Believe it or not, that’s not the weird part.
The piece of Scripture that many Blasphemy Challenge critics claim is irrelevant.
I’m just sayin’, is all.
The book is on sale for pre-orders. It comes out in July of this year. And rumors about the possibility of spoilers are already starting to circulate. So now is the time to begin Greta Christina’s Harry Potter Book Seven Prediction Contest.
So here are the official rules to Greta Christina’s “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” Prediction Contest. If you don’t like ’em, hold your own damn contest.
Therefore, the tie-breaker question instead will be: Which two major characters will die in Book Seven?
(If there’s a tie, and both/all winners get the tie-breaker right, then all will win, and all will have prizes.)
So here goes.
So those are my predictions. What are yours?
In other words, they say that certain motives for crimes are worse than other motives, and deserve a more severe punishment.
And that’s a legal principle that is both extremely well-established and widely accepted.
But that’s just silly. There’s a huge difference between speech as speech, and speech as evidence of motive.
That’s what hate crime laws do. They don’t make hateful or bigoted words into a crime. They allow those words to be evidence of a particular motive for the crime.
Now, I’ll remind you here: We already have a federal hate crime law on the books, adressing crimes committed because of race, color, religion, or national origin.
That is some fucked-up shit.
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.'”
Let’s just not forget, people.
And a quick “howdy” to the Carnival of the Godless #66 (over at The Atheist Experience this time), which was kind enough to include my piece Dancing Molecules: An Atheist Moment of Transcendence in their latest round-up. Check out the carnival, and say hi to the nice atheist bloggers!
Please note: This post contains fairly explicit descriptions of my personal sex life and my personal sexual practices and proclivities. Family members and others who don’t want to read about that, now would be a good time to stop reading.
I think it has to do with reality.
Which brings me back to the phone box cards.
(Or I could do it here in San Francisco, on the Web. But that’s a subject for another post.)
P.S. I was talking with my friend Tim about this today, and he told me that the Loud Family song “Self Righteous Boy Reduced to Tears” was inspired by one of these phone box cards. (A more dommy one than the ones I’m showing here, I assume.) And I say yet again: Neat. I had no idea.
This wasn’t the conclusion of any great moral dilemma or anything. It’s just that the opportunity only recently presented itself. I was just invited to join BlogAds, a network of bloggers organized into hives so potential advertisers can find them. Many other blogs that I like and respect are part of this network, and I jumped at the chance as fast as I could.
And I have my very first ad — appropriately enough, from a gay atheist activist artist. Neat!
So if you like this blog, and you want me to be able to keep writing it, there’s now something you can do to help. No, I don’t mean “advertise in my blog” (although if you have a business you’d like to hawk, we should talk).
What’s really bugging me about Romney’s opposition to same-sex marriage is that he’s using religion and the Bible to defend it.
Not just when it comes to their own life — their own marriage, their own body, their own sexuality — but mine, and yours, and everyone else’s.
And that absolutely makes me want to run screaming into the night.
“This” being Christopher Hitchens’s recent piece in Vanity Fair about why women aren’t as funny as men. The key sentence: “For women, reproduction is, if not the only thing, certainly the main thing.” Because we bear and raise children, women are both more nurturing and take life more seriously than men, and thus lack both the mean-spiritedness and the frivolousness required of humor. That’s a gross over-generalization of Hitchens’s piece; but then, Hitchens’s piece is pretty gross, so I guess it’s appropriate.
And I bet we’re funnier, too.