We have learned that the world’s leading Myther and outspoken feminist, well-known for scolding other New Atheist leaders for their sexual conduct, has himself been accused of sexual harassment.So serious are the accusations that Carrier has been banned from future Skepticon meetings and dropped as a speaker for the Secular Student Alliance. And when an ethics committee at the FtB network began to look into the accusations, Carrier quickly backed out of the network.
One problem seems to be that the 46-year-old Carrier exploited his position as a speaker on college campuses to hit on 18 and 19 year old female college students. As he admitted:
And they already noted that I had publicly said years ago that if I wanted to have the freedom to date students (and thus express interest in them), and the SSA insisted on that being against policy, “I’d just withdraw from the SSA Speaker’s Bureau.” So we agreed that’s what I should do. And I did. I haven’t been on it for over a year. And I since date or have dated students or former students, without incident.
So it appears that one of the main motivators for Carrier’s talks was that they represented opportunities “to express interest” in the college students half-his-age. Given the lengths that Carrier goes to rationalize his polyamorous sexual appetite, one can only imagine the polished sensitive-male-feminist routine he had developed to score dates with the young atheist women . So addicted to his desire for lovers, he was apparently blind to fact that many young women would be creeped out by an old mans’ attempts to express interest in them.
When Carrier became aware that the others at FreethoughtBlogs were going to gather information about his behavior (as if it was news to them), Carrier seems to have panicked. On his blog, he makes it sound like he left FtB to protect FtB from having to be associated with this controversy:
But I do not want FreethoughtBlogs or its mission to be compromised by having to devote resources to defending me or vetting claims or choosing sides.
But PZ Myers paints a very different picture:
I ran across this the other day: Polyamorous Rights Advocates See Marriage Equality Coming for Them
Here are some excerpts:
The couple – a husband and his wife – are polyamorous, and had just moved in with their girlfriend. And in Roberts’ dissent, they saw a path that could make three-way relationships like theirs legal, too.
“Did you see we were mentioned by Roberts?” the husband beamed as he welcomed guests the day after the ruling. The chief justice wrote that polygamy has deeper roots in history and that the decision allowing gays to marry “would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”
“If the majority is willing to take the big leap,” he added, “it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.”
“I do think the dissent by Roberts provides a legal foothold for people seeking polyamorous marriage rights,” says Diana Adams, a New York attorney who specializes in nontraditional family law. “As Roberts points out, if there’s going to be a rejection of some of the traditional man-woman elements of marriage… those same arguments could easily be applied to three or four-person unions.”
Adams says she’s heard chatter of looming lawsuits now that the same-sex marriage issue has been resolved. She personally is interested in helping extend co-parenting arrangements for three or more people to benefit same-sex couples who cannot reproduce with each other, and she says such cases could ultimately break ground for polyamorous families.
New Atheists are excited this morning to see a new interview of their Leader:
What was striking to me is just how utterly predictable Dawkins’ responses are. He has reached the point where comes across as a politician drawing from his over-used grab bag of shallow talking points. Darwin led me to atheism. Check. Religion is evil, on balance. Check. Religion has nothing to do with my moral code. Check. People should not religiously label their children. Check. We atheists only attack religion with reason and evidence. Check. Most of these have been debunked on this blog.
In other words, he fails to intellectually stimulate. He fails to intellectually challenge. He is boring.
Yet the Gnus lap this stuff up.
It looks like the man who is purchasing “the nation’s first academic chair for the study of atheism, humanism and secular ethics at the University of Miami” hates religion. What a surprise. Atheism motivated by hatred of religion. Who would have thunk it?
He added “the cancer that exists in our society has to do with religion,” according to a YouTube video of his talk.
Atheists love to compare religion to viruses and cancers. And mental illness.
One has to wonder that given the extreme views of the donor, will this new academic chair be proselytizing for hardcore atheism.
UMiami philosophy Professor Harvey Siegel, who has been a friend of Appignani for years and played an active role in securing the donation, told The College Fix that the chair will not be in the business of “advocacy,” however.
“The Chair is a faculty position at the University of Miami, not an arm of the Appignani Foundation,” Siegel said in an email. “The Chair’s title involves the study of atheism, humanism and secular ethics, not advocacy.”
Okay, so that’s the official position. We’ll see if is holds. Let’s read some more:
Henry Rambow wrote an article which essentially regurgitates Sam Harris’s argument about religious moderates being blamed for the existence of extreme religious fundamentalists.
Like Harris, Rambow approaches the whole issue with incredible tunnel vision. He seems oblivious to the fact that there is no reason to restrict the focus of his logic to religion. The very same logic can be used elsewhere.
For example, think about how a moderate concern for animal welfare fuels animal rights terrorism. Do you support your local Humane Society? Then, according to Harris/Rambow logic, you are helping to legitimize extreme animal rights organizations and their acts of terrorism.
Concerned about the environment? Then you are both legitimizing and fueling eco-terrorism.
Do you consider yourself a supporter of civil rights and a good liberal? Then, according to Harris/Rambow logic, you are both legitimizing and fueling the Regressive Left. After all, if religious moderates are to blame for religious fundamentalists, then moderate leftists are to blame for the extreme, Regressive Left.
The irony of this Gnu Logic is that while Harris points his finger at religious moderates and blames them for the extreme acts of some religious fundamentalists, his same logic would make him (as a environmentalist liberal who supports animal rights) partly responsible for animal rights terrorism, eco-terrorism, and the anti-free speech efforts of the Regressive Left.
As I am sure you have heard, a Muslim extremist murdered dozens of people at an Orlando dance club after pledging his allegiance to ISIS on a 911 call. What’s interesting to watch are the various activists around the internet actually trying to come up with convoluted reasons to blame Christians for this latest act of terror. We truly are moving into an Orwellian world.
Yet there is an informative angle to their insane rhetoric. As we know, anyone who attempts to link the massacre to Muslims or Islam is immediately accused of Islamophobia. Yet the very same logic would also mean these activists seeking to link the massacre to Christians or Christianity are guilty of Christophobia.
Islamophobia is defined as “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.”
Thus, Christophobia shall be defined as “dislike of or prejudice against Christianity or Christians, especially as a political force.”
For over four years, I have focused on the New Atheist movement. But as I have mentioned many times before, it sure looks like this movement is on the decline. The final straw was the Reason Rally. When the Reason Rally itself shuns the New Atheists and their message, it’s time to recognize the dwindling influence of this movement.
So I think I will expand the focus of this blog and begin using the tools of critical thinking to analyze the “social justice” branch of the atheist movement. This segment of atheist activism seems to be on the rise, as its message seems to receive more traction in the mainstream media and academia. They also seem to be more media savvy and appear to have a more widely distributed team of grass roots activists to push their agenda.
So while I will keep an eye on the New Atheists and their movement, I think this other group of atheist activists deserve some attention.
Again, I should remind readers that this is not a Christian apologetics blog and I truly don’t have problems with people who are mere atheists. I think my problem is with the activist version of radical atheism, whether it be the conventional New Atheist strain or the “social justice” strain.
So what do y’all think? Should I just stick to New Atheism or would you be interested in seeing more discussions of the “social justice” strain of atheist activism?