The Atheist blogosphere seems to be abuzz with trying to figure out exactly what went on at the Chicago Ethical Humanist Society.

I got a comment from emkane (Evan), a member of the group who offered another side of the story.  With his help, I got in contact with a few other members who were there and got their side of the story too.

Below are some emails I received from them.

From Evan:

[After asking if he could verify what he said in his comment.]

Hi Reed,

This is my compilation of the events, some is first hand some is not. We do not have a publisher or blog army so I am just trying to give people the other side of the story.

I have forwarded your request to other members to corroborate what I have said and what they experienced first hand. I am personally happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you,
Evan

From “Jungasick”:

This is a very accurate portrayal of events and shows Taylor to be completely unreasonable.  I was a member of the program committee and we were very clear that we welcomed a speech about "Morality without Gods" but did not want her to dwell on her rather extreme political philosophy.  This is not a case of "freedom of speech" but of a private group having the right to invite who they want to their programs.  There was absolutely no need for Sunsara to show up on Sunday (we allowed her a Saturday workshop) unless she was interested in a confrontation, which she and her group caused.  We are the victims here, not Sunsara Taylor.

From Laura:

Hi Evan – committee voted 7-2 there are 9 members. Sunsara had 20+ followers waiting for her arrival in our parking lot and entered with the whole crowd, pushing past our XXXXX who asked repeatedly to speak with her. Man who was arrested attempted to flee police by entering our elevator then continued to resist police attempts to get him out of the building (XXXXX saw this) until he was finally subdued in the hallway and taken out (I saw this along with the rest of the YES group) – all the while police were asking the man to put his hands behind his back, stand up etc. – as calmly as could be expected given the situation. There was NO brutality. The police were strong and efficient.

I still cannot believe the crap that is swirling around about this incident. People have completely overlooked the fact that this group came uninvited into a private building to do what they wanted to! Where can you do that and not be removed?

Anyway, thanks for trying to set the record straight.

Laura

From Evan (again):

Thank you Reed, I have corrected my bad math and expanded the account of the arrest using Laura’s testimony.

I am a member of the EHSC and I would like to present some information regarding the incident.

Our Sunday speakers are chosen by a committee of nine people. In July, at one of the committee member’s request, Sunsara was provisionally invited to speak on a topic of morality without gods on November 1. The formal invitation was withheld until the committee was provided with a written description of her talk.

The formal description was finally received on October 13. Some of the committee felt that the description provided was far outside the topic that was originally proposed. Sunsara was contacted about adjusting her talk to fit what the committee originally thought they were getting. She understandably refused to adjust her talk. The committee decided by a vote of 7 to 2 to cancel Sunsara as a speaker and the cancellation, with apologies, was emailed on October 19.

(As a side note, I disagreed with the decision to cancel but in a democratic organization the vote doesn’t always go the way you want it to. I even started a petition to re-invite Sunsara but only about 20% of the society signed)

From October 19 onward Ms. Taylor and her people demanded she be given the November 1 platform. Attempt after attempt was made to find a solution that, although not ideal for either side, was palatable for both. The society bent over backwards to appease this woman. She was given an October 31 platform that was well attended and a member of the society offered her home for Sunsara’s “speech in exile” on November 1. The only thing we would not agree to was having her speak on November 1. All we asked is that she not disrupt the Sunday platform. She did not budge an inch; there was no effort at compromise from her or her people.

One plain clothes police officer from the Skokie police department was at the society the morning of November 1 because some members felt threatened by the fact that Sunsara would not commit to not disrupting the Sunday program. We had no idea what a Sunsara Taylor inspired protest would entail so the decision was made to err on the side of member safety.

When Sunsara, her camera man and 20 plus followers showed up on Sunday they were asked not to enter the building, they ignored this request but no action was taken by the society and they entered privet property.

After entering the building and our auditorium, Sunsara started to give her speech and her camera man started taping. They were asked to stop and let us continue our event in our building repeatedly. They refused and it is then that we asked the single plain clothes officer for support.

When the cameraman acted aggressively toward the police officer he called for backup on his radio. Uniformed officers responded to that call. This man continued to resist police attempts to get him out of the building. It finally took five police offers using mace to subdue him. One police officer was injured.

From Katie:

Reed:

I can confirm that Evan was present Sunday morning at the Ethical Society — I personally was not in the auditorium (but was in the nearby reception room through which the police and Taylor supporters eventually exited) when the broohaha erupted, but his account of these various events seems accurate to me…with one correction: he says the vote was 9-2 not to invite her once her belated description was received, but I am under the impression that the committee vote was 7-2 (there were a total of 9 votes…I’m not on the committee but have heard the vote count repeated many times by those who are).  Oh, another ‘correction’ — Evan typed ‘privet property’ when I’m quite sure he meant ‘private property’.

I’m glad you’re trying to get more information about the actual events — I guess it might have been sensible to do that before you reported Taylor’s story so uncritically on your site. As someone commented on one of the many blogs where this is playing out, this is a little more nuanced than she’d have folks believe.  She has been an active participant (leader?) in these events — she had a role in the communication, decisionmaking, and movement that created the volatile moment.  Knowing the many efforts that leaders in our community made to communicate with her and get her to agree to NOT be disruptive Sunday, I think it’s pretty disingenuous of her to be surprised that we wanted her and her two dozen (?) supporters to leave before she felt ready to.

Katie

Well, that’s what I have so far.  This whole thing certainly deserves a second or third look.

Click for the rest of the strip.

Can I just say how much I love seeing Carrie Prejean, the homophobic “beauty” queen from California, fall from grace?  Because I love it more than… something well-loved.

An extremely graphic sex video starring Carrie Prejean is the reason the conservative former Miss California has dismissed her lawsuit against the pageant. Editors for the website TMZ.com, who claim to have seen the tape, say that within 15 seconds of being shown the tape by a lawyer representing the pageant, Prejean decided to walk away from the suit without a settlement.

(The Advocate)

Carrie, don’t fuck with the gays.  We decide which celebrity takes the spotlight and which celebrity gets their spotlight taken away.

Oh dear, what the hell is this?

I’ll admit, I have very little to say on this article. All I need do is draw your attention to this quote:

If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion? The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?

This man, an atheist, is asking why we think that accepted scientific theory should be taught in school when it opposes baseless Christian belief. Snark not necessary, Mr. Ruse just did my job for me. 

I don’t think I am wrong, but the worth and integrity of so many believers makes me modest in my unbelief.

And there we have it, dressed up smart for the Guardian, the faithful old argument. “All opinions are valid”. Really, can’t you do any better than that?

I’ll leave off the article here, as it is pretty clear that Michael Ruse is something of a professional troll. I don’t think much room was left for doubt after his opening paragraph detailing with some glee how much people don’t like him. What I want to talk about is apologists in general. They wear many different faces and trot out many different arguments, but what it comes down to is all the same: they want to live and let live, to let everyone believe whatever they want to believe, to treat all opinions as valid. They will denounce the fundamentalists, and happily condemn those who would commit violence in the name of religion… and yet find themselves unwilling when push comes to shove and the lines are drawn. 

The apologists are not on our side. They claim to be fence sitters, but they have chosen their side. The camp of the religious ‘moderate’ is bolstered by the numbers of atheists and agnostics unwilling to break away from the arrangement they find themselves in. Not all apologists are ‘bad’ people, and I genuinely think many don’t understand what they’re doing. But here it is, laid out simple. If you are not with us, you are against us. Religion dominates our culture, and when you give them your approval you are giving them permission to continue. They will not afford us the same respect because they cannot, and will not, accept that other moralities and life paths are equally valid to their own. The apologists that support them will be used, chewed up and spat out. And we’ll be here to say – “I told you so”.

Ray “Bananaman” Comfort and Kirk “Growing Pains-in-the-Ass” Cameron have taken it on themselves to publish an expurgated version of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species.  They took this idea from Thomas Jefferson’s version of the Bible, except Jefferson’s motive was to isolate the parts of the Gospels that may be true about the life of the historical Jesus from the parts of the Gospels that are believed to be invented and added later.  Comfort and Cameron’s motive is to sow ignorance in already-ignorant people who want to filled with untruths about Charles Darwin without being bothered by all of that evidence for evolution crap.

What’s even more interesting is that Ray Comfort is insisting that nothing was removed from his version of Darwin’s Origin, and that only his introduction was added.  “We have published his entire book. Nothing has been removed.”

Eugenie C. Scott, president of the National Center for Science Education, who knows her way around The Origin of Species, says otherwise:

Unfortunately, it will be hard to thoroughly read the version that Comfort will be distributing on college campuses in November. The copy his publisher sent me is missing no fewer than four crucial chapters, as well as Darwin’s introduction. Two of the omitted chapters, Chapters 11 and 12, showcase biogeography, some of Darwin’s strongest evidence for evolution.

You know what’s even more interesting?  Ray didn’t even write his own introduction!  Well… not entirely.

It’s bad enough that the introduction tries to discredit evolutionary theory by calling Darwin the father of Nazism and bringing up long-discredited hoaxes like Piltdown Man, but Answers in Genesis BUSTED! just posted a comparison between the syntax of Comfort’s introduction and Stan Guffey’s A Brief History of Charles Darwin.

Here’s one of many uncanny similarities:

Ray: During his great adventure as the Beagle’s naturalist, Darwin had studied certain aspects of the morphology and biogeography of the many species of plants and animals that he had observed. He eventually concluded that species exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they were to varying degrees related.

Stan: On his great adventure as the Beagle’s naturalist Darwin had noted and begun to ponder certain aspects of the morphology and biogeography of the many species of plants and animals that he had observed. In particular, he had begun to explore the possibility, and eventually concluded, that species exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they are to varying degrees related.

Busted!

Without further ado, here’s the whole saga as a short scene in a haberdashery, for those readers who like awkward extended metaphors.

Ray:  G’day, mates! I’m giving away free tuxedos today!
Eugenie:  Umm… excuse me, Ray, those tuxedos are missing the pants, bowties, jackets and shirts.  You’re just holding a cummerbund and a couple cufflinks.
Ray:  Nah, we’re giving away whole tuxedos!  Don’choo know that a cummerbund with cufflinks is a full tuxedo?  The rest of it is pure crap!
Eugenie:  Now Ray, you might fool some of these kids, but I’m the President of the National Center for Haberdashery Education, and I know my way around a tuxedo.
Ray:  Nope.  It’s a whole tux.  And look what I just did to it!  I made it better!
Eugenie:  What’s this you’ve added to it?  Is that a pair of breeches?  No one has worn those since the late 1800s!  Come on, Ray, you’re calling this a modern black-tie formalwear outfit, but clearly it’s missing four integral pieces… and your little “addition” is incredibly outdated and dry-rotting.
Ray:  They are not!  They’re still up-to-date and relevant.  I should know:  I tailored them myself.  And look!  I’ll even throw in this free armband!
Eugenie:  RAY!  What the fuck is that?!  That’s a Nazi swastika armband!  You put that away right now, mister!
Ray:  Gulp… yes ma’am.
Eugenie:  Ray, I thought you said you tailored this “tuxedo addition” yourself.
Ray:  I did.
Eugenie:  Then what’s this?
Ray:  A tag for Henry Poole & Co.
Eugenie:  Kid, I’ll give you a five-second head start before I beat some logic into you.  Run!  One… two… three… four… five…  …  You’re still here.
Ray:  No I’m not.  I ran away…  Would you like a free tuxedo?
Eugenie:  You’re a madman.  [Exeunt]

Secular ethics cover a broad spectrum of political and personal ideologies.  A deist capitalist, an agnostic communist and an Atheist anarchist can all be just as secular and just as ethical as each other.  Even some theists admit that they come up with their ethical principles outside of their religious beliefs and can claim to hold secular ethics.

But what about in Chicago, where ethics are something you talk about to voters and not practice in your private life?

Well, the Ethical Humanist Society in Chicago gives us a good example of what secular ethics means to them.

They invited Sunsara Taylor to speak at an event for their organisation and then, after discovering that she is a communist, retracted their invitation.

She was allowed in to speak the day before her scheduled talk and gave a speech pleading to have her invitation to give her original advertised speech, “Morality Without God,” reinstated.

Here is a video of that speech.

It’s all very interesting, but if gets even more outrageous a day later.

Sunsara’s blog reports:

On Sunday, November 1st, plainclothes and uniformed police who had been called in earlier by officials of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago (EHSC) dragged out, maced and arrested a man for videotaping Sunsara Taylor as she stood near her seat and made a statement before the start of that morning’s program about the shameful cancellation of her long planned talk to EHSC that day on the topic “Morality without Gods.”

The shocking incident took place at the insistence of the president of EHSC. About 40 people witnessed the videographer being brutalized by the police in the foyer of the facility. An attorney demanded that the police stop brutalizing him when five officers piled on him as he lay face down on the floor. 6 police cars arrived within minutes.

Read the rest of it here.  I am mortified that this aggressive and hostile suppression of free speech and political dissidence is being perpetrated under the guise of secular ethics.

Hilarious side-note:  The first line of text on the society’s home page is, “We are a rational, caring, inclusive community of people from many different backgrounds and traditions. Our focus is upon the ethical values people have in common, not on things that keep us apart.”  Heh.

(Via Pharyngula)

DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS!

More of the story is coming out, and it seems that I’ve been sucked into believing an elaborate lie by Sunsara.  I’ll refrain from passing judgment right now, but I’m beginning to side with the EHSC crowd after talking to several people who were in attendance when this happened.

Read more here.

In this interview I discussed Greg Craven’s monstrosity of an opinion piece recently published in The Age, The Pseudo Scientists podcast which I produce and co-host, and of course the upcoming Global Atheist Convention.

I was interviewed by a lovely lady called Sue Leigh during the ‘Drive Home’ show on Melbourne’s 3CR Public Radio.

Click here to have a listen.
[Read more →]

Well, shit.

My roommate just walked in and told me that Larry King is calling the results for Maine’s anti-gay marriage amendment already.  With 86% of the precincts reporting, it stands as 52.72% in favour of banning gay marriage in the Maine state constitution and 47.28% opposed to the amendment.

When will religious fuckwits keep their hands in their own pockets and out of mine?  The constitution of an American state is not the place to legislate your religious beliefs.  It is should be a document protecting the rights of all within that state.

These anti-marriage amendments that are popping up all over the nation infringe on the rights of gay people, and no one yet has shown a single way that they protect the rights of anyone else.

With how ridiculous this ballot initiative fad is getting, the federal government needs to step in and, with the help of the United States Constitution, tell the idiot majority that enough is enough.  If we continue to allow the majority to rewrite this nation’s principles and suppress the minority, we are doing nothing to bring progress to the nation.  We are only hurting our nation by allowing these people to crush minorities under unfair laws.

If this nonsensical behaviour was allowed in the 1960s, interracial marriage would still be banned in Southern states today!

With 76% of precincts reporting, it’s very close and leaning bad on the Maine gay marriage initiative.

REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW

Yes
228140
52.13%

No
209520
47.87%

Bangor Daily News