It would be cool if someone could do this DarkMatter2525 animation but with a Muslim or a Hindu, for example, instead of a Christian. They all fit the pattern.
Are they serious? According to the Brunei Times, the Brunei legal system states that it is “an offence to propagate religions other than Islam to a Muslim or atheist”. And this bit:
Additionally, it is a crime to expose the child to any ceremony, act of worship or religious activity of any religion beside Islam, or to participate in any activity held for the benefit of other religions.
Go read the rest at the Brunei Times!
Far-right Hindu organisation forces Penguin India to recall the book “The Hindus” from India.
- Penguin’s withdrawal of The Hindus causes international outcry
Those laws to “protect” religious feelings are a monstrosity.
Channel 4 in censuring farce!
Did you know that you are highly likely to receive death threats if you posted this image?
It happened to Maajid Nawaz, see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100256024/in-defence-of-maajid-nawaz-blasphemy-and-funny-cartoons-of-mohammed/
More Jesus and Mo cartoons available at http://www.jesusandmo.net/
The correct moral thing to do was obvious. So why did the LSE take so long to admit that they may have been wrong? Summary by Jerry Coyne available here:
- Secularism wins again: LSE apologizes (sort of) to students forced to cover up their Jesus and Mo shirts
Not good enough.
Here’s one of my previous blogs on the LSE:
- There’s something not right at the London School of Economics Student Union
Anyway, I subscribed to “Jesus and Mo” quite a while ago as its light-hearted humour are very insightful. Go meet them! Here’s one that’s quite apt:
I’ve just read an excerpt from the book “The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution” by Henry Gee regarding the misunderstanding and misuse of the word “evolution” as it applies to natural selection or descent with modification, and the different way that the word is used outside of biology.
I enjoyed how Gee provided a brief history of the word “evolution” and of the people who employed that term. And this is an important explanation; I’ve always felt unease at how the media’s usage of the word is different to the biological concept but used in a way that suggests that there was no difference. For example, a new product that is “an evolutionary improvement on the previous product range”; it implies goal-oriented improvement. In biology, evolutionary change is not goal-oriented, and it does not always result in an improvement to the health of an organism but change can make the organism more likely to survive to reproduce in an altered environment; the example given in the book on sickle-cell anaemia is classic.
Based on what I’ve read so far, the book is easy to read and has a certain humour that I rather enjoyed; I am encouraged to buy the book. I also think that this book may become a good companion to the popular evolution books “Why evolution is true” by Jerry Coyne, and “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” by Richard Dawkins.
The excerpt is freely available as a PDF at NCSE’s website:
I’m about to purchase the eBook version of the book and will post a fuller review once finished.
First I read this…
- David Dobbs mucks up evolution, part I
- David Dobbs mucks up evolution, part II
…and then, finally, this…
- Adversarial Journalism and The Selfish Gene
Oh dear. It seems that David Dobbs has done his reputation no good.
A speech from Sanal Edamaruku at TAM 2013 on some of his initiatives against fakers in India.
A good speech.