Hey everyone!
As you may have heard, my computer finally gave up the ghost and went to live with Jesus in heaven. That, combined with my vacation made for a long wait for this podcast, sorry! But here it is, and it’s packed. It was so long I had to cut out a couple listener mails we did to get it down to around the 100 minute mark.
This week we talk some more about Israel, which I know excites all of you. I also dig a nice deep hole for myself with women by talking more about “revealing clothing.” My wife even makes a brief cameo on the show this week to set me straight.
We have such a nice discussion about it, that we’re going to put up a new poll for you guys, you can check that out on the website.
Then, of course, we do the atheist news:
Anne Rice ‘quits being a Christian’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/30/anne-rice-quits-being-christian
British girls undergo horror of genital mutilation despite tough laws
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/25/female-circumcision-children-british-law
Sharon Angle, Republican Senatorial nominee from Nevada says being raped is part of Gods plan
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/147379/sharron_angle_rape_incest_part_of_gods_plan__opposes_abortion_no_matter_what
Vicar gives Holy Communion to dog
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7910177/Vicar-gives-Holy-Communion-to-dog.html
TV host unveils plan for a Muslim-friendly gay bar next to Ground Zero mosque
http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/08/11/tv-host-unveils-plan-for-a-muslim-friendly-gay-bar-next-to-ground-zero-mosque/
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Loading ...
5 comments
Don says:
August 23, 2010 at 9:44 am (UTC -8)
My take on the May 21 signs mentioned in this episode:
http://www.drl2.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/savedateodo_poster.jpg
Thomathy says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:31 am (UTC -8)
Umm …about the civil union thing. I’m guessing, even if the guy to whom you were responding is an irrational crazy, that he was probably taking issue with the way it sounds when people suggest civil unions instead of marriage. That is, it’s usually something accommodationists say. It goes like this: ‘Well, anyone can get married, but for gay people we’ll call it civil unions.’ or, ‘We’ll just change “marriage” to “civil union” for everyone.’
Well, there’s problems with both of those lines of thought.
The first one is ‘separate, but equal’ and that should be unacceptable to everyone fighting for marriage equality for what I think are obvious reasons.
The second is just not likely to fly, it’s difficult to change every law attached to the word ‘marriage’ and change that wording to ‘civil union’ and to people who are married, even those who married secularly, they may still want to have their marriage called a marriage. You don’t, after all, have to go to a church to get married. More substantially, it’s unacceptable and unnecessary to change the word from ‘marriage’ to civil union’. You already have marriage! Just expand the allowance to everyone and leave the word well enough alone.
At least, that’s what the conception of the problem with ‘civil union’ instead of ‘marriage’ is. Largely, I agree that marriage is an acceptable term and that it doesn’t need to be changed just so that gay people can do it too.
I live in Canada, where any two consenting adults can get married. I don’t understand what’s so difficult about this or why it should be called something other than marriage. If you argue that it’s just a word and so it can be changed, then if it’s just a word, it might as well remain the same; there’s no need to change the word. It’s worked in a number of countries already.
I understand what both of you are saying. I certainly won’t call you anti-gay and I’m not going to go so far as to call you accomodationist toward those against gay marriage, but I’m quite sure that the word marriage doesn’t need to be changed to civil union. If they’re the same thing (marriage and secular union and marriage is already a secular institution), then the wording doesn’t need to be changed. Anyway, the word hasn’t needed to be changed in the countries that have marriage equality, so I can’t see why it needs to change in your country for there to be equality.
alex akesson says:
September 2, 2010 at 3:24 pm (UTC -8)
This is the worst thing I ever heard. Even old nuns get raped. I would like to cancel my subscription. WTF. YOU ARE WAAAAAY OFFF! Very insulting. You in no way represent atheists.
moJoe says:
September 4, 2010 at 2:52 pm (UTC -8)
I have no idea what old nuns being raped has to do with anything. I’m still waiting for someone to coherently explain how I am “way off.”
Roger Rotge says:
September 9, 2010 at 11:26 pm (UTC -8)
Hello. I would like to present a dissenting opinion. I am behind on podcasts, so I think this is the one where you and Richard were letting your wife speak. My issue isn’t with her, just mentioning that that is the podcast I am referring to. Joe (I don’t know who I am writing to exactly) expressed the opinion that if a woman is scantily clad and walks into an alley, she is just asking to be raped and she should know better. I can see how this idea will draw fire, but even this isn’t what I am complaining about, exactly. If we allow that the woman has the freedom to wear what she wants and go to a public place as she wants, then it seems, to me, a form of censorship to recommend that she keep it zipped up and avoid certain places. Yes, she would be safer to avoid them. What I want to call your attention to, however, is using this argument on a similar topic. If it is stupid to tempt the shadow lurking rapists by dangling boobies in their face, then isn’t it equally as stupid to have a day where people draw Mohammad? I believe that Joe used the argument that it is just a little safer for the woman to avoid noted dangerous places. Then should not it be just a little safer not to piss off some Muslims? I apologize to not having the exact quotes Joe used and I hope that the gist of my argument prevails. Thank you and great show!