Tag Archives: religion

The Bible, I swear!

Posted on by

It happens in every court-room drama. A person places their hand on a book and invokes an incantation like So I swear or So help me God. It also happens in reality in many countries during the swearing-in ceremonies of leaders.

People place their hand on a book, and with a straight face proclaim that they will do good. And they believe that placing their hand on a book documents their sincerity.

A book that condones slavery, misogyny, and genocide.

Am I the only one worried by this? I mean, I understand if followers of IS or Taliban do something like this. They mean business. But I feel that if you swear on the Bible or Quran, you might as well place your right hand on the hilt of the blood-dripping sword that just decapitated the last free woman. Actually, that would be a step up.

So it must be religious thing. Which has me a bit stumped – at least for Christians: swearing on the Bible is ostensibly one of the least Christian things you can do: Matthew 5:34-37 and James 5:12 pretty much say that you must not swear:

“Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else.”

Well I guess it’s another one of those Christian ticks: believing you are doing right by the book you didn’t read.

If you ask me, people shouldn’t be swearing on or by the bible.

They should swear at it.

Moroccan Motherlode

Posted on by

A couple of days ago, a major brouhaha erupted over a remark that Bill Maher and Sam Harris made on Maher’s show Real Time. Maher and Harris contended that the majority of Muslims entertain morally unacceptable beliefs. Ben Affleck, another guest at the show, became hostile, and accused Maher and Harris of being prejudiced and racists.

Yet, they were merely stating a fact, and Affleck seems to have fallen prey to hyper-politically correctness. When you say that the majority of US Republicans is religious and believes that Jesus died on the cross, that is a provable fact. It is also a provable fact that the majority of Muslims believe that the appropriate punishment for apostasy is death. Not a few freaks – the majority. And that is a morally unacceptable tenet.

Yesterday, the Guardian reported the story of a british subject, Ray Cole, who was arrested and illegally detained in Morocco on grounds of being gay.

As Cole recounts:

At the police station, although still not under arrest, Cole knew why they had been taken. “Straight away [there was] the insinuation that we were homosexual,” says Cole, “They said, ‘We’ve got religion here. You’re filth and scum.’ They did their best to humiliate us.”

These homophobes are not fundamentalists – they are everyday (and probably otherwise kind and upstanding) Moroccan citizen. Their problem: they adhere to a deeply homophobic ideology. Our problem: these believers are the majority in Morocco.

[edit Oct-19]
Last Thursday, the Pakistani High court dismissed Aasiya Bibi Noreen’s appeal and upheld her death sentence. Her crime: Blasphemy against Alla. In Pakistan their High Court is convinced that the appropriate punishment for blasphemy is death.

Maher and Harris nailed it. The majority of Muslims hold immoral tenets. It is high time we stop this PC bullshit and look the problem squarely in the face. Stop making allowances where none should be made.

Tip-toeing Tutors

Posted on by

A research paper shows how English secondary school teachers handle the question of how to bridge the gap between religion and science. The researchers found out that science and religious education teachers tackle this problem differently:

Both RE and science teachers were aware that a “science vs religion” viewpoint turned some students off their subjects. Science teachers responded by emphasising “respect” for religion but avoiding controversial discussion, whereas RE teachers tackled the tension. While there is some curriculum guidance about science for RE teachers, science teachers have little guidance or help on how to address science and religion, and so are negotiating their own way through this difficult territory.

This is an artificial problem, and the tack that the science teachers take is dangerously wrong. Religions, like all ideologies should never be respected, and are fair game for discussion. It may, however, be a good idea to pay your respect to the people who hold these ideologies. But only to a certain point: people who, for example, believe the white race to be superior deserve no respect at all. Neither as a person nor their ideology.

This should be a non-issue. Science teachers could easily point this out to their students and shut down any possible discussions: while different people may hold different religious beliefs, science applies to all. There is no such thing as ‘Hindu Physics’ or ‘Christian Physics’. There is just Physics. If you need a religious qualifier, it’s not science.

Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. The real problem is mentioned only in an aside:

They [the teachers] knew the discussions were controversial, and worried about parent complaints.

Right. It’s not the students. Their parents are the real problem. Not to mention parents who send their kids to faith schools.

Good luck trying to resolve that when your approach to solving this is to tip-toe around the problem. Nothing was ever solved that way.

With apologies to Pink Floyd, the teachers must draw a line in the sand:

“Parents, leave these kids alone!”

The Vatican Deathwish

Posted on by

The Catholic Church just had a Synod. Reading the Vatican report on LGBT is a bit like watching an old, dim-witted dog perform a new trick: it’s somewhat unexpected, a bit exciting, yet tragically pathetic.

So the Roman Catholic church finally found out that

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community

Bravo. Of course they have a lot to offer. Especially to a rapidly shrinking community. So the Church finds it in them to allow gays and lesbians a minor seat at the table. Some observers are ecstatic. They are obviously easily impressed or must have expected so little that actually mentioning homosexuality already sent them to the fainting couch. All we know is that the church now wants to officially be able to also milk LGBT people.

Still, they managed to fumble even that:

The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman.

Why? Reasons! Well, and probably Levicitus 20, which is so overruled by Jesus – as Christians not in the Vatican never tire to point out. So, dear queers, you may come to our table, and give us your gifts. And we’ll give you absolutely nothing in return except a few condescending, empty words.

Less surprising, the Catholic Church wouldn’t be the self-righteous moralizing organization they are if they didn’t manage to shoot themselves in a foot that wasn’t even there: contraception is still out. This is the third millennium, people, and you guys still trot out that chestnut? They can’t – in their wildest dreams – imagine that a doctrine that backwards would attract young people, can they? Soon that Church will consist solely of old people, misogynists and bigoted homophobes. Way to go!

Some people call the Vatican paper ‘revolutionary’. I call it a death wish.

Militant Bullshit

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, there was a commotion downtown. Heavily armed Police swarmed the area close to the main station; roads were blocked, and sirens were blaring.

Onlookers kept their distance to the cordoned-off area and speculated about what was going on. Due to the proximity to the main station, many thought it was a terrorist attack – after all, ISIS had just threatened exactly that. Others supposed a demonstration of some other militant group – Salafists, Separatists, or Fascists – gone awry. Or perhaps some gangsters had robbed one of the many banks located at the Banhofstrasse?

There were a million different theories flying about – many of them laughably wild. I particularly liked the idea that perhaps irate bee farmers let loose a swarm of hornets (Swiss government had just struck down a proposed bill to support ailing bee farmers).

But as exotic and outlandish these theories were, no-one ever voiced a particular notion: that perhaps militant atheists were to blame.

There’s a reason for that. Everyone knows that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, at least not in the true meaning of the word ‘militant’. That is why, after a bomb blast, an attack on a group of people, or some other violent crime, no police resources are diverted to gather evidence against atheists, no security forces are sent out to round up known atheists, and no DA ever thinks about investigating militant atheists.

‘Militant Atheist’ is just a phrase dishonest people use to shift blame, to demonize atheists and to make perpetrators out of victims. It’s one of the few surefire tell-tales to identify a religious demagogue.

Oh – the commotion? A large-scale exercise. So what did they rehearse?

Well, certainly not evacuation procedures for when militant atheists attack.

Please don’t let me be misunderstood.

Posted on by

Yesterday I mentioned the incredibly misogynic posters that ultra-orthodox jews put up in Stamford Hill. Predictably, and with much credit to Sam Aldersley, the issue blew up.

Chaim Hochhauser, from Stamford Hill’s Shomrim group, tried this as an explanation:

I have spoken to the organisers of the parade – they have apologised. They did not think it would get so public. It was just a misunderstanding.

No.

This is not a misunderstanding. There is nothing to misunderstand about misogyny. To make this perfectly clear – especially to those who maintain that the posters were only intended for religious people: misogyny is not a relative state of the mind; it is always evil. There is no excuse. If you believe that you are entitled to tell a woman which side of the road she must use, you are morally unfit for modern civilization. This is true regardless if you are religious or not.

That these people thought this wouldn’t get so public is just another disturbing reminder that political correctness in the UK is retarding efforts to rid society of institutionalized injustice.

… so much good …

Posted on by

It is usually either the last, slightly desparate argument – or one of the first; in a friendly discussion between believers and atheists it’s as sure to come as ‘amen’ at the end of a christian prayer:

… but there is so much good done in the name of religion.

What believers fail to understand is that to atheists, this is not an argument in favor religion. There are many reasons for that, but most muddle the issue. So let’s disregard the evil that is done in the name of religion, and forget the question whether the good outweighs the bad. Let’s simply look at the bright side of religion.

Fact is, there is a lot of good done in the name of God, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu and other gods, including Zeus and Athene. My hat is off to those who selflessly give; they are much better persons than I can ever hope to be and I shall not belittle their efforts.

But that’s not the point. What atheists argue is that it can’t be shown that these good deeds have been done on account of religion. A good case can be made that good people do good deeds, and that religion is not a necessary precondition. Looking closer, we might argue that while doing good, religious people waste a lot of ressources that could be much better employed: how many more people could be treated, how many more children educated if the money and effort spent to build temples, churches or other places of worship went into schools or hospitals instead? How much more could be done if the time spent on prayer was employed to till fields or heal illnesses?

Yes, a lot of good has been done in the name of religion. Only, it could have been so much more with less had religion not been involved.

‘So much good’ is not an argument for religion – it’s an argument to do good.

Morally depraved West

Posted on by

Many Islamist denounce the West because they think it is decadent and morally depraved. They may have a point:

Reports show that western Djihadists who join up with murderous bands like ISIS, Al Shabab, Taliban or Boko Haram do so not because of religious zeal – but out of boredom. They torture, shoot and behead others as pastime.

Take the hipster Jihadi (another middle-class boy gone wrong). The photo of Islam Yaken that went viral doesn’t suggest a man who has submitted to the will of Allah but a boy who likes posing with kick-ass swords – with an effeminate little satchel which probably cost most people’s annual salary to buy. It’s quite obvious, isn’t it, that he thinks he’s cool? He’s the Islamist James Dean – the rebel with a cause.

Can you be any more decadent or morally depraved than that?

PCphobia

Posted on by

In Rotherham more than 1400 children were systematically raped. The authorities knew about this, but did not step in. The reason? Because the perpetrators were all of Pakistani origin, and because all were Muslims, the people in charge preferred to look away, lest they be called ‘racist’. Politically correctness run amok.

Yesterday, Nazir Afzal, the Crown Prosecution Service’s lead on child sexual abuse and violence against women and girls, tried to politically correct the situation. It is an ill-advised attempt at saving something that shouldn’t be saved.

So I know that the vast majority of [sex] offenders are British white male

That’s not the point. In this case they weren’t. It is exactly this attempt at relativism that has angered the public. The children don’t really care if they have fallen prey to a statistical anomaly – they still were raped. The ethnicity and religion of the perpetrators is not in dispute. What has caused the anger was that the perpetrators were untouchable for exactly that reason. But the real scandal wasn’t their ethnicity, it was that the authorities ignored the girls.

A few weeks after the Rochdale case, we dealt with a case of 10 white men in North Yorkshire who had been abusing young girls, and they were all convicted and they got long sentences. It didn’t get the level of coverage

And neither got as much attention as Jimmy Savile who abused hundreds of children. It’s not the media’s job to attribute attention justly. It’s the authorities’ job.

He argues that evidence suggests that victims were not targeted because they were white but because they were vulnerable and their vulnerability caused them to seek out “warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food”.

Except that the girls were all white, and did not represent the demographical average. Why argue against facts?

Afzal was disturbed at the way that some responded by muddling the actions of those prosecuted with their religious backgrounds. […] Someone called the Radio 4 Any Answers programme. “He said the Qu’ran supports paedophilia. I’m not paraphrasing, that is what he said. He wasn’t cut off”

That is probably because the Qu’ran does support paedophilia: As the Hadith narrates, Aisha was married to Mohammed at age 6, raped (Mohammed ‘consummated’ the marriage) at age 10 (Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64). Again, this is not in dispute. Why argue the facts?

if there are lessons to be learned from the Rotherham tragedy, they are less to do with the dangers of political correctness, and more with the need for a radical shift in the way that victims of this kind of crime are treated.

This is a surprising conclusion, given the fact that the problem stemmed entirely from too much politically correctness – the authorities didn’t act because they were afraid that they would be called racist.

Nazir’s attempt at downplaying this is entirely misguided. At issue isn’t as much the suspicion that ‘Religion’ (Islam) and ‘Asian’ (Pakistani) origins are the cause for the rapes. The issue is with the authorities who did not help the children because they feared for their own reputation. The whole Guardian interview is a textbook example of what went wrong: diversions, misattribution and red herrings are everywhere, and to blame is no-one but the nebulous community. A pity, since Nazir seems to be a decent chap who actually wants to help. But the first step is to acknowledge that this issue is much simpler than people make it out: Islamists are very quick to use the words ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Racist’, which has become an effective weapon because politically correct people fear being labelled that.

This will only improve once we understand that ‘Islamophobia’ is a BS term, and that religion is not a race.

And, perhaps, that it’s always a good idea to stop rapists.

Superwhat?

Posted on by

The entire silliness, irrationality and intellectual dishonesty of religion can be summed up in my recent short exchange with a believer:

Believer: “Do you believe in God?”

Me: “I’m not superstitious.”

Believer: “Me neither.”