Kevin Hayden is traveling east

Kevin Hayden, the maestro of the American Street blog, is packing up and moving across the country from Oregon to Massachusetts. Along the way, he’s going to be interviewing people and composing a written and video portrait. He needs help, though: he’s looking for people along his route who would be willing to be interviewed, or who would put him up for a night, and he’s also looking for contributions. He still needs more help, though. Take a look at his project, and if you think you can chip in, do so!

Ridiculous sanctimony

The state of California now issues gender-neutral marriage licenses: they simply register the legal relationship of “Party A” and “Party B”, where the relevant individuals fill out their actual names. That sounds reasonable and straightforward to me — it’s a state-mandated contract.

Wouldn’t you know it, though, there has to be someone offended by it.

In an utterly absurd whine, Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding are stamping their selfish, privileged little feet and bleating that they are soooo upset about this.

And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

“We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom,” said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father’s church. “Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them.”

…

Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding’s medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.

That is insane. They are voluntarily rejecting benefits that they apparently think are pretty important because they don’t like the impersonal legalese on a state form? Get over it. What are their real reasons? Here’s one: religious wackaloonery.

Bird’s father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville’s Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.

“I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B,’ ” he wrote in a letter that he sent to them. “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”

Here’s another:

“Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

Now that’s reaching. The wingnuts have long been claiming that allowing gays to marry somehow hurts their heterosexual marriages, a claim that is patently silly and false, and now they’ve got two idiots who will voluntarily slap themselves with a penalty so they can claim genuine damages. This is not credible.

They want to be called a bride and groom. OK, they’re a bride and groom. They had a church wedding in which no doubt they were addressed as bride and groom. Now it’s time for them to grow up and stop being petulant children.

By the way, they’ve also been married before and have five kids between them already. I think they can quit playing the nomenclature games — they aren’t in your traditional conservative version of marriage anyway, and they’re simply setting a bad example for their children. But then, they probably want to raise another generation of spoiled monsters with an easily offended sense of privilege.

Other people get email

Clemens Bittlinger wrote and performed a song that mildly rebuked the Pope … and you can guess what happened. Death threats! Wild accusations! Now he needs police protection! It’s insane, but familiar.

“When a newspaper prints a Mohammed cartoon, entire cities burn,” read another. “But when the Holy Father is ridiculed in blasphemy, we are supposed to just accept that? No, not like that Mr. Bittlinger – you will surely receive the justice you deserve.”

I suppose it was inevitable that while the vast majority of Christians condemned the outpourings of violence after the Mohammed cartoon polemic, some found such determination to respond to perceived offence something to admire.

Fatwah envy is going mainstream. I think at this point the Catholics can stop protesting that they are harmless, while Muslims are murderous monsters. The Catholics certainly seem to be louder blusterers and equivalent haters.

(via Tony Sidaway)

You don’t have to stop commenting!

Just to clarify the ScienceBlogs 1,000,000 Comments contest: the millionth commenter didn’t win anything. Everybody who makes a comment on Scienceblogs up to 30 September is automatically entered in a drawing to win a fabulous trip for two to New York. If you slept through the moment when the millionth comment was entered, you didn’t miss anything and you didn’t lose, necessarily.

So keep on talking. But shhhhh, don’t tell anyone: you only need to make one comment to be entered, and more comments don’t increase your odds.

Royal Society statement regarding Professor Michael Reiss

Michael Reiss has resigned from his position as the director of education of the Royal Society.

Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society’s Director of Education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the Society’s reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as Director of Education a part time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education.

The Royal Society’s position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.

The Royal Society greatly appreciates Professor Reiss’s efforts in furthering the Society’s work in the important field of science education over the past two years. The Society wishes him well for the future.

The second paragraph above is a short, clear outline of how creationism should be handled in the classroom. Reiss may have been trying to say the same thing, but unfortunately his words got all tangled in the appearance of an unwarranted accommodation to creationism.

Richard Dawkins responds:

Although I disagree with Michael Reiss, what he actually said at the British Association is not obviously silly like creationism itself, nor is it a self-evidently inappropriate stance for the Royal Society to take. Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who ‘respect’ creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity. The accommodationists include such godless luminaries as Eugenie Scott, whose National Center for Science Education is doing splendid work in fighting the creationist wingnuts in America. She and her fellow accommodationists bend over backwards to woo the relatively sensible minority among Christians, who accept evolution. Get the bishops and theologians on the side of science — so the argument runs — and they’ll be valuable allies against the naive creationists (who include a worryingly high proportion of Christians and almost all Muslims, by the way). No politician could deny at least the superficial plausibility of this expedient, although it is disappointing how ineffective as allies the ‘sensible’ minority of Christians turn out to be. The official line of the US National Academy, the American equivalent of the Royal Society, is shamelessly accommodationist. They repeatedly plug the mantra that there is ‘no conflict’ between evolution and religion. Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn’t deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.

Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prizewinning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste. Nevertheless — it’s regrettable but true — the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he!” If the Royal Society wanted to attack creationism with all fists flying, as I would wish, an ordained priest might make a politically effective spokesman, however much we might deplore his inconsistency. This is the role that Kenneth Miller, not a priest but a devout Christian, plays in America, where he is arguably creationism’s most formidable critic. But if the Society really wants to promote the accommodationist line, a clergyman is the very last advocate they should choose. Perhaps I was a little uncharitable to liken the appointment of a vicar as the Royal Society’s Education Director to a Monty Python sketch. Nevertheless, thoughts of Trojan Horses are now disturbing many Fellows, already concerned as they are by the signals the Society recently sent out through its flirtation with the infamous Templeton Foundation.

Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty. I’d rather not play that kind of politics at all but, if the Royal Society is going to go down that devious road, they should at least be shrewd about it. Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?

I particularly like that last point. Dawkins and I are both often slandered as being relatively uninterested in promoting good science education, preferring to fight the culture war against religion (a claim that ignores the fact that we may feel strongly that the only way to achieve a lasting investment in understanding science is by reducing the pernicious influence of religion) — we are told that we think atheism more important than science. Let us ask, though, if these brave paladins of Jesus-compatible science would be willing to set aside their religion to better endorse science…and I think we all know what the answer would be.

Watson/Wilson

There is good cause to be aggravated by some of James Watson’s recently expressed views, but he’s still an interesting fellow who made a significant contribution to our understanding of biology; and E.O. Wilson, of course, is always cool. So here they are together in an interview with Charlie Rose, discussing the significance of Charles Darwin:

(It was a little too gushy at the beginning — Darwin certainly did get some things very wrong! — but it’s still the kind of conversation it’s fun to hear.)

Party soon!

The counter on the page is ticking upwards to the millionth scienceblogs comment — we’re less than 50 comments away, so the winning submission might be right here on this thread — so it’s a good time to remind you Minnesota region residents that Greg & PZ’s Excellent Party will take place the day after tomorrow, Thursday, at 7pm. You are all required to attend and make a comment.

Palinology

Get ready for more fallout over Sarah Palin, who seems to be even crazier than I thought. There was an attempt to rehabilitate her from the accusations of pushing creationism recently, but the counterclaims got the facts all wrong. They claim that she only said that schools ought to “debate both sides,” but that’s the creationist position — pointing out that she was reciting creationist slogans does not somehow get her off the hook. And then there’s this litany of eyewitness stories from residents of her home town, who seem to be cheerfully trotting out to stick a knife in her campaign.

At one point during the hospital battle, passions ran so hot that local antiabortion activists organized a boisterous picket line outside Dr. Lemagie’s office, in an unassuming professional building across from Palmer’s Little League field. According to Bess and another community activist, among the protesters trying to disrupt the physician’s practice that day was Sarah Palin.

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. “She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board,” said Munger, a music composer and teacher. “I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, ‘Sarah, how can you believe in creationism — your father’s a science teacher.’ And she said, ‘We don’t have to agree on everything.’

“I pushed her on the earth’s creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she’d seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them.”

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. “She looked in my eyes and said, ‘Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'”

Spare us. That’s crazy talk.

Another revelation: remember all the Republican buzz about “small town values“, and how Palin invoked them in her speech? The source for her quote has been tracked down, and it isn’t pretty, but it is fitting for a Republican thug.

“We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity,” the vice-presidential candidate said, quoting an anonymous “writer,” which is to say, Pegler, who must have penned that mellifluous line when not writing his more controversial stuff. As the New York Times pointed out in its obituary of him in 1969, Pegler once lamented that a would-be assassin “hit the wrong man” when gunning for Franklin Roosevelt.

This Pegler fellow has quite a reputation for fascist rhetoric:

He was also known for what Philip Roth described as his “casual distaste for Jews,” which had become so evident by the end that he was bounced from the journal of the John Birch Society in 1964 for alleged anti-semitism. According to his obituary, he’d advanced the theory that American Jews of Eastern European descent were “instinctively sympathetic to Communism, however outwardly respectable they appeared.”

And Robert Kennedy Jr has grounds for finding Palin’s choice of sources distasteful.

Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that “some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in pubic premises before the snow flies.”

Jebus. What has Sarah Palin been reading in order to get her political education?

The only good news I’ve seen so far: The biggest political rally in Alaskan history was an anti-Palin demonstration. Not that the news media will cover it.