Daily Archives: August 27, 2010

The Mosque at Ground Zero: “Don’t Build It”

The Center for Inquiry in Amherst NY has come out against the mosque. I’ve been pretty much avoiding this topic (not for any particularly good reason) other than to note the gagging teabaggers beating up on non-pink people that they assume are Kaaaaiiiiliiii terrorists or something.

But DuWayne Brayton posted a link, with commentary, to the CFI’s statement on the mosque, and, I find myself respectfully disagreeing with DuWayne and going in with the CFI on this one.

Religion did this. The terrorist attack was a religious event. I don’t want a mosque or a temple or a church or community center linked to a religion built in the vicinity of the destroyed World Trade Center on account of the attack any more than I want a religious structure built next to the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City on account of that religious attack by Christian White Supremacist McVay.

In fact, I suggest in a comment on DuWayne’s post what should really happen in New York City.

Medical blogging; Ask a naturalist; Darwin was Rong research

Check out the Furious Purpose blog, written by a long time denizen of the Internet, yet newish blogger, written by …

…an overworked emergency room doctor, a father and citizen, and I blog infrequently about stuff that interests me.This might include things like Health, Politics, Religion, and whatever tickles my fancy !

I have a particular interest in issues related to public health including health politics, the role of religion in public life, and rationalism/skepticism.

I’ll leave it to you to go find the post that focuses on yours truly, but really, the rest of the blog is quite interesting and there is a lot of promise here. Medical blogs can be among the most interesting.

Have you got a question about nature? Ask a Naturalist . The blog claims:

Just post it at Ask a Naturalist.com, and I’ll do my best to answer as quickly as possible. If I don’t know the answer, I’ll research it and find out if anyone does. And if no one knows why or what or how, I’ll explain why your question is such a difficult one. After all, there are so many questions about nature for which we don’t yet have answers.

And, if you want to know more about the paper that recently raised the furor over Darwin being Rong and stuff, you can read the blog post about it by one of the authors.

I think the work is important and interesting, but I’ve never seen an advanced study of “competition” that does not parse competition out into a number of types, some of which would include niche-related effects. So, I conclude that a) the Darwin was Rong thing was actually part of the original work, inappropriately, b) the work is still interesting and c) we must learn as scientists and science commentators that the press will always grab and run with certain themes no matter what we do. Anyway, go read the blog post and the comments.