AndromedasWake and I attended a conversation between Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers yesterday. Well, we tried. But we were slightly obstructed by the protesters who forcibly entered the theatre and then hippied up the whole damn shooting match.

Protesters? Oh, yes. You may count upon it.

Members of the Education Activist Network spent about half an hour sitting on the stage and talking nonsense. I gather they’re annoyed with Dawkins for his involvement with AC Grayling’s New College for the Humanities, about which they are disgusted, I tell you.

The gist seems to be a) it costs a lot and b) we can’t afford it therefore it is c) an affront to the laws of God and Man. According to the EAN, education is a “human right”, which I don’t think really follows, but even if it is, how do you quantify exactly how MUCH education is a human right? Is it basic levels of numeracy and literacy? Or is it the kind of suave service Grayling aims to provide?

I had to wonder about these protesters, these predominately young, groomed and foppish types as they flounced around the stage. The purpose seemed mainly to have good hair and pose dramatically, rather than effect any meaningful dialogue. I don’t imagine many involved will have donated all their spare money to educational charities, or devoted their spare time to mentoring and private tutoring. They probably like bursting into rooms and then not making sense.

Let’s dismantle the notion that expensive, private education is somehow bad. Assume that I, over a period of years, create an institute to teach guitar. It takes me a lot of time, money and effort, and is done with the aid of many people. In order to recoup my losses and in order to pay for the highest standards of tutelage, the costs are high. Does anyone have the right to complain? Nope. It’s my college and I can charge what I like. No-one has the right to free or cheap guitar tuition; it’s an exchange of money for a service. Even if education is a human right, is an exceptional education a human right? Grayling et al are trying to create extraordinarily high standards of service; costs will, correspondingly, be high.

Let’s make it even simpler. You go to Greggs (a bakery chain in the UK, not sure if it’s worldwide) and a cake is cheap. Got to Les Cakery de Pierre van de Gateaux, in Richtown, and a cake is expensive. But it will be a damn nice cake. Does anyone protest the fact that some cakes are too expensive for people to afford? Hell no. If a bunch of people decide to set up a private institution to offer a service, and the service is an elite one that cannot be sustained without high fees, how is it the right of poor people to demand the abolishment of same? At least it’s an institution devoted to the dissemination of knowledge, even if everyone can’t afford it. What the EAN are actually trying to do is reduce the number of educational establishments, on the grounds that they can’t afford them even though they have no right to expect to be able to afford them.

There was a Q&A at the end, but it seemed that the remaining protesters (many having been removed by police earlier) didn’t want to rush to the microphones, which you might have thought would be their purpose. Mainly they remained in their seats and heckled rather than taking the chance to directly converse with Dawkins on the subject.

Class act, guys.

But in Short, He’s all my Nightmares wrapped up in one disgusting cowardly person who’se level of insanity approaches and possibly exceeds that of a “Nephilimfree” or “VenomFangX”

What does one do when approached by such characters like Nephy or OFU? What do you do when someone simply dismisses all the Documentation and evidence i have provided to support my side as nothing more than “Zionist Propaganda”?

What does one do with someone who has an unhealthy obsession with the hair shaven from the victims before they went into the Gas Chambers. I explained Via quoting some Nazi Docs that the hair shaven off was used in the Textiles industry. One of those Docs mentions a usage of hair in the manufacturing of hair-yarn socks for U-boat crews. He picked that line up and tried to bastardize my broader point by now he’s demanding examples of, In his words “Jew Hair Socks”. What am i to do?

Well it turns out that i dont think there is not alot i can do. No matter how much evidence one puts forward to support my case, No matter how long and detailed my arguments are. [Im one of those rare people that doesn't see the 500 character limit on youtube as a limit.] It’s going to be ignored or distorted anyways, The best thing to do is argue not for the sake of winning my opponent over [I clearly do not think i can] but better to get the truth to a potential third party who may read the lies and distortions given by such loons. That is what i believe the essence of the public sphere and debate is. Winning others over.

There is a reason why i ask “what can i do?” here, on a Forum designed to promote Critical Thinking and whose members alot of them specialise in the rebuttial of creationist claims. It is because i believe Holocaust denial and Creationism have their similarities. Yes i know With one, are denying something which i, Like any other decent person considers to be a well demonstrated and well proven fact of Nature. With the other, You’re denying something which I any other decent person considers to be a well demonstrated and well proven fact of History. Both employ similar methods of denial. Ranging From Quote-mines to inserting things which really aren’t, and so on! Gleaning your info from ideological Hacks which is what both do doesn’t do you any favours

But is this superficial? Im hoping it isn’t. I have plenty of experience debating Beck-heads as anyone on the chat will verify. But my experience of debating pure fundamentalists like OFU is minimal. If anyone experienced with debating creationists can help me out with these questions, They are more than welcome, especialy as with regards to how to engage idiots like OFU

Whatever you’re up to, I hope you have a good one and continue to stop by at League of Reason in 2011.

Clear skies!

P.S. Don’t forget to swing by The Official Xmas Thread!

I have lived through a decade of Ground Zero controversy. From the moment the dust settled, individuals and groups with political agendas descended on the wounded carcass of lower Manhattan, cutting out and dishing up great slabs of suffering to serve at the gluttonous feast of their ambitions.

“All of Ground Zero should be declared hallowed ground”, “The memorial in light should remain until the towers are rebuilt”, “it should be called the Freedom Tower”, “THIS tower design is a better memorial than that one”, “A design contest will show the true spirit of American freedom”, “The stairway to heaven can’t be moved, it would be disrespectful!”, “The beams that form a cross cannot be moved, God placed them there!”

It has gone on and on, year after year.

Politicians and activists stand in the shadow of the ruins, strike noble stances, bow their heads sorrowfully and then declare; “Vote for me! Support me!”

This is what angered me so much about Thunderf00t’s video. It was clearly yet another attempt to ride the emotional tide of Ground Zero.  The great Thunderf00t, long known as a scion of education, reason and logic on YouTube, had spoken out on the issue and had not addressed any of the real facts, had not applied his supposed keen, razor sharp intellect to the falsehoods and bigotry flying about; instead he had created a video that in my opinion, was total, absolute shit.  Like many others before him he had gone the base, common route of indulging himself in fallacy and hate at the expense of reason; at the expense of the people who call that neighborhood… “home”.

I won’t bother to repeat here any of the facts that destroy the many fallacious arguments against the Park 51 Center. But suffice it to say; there has not been a single “factual” argument put forward that has not turned out to be a lie – and in each case it was a lie that could be traced back to some Republican/neo-con right wing source.

I will address one argument that I keep hearing raised time and again.

“Why don’t they just place the Center somewhere else?”

This appeal to emotion, to supposed sensibility and rationality, is one of the most insidious arguments put forward. It totally ignores fact and reality, attempting to portray the opposing side as inconsiderate and unreasonable.

The Downtown Muslim community has existed since before the building of the World Trade Center. Since that time, it has grown. After 9/11, when businesses and families fled Downtown and moved elsewhere, the Muslim Community continued to grow. They are a part of Downtown. They live there, shop there, own businesses there, send their children to local schools. And they already have a mosque right there, a couple of blocks away, that has been there for years. It is now, however, too small for their community, insufficient for their needs in many ways, and needs to be replaced.

So I ask back to those who raise this question;

In a time when economic hardship is the norm, why should they NOT have their Center located where they live and work instead of at another location where the trip would cost them a few hundred dollars a month in transportation expenses not to mention an hour’s time round trip?

Why should they have to raise the additional funds to purchase a building at greater cost when they already have one?

Why should you, who have no connection to the area, with your offended sensibilities, based on your irrational emotional response, dictate how these people live their lives?
And why should the entire neighborhood, Muslim and non-Muslim, be denied the much-needed business and income that will result from the existence of the new community center?

September 11th has passed. On September 12th the politicians, the activists, the bloggers, the news sources put away their fiery rhetoric, set aside their somber expressions, wiped away their crocodile tears and for another ten months Ground Zero will be forgotten.  The tourists will still come in droves to view the site where one of the greatest tragedies in American history took place. But just blocks away, streets that were once teeming with pedestrians now contain only a ghost of that once busy traffic.  Businesses will continue to struggle. Some will survive. Others will not. Life in Downtown Manhattan will continue – Until next year, when some new controversy will be fabricated and the whole circus will begin again.

Someday, the Two Towers will stand again. But we must ask ourselves now;

“What do we want these Towers to mean?”

Do we wish them to be a symbol of the freedom and equality that we have always been told embody the American spirit?

Or do we wish to build an icon to the fear, bigotry and hatred that now dominate the American landscape?

This is TheTruePooka, writing to you from Hell’s Kitchen, NYC. And Remember; if you find these words upsetting; Pet the Cat.

The initial debate subject was Creation and Evolution. Of course, that’s not actually a debate, it’s just the teams. The debate requires a proposition (for example, “Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?”) for which one party can argue in favour, and one against. Without such a statement, NephilimFree’s proposal was akin to establishing a game called Chelsea and Manchester United, and then refusing to further specify what game they are actually playing. Without establishing that they are playing football (or soccer to my American friends) we have no rules in place to determine how the game can actually be won or lost. Likewise, Creation and Evolution (and the long list of other subjects NephilimFree listed he wanted to discuss) is not a debate; it’s just two nouns.

For a couple of days a debate question was established and agreed upon by both parties, as was the issue with moderators. It was shortly after that NephilimFree insisted on returning to his original proposition (despite being thoroughly educated about why it was not a debate) and began accusing DonExodus2 of backing out. I wish to make my it clear that from my position as a third person, it is NephilimFree who I think is being unreasonable, and rejecting previously accepted terms without giving good reasons.

Due to the conflict of understanding, the debate as originally planned will certainly not be going ahead, but perhaps that’s a good thing after all. On Friday, Thunderf00t posted a video detailing the first ever League of Reason Show. It’s an idea that myself and others have been considering for a long time, and since NephilimFree won’t be showing up to BlogTV (by his own admission) we have a good excuse to kick it off this weekend.

The format is quite simple; we will be using Skype and BlogTV to broadcast a group discussion, and taking questions live from creationists, or those of a theistic position who feel they can back up their claims. In order to do this, we have created a LoR Skype account (LeagueOfReason) which must be added before a question can be submitted, and a new BlogTV channel.

The show will last 2 hours, giving everyone time to pop over to watch The Atheist Experience on ustream. We won’t deny that our show is flagrantly derivative of their own, we just hope there’s room for one more. To further rip them off, we will also be uploading clips to our YouTube channel and they should be available on Monday for most people. We are not yet sure how regularly this show will take place, but dependent on the turnout, we would like to make it a weekly affair.

The show starts at 3pm EST, which is 8pm BST. This is 7pm GMT, but remember to take Summer Time into account. In any case, I recommend turning up early of course, and I hope to see you all there in the chat!

However, you develop an unfair bias of a newspaper when you peruse it mainly to find new nonsense to write about in your blog. You ignore all rational articles about politics\current affairs\crossbows to the face and concentrate only on articles that guarantee a spout of vitriol frothy enough to incur a transparent sense of self-righteousness. And as a result, your perception is that the chosen paper exists only to print stories about religion, druids and the supernatural. Unfair, since the Metro regularly dishes out reasonably informative articles about modern science and astronomy.

My last fodder was about druids fixing roads, and it’s hard to have sympathy for a publication that will indulge itself with such asinine balls. But almost the next day, indeed it could have been the next day, the Metro printed this. Our very own Phil Plait, who I have happily if briefly met (and who disillusioned me slightly by expressing a certain reserve for District 9, damn it Phil when will you see that guys in alien power armour are the next Casablanca) blogged about a photo of a lunar rock that had rolled into a crater. The Metro picked this up and wrote the small piece to which I just linked.

They could have taken Phil’s approach, which was “OMFG space is awesome and beautiful”. And they sort of did. But they also titled the article “Proof that golf-playing God shot a hole-in-one on the Moon?”

Facedesk.

Why, why would you do this? What manner of journalist would take a story about a lunar event of some rarity and make it into terrifyingly inept pun-based  pseudoscience? Am I only this annoyed because I loathe religion? No, I don’t think I am. The image itself deserved a tone of joyous solemnity (and sure, Phil played with a few golfing metaphors himself before getting into the science of it; I imagine the Metro stole the idea.) But that wouldn’t have been enough to make a prominent article; only invoking God could elevate the story into something worthy of News. Not content with printing stories about supernatural druidical assholery, they feel the need to take stories of astronomical wonder and create supernatural assholery. ” . . . this picture suggests that the Almighty could have had a round or two on the grey course – and even scored a hole-in-one.” What? You can almost hear the satisfied smirk as it drips off the journo’s face and congeals in the folds of his Armani tie.

You were so close to redeeming yourself, Metro. Now I hate you hate you hate you.

Print news, fine. Even if that means factually reporting on nonsense, fine. But taking science and jokingly inserting God? I will end you. With sticks.

Perhaps more than anything else in recent years, it is in light of the introduction of The Amaz!ng Meeting in Europe that no one can deny the rising tide of scepticism around the globe.

I wasn’t alone when I arrived so fresh and early. Aside from a trickle of sceptics congregating near the door, I was accompanied by my good friend and fellow League blogger, Th1sWasATriumph. “Christ,” I hear you say, “what an asshole!”

Yes it’s true, but as I said, he’s a good friend, and sometimes you have to look past the myriad flaws in an individual’s character – an individual whose very acronym is ‘TWAT’ – and see him for the beautiful, loveable atheist within. Besides, I wasn’t stuck alone with him. Shortly after our arrival we were greeted by RabbitPirate  (this came as something as a surprise, as RP hadn’t once mentioned that he was attending TAM), League regular Josan and several members of YouTube’s sceptic community.

Once inside, we were treated to entertaining and informative talks, jokes, and even songs from a great variety of presenters. So awesome was the event, that I struggled to find the energy to write a comprehensive review (I will this year, I promise) so instead I’ll refer you to the one posted by the Hampshire Skeptic’s Society. You can also find a gallery of photos on my Facebook page (apparently you need to be signed into Facebook to view them) most of which were shot with a telephoto lens from the second row for close-up goodness. My short review is that somehow, the word ‘amazing’ doesn’t do it justice. For me it was a great opportunity to meet and thank some of the people who have inspired me to become vocal about my scepticism, atheism and love for astronomy (*cough* Phil Plait *cough*), and particularly symbolic as a landmark critical thinking conference held in my own country.

Thanks to the sell-out success of the London debut, this year’s second round has been announced and detailed for  the weekend of October 16th and 17th. The line-up is excellent (though I must confess to not recognising all of the names) and the whole thing is sure to attract more media attention thanks to several high-profile attendees.

This is a fantastic opportunity to raise public awareness of the sceptical cause and the importance of education. It’s also the perfect excuse to get some of the League together and represent our corner of the intertubes. It was, as I said, quite a surprise to bump into anyone aware of the site at last year’s event, but we’ve grown since then; who knows how many attendees could be reading? League of Reason is primarily a UK website – that is, it’s hosted in the UK with British administrators, and TAM London is the premier British event of its kind. Although our user base spans the entire globe, we have a comparatively strong European influence over other rationalist internet forums. What better way to represent than with a meet-up at TAM? I am also working on a League outreach programme, which many have shown interest in, so stay tuned for that!

Tickets for TAM London 2010, which are £220, go on sale on the 29th May (yes, this Saturday!) and I would expect them to sell out quickly. There is even a slim chance I won’t get one, but for the love of Loki I’ll give it my best shot. Th1sWasATriumph will also be attending this year’s event pending availability, as will Josan. Expect a League pub jaunt following the weekend’s festivities (i.e. get Monday off work) and some kind of t-shirt campaign in the run-up to October.

I began writing this post yesterday, and by the time I came back to it today, three new speakers had been added to the bill; among them, Richard Dawkins! Dawkins was unable to make last year’s event, as was James Randi (sadly due to illness) but this year it seems they will be joined by the one and only PZ Myers to form a trio of unstoppable ass-kicking. Do you really need any more convincing? To me, the only drawback is the lack of Phil Plait, who I had the pleasure of meeting at last year’s event. Phil, you will be sorely missed.

Finally, I have a special message for you PZ. Yes, I know you’re reading. I know you’re the one who creates endless, unoriginally named accounts to spam our forums with anti-atheist flame bait. Since you have mentioned me (twice) on your blog, I will be waiting for you in London, stalking in the shadows like a science ninja. I’m going to find you and I’m going to PESTER YOUR FACE OFF.

That said, who’s with me? Full details including accommodation information can be found over at tamlondon.org. TAM London is also on Facebook and Twitter. Lastly, my prediction for the weekend’s events.

[Item] or [practice] nullifies or negates the effects, presence, activity or consequences of [entity], [energy], or [phenomenon]. How can you tell? Because absolutely nothing is happening, and so the [item] or [practice] is a legitimate success. This stone keeps away bears. You can tell because you don’t see any bears around here . . . yes, this stone IS for sale. How expensive? Completely.

 This kind of non-logic is still happening today, and not only is it still happening but it’s actively endorsed by government bodies. Welcome to Austria, where a hitherto fatality-laden length of motorway near Salzburg has been fixed. By magic.

Druid Ilmar Tessman has blamed the high accident rate on a local mobile phone mast, which spreads “negative radiation over 120-200 miles.”

The accident rate has been reduced to zero in two years by the use of standing stones and magnets, apparently. Responding to scientific skeptics who say “Whatever can’t be measured does not exist” (Dr Georg Walach, Leoben University), Tessman says “If you ask me to give you a scientific explanation, I can’t. I just know it works, and even critics can’t argue with our success rate.”

Guess what? They can. I find it bogglingly, numbingly depressing that such nonsense is tolerated, let alone invested in as a valid solution. Instead of subjecting such findings to further research – and think about it, if you genuinely were sure that cheap edifices of stone, plastic and magnets could prevent car accidents surely you’d research the hell out of it, given that it represents a new stage of physics – this coincidental nonsense is simply allowed to continue. Drivers on these dangerous roads, whose risk factor has not been reduced in the slightest by these druidical interventions, will drive thinking they’re safe. I’ll tell you for free what reduced the rate of accidents – coincidence. People happened not to die for two years running, which is hardly surprising on a well known accident black spot. The more notorious the area becomes, the more careful drivers will be on it. Makes sense, I feel. But now? Drivers will think that elemental magic protects them from harm, and will quite possibly drive more dangerously as a result.

Grow up, world. If Tessman has truly stumbled on a new arena of scientific endeavour, don’t you think he should write a few papers on the subject?

You can find on the internet, today, people who genuinely think they have psychic or telekinetic powers. Imagine the new depths of Tessman’s delusion now that he’s been told he can fix road traffic fatalities. It’s cruel, when you think about it.

A Muslim woman has been fined for wearing a burka in a post office in Novara, Italy, after the mayor passed a law forbidding face-covering garb inside public buildings. Mayor Massimo Giordano could maybe be described as an Islamophobe, but as far as I’m concerned that’s like calling someone a murderophobe or a rapistophobe. It’s entirely rational to dislike or fear Islam, which makes it not a phobia but a very sensible intellectual stance.

Hands up who’s seen, in the UK (I can speak for no other country, being not well-travelled) signs in banks/shops/post offices etc forbidding the wearing of motorcycle helmets? Exactly; lots of ‘em. Seems sensible to me. You don’t want someone shotgunning a hole through the till and making off with the money whilst disguised. Even ignoring the implications that burkas hold regarding the rights of women in Islam, illegalising a clothing that makes identification near-impossible is an act of common sense. If the burka was outlawed in all public spaces I’d have pause for thought; I’d think it was a breach of personal rights if not for the fact that burka wearing is pretty much imposed either by a man or by indoctrination to the religion. 

And how have the Muslim couple in question reacted to this? Well, check this – when the woman (Amel Marmouri) was stopped by police, her husband (Ben Braim) wouldn’t let the burka be removed by male policemen. Presumably the sight of an unclothed face would have led to an instant and massive sexbrawl. 

Kind of proving my point that burkas are often imposed, Braim is quoted as saying “We knew about the law and I know that it’s not against my religion but now Amel will have to stay indoors. I can’t have other men looking at her.” 

Outstanding. He’d rather imprison his wife than allow her outside barefaced. That shows an admirable commitment to your faith, doesn’t it? It’s worth noting that Imam Izzedin Elzir, president of the Islamic Community and Organisations Union in Italy, said ” . . . we are against face veils or coverings in Italy because the law of recognition has to be observed.” So it’s not all bad . . . but does that mean that Muslim women in Italy are allowed out without a burka? Or does it mean they’re law-abidingly confined away from the gaze of other men? I hope, I really hope, that it’s the former.

As I anticipated would happen, Rabbitpirate beat me to laying the first League blogstone on the subject of Simon Singh and his sudden victory. Since I’m not a petty man/as good as Rabbitpirate, I’d love to see him do a longer musing on the subject without the dilution that my opinions would create. However I just wanted to highlight one thing.

Quoting from the BCA’s press release, “The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close. ”

Isn’t that beautiful? The legal equivalent of saying “I could smash your face in, I could . . . any time I wanted . . . only I’m not going to. Any time. But now I’m going home.” For “been advised there are strong grounds for appeal” read “quick, save face ANY WAY WE GODDAMN CAN.” And what’s the best way to save face? Lie. If there were truly strong grounds for appeal the BCA, an organisation that has happily made a decent, genuine, intelligent and (I’m fortunate to know this from personal experience) really lovely man suffer tremendously for years, would without hesitation appeal to continue. Of course they would. Singh said mean*, hurtful** and unfortunately absolutely true things about them so they responded with petty legality. If there was the slightest chance the case could be pursued, don’t you think the BCA would go for it? Just to hurt Simon? 

I love seeing people forced to back down after attempting to use laws to censor dissenting voices. We’ve all had our run-ins with DMCAs on Youtube, but Singh has become the poster boy for hope and reason against the odds. And as the BCA sidles grumbling into the shadows, we can only hope that libel laws everywhere face a swift dissolution.

Rabbitpirate? Over to you, sir.

* “You are all frauds”

** “Your mothers are ladies of questionable moral integrity”

I’d hoped that childishly ripping on Gabriele Amorth, Righteous Exorcist 1st Class Of The Holy Vatican, might be the last slur I cast in the direction of Catholicism. My hope was in vain.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, second highest in the Vatican – sort of a third-hand God – has denied that enforced celibacy is behind child abuse in the Church. His alternative hypothesis is that homosexuality is to blame. Now, I would really like to be surprised at this point. It would mean that I still felt there was some distance left for the Vatican to fall, but considering their leader thinks homosexuality is objectively wrong – among many other equally jaw-dropping transgressions of reason – surprise is nowhere to be found. Merely a weary resignation. I imagine I would feel the same had I a young offspring to whose tireless destruction I returned every evening. You just go with it.

‘ . . . many [psychologists and psychiatrists] have demonstrated, and have told me recently, that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. This is true, this is the problem,’ said Bertone. Wouldn’t it be nice if, just once, a religious authority referred to peer-reviewed research and evidence after hurling such slurs? But let’s not forget that we’re dealing with an organisation grimly dedicated to avoiding responsibility. Blame the gays, because obviously they’re not right in the eyes of the Lord anyway. Or blame Satan. Anything rather than say “Yeah, a lot of our guys are partial to abusing and raping kids. We’re sorry about that and will be instituting rigorous strictures in the future. Also, here’s a shitload of compensation to make reparations. Additionally, we’re dissolving Catholicism because recent studies prove that it just doesn’t work.”

Such fun.

Read this and then tell me how you feel.

Summation: you know how the Catholic church is always getting itself into scrapes? Especially recently? Well, according to their Chief Exorcist Gabriele Amorth (I was dry-mouthed with shock at discovering they actually have official Exorcists, let alone an Exorcism hierarchy sufficient to allow for a Chief Exorcist), any and all inappropriate shiz that Catholics do is directly the work of Satan. This includes not only child abuse but apostasy, which isn’t something I would necessarily regard as Satan’s grinning face. Can I hear anyone say “No true Scotsman”? It’s perfect! If you step out of line – deny Jesus here, rape a boy there – you’re not a Catholic, you’re a shambling ragdoll maliciously puppeted by the Dark King himself. By definition, a Catholic becomes someone who would never do something that a Catholic would not do. 

How . . . crawling do you have to be to avoid accountability in this way? To say that any human activity threatening to stain the reputation of the Church is in fact the work of Satan? It’s horribly akin to bedding a whole army of cheerleaders and then, when Society raises a cautionary eyebrow, claiming that you have an addiction to sex and you will seek white man medicine. Of course, I should acknowledge that Amorth’s view is not accepted wholesale – Father José Antonio Fortea Cucurull believes that Amorth has “gone well beyond the evidence”. But I think it’s bad enough that Catholicism’s Chief Exorcist (a title, might I add, with as much application to reality as “Chief Dream Catcher” or “Chief Negative Energy Dispeller” or, of course, “Astrologer”), a high-ranking official of the church, believes something so chilling. Presumably he believes in homophobia as well, so maybe believing in Satan isn’t such a big deal over there.

Human accountability to actions? Not in Catholicism, baby. As I said, it’s admirable.

Be sure to check out the preview video on YouTube, and pause around the 5:08 mark to see four of LoR’s finest giggling away like a bunch of twats. You can also click the image below to embiggen and gaze upon our collective, annotated beauty. There were several other League/YouTube sceptics there too, and it was great to meet you all! TAM London 2 is official and I still have a large collection of photos to share from the first event. Keep your eyes peeled for a blog post all about this (oh yes, it’s going to be epic!)