It’s that time of the year again. As has become a tradition much maligned anticipated in our neighborhood, moiself is hosting a different Partridge, every week, in my front yard’s pear tree. [1]
This will be the last week, until late November, when the next solstice season begins. Can you identify this week’s guest Partridge?
* * *
Department Of New Year, New Questions
Is it doofuses, or doofi?
* * *
Department Of New Year’s Day Menu
* Black-eyed peas
* Cornbread
* Collard greens
My New Year’s Day menu once again included a dish featuring black-eyed peas. I have done this for…decades, now. I do this in honor of my father and his heritage: specifically, his family’s tradition of eating black-eyed peas on New Year’s Day – an act of culinary optimism which was supposed to bring good luck and prosperity in the coming year.
It’s all a lie.
Despite consuming black-eyed peas every New Year’s day, my father’s family remained dirt-poor sharecroppers. [2] Every year, as I bring whatever black-eyed pea dish I’m making to my family table, I can’t help but wonder: just once, did a brave soul in my father’s family (possibly his adored, spunky younger sister, Lucile), when presented with yet another bowl of black-eyed peas and the directive to, Eat up, y’all, it’ll bring us good luck in the coming year!, look around at the ramshackle farmhouse and her barefooted siblings [3] and mutter, It still ain’t workin.’
Since the eat-these-things-every-year-for-prosperity thing didn’t do diddly squat, I feel free to mess with the menu. This year my black-eyed peas were blinged with curry-ish spices, the collards tarted up with with golden raisins/cider vinegar, and instead of cornbread there was a freshly baked sourdough boule (courtesy of MH), the latter pictured in larval form below.
Oh yeah, and as for the accompanying beverage: go big or go home, before observing Dry January. [4]
* * *
Department Of The Last Great Disappointment For The Old Year…
…which I hope does not turn out to be an ongoing disappointment in the new year…except that it already has.
Moiself wears her big girl pants most days; I understand that even though organizations are not people [5] they *are* composed of people – human beings who are flawed and make mistakes. Still, I cringe to think that one of my favorite organizations – one that gets a weekly shout-out from moiself ( in my Freethinkers Thought of the Week ) – has fallen down the you-must-tow-this-ideological-line-or-be-cancelled rabbit hole…
This ideology-eclipses-all mentality is one of the reasons, in my strong opinion, that otherwise trying-to-be-decent political fence-sitting folk opted for the dark side in the 2024 presidential election. As I wrote in a previous, post-election keen of anguish blog, ( The Country I’m Not Loving ):
I loathe the use of wedge issues and exploitation of those on the lower end of the power totem to provoke the fear response. I despise the fact that such tactics are often effective, which is why the ethically-deficient Right uses them. And as I watched that MAGA ad which ran during the World Series, [6] thinking of the wide audience it was playing to, I thought to moiself, re the election: if Harris (and therefore the USA) loses, it will be because of things like this.
Things as in, not necessarily that particular issue, but because too many of my well-meaning liberal brethren and sisterthren have shot themselves in the foot with their psychological tone-deafness…and Those People ® who feel lectured to and put upon are exacting some kind of social revenge….
How many times have people felt silenced or intimidated because they didn’t toe the “progressive” political and cultural lines? Maybe they have questions on certain social issues; maybe there are things they just don’t understand and therefore, instinctively, tend to fear.
Maybe they don’t actually *hate* people of different genders and sexual orientations and ethnicities and religions and social classes and political opinions. But that’s what they get labeled as ( haters; ____ -phobics ), and then they don’t feel as if they can even voice their questions and concerns in certain situations and when speaking with certain people, because if they don’t use the *correct* terminology of the moment, the focus will be on *how* they asked their questions/offered their opinions, rather than on the content of those questions and opinions. They will be shamed and lectured to if they “misgender” or “dead-name” or “mis-pronoun”….
And if the actions and attitudes of aggressive Lefties pushes some centrists or moderates more to the Right, then those Lefties dismiss the migration with their purity-testing mantra: “Well, it’s no loss, they weren’t really allies in the first place.”….
Dateline:12-27-24. The day started on an upbeat note: my email inbox contained one of the most thoughtful and well-reasoned guest blog posts from the FFRF (Freedom from Religion Foundation) I’ve recently read. The article, “Biology is Not Bigotry,” was by evolutionary biologist, pseudoscience critic and FFRF Honorary Board Member Jerry Coyne. After reading Coyne’s article, I posted a link to it on FB.
Coyne’s “Biology is Not Bigoty,”,as per his intro which I’ve excerpted here, was written in part to address issues raised and opinions expressed in a previous FFRF Freethought Now article:
“In the Freethought Now article ‘What is a woman?’, author Kat Grant struggles at length to define the word, rejecting one definition after another as flawed or incomplete. Grant finally settles on a definition based on self-identity: ‘A woman is whoever she says she is. This of course is a tautology….” [7]
Several hours later, my email inbox contained another FFRF blog post, this one attributed to the co-presidents of the FFRF and titled, “Freedom From Religion Foundation supports LGBTQIA-plus rights.” And gawd-dammit, I hate to say it, but the woke shit hit the fan.
Yep. Apparently, someone(s) got offended…
…and Coyne’s article was removed from the FFRF site. Within a few hours on the same day, Coyne’s article was posted, then removed, then the “apology” response was posted. It seems that the FFRF, or at least the co-presidents (their bylines are on the apology) fell into the social media trap of instant panic/instant response, instead of taking time for reflection and…consultation (as in, who made the decision to de-publish Coyne’s article? Was the FFRF Board consulted, and if not, why not? If the co-presidents unilaterally made the decision, can the Board reverse the decision?). [8]
I fear the FFRF is sliding down the path which makes it impossible to dialog on controversial issues such as “gender identity,” wherein one side claims there is only one correct position to hold, and that all others who question them – not even oppose, but just have questions – are bigots or ____ (insert the ad hominin attack of the moment). Ironically, that tactic, which used to be the prime province of religion [9] – blasphemy! – is now being refined by the Left, to the point of it now is being used by an organization that claims it is free from religion. It is batshit crazy makes no sense that the FFRF, whose main mission is fighting to reduce the intrusion into/influence of religion in government, is now censoring science and scientists. And three scientists (Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker) have already resigned as FFRF Honorary Board Members.
The fucked-up regretful decision to pull Coyne’s article (which was done without notifying him! [10] ) and then publish the apology is having WTF ?!?!?! repercussions among freethinkers and humanists. Moiself can’t put it better than this freethinker did in her letter to Barker & Gaylor (full text of letter can be found here, in the comments section; my emphases):
“I’m not sure which disheartens me more: your treatment of Jerry Coyne or your indulgence in religious theatrics. By retracting Coyne’s rebuttal and issuing a public mea culpa embracing trans ideology, you modeled confession and repentance, signaling your virtue at his expense. You also prioritized subjective experience over objective reality—the very problem with religion itself. This undermines your mission to uphold the separation of church and state.”
Here is my email response to the FFRF, re their “apology” post:
I had a bad feeling when I saw, in my email inbox, that the second FFRF blog post (first of all, two is unusual; one per day seems to be the norm) was titled, “Freedom From Religion Foundation supports LGBTQIA-plus rights.” Ummm, yeah? As if that was ever in question? Why the need to repeat the obvious?
Then I read the almost desperate-sounding post. Oh, dear.
“Publishing this post was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values or principles.”
Wait, seriously? Since when are your values – since when are *our values* (I’m a “lifetime” FFRF member) – not evidence- and science-based?
I take it you refer to Jerry Coyne’s “Biology is Not Bigotry” post? If so, this action (removing an FFRF Guest Blog from the FFRF site) is highly disappointing, to say the least, and makes me wonder what kind of pressure was exerted to get Coyne’s post “cancelled.”
I am familiar with Coyne’s work, and find it refreshing to have the science behind such a controversial issue addressed, for laypersons, from a rational (as opposed to religious/hysterical) POV – particularly Coyne’s elucidation of gametes and the repeated conflation of sex and gender. Why was it necessary to remove his post, after you’d posted it with a disclaimer – which, BTW, I’ve always assumed holds true for any guest post- namely, that any one FFRF member does not speak, or think, for all FFRF members?
This makes me fear that the FFRF is letting ideology and politics trump science (and as one of those liberal feminist atheists, I hate to have a reason to use the word “trump” in any form), or will censor any presentation on science on issues that do not toe the line with some activists’ misguided notions of ideological purity. I too am now concerned about the FFRF diluting its “…its historically twofold mission: educating the public about nontheism and keeping religion out of government and social policies,” and straying into “mission creep.”
Sincerely (and sadly), Robyn Parnell
Department Of Make Up Your Own Mind
Here is a link to Coyne’s post, reprinted on the weekly publication Reality’s Last Stand, [11] with this intro/summary of the brouhaha:
At Reality’s Last Stand, we are deeply committed to fostering free speech, scientific discourse, and intellectual courage—values that are increasingly under siege in today’s polarized climate. It is in this spirit that we are republishing Jerry Coyne’s essay, “Biology is Not Bigotry,” which was originally published on the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s (FFRF) website before being abruptly unpublished.
Coyne, an emeritus professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, critically responded to an article by an FFRF intern that argued, “A woman is whoever she says she is.” Despite receiving approval for publication, Coyne’s scientifically grounded critique was unpublished after the FFRF deemed it inconsistent with their values and worried it may cause readers “distress.” Following this decision, both Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins also resigned [12] from the FFRF’s Honorary Board in protest.
By republishing this essay (with the author’s permission), Reality’s Last Stand reaffirms our commitment to upholding rigorous science, free inquiry, and respectful dialogue. Coyne’s essay stands as a critical defense of biology against pseudoscience and as a reminder of the dangers posed by ideological gatekeeping in science and public discourse.
(Colin Wright, CEO/Editor-in-Chief, Reality’s Last Stand )
And here is the link to the FFRF’s misguided, IMO, excuse article as to why they de-published Coyne’s article:
(“Freedom From Religion Foundation supports LGBTQIA-plus rights.”).
* * *
Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week [13]
It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that.”
As if that gives them certain rights. It’s simply a whine,
just no more than a whine. “I find that offensive”: it has no meaning;
it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.
( Stephen Fry, British comedian, actor, writer, humanist activist )
* * *
May you look forward to new questions in the new year;
May you use caution when judging what does – or doesn’t –
reflect your “values and principles;”
May you be mindful of “the dangers posed by ideological gatekeeping
in science and public discourse;”
…and may the hijinks ensue.
Thanks for stopping by. Au Vendredi!
* * *
[1] Specifically, in the pear tree daughter Belle purchased and (with the help of MH) planted many years ago
[2] They did not use that term; sharecroppers was considered pejorative. They were “tenant farmers.”
[3] My father’s parents couldn’t afford shoes for all six of their children, so as the elder kids got shoes, then outgrew them, they handed them down to the younger siblings. You got to wear shoes if there were a pair that happened to fit you. My father went to his proverbial grave not knowing that my mother had shared that story, with my sisters and I, of how our dad was embarrassed as a child when he showed up barefoot at school and was teased by the townie kids, who called him a dumb barefoot farm boy.
[4] Or “Damp January,” if you still have things to toast now and then.
[5] No matter what the SCOTUS rules.
[6] The ad showed an edited interview between Harris and…(?), with Harris explaining an answer re whether a prisoner, while imprisoned, could have sex change/affirming surgery, which would of course be at taxpayer expense. Harris seemed to be fumbling – I have no idea of the context of the interview, and of course it was edited by and for the MAGA ad – but she answered yes) The ad’s voiceover went on to say how Harris “…is for they/them, while tR___ is for *you.*
[7] A tautology is a rhetorical repetition, as in phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice using different words (e.g., ‘always and forever;” “a beginner who has just started”),
[8] …or fire the co-presidents, like a “real” organization’s board can do? Does the FFRF Board actually have any power, or is the FFRF essentially a family organization? For as long as I can remember, Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor (who are also husband and wife) have been FFRF’s co-presidents.
[9] “Those who question our beliefs are tools of the devil; heretics; apostates, blasphemers….”
[10] From Coyne’s site(whyevolutionistrue) : “When some readers pointed out…that Biology is not bigotry was no longer online, I had no idea what happened, and assumed they had relocated the post. I was unable to believe that they would actually remove my post, especially because FFRF co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor had given me permission to write it and approved the final published version. I emailed Annie Laurie inquiring what had happened to my piece. I never got a response—or rather, they didn’t have the human decency to write me back personally.” Instead Coyne received what I and apparently all FFRF members received: Barker & Gaylor’s “apology blog.” In which, as he noted, “… they refer to my piece, they mention neither who wrote the piece or what it was about. If I’m to be cancelled for what I wrote, dammit, I want my NAME and TOPIC mentioned!”
[11] “Reality’s Last Stand is a publication by evolutionary biologist Dr. Colin Wright dedicated to providing weekly news, analysis, and opinion on topics related to free speech, science, and reality.” (from the site).
[12] Dawkin’s “very civil” resignation letter can be read here.
[13] “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org
