. I don't wish to put ideas into others' heads but that implies to me that he's either worried he's done something wrong, or knows he has. I invite him to comment on it, but I imagine it'll be along the lines of "I didn't realise what I was doing was wrong." Not that it matters any more really.


The last entry in this blog was written back in August. I decided to publish it today after a new article appeared on TAB's blog that was more than three quarters plagiarised/lifted material. While I will admit that TAB this time included about 4 reference links, he did not quote from those sources properly nor did he include the numerous (more than 10) other sources I found he had directly copied.


I hadn't 'gone public' with my findings as I wanted to see whether or not he would hold to his new "Blog Ethics" which he posted after someone pointed out that stealing material and passing it off as your own frankly isn't 'on'. He seemed to understand that plagiarism and pretending that other's words were your own isn't great or honest practice. So I thought he'd stop. Nope.


On Saturday he posted a new article called: Freedom of Expression and the Public Consultation on Police Powers. If you look carefully you'll see about four references spread throughout the piece with some sentences in quotation marks. Also he links to a couple of documents at the end of the article and the NSS and BHA websites.


Of course I did my own research to find out where he might have got some inspiration. To cut to the chase: the article is about 1500 words. I reckon over 1000 are quoted verbatim without attribution. In total around 1300 words are quoted or 'influenced'. To be fair TAB does (incorrectly) reference some work.


I don't understand the thought processes at work here. At one point it seems he understands that copying and pasting text needs to have a reference. So he does:

I consider that this would be a “human rights enhancing measure and would remove a risk that these provisions may be applied in a manner which is disproportionate and incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of The European Convention of Human Rights and The Common Law.”

Notice the quotation marks, but without a reference (he does link it earlier in the article)? Well the full quote he's using is this:

We consider that this would be a human rights enhancing measure and would remove a risk that these provisions may be applied in a manner which is disproportionate and incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 ECHR and the common law.

So he's directly quoting much more than he's indicated but has also changed the word "We" to "I" to make it seem like it's his own work whilst at the same time making it clear it isn't. I'm confused, particularly as just before that he copy and pastes the preceding sentence without any indication that they're not his own words. But I shall let you all see for yourself.

The breakdown is a very large image shown below - click here for the bigger version. The article is on the left with the corresponding source material over on the right. It's a little ungainly, but that's the easiest way I found to work with the material in word! Also to prove this is the actual article, here is a screen grab of it from TAB's blog.

Red text is copied verbatim, blue text is 'influenced' or slightly altered wording, black is his own words (or I couldn't find a direct source, at least). Green is forgivably/correctly quoted text. To make things easier, the listed sources are included in the post script below. 

Again I have to say that I have done this because I do not think it fair that people get credit for something that is not their own work. TAB obviously does his research and meshes it all together well, but that is not the point: They are decidedly not his own words and it is unfair that he receives attention and praise when he does not deserve it. After he was rumbled (gently) back in August, I had hoped he would be more honest. Hopefully he will now get the message that this sort of thing is not really acceptable.

___________________

Sources:

[A] - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/police-powers/

[1] – Peter Tatchell: Hate Speech versus Free Speech
[2] – NSS: Government consults on removing ‘insulting’ speech from Public Order Act.

[3] – Human Rights Joint Committee: 11  Reform of the Public Order Act: Insulting words or behaviour and freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR) 
[4] - Caslon Analytics blasphemy
[5] – NSS: Street Preacher charged for spouting against gays.
[6] – Daily Hansard: 28^th October 2009

[7] – NSS: Freedom of Expression
[8] - Submission from the British Humanist Association to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion (Quickview PDF (google docs)) (page 84, sect 35.4)

[8a] – As above: Page 81, sect 32.1 (from “Strength in Diversity” para 2.2)

[9] – Peter Tatchell: CPS drop case against street preacher
[9a] – The Christian Institute: Gay rights campaigner defends street preacher (also widely quoted)

[10] – Govt. Reply: Demonstrating respect for rights? A human rights approach to policing protest

[11] – Daily Hansard: 24^th March 2009

[12] - Submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights: Freedom Bill

[13] – Daily Hansard: 1^st March 2011

[14] - Select Committee on Religious Offences in England and Wales: Supplementary submission from the British Humanist Association

[15] – The Law Commission: OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND PUBLIC WORSHIP

[16] – The Christian Institute: Free Speech June 2011.

[17] – Hansard: 13 January 1986 – Public Order Bill

The Atheist Biker: Plagiarism and stuff

Dec 2011 - TheAtheistBiker blog no longer exists. Deleted, rather than simply private. Also, TAB's real name profile has disappeared from Facebook too. How odd.


update - Wed 26/10/11: after I publicly revealed late on Monday (24th) on the NSS Facebook page concerning TAB's habits, his whole blog was set to private by Tuesday (25th) afternoon and his recent comments on his Facebook profile concerning 'How awesome it is when groups like the NSS like your musings' were removed. I don't wish to put ideas into others' heads but that implies to me that he's either worried he's done something wrong, or knows he has. I invite him to comment on it, but I imagine it'll be along the lines of "I didn't realise what I was doing was wrong." Not that it matters any more really.


I originally wrote this article back in late August but sat on it whilst waiting to see what would happen. I should note that the NSS is happy for others to use its material in the promotion of secularism.

Back in August I 'liked' a blog post the NSS had posted on their facebook page. The blog was a piece entitled "What is secularism and why is it important?" by TheAtheistBiker (TAB). It was well written, concise, entertaining and informative, even to someone who already is aware of and understands secularism and the motivation behind most secularists.

Then a friend, Dominic Wirdnam, emailed me and mentioned that he'd seen my 'like' on facebook. He was wondering if I would mind taking a look at a letter he'd written a couple of years ago as it seemed that some if it appeared word for word in that blog post. He wondered if this was common practice among bloggers and whether there were any rules they normally followed when it came to using others' material. So I had a look.

The letter was included on the National Secular Society website here, though the link is now unfortunately dead. However the letter (and responses) can be read here.

The letter was written in 2009 to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and the leader of English and Welsh Catholics, Vincent Nichols.

If you haven't already done so, check out the article 'written' by TAB. Actually I'll make things easy for you by use of a high lighted copy of the letter in tandem with the blog.

(click for big)

As the key says: Red underlined text is word for word copy; blue is where words or phrases have been altered slightly; grey text is either omitted from the letter or new in the blog.

Pretty extensive plagiarism there. A conservative estimate would say about 60% of Dominic's letter was lifted and pretty much word for word copied into the blog without even an attempt to disguise the text, save for a few alterations which I assume TAB did for his own enjoyment. Not a mention of where the material came from or who authored it. In fact the tone of the blog ("...let me outline...") implies that this is TAB's own work, it is what he is saying.

But hold on. It gets so much better.

"I wonder if that's all." muse I. "Let's see what else google can turn up."

So off I went through the rest of the piece.

A phrase jumped out at me and a search turned up a hit other than TAB. From TAB:

Many religionists do not understand this and are inclined to ignore this fact and continue to endorse or privilege religion on the grounds that it is the defining characteristic of being human.

And the resultant hit, from an article posted in October 2010 on a website called onlineopinion.com.au, entitled "Two Myths about Secularism":

Many religionists do not understand this. Ignoring the fact that their government is already much more secular than religious in its actions, they argue, as did their nineteenth century predecessors (a) that religion is above government and government should recognise that as a fact, or (b) government should continue to endorse or privilege religion on the grounds that religion is the defining characteristic of being human.

Almost word for word again? To the underlining machine!

(click for big)

Pretty similar to the first case above, but with a bit more thought here. More words changed, more snippets trimmed and removed.

So we could say that this isn't a simply cut and paste job, rather this is carefully considered plagiarism. Some bits that aren't relevant to the UK have been stripped and ditched, quite correctly considering TAB is based outside of the country in which this piece was written.

It was written by Meg Wallace who is (or was at the time) writing a thesis to gain a PhD at Macquarie University in Australia, researching the right to freedom of belief. That information is quite clearly displayed at the bottom of the article from which a large section of material in TAB's blog post is taken. As it happens Mrs Meg Wallace is an Australian humanist and a barrister with degrees in Social Science and Law which she has also taught, as well as authoring a widely used text book and advising the ACT government for 14 years. You can read more here.

Incidentally, the material TAB has used here is under Creative Commons Licence. He is perfectly at liberty to reproduce the material provided he does so in full and references the author. Unfortunately he has both changed the material and failed to attribute the work. Also his own blog is "Copyright".

He doesn't seem to understand how these things work.

Is that all? No! The best, in my opinion, is yet to come.

(click for big)

Shown here are two pages from the National Secular Society's website itself (note: The NSS is happy for people to use their material to promote secularism, but of course would prefer correct references). As you can clearly see, not only have several sections been lifted wholesale, but TAB seemingly only stops to change the word "We" to "I". He also quotes verbatim another named author without accreditation: Muriel Fraser. That's a total of three, not including the unnamed people who wrote the other pieces on the NSS site. Even the stock photo the NSS use is deemed appropriate to illustrate TAB's page, though I will admit he managed to find a few others that seemingly came from his own thought. An original idea? Heavens.

That should be enough. Apart from his first and last paragraphs, that's the entire blog that is various other peoples' work.

But no. The last, worst and most amusing is the case of the final paragraph. The one that starts

On a more personal note...

This implies to me that it is TAB giving us his own personal thoughts, his inner feeling, rather than the external manifestations of secularism. And yet... No.

(click for big)

It's lifted almost verbatim from the NSS website. Pretty much the only words that have been changed is to substitute "I" instead of "the National Secular Society".

'On a more personal note...' TAB has to rely on someone else entirely to describe his opinion. I can understand that someone who has a flair for writing and is spending a good deal of time thinking about a topic may well be able to describe my feelings on subject far better than I could. But I for one would feel a niggle in the back of my brain if I was plagiarising their material so completely.

Now let's remember where I became aware of this blog: It was publicised by the NSS on their Facebook newsfeed and then it was featured as Essay of the Week in their weekly newsletter Newsline of 26th Aug 2011.

I'd like to point out that, on Facebook, TAB "liked" both the post by the NSS and also the first comment underneath that, as well as waxing lyrical about having been promoted by the NSS and getting an increased number of hits on his blog.


As I mentioned earlier, the NSS is happy for people to use their material in the promotion of secularism, though of course references would be nice. It is none of my business whether or not they are happy for TAB to publish their material as his own, but I do care that others are assuming this is all TAB's work. That's not on.

Assuming it is still there, if you scroll down to the comments section of the original blog post, you'll see a comment from one Dominic Wirdnam. It says:

I couldn't have put it better myself!

(click for big)

I'm not sure I would have been so polite as Dom. 

After having found ~90% of one article to be someone else's work, I went on to look at other posts TAB had 'written'. I was not surprised to find other material had been quoted almost word for word without attribution in nearly all the other articles I looked at. You don't have to take my word for it, of course, though I shan't go through them in detail as I have done above. None of them are as bad at all, but there are still one or two lines lifted, or outlines of articles that follow other sites quite obviously. And of course there are photos that appear in both pages.

TAB: Being tricked by spiritualist medium psychic bullshit - 21st Aug 2011

Adrew Dart - The Skeptical Toolkit: Cold reading - 19th March 2009 - A quick scan of both articles revealed several similarities in terms of content and structure, including quotes lifted verbatim.

TAB: Atheist labels - 20th Aug 2011 (plagiarised material towards the end of the article)

Ibn Warraq: Democracy in a Cartoon - 4th Feb 2006 - Some phrases taken directly from here.

The Out Campaign - (To be fair TAB is talking about the aims of the organisation, but he lifts word for word a number of times)

TAB: National Curriculum Review - 7th April 2011 - Links to the BHA website, but lifts text directly without attribution from the linked page.

BHA: BHA Education Policy - A Summary

BHA: MP Emailing form (concerning the above) - Almost verbatim quotation (one or two words changed) passed off as own work.

Another friend of Dom's asked a question on TAB's blog here, concerning whether or not TAB thought it would be fair to credit others when it comes to using their material. TAB mused and made it clear he didn't think blogs were that important or had to follow the same rules. Well, good for TAB. Unfortunately for him, plagiarism is plagiarism and it is the case (though not here, I think) that blogs can make money for the blogger. It's not like TAB doesn't self promote all over the place either. Reddit, SkepticForum, omgili. He's perfectly within his right to do this, but it means that he's reaching more people who won't realise that he is not the person who came up with this work. TAB went on to explain he would soon be publishing details of his ideas about Blog Ethics. He did so this weekend. I'll get to that in a second.

However, after that short discussion whereby he explained that yes he will be rethinking his citations and what not, he posted an article on holocaust denial. One guess as to whether or not there were some sources that went un-cited.

If I was Mr Martin Frost I would want my work to be referenced. Search for "humpty dumpty" in both articles and you'll see where TAB got some inspiration for his article. At least he gives the name of the person he directly quotes, as Mr Martin Frost did on his article too. And that photo of the KKK looks similar. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems to give an insight in to how TAB's creativity works. But it's ok! We've got a list of citations at the end of the article. Oh wait no, it's suggested reading.

And so to the Blogging Ethics post that appeared this weekend. All very good and proper. It's nice to see a list of bullet points that TAB thinks very important. The first bullet point:

Bloggers should

• Never plagiarise

That's exasperating and funny, as is the rest of his "Bloggers Code of Ethics and Best Practices" considering his past activities. At the end of the article he gives a short list of links saying "This is based on..."

Too right they're based on. Some of the phrases are exactly the same. For example, search "unmediated" in his post and in Rebecca Blood's article here. TAB, you might be reading your code slightly differently to me, but I would have thought you could have used some quotation marks in your post. No? I'm not sure linking to 'an article' at the end of your post makes up for copying and pasting. "Based on" does not mean the same as "word for word" even if it's only in places.

Ok, that's one quote and look at the code, he's mending his ways. I'll believe it when I see it. So far all I've seen from TAB is passing off a good deal of the work of others, which far outweighs anything he might bring to the proceedings. His cheerfulness after being given a nod from the NSS, a group he copied work from directly, only served to irritate me further.

And I have no idea why he has not referenced his influences in the past or given his own take on their ideas. From the few articles I've flipped through, TAB demonstrates the ability to write well, assuming I was actually reading his words - you can understand why I have reason to be suspicious. I really don't see why he's cut and pasted from so many places when he obviously as both the ability and training to write well.

I think it's worth bearing in mind that TAB is an academic, in so far as he has completed both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in War Studies. This is displayed clearly on his website. He knows how to research and cite material. He knows about plagiarism and intellectual honesty.

I don't think I can easily accept that he thought blogs weren't held to any standard of honesty. Where does personal integrity come in to play? Even if there isn't a universal a high standard in blogging, it's not like he himself doesn't know that such behaviour isn't right. I doubt that of anyone who has a blog and has had academic training. It should be at the forefront of anyone's mind who is copying and pasting text in that way, stopping only to change the odd word like "We" to "I". That coupled with "liking" your own article when a group links to it results in the situation not sitting well with me at all.

Hence a blog calling out such activities.

This behaviour is unacceptable and, even though it hardly matters, I shall be keeping an eye on TAB in the future to make sure he sticks to his Code of Ethics.

Why? Because I'm annoying like that.

Homophobe 2! Now without the rude words!

This post is a rewriting of this post, written yesterday, because a certain someone doesn't like rude words! What a shame. He decided not to read it because the rude words upset him. Yes, that was the only reason he dismissed it. No other reason - got that? Yes.

What a lot of rubbish that is, isn't it? I reckon that someone didn't want to read it because he didn't like what it said/was going to say.

Mr Cowan. Hand on heart: There are no nasty rude sweary words in this post. Not one. That doesn't mean it won't annoy you of course. But I promise. Not one word that can get you sent out of the classroom.

To the edit!

______

I posted a massive comment over on Reddit, but decided this warranted a blog all of it's own.

And so! Welcome to the oh-so-scared-of-the-rampaging-gays blog of Stewart Cowan: Real Street. What are we scared of this week, Stewart? Why, we're scared of society treating gays as equals.

So follows my reddit reply, 1. here and 2. here, trimmed slightly to remove Reddit relevant bits and pieces. It ended up quite long.

If I ever get any comment replies (I might not, I think I implied he was a cucumber), then I may post a follow up. Chin chin.

_______________________________

Well... Don't feed the trolls. But homophobes are always fun, particularly when they don't admit they're homophobes and are talking rubbish (surely that's pretty much all the time?) so I'll give my tuppence worth, particularly as most people are just telling you to sausage off. You deserve a more thorough response as otherwise you might continue thinking what you're thinking, thinking it's right. And that would never do!

‘Gay Marriage’: what you should know

I might be preemptive here but I think all you need to know about gay marriage is:

Two people in love get married and are legally and financially secure like most of the other people who get married and it's none of your business.

How does that sound?

people are made to do things against their will or face the consequences, so that, for example, if a B&B owner’s conscience

Against their will - like what, treat people equally without regard with whom they choose to love? What the fun-factory has it go to do with anyone else? What does it matter what they do with their time and genitals?

But how amusing. You mention the B&B owners. You realise that their refusal to admit the gay couple is analogous to refusing to let a mixed race couple stay at their B&B? There are biblical passages that can be used to justify mixed marriages as being against Jehovah's wishes, as such the Bull's could have turned away a black woman and a white man who are legally married. After all, it's against their beliefs, right?

Nope. And quite obviously in that case. But of course people who don't like the fact that homosexuals in a civil partnership legally have pretty much the same rights as 'normal' married couples will say that being gay is a choice, or that it's their private home so they should be allowed to refuse who they want. That argument is rubbish, by the way. It's not their private home - it's a business open to the public, plus you have to have a good reason for refusing someone service. "They're gay" is not a legitimate reason. No credible psychologist is of the opinion that homosexuality is a choice. They're refusing someone service because of their sexuality and that's a little bit illegal, I'm afraid.

they take the hump at being ‘offended’ and cause trouble

"Why the Heston Services can't black people just go to black shops? Taking the wee-wee and getting "offended" about not being served in my white shop. Crusty Bread, they've got enough places they can go, why do they have to be around here?"

Again it's more obvious isn't it? It's discrimination, not being 'offended'. It is being denied equal treatment because of something innate to your being. That's not hard to understand, really it isn't. Try it for a second.

I don't like you because you're blonde. No, you can't come in to my shop because you're blonde. I don't care if it's "not your fault". Get out. I don't like your kind. Why are you offended? Oh wait hang on yes, I'm discriminating and in our 'liberal' and 'progressive' society, bigotry is legislated against for some reason.

all the others will be driven underground, just like in China

Wow, you do like to over egg the pudding, don't you? Would it surprise you to learn that the majority of people in the UK don't care or support mixed sex marriage? The people in charge might not like it, but the proles are in favour. Well, that can't be right, as you and all your mates think queers are abnormal? Tough - the general public is not as intolerant as you'd like.

In a sinister development

DUN DUN DUUUUUN! What happens next?! Gay people will be allowed to drive! Maybe there'll be gay people with jobs! Owning houses! Paying taxes and being MPs!? WHERE WILL IT END!?

Seriously, what the deuce are you scared about? What do you think is going to happen?

forfeit the right to perform all marriages.

You know that slavery was biblically supported for centuries? Do you think it was the churches that decided to change, the public feeling or political leaders? What do you think would happen if a church refused to perform a ceremony between two black people? You know the Mormon church changed its mind about blacks being allowed to hold certain offices in the church? Why might they have done that?

“Gay Rights” always was about changing the definition of marriage

So what if it is? Who wrote the definition in stone? Why should we not be allowed to alter the workings of certain institutions? Marriage has been around much longer than Christianity, by the way, before you point in that direction. In any case thousands of UK marriages are performed without any reference to Christianity.

so many people now support the obliteration of normality

Erm, you know how few gay people there are in the world, right? You know that heterosexuals out number homosexuals by an absurd amount? As such the vast majority of relationship will stay straight. What's normal by the way? Do you know that nearly everyone you meet is "below" average therefore abnormal? Similarly, nearly everyone else is "above" average? Did you know that on average people have less than 2 arms? That's not normal! What is the norm? The mean, median or mode? Who decides what is normal or acceptable?

destruction of society (destruction is inevitable if the basic building blocks – families – are weakened)

Yes I've noticed that since gays were allowed to openly be in relationships, the number of families are declining and the birth rate has dropped. We need to force gays into knowing members of the opposite sex, otherwise our island race will die out. I'm struggling not to be completely abusive to you at this point. It's really very hard.

schoolchildren will be subjected to even more propaganda

"Kids! You HAVE to be gay. You HAVE to engage in intercourse someone the same sex as you! No you're not allowed to sex a girl, David. NO! You have touch other girl's bits, Amy. BE GAY! STOP. BEING. STRAIGHT!"

You might not have noticed, but 'propaganda' in schools is to make kids aware that many people are gay and that being gay is ok. This is because up until the last couple of decades or even more recently, being gay was something to be ashamed of. The 'propaganda' is to counter people like YOU who think that the way someone is born should mean we treat them as inferior, 'abnormal' and ostracise them from living as equals when they are causing no harm to anyone whatsoever.

You know there are more gays than Muslims in the UK? ~3.6million gays (2005) and ~ 3million Mulsims (2010) (not including overlap). Cream Eggs, I can't believe all this pro-Muslim propaganda in schools. Some dastardly pro-Muslim charity is trying to get us to treat Muslims like 'normal' people. I don't get it. They want everyone to be Muslims!? Funky chicken that. We'll all be abnormal.

Again, your arguments are seeming a little thin, aren't they? Why might that be?

who are already encouraging youngsters to wear frocks to help them discover their ‘feminine side’.

Very well done. Way to miss the point, genius. I'm not sure I can be bothered to explain that issue in depth except to give you a hint that the campaign was maybe about getting kids out of the mentality of thinking that "this behaviour is not what my sex does and I don't want to be considered homosexual because I'm not acting like my sex should"? Not a bad thing - you really need to think about that more. I'm guessing you don't own anything pink? How about a Queen album?

How much worse are we going to let our society become just to allow homosexuals, a very small minority, to feel that their abnormal behaviour is normal?

How much longer are we going to let black people in the UK think that having black skin is normal? They should be pale, we don't have that much sunlight up here!

Again: What are you so scared of?! More gays in the world than redheads - Should red heads be encouraged or made to dye their hair? Why are gays different - how are they hurting you? What is wrong with two gays living together and sharing their life in peace? How is that harming society? FLOPPING HOW!?

Is it worth mentioning the fact that homosexuality is abundant in nature, displayed in many different species? Oh hang on, have Stonewall been training same-sex elephants/flamingos/giraffes to make the beast with two backs with each other as part of the gay agenda? Shazbot, they've even got to the lions!

but dressed up as some great crusade for equality.

Again - What will happen if we let gays have the same marriage rights as the straights? WHERE WILL IT END!? Will the island spontaneously combust due to the friction from copulating queers?

Seriously. What. Do. You. Think. Will. Happen?

The end of the human race? Death from locusts? WHAT?!

Each of these countries has very serious problems due to their increasingly liberal ‘values’ and multiculturalism.

It's true. Some are on the brink of nuclear war, whilst the old are all being pushed out to sea in barges c.f. Children of Men, while the men and women who refuse to have sex with the same gender as them are being thrown to the wolves that have been set up in new "rainbow stadiums" where cheering crowds of couples (and more) engaged in outrageous homosexual sex copulate to the screams and then rub eachother in the entrails of their victims.

But seriously - Do you have any stats or examples about those problem nations or are you talking out of your event horizon again?

Here's a quick question. You mention several countries: I wonder if you can tell me what the capital city of Argentina, or the Prime Minister of Portugal?

Go on. I'm guessing you haven't been able to manage it. And yet you're sure that these countries have very serious problems... For some reason I don't think you know much about those countries at all. Accuse me of straw manning - I might well be, but I'm pretty sure you know a miniscule amount about any real issues those countries might have.

Yeah, I'm guessing you're talking effluence.

The warning is there.

Not sure where. You didn't say. You just said something unfounded and left it hanging in the air like a lynched queer hanging from a tree it's what he deserved the queer for being all queer.

Some people will laugh, of course.

In disbelief that you think you have any sort of credible argument.

Some people will call me names, of course.

To be fair, you do come across as a massive silly person.

Some people will ignore the warnings from history, of course.

I'm not sure what history you're talking about exactly because you go to say hint that gays weren't tolerated until pre-1990.

To these people, all I can say is, “Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

Do you like black people? What about 'the' Jews? I don't think you do. I don't know why, it's just a guess. I'm not saying anything about it, but it's just a guess.

Can you think of any culture in any part of the world at any time pre-1990 which allowed two people of the same sex to get “married” and be legally recognised as such?

Can you think of any culture in any part of the world at any time pre-1800 which allowed two people of different colour to get "married" and be legally recognised as such?

That is why you are a complete flopping person-with-bad-ideas. Heavens, the world should never move forward! I DON'T LIKE CHANGE! I don't like people being happy when we get rid of moronic rules and social constructs that keep people miserable for no reason! I don't like that some people are happy when I'm not!

Were they all ‘homophobic’ or is there a very good reason for not accepting hedonistic, barren lifestyles as normal for the good of the tribe?

Wow. Just when I thought you couldn't get any better... So come on. You haven't explained the issue yet. Hedonistic how? Barren how?

You know that there are a myriad of gays having relations each other right now? So tell me - how is that affecting your life? Or is the plaster falling from the ceiling from the flat upstairs, reminding you that you're not getting any?

I'm going to make a guess and say that the vast majority of gay people who are not being bullied at school by anchovies like you, are far happier with their lifestyles than you are. No, I really mean that and yet I know nothing of you.

And why exactly would gay people not getting married be "for the good of the tribe"? Which tribe are we talking about? A harem of females and one male - that kind of tribe?

Times change, societies change. I really don't know who taught you you should hate gay people but really, you need to take a long hard look at why you do. Rationally.

It's a shame that I simply couldn't resist being abusive to you, New and improved blog has rude words removed! You can respond without your eyes bleeding! because I'd really like to know the answers to my questions. But I've given you the perfect get out for ignoring anything I say because I couldn't resist telling you what a pensioner I think you are. You can answer me because there are no nasty words! Yaaaay!

I'm guessing you're not a troll so it only remains for me to say (at the moment) that I'm glad you're in an ever decreasing minority. I hope you one day manage to crawl out of the depraved hole that is the intolerance of your bigoted psyche.

I shall now think of something witty with which to sign off: Nincompoop :)

Fin

For now.

Homophobe ahoy!

Edit - This post has been updated here, after someone decided he wouldn't read it because of the nasty rude words. Poor lamb.
________

I posted a massive comment over on Reddit, but decided this warranted a blog all of it's own.

And so! Welcome to the oh-so-scared-of-the-rampaging-gays blog of Stewart Cowen: Real Street. What are we scared of this week, Stewart? Why, we're scared of society treating gays as equals.

So follows my reddit reply, 1. here and 2. here, trimmed slightly to remove Reddit relevant bits and pieces. It ended up quite long.

If I ever get any comment replies (I might not, I think I implied he was a cunt), then I may post a follow up. Chin chin.

_______________________________

Well... Don't feed the trolls. But homophobes are always fun, particularly when they don't admit they're homophobes and are talking rubbish (surely that's pretty much all the time?) so I'll give my tuppence worth, particularly as most people are just telling you to sod off. You deserve a more thorough response as otherwise you might continue thinking what you're thinking, thinking it's right. And that would never do!

‘Gay Marriage’: what you should know

I might be preemptive here but I think all you need to know about gay marriage is:

Two people in love get married and are legally and financially secure like most of the other people who get married and it's none of your business.

How does that sound?

people are made to do things against their will or face the consequences, so that, for example, if a B&B owner’s conscience

Against their will - like what, treat people equally without regard with whom they choose to love? What the hell has it go to do with anyone else? What does it matter what they do with their time and genitals?

But how amusing. You mention the B&B owners. You realise that their refusal to admit the gay couple is analogous to refusing to let a mixed race couple stay at their B&B? There are biblical passages that can be used to justify mixed marriages as being against Jehovah's wishes, as such the Bull's could have turned away a black woman and a white man who are legally married. After all, it's against their beliefs, right?

Nope. And quite obviously in that case. But of course people who don't like the fact that homosexuals in a civil partnership legally have pretty much the same rights as 'normal' married couples will say that being gay is a choice, or that it's their private home so they should be allowed to refuse who they want. That argument is shite, by the way. It's not their private home - it's a business open to the public, plus you have to have a good reason for refusing someone service. "They're gay" is not a legitimate reason. No credible psychologist is of the opinion that homosexuality is a choice. They're refusing someone service because of their sexuality and that's a little bit illegal, I'm afraid.

they take the hump at being ‘offended’ and cause trouble

"Why the hell can't black people just go to black shops? Taking the piss and getting "offended" about not being served in my white shop. Christ, they've got enough places they can go, why do they have to be around here?"

Again it's more obvious isn't it? It's discrimination, not being 'offended'. It is being denied equal treatment because of something innate to your being. That's not hard to understand, really it isn't. Try it for a second.

I don't like you because you're blonde. No, you can't come in to my shop because you're blonde. I don't care if it's "not your fault". Get out. I don't like your kind. Why are you offended? Oh wait hang on yes, I'm discriminating and in our 'liberal' and 'progressive' society, bigot-ism is legislated against for some reason.

all the others will be driven underground, just like in China

Wow, you do like to over egg the pudding, don't you? Would it surprise you to learn that the majority of people in the UK don't care or support mixed sex marriage? The people in charge might not like it, but the proles are in favour. Well, that can't be right, as you and all your mates think queers are abnormal? Tough - the general public is not as intolerant as you'd like.

In a sinister development

DUN DUN DUUUUUN! What happens next?! Gay people will be allowed to drive! Maybe there'll be gay people with jobs! Owning houses! Paying taxes and being MPs!? WHERE WILL IT END!?

Seriously, what the fuck are you scared about? What do you think is going to happen?

forfeit the right to perform all marriages.

You know that slavery was biblically supported for centuries? Do you think it was the churches that decided to change, the public feeling or political leaders? What do you think would happen if a church refused to perform a ceremony between two black people? You know the Mormon church changed its mind about blacks being allowed to hold certain offices in the church? Why might they have done that?

“Gay Rights” always was about changing the definition of marriage

So what if it is? Who wrote the definition in stone? Why should we not be allowed to alter the workings of certain institutions? Marriage has been around much longer than Christianity, by the way, before you point in that direction. In any case thousands of UK marriages are performed without any reference to Christianity.

so many people now support the obliteration of normality

Erm, you know how few gay people there are in the world, right? You know that heterosexuals out number homosexuals by an absurd amount? As such the vast majority of relationship will stay straight. What's normal by the way? Do you know that nearly everyone you meet is "below" average therefore abnormal? Similarly, nearly everyone else is "above" average? Did you know that on average people have less than 2 arms? That's not normal! What is the norm? The mean, median or mode? Who decides what is normal or acceptable?

destruction of society (destruction is inevitable if the basic building blocks – families – are weakened)

Yes I've noticed that since gays were allowed to openly be in relationships, the number of families are declining and the birth rate has dropped. We need to force gays into screwing members of the opposite sex, otherwise our island race will die out. I'm struggling not to be completely abusive to you at this point. It's really very hard.

schoolchildren will be subjected to even more propaganda

"Kids! You HAVE to be gay. You HAVE to fuck someone the same sex as you! No you're not allowed to sex a girl, David. NO! You have touch other girl's bits, Amy. BE GAY! STOP. BEING. STRAIGHT!"

You might not have noticed, but 'propaganda' in schools is to make kids aware that many people are gay and that being gay is ok. This is because up until the last couple of decades or even more recently, being gay was something to be ashamed of. The 'propaganda' is to counter people like YOU who think that the way someone is born should mean we treat them as inferior, 'abnormal' and ostracise them from living as equals when they are causing no harm to anyone whatsoever.

You know there are more gays than Muslims in the UK? ~3.6million gays (2005) and ~ 3million Mulsims (2010) (not including overlap). Christ, I can't believe all this pro-Muslim propaganda in schools. Some damn pro-Muslim charity is trying to get us to treat Muslims like 'normal' people. I don't get it. They want everyone to be Muslims!? Fuck that. We'll all be abnormal.

Again, your arguments are seeming a little thin, aren't they? Why might that be?

who are already encouraging youngsters to wear frocks to help them discover their ‘feminine side’.

Very well done. Way to miss the point, genius. I'm not sure I can be bothered to explain that issue in depth except to give you a hint that the campaign was maybe about getting kids out of the mentality of thinking that "this behaviour is not what my sex does and I don't want to be considered homosexual because I'm not acting like my sex should"? Not a bad thing - you really need to think about that more. I'm guessing you don't own anything pink? How about a Queen album?

How much worse are we going to let our society become just to allow homosexuals, a very small minority, to feel that their abnormal behaviour is normal?

How much longer are we going to let black people in the UK think that having black skin is normal? They should be pale, we don't have that much sunlight up here!

Again: What are you so scared of?! More gays in the world than redheads - Should red heads be encouraged or made to dye their hair? Why are gays different - how are they hurting you? What is wrong with two gays living together and sharing their life in peace? How is that harming society? FUCKING HOW!?

Is it worth mentioning the fact that homosexuality is abundant in nature, displayed in many different species? Oh hang on, have Stonewall been training same sex elephants/flamingos/giraffes to screw each other as part of the gay agenda? Shit, they've even got to the lions!

but dressed up as some great crusade for equality.

Again - What will happen if we let gays have the same marriage rights as the straights? WHERE WILL IT END!? Will the island spontaneously combust due to the friction from copulating queers?

Seriously. What. Do. You. Think. Will. Happen?

The end of the human race? Death from locusts? WHAT?!

Each of these countries has very serious problems due to their increasingly liberal ‘values’ and multiculturalism.

It's true. Some are on the brink of nuclear war, whilst the old are all being pushed out to sea in barges c.f. Children of Men, while the men and women who refuse to have sex with the same gender as them are being thrown to the wolves that have been set up in new "rainbow stadiums" where cheering crowds of couples (and more) engaged in outrageous homosexual sex copulate to the screams and then rub eachother in the entrails of their victims.

But seriously - Do you have any stats or examples about those problem nations or are you talking out of your arse again?

Here's a quick question. You mention several countries: I wonder if you can tell me what the capital city of Argentina, or the Prime Minister of Portugal?

Go on. I'm guessing you haven't been able to manage it. And yet you're sure that these countries have very serious problems... For some reason I don't think you know much about those countries at all. Accuse me of straw manning - I might well be, but I'm pretty sure you know sod all about any real issues those countries might have.

Yeah, I'm guessing you're talking shite.

The warning is there.

Not sure where. You didn't say. You just said something unfounded and left it hanging in the air like a lynched queer hanging from a tree it's what he deserved the queer for being all queer.

Some people will laugh, of course.

In disbelief that you think you have any sort of credible argument.

Some people will call me names, of course.

To be fair, you do come across as a massive cunt.

Some people will ignore the warnings from history, of course.

I'm not sure what history you're talking about exactly because you go to say hint that gays weren't tolerated until pre-1990.

To these people, all I can say is, “Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

Do you like black people? What about 'the' Jews? I don't think you do. I don't know why, it's just a guess. I'm not saying anything about it, but it's just a guess.

Can you think of any culture in any part of the world at any time pre-1990 which allowed two people of the same sex to get “married” and be legally recognised as such?

Can you think of any culture in any part of the world at any time pre-1800 which allowed two people of different colour to get "married" and be legally recognised as such?

That is why you are a complete fucking tool. Heavens, the world should never move forward! I DON'T LIKE CHANGE! I don't like people being happy when we get rid of moronic rules and social constructs that keep people miserable for no reason! I don't like that some people are happy when I'm not!

Were they all ‘homophobic’ or is there a very good reason for not accepting hedonistic, barren lifestyles as normal for the good of the tribe?

Wow. Just when I thought you couldn't get any better... So come on. You haven't explained the issue yet. Hedonistic how? Barren how?

You know that there are a myriad of gays fucking each other right now? So tell me - how is that affecting your life? Or is the plaster falling from the ceiling from the flat upstairs, reminding you that you're not getting any?

I'm going to make a guess and say that the vast majority of gay people who are not being bullied at school by arseholes like you, are far happier with their lifestyles than you are. No, I really mean that and yet I know nothing of you.

And why exactly would gay people not getting married be "for the good of the tribe"? Which tribe are we talking about? A harem of females and one male - that kind of tribe?

Times change, societies change. I really don't know who taught you you should hate gay people but really, you need to take a long hard look at why you do. Rationally.

It's a shame that I simply couldn't resist being abusive to you, because I'd really like to know the answers to my questions. But I've given you the perfect get out for ignoring anything I say because I couldn't resist telling you what a prick I think you are.

I'm guessing you're not a troll so it only remains for me to say (at the moment) that I'm glad you're in an ever decreasing minority. I hope you one day manage to crawl out of the depraved hole that is the intolerance of your bigoted psyche.

I shall now think of something witty with which to sign off: Tosspot :)

Fin

For now.

Science & Religion - Fundamentally incompatible

Belief. One word, many different meanings.

I shall be brief in this introduction as the issue should be plain to anyone who isn't a moron.

Faith based belief, the religious kind, involves not being bothered about the fact that you have no evidence to support your conclusion. In fact having evidence would undermine that belief: You would not longer be able to have faith as you would "know". At least that is how I understand it.

That is why I will either laugh or roll my eyes when someone claims to have faith in Jesus/Allah/Jahweh and then claps their sweaty hands together with glee when they claim to also have proof and evidence. Nope, sorry. You can't have both.

It's just occurred to me... The bible teaches that faith is all important... but does the bible not undermine that faith by being "evidence" (to the faithful at least) that their god walked the earth/spoke to people? Oh dear...

Back to belief: Belief based on evidence, repeated observation etc is entirely different to faith based belief.

"I believe the Sun will 'rise' tomorrow." - Is that faith based? Some might say it is - and of course a scientist is duty bound to agree that there is some degree of uncertainty. We cannot know the Sun will appear. But we base our 'belief' on the repeated observation that the earth spins and does not (noticeably) slow its spin. The Sun has risen everyday for eons - we have no experience of it not doing so. As such our belief is more of an assumption based on countless repeated observations.

That short description of how different religious and scientific 'beliefs' are should give a clear indication as to why this piece in the Guardian by Michael White is so appalling:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/apr/07/martin-rees-templeton-prize-athiests-cross?

The fact that Mr White doesn't seem to understand the basic difference as outlined above is pretty much the only excuse I can think of for such a complete disregard as to why Rees is actually being criticised.

I post my (rather long) comment here to demonstrate how I believe Mr White to a bit of an arse:

"They've hurled abuse and reproach..."

You quote one thing only and that's a headline, and that isn't even overtly abusive if even intended as such. Surely if there are so many nasty and hateful words being said then you could find some to illustrate your point? Or is the "the way people are saying it"?

"...most militant atheist..."

"Militant", when applied to religion, can mean anything from the subjugation of women to the eradication of non-believers. The practice of applying this word to atheists, people who *never* raise a hand, weapon or anything other than occasionally their voices, is a disgusting practice. Those who criticise people like Dawkins for having the oh-so-terrible habit of talking about the problems with religion would do well to remember that that is all "militant" atheists are doing: talking. Such people might do well to ask themselves "Why does this bother me so much? Why do I have a problem with people talking about what is wrong with religion? Why am I so annoyed that these people are speaking out against practices which they see as being harmful?"
I encourage you to find instances of people doing harm, actual physical harm, in 'the name' of their non-belief. Finding an example of someone doing such a thing due to their faith is a trivial matter.
You and others who think like you would do well to remember that.

"Belief without evidence....We all do things like that, don't we?"

Forgive me, but if you think that the 'belief' that a football team will win a match is comparable with the belief that there is an all powerful creator the universe who we can talk to telepathically and will either roast us for eternity or shower us with roses, then you have no business in writing such a piece. Playing with such semantics is childish and transparent to anybody with an ounce of common sense.
I shall start by giving you a hint: We can actually observe the football teams playing a match.
Faith based belief is not the same as evidence based belief. Which is why the Templeton Foundation cheeses off so many scientists.

"The enjoyably funny part of all this is that Rees himself admits to being a non-believer..."

It's not funny at all. Unless the money somehow ends up with a secular charity.

"...all you have to do is say there is no conflict between science and religion..."

There's the problem, because fundamentally there is a conflict. There's a reason that the vast majority of scientists are atheists. What could that reason be, do you think?

"Take Lady R on a nice cruise, at the very least take her on a shopping spree in that nice new Cambridge mall before you do that, Marty."

Charity anyone? No?

"He does hold the Order of Merit..."

Is that now some kind of Infallibility medal?

"You could lose your livelihood, or worse, if you were suspected of atheism."

So good of you to mention what happened to non-believers in the past when they committed so terrible a crime as to state their observations and the implications of those discoveries.

To comment on what you say to follow that statement, I'd like to quote Christopher Hitchens (paraphrased):

"Don't ever forget what they [religion] did when they were in power and were so sure they had 'god' on their side."

Scientists retaliate with words. For some reason that causes so much upset and distress amongst the religions of the world. Considering they *know* the truth, you have to wonder why the trivial words of mere men gets them so riled.

As many have/will point out - The issue at hand is that a prominent scientist accepted money from an organisation that exists to promote faith. Having faith in something is believing without evidence - the antithesis of rational inquiry. Such a man as Martin Rees has managed to upset a good many people not because he might be religious but because he has kicked the chair out from under his own scientific credentials.

I think that's me done for now.