Richard Dawkins gave a full-throated interview to Fox News Radio this week, calling it “disgraceful” that Republican presidential candidates believe in creationism. The renowned biologist and author, in the US to peddle his latest tome ‘Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science,’ told host Alan Colmes evolution was a “fact” that cannot be "seriously" disbelieved.

During the exchange, Dawkins was asked if he thought religious people were “mentally ill.”
“It’s hard to use the word ‘mentally ill’ when there are so many of them,” the Briton responded. “If they believed what they did and they were the only ones they would undoubtedly be called mentally ill.”

--snip--

“They’re all creationists, which really is disgraceful," said Dawkins. "The fact that one of the two major political parties, every single candidate except one says they don’t believe in evolution, they don’t even believe in the fundamental principle of biology, which is a fact.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/16/richard-dawkins-fox-news-radio-creationism_n_8313640.html

If you're pregnant, and can choose which hospital to go to, do not go to a Catholic one. I'm serious. It is finally coming to light that Catholic hospitals are systematically denying pregnant women essential health care, even when their life is at stake. It’s unethical, illegal, and just plain wrong.

One horrifying recent example is Jessica Mann’s story. While Mrs. Mann was pregnant with her third child, her doctors explained to her that, because she had preexisting brain tumors, a subsequent pregnancy could kill her. They highly recommended that when she delivers her baby she get a tubal ligation to prevent another pregnancy, and that she do so at the same to time as she delivers her baby to avoid the serious (and completely unnecessary) risk to her health that would be caused by a second procedure. Even when brain tumors or other health concerns aren’t a factor, the safest and best time for a woman to have a tubal ligation is immediately after delivery while she is still in the hospital.

Mrs. Mann’s OB/GYN is trained and willing to tie her tubes, but the Catholic hospital where Mrs. Mann planned to deliver — and where she delivered her other children — is prohibiting Mrs. Mann’s doctor from performing the procedure because of religious rules written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that govern what care the hospital will offer to patients. Those rules, called the Ethical and Religious Directives, apply even when the patient’s doctor says that the care is medically necessary.

Catholic hospitals also routinely put the health of women suffering from miscarriages at risk, as well. That is exactly what happened to Tamesha Means. Ms. Means was in the middle of her pregnancy, looking forward to having another child, when her water broke. She rushed to the only hospital emergency room in her area — which happened to be a Catholic one — and she was turned away three times despite being in excruciating pain and eventually developing a life-threatening infection. The pregnancy was doomed, but because of the Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives, the hospital never told her that, giving her false hope that she could go on to have a healthy baby. The hospital also never told her that she was putting her life at risk by not terminating the pregnancy. Ms. Means finally started to deliver while she was being sent home for the third time. That’s when the hospital finally decided to treat her.

Sadly, these aren’t isolated incidents. Today, one in nine hospital beds is in Catholic-affiliated institutions that receive public money, but which abide by the Ethical and Religious Directives when providing medical care. That just isn’t right. Patients ought to be able to rest assured that their care is determined by their doctor’s best judgment, not someone else’s religious views, particularly when the hospital receives public funds.

http://www.refinery29.com/2015/10/95984/catholic-hospitals-pregnancy-lawsuits-tubes-tied-aclu

Saudi Arabia has introduced a series of new laws which define atheists as terrorists, according to a report from Human Rights Watch.

In a string of royal decrees and an overarching new piece of legislation to deal with terrorism generally, the Saudi King Abdullah has clamped down on all forms of political dissent and protests that could "harm public order".

The new laws have largely been brought in to combat the growing number of Saudis travelling to take part in the civil war in Syria, who have previously returned with newfound training and ideas about overthrowing the monarchy.

To that end, King Abdullah issued Royal Decree 44, which criminalises "participating in hostilities outside the kingdom" with prison sentences of between three and 20 years, Human Rights Watch said.

Yet last month further regulations were issued by the Saudi interior ministry, identifying a broad list of groups which the government considers to be terrorist organisations - including the Muslim Brotherhood.

Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html

Here’s a newsflash for liberals who first swooned over Pope Francis’s U.S. visit, only to be stunned and dismayed by reports that he had met with Kim Davis at the Vatican Embassy before departing Washington on Thursday. Francis’s statements and gestures of inclusiveness for immigrants and the homeless, his exhortations to save the environment and address income inequality, his kisses and blessings to disabled children, and his meeting with Davis are all consistent with his role as head of the Catholic Church.

In other words, to use an old cliché, the Pope is still Catholic.

Too many American progressives have pinned unrealistic hopes on Francis being a breath of fresh air, a new kind of Pope, a man of the people, a liberal, a magician who could not only singlehandedly reform a byzantine institution but miraculously quell the American culture wars with his winsome ways.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard progressives, even ardent secularists, sigh with admiration, “I love that guy.” Which is fine. There are things to love about him. But he is a religious leader of a religious institution whose framework for seeing the world defies contemporary American political categories. He’s not a liberal. He’s not a conservative. He’s a Catholic.

The catechism of the Catholic Church declares “homosexual acts” to be “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law,” even as it also states that “men and women with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Francis’s actions have been consistent with this teaching, on the one hand opposing any change in Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, but on the other according gay people—for instance, Mo Rocca—some basic respect.

Many of Francis’s pronouncements are opaque, but it is hard not to see what he meant when, in his speech to Congress last week, he worried that “fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family.” Sure, there are other issues that concern Catholics about “the very basis of marriage,” like pre- and extra-marital sex and divorce, but same-sex marriage is unquestionably part of that equation, too.

Francis also made pointed comments about religious freedom, the heart of the claim that Davis should be permitted to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses. He paid an unexpected visit to the Little Sisters of the Poor, the order of nuns that has engaged in protracted litigation with the Obama administration over whether signing a form exempting the group from providing contraception coverage violates their religious liberty. Francis also praised the American bishops, who have planted their feet firmly in the culture wars with campaigns to oppose LGBT and reproductive rights in the guise of religious freedom, for “remind[ing] us all. . . to be vigilant. . . to preserve and defend [religious liberty] from everything that would threaten and compromise it.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/liberals-shocked-saddened-that-pope-francis-meets-with-kim-davis

In recent days, Pope Francis has talked a lot about tolerance and freedom of conscience. But he has failed to distinguish between those who truly suffer from persecution and discrimination and those who claim to be persecuted when told they may not discriminate.

True prisoners of conscience are even now suffering punishments grotesque and medieval for exercising their right to criticize religion. But during his visit to the United States last week, the Pope chose instead to focus his attention and sympathies on a government employee who decided that her faith trumped her legal obligations and the constitutional rights of others.

Pope Francis met secretly with Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who refused to sign off on marriage documents for same-sex couples, citing religious objections. Speaking to journalists on the plane back to Europe, Francis explicitly endorsed this kind of discrimination, calling it "conscientious objection" and a "duty."


But what does the Pope have to say about atheists and secularists who have been jailed, attacked or killed for expressing their own conscientious objections to religion?

Nothing.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/living/pope-francis-religious-freedom/index.html