"It Really All Stands To Reason" That Few Women Get Pregnant From Rape

If Todd Akin's comments on "legitimate rape" and pregnancy have had you pounding your head against the desk, you might want to avoid the following clip of the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer and Brad Mattes of Life Issues Institute discussing the strong reactions to Akin's asinine remarks.

According to these two, it's rare for women to get pregnant from rape because "it really all stands to reason."

Watch:

Chick-fil-A Parody Ad From Mr. Deity

Mr. Deity's Chick-fil-A parody ad is pretty great.

Watch:

Creationist Ken Ham: 'Bathtub Arks Are Dangerous'

According to Answers in Genesis' Ken Ham, parents should avoid the baby-friendly depictions of Noah's Ark -- or as he calls them, 'bathtub arks.'

Ham is worried that these cutesy depictions of Noah's Ark might lead children to believe that the Genesis narrative is a myth.

He writes:

Many times over the years, I have warned parents about using pictures of what we call “bathtub arks” with their children. Such pictures, usually with giraffes sticking out the top in a small unrealistic boat overloaded with animals, are sadly the norm in many Christian children’s books that deal with the topic of Noah and the Ark.

I have warned parents that such pictures are “cute but dangerous.” Why?

The secularists do all they can to mock God’s Word and in an effort to capture the hearts and minds of children so they will not believe the Bible and its saving message of the gospel. The secularists accuse Christians of believing fairy tales if they accept the Genesis account of Creation, Fall, and Flood as written—as true historical records. And really, when we allow children to think Noah’s Ark looked like one of these “bathtub Arks,” we are reinforcing the false idea that the account of the Ark was just a fairy tale.

Over the years, I’ve found many churches have “bathtub arks” depicted on the walls of their kindergarten area, in their children’s Sunday school classrooms, etc. In my writings, I plead with leaders in the church to remove these—what I consider to be dangerous to the spiritual well-being of children.

I have news for Mr. Ham. It isn't cartoonish depictions of dingy-sized arks that lead children to believe that Noah's Ark is a myth. It's the fact that the Noah's Ark narrative has no basis in reality. The Noah's Ark story has collapsed under scientific scrutiny over the past 250 years such that by the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1875), there was no effort made whatsoever to reconcile the Noah's Ark story with scientific fact.

Ham continues:

We need instead to show children that Noah’s Ark was a real ship—a great ship—with plenty of room to fit the land animal kinds, and seaworthy to survive a global Flood. That’s why at Answers in Genesis and in our materials, we show Noah’s Ark according to the dimensions in the Bible and as a real seaworthy ship.

Let’s make an effort to “sink” the “bathtub arks” and make sure we use it as an illustration of a real ship of biblical dimensions.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying, including for our Ark Encounter project.

Remember folks, we need to ensure that at least some of the kids in future generations can be indoctrinated to believe that the Noah's Ark story is true. Ken Ham has a lot of money riding on it -- $172 million, to be precise.

It's not the goofy depictions of the Ark, Ken. It's the goofiness of the story in light of our modern scientific understanding of the world.

Catholic Deacon Keith Fournier: Chick-Fil-A Boycott Is 'Viewpoint Discrimination'

The Editor in Chief at Catholic Online, Deacon Keith Fournier wrote a piece praising the hordes of 'pro-family,' 'pro-marriage' supporters who showed up to buy sandwiches and waffle fries on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day.

The Deacon, like millions of Americans who lined up last week, doesn't seem to get it.

He writes:

The massive crowd reflected a cross section of America. They were young, old, middle aged and senior. They were thin, overweight, short, tall, well groomed, sloppy, well dressed, tattooed and of every race and color. There were young Moms with their children in tow, blue collar workers, students and business men and women. Amazingly, everyone was kind, courteous and willing to wait in line. No-one complained and most were smiling.

In fact, you sensed you were participating in something historic by simply purchasing a chicken sandwich. I do not doubt everyone wanted their chicken sandwich, especially after such a long wait. However, they were there, like me, for a reason much more important. They were making a collective statement of support for the Restaurants' willingness to stand up for marriage and family in the face of open hostility, ridicule and threats.

They were standing up for free speech and against political correctness. They were applauding with their purchase the courage shown by the owners of this restaurant. They did not back down in the face of forceful, even hateful, opposition from those who, while claiming to be tolerant have become so intolerant of those who do not agree with them.

Last week I wrote about how this flap is not about free speech, and I still stand by that assertion. (It was pointed out to me by several readers that the threats by elected officials to ban Chick-fil-A from their cities was very much about free speech, and I would agree -- if any of these threats were actually implemented. The comment of Rahm, Menino, et al. amounted to grandstanding and the type of knee-jerk reactions we expect from elected officials.) But the consumer boycott itself, and the outcry against Chick-fil-A has absolutely nothing to do with stifling free speech and everything to do with consumers refusing to indirectly fund hate and intolerance.

While Chick-fil-A Dan Cathy's remarks certainly were inflammatory to those who are in same-sex relationships and those who support equality, his vocal remarks were not the reason for the boycott. Boycotts of Chick-fil-A have been in existence prior to Cathy's comments. Cathy's remarks simply provided a prime opportunity for discussion of Chick-fil-A's substantial annual donations to organizations that perpetually spew hate and widely-dismissed anti-LGBT propaganda.

Fournier continues:

Chick-fil-A has been under assault because their President publicly affirmed their company support for true marriage and the family and society founded upon it. Dan Cathy expressed his deeply held religious convictions to the Baptist Press in an interview and literally - all hell broke loose among some new Cultural Revolutionaries.

Among the most vocal opponents was Carlos Maza of "Equality Matters", a homosexual equivalency activist group. He told the Washington Post that Dan Cathy's position in defense of marriage, along with the contributions made by his family's foundation to pro-life and pro-family groups, "solidifies Chick-fil-A as being closely aligned with some of the most vicious anti-gay voices in the country." That is nonsense. To defend marriage does not equate to being "anti-gay".

The effort unleashed against Chick fil-A was an example of viewpoint discrimination parading as a concern for equality.

Viewpoint discrimination. That's amazing. So, when millions of American citizens became outraged when Michael Richards went on an 'N-word' rant in a comedy club, they were all guilty of "viewpoint discrimination."

When abolitionists focused attention on the inhumane nature of slavery, they were guilty of "viewpoint discrimination."

When Americans decried "miscegenation" laws banning marriage between blacks and whites? Totally "viewpoint discrimination."

Furthermore, when Carlos Maza of Equality Matters stated that the restaurant's policies, donations, and actions "solidifies Chick-fil-A as being closely aligned with some of the most vicious anti-gay voices in the country," he was absolutely correct. If the good Deacon needs any evidence, there's plenty of it on record.

The Chick-fil-A Flap Is Not Really About Free Speech

I've been seeing loads of commentary on the Chick-fil-A gay marriage flap that implies this is a debate about free speech. There have been numerous Facebook posts, letters to the editor, and blog posts about how those who are boycotting Chick-fil-A are hypocrites for defending the speech of liberal figures but punishing CEO Dan Cathy for expressing his opinions.

A recent letter in USA Today crystallizes the sentiment coming from this camp:

It seems as if people on the left don't approve of free speech unless it is in line with their beliefs. They call for boycotts of companies that espouse opinions other than their own. This has got to stop. This is the United States of America, where everyone has the right to free speech.

I disagree with comments of Bill Maher, but I don't harass or boycott HBO. Maher has the right to make any statement he wants without the country launching a concerted effort to destroy him, and so does the president of Chick-fil-A.

Stifling free speech with boycotts is extremely dangerous.

These folks seem to be completely missing the point.

This is not really about free speech. Nobody is saying that CEO Dan Cathy shouldn't be allowed to voice his personal views or beliefs. Nobody is saying that companies should never operate on principles that are important to its founders.

It's not what Dan Cathy says that is so troublesome here (although it is disheartening and disappointing to those who support equality). If Dan Cathy voiced his support for Mitt Romney, I don't believe that voicing this would result in liberals organizing a national boycott.

What is the most troubling about Chick-fil-A, and what most pro-Chick-fil-a/pro-family values folks seem to be missing, is that Dan Cathy and his corporation funnel millions of dollars into multiple discredited propaganda-spewing anti-LGBT organizations, including some that have been designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

There is a huge difference between supporting a company that doesn't share your personal political views and supporting a company that actively supports hate groups.

One of these groups is the Family Research Council. Here's a sample of some of the FRC's hateful comments:

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
— Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets' of a new sexual order.”
-1999 FRC pamphlet, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex with Boys.

“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
— Timothy Dailey, senior research fellow, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” 2002

Despite that fact that 82% of child sex abuse is committed by heterosexual men, the FRC (and others, to be sure) continues to perpetuate blatantly false correlations between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Chick-fil-A also funnels money into Exodus International, the infamous "ex-gay" ministry. Exodus is described as "a non-profit, interdenominational "ex-gay" Christian organization that seeks to limit bisexual and homosexual desires." The consensus among the world's major scientific and medical communities is that "being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment." In addition, Exodus International's founder, Alan Chambers, recently addressed a Gay Christian Network audience, stating that "99.9% of conversion therapy participants do not experience any change to their sexuality." He then apologized for the previous Exodus slogan "Change Is Possible."

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) has stated that "ex-gay" therapy organizations and ministries "lack medical justification" and "represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people."

Quite simply, "Ex-gay" therapy doesn't work, it's harmful, and Chick-fil-A actively supports it.

There are many other troublesome details about Chick-fil-A's policies and their involvement with anti-LGBT groups of which the general public is unaware.

The vocal reaction to Chick-fil-A's stances on gay marriage is not simply based on a difference of beliefs, it is a visceral reaction to the realization that Chick-fil-A actively supports organizations that do great harm to human beings.

If the CEO of Wendy's stated today that he believes African Americans to be inferior, and if we learned that Wendy's donates millions to the Ku Klux Klan each year, the uproar and calls for boycotts would not be attacks on "free speech." This would not simply be a company that has "different beliefs." This would be a company that actively supports a hate group and which endorses discrimination and the intimidation of individuals based on their natural traits. To patronize Wendy's would be to indirectly endorse and support such discrimination. To choose to stop patronizing Wendy's would be to divert money away from their cause.

Of course, if we investigated every company we support, we would undoubtedly learn a great deal that might change the way we spend our money.  We know that Apple has issues in their treatment of foreign labor workers. We know that Target has supported some anti-gay candidates. We can't be expected to be aware of every stance or practice of every corporation we patronize. However, upon learning about a particular company's unsavory practice or stance, we can make a conscious decision right then and there about whether or not we want to continue supporting that company. If anything, this particular instance should encourage all of us to learn more about the corporations we support.

This is a free country and capitalism works well when we vote with our pocketbooks. Voicing disappointment in a business owner's politics is not stifling to free speech. It is the exercising of free speech. Let the free market decide whether a business succeeds or fails based on its practices.

Let's get one thing clear. This is not about stifling free speech. This is about consumers taking a stand against discrimination. This is about a society voicing its disapproval of a company that supports practices which have been deemed harmful by the world's scientific and medical communities. This is about looking out for one another.

Patterns In Data Realization: Maps Depicting Social Ills Look Eerily Familiar

Update (8/27/13): 
The website PornHub has just released a trove of data on America's porn habits. I couldn't help but notice that, once again, it's THAT MAP. I have added the map to the bottom of this previously-published post.

I'm fascinated by data realizations in map form. They say a picture's worth a thousand words.

I'm not going to make any statements about cause and effect, as we all know that correlation does not imply causation. But there certainly is much to be gleaned from correlation.

The below map has been making the rounds recently. It depicts the largest participating religious groups by county in the United States -- basically which religions are most represented in each county.

As fascinating as it is, it probably doesn't come as much of a surprise:

See that large swath of red across the South? That's the Bible Belt. It has a lot in common with many other maps (some of which have been discussed here before).

Here's a map depicting life expectancies for females, by county:

And here's the same for males:

Here we have a map of religiosity in America, with the darker green depicting the most religious areas:

Here we have a map depicting well-being in America. The lighter areas indicate those areas in which residents report a lower sense of well-being.

Here we have a map depicting poverty in the US. Darker portions of the map indicate higher rates of poverty.

In the below map, we can see the divorce rates for men by state (darker colors indicate the highest rates of divorce):

Here we have the same map for women:

The following colorful map depicts the state of same-sex marriage in America. The darker red states are those which are most hostile towards gay-marriage (see key).

And here we have teen birth rates:

Noticing a pattern here?

Here we have a map of active hate groups:

The following map shows the treatment of evolution in schools, by state:

How about the states accepting abstinence education funds (those in orange denied federal abstinence education funds)?

What about high school diplomas?

And here we have the 2008 presidential election red state/blue state map:

Here's a map showing which states spend the most time on PornHub, the third largest porn video site on the internet. Could it be that the most religious, most conservative, most anti-gay, most anti-evolution, most pro-abstinence education states are also the states spending the most time viewing hardcore pornography?

Again, there are many, many factors that play into each of these maps. There are certainly many complex correlations and causations (and some factors perpetuate others). For example, we know that areas of high poverty will likely (for obvious reasons) experience less well-being, lower rates of education, and lower life expectancies.

The religious and political correlations, however, are more curious.

Do lower levels of well-being and lower life expectancies cause higher rates of religiosity?

Are blue-leaning states more likely to deny evolution? Or are evolution-deniers more likely to vote conservative?

Does abstinence education lead to higher teen pregnancy rates? Or do high teen pregnancy rates lead to more abstinence education?

Are hate groups more likely to be comprised of religious conservatives?

Do lower rates of high school graduates play into higher rates of religious conservatism?

Would an increase in graduation levels decrease the number of religious conservatives, evolution denialists, and hate groups?

Is it offensive to ask these questions? If so, why?

Do you have the answers? Please share.

What Is Humanism?: A Video Featuring Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling & Tim Minchin

Via The British Humanist Association:

Humanism is sometimes mistaken for another form of religion, or something which is very complex. Here, some well known humanists explain that all humanism really is, is people wanting to live ethical and happy lives, thinking for themselves, without religion imposing its own morals on them which are not necessarily compatible with living ethically today.

The below video, created by the BHA, features Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling, Phillip Pullman, Tim Minchin, and others.

Watch: