Tag Archives: ethics

Ark Park Snark

Posted on by

Ken Ham, professional dimwit and owner of Creation Museum, a.k.a. the palace where reason goes to die, is in hot water as reported by Slate. After accepting tax payer’s money to build his next great attraction, the Ark Park (guess what that one’s about), the world-famous (if not notorious) non-thinker may have forgotten that any business that accepts state money also has to play by state rules. And – surprise! – state rules forbid that you discriminate against employees with regards to religion or sexual orientation. Which Ken’s new ‘attraction’ does: his employee requirements state that you must not be gay, and must be a Christian who believes the Earth is 6000 years old – and follow all the other nutty Christian Taliban claptrap these crackpots believe in.

So the state withdraws the funding money, and Ken Ham – irrational person he is – now thinks that hate crime is a god-given right, and that this is the perfect opportunity to make a stand. Hilarity will ensue once he (predictably, and no thanks to SCOTUS) publicly claims that discriminating against gays and other religions is a right granted by the constitution.

Ok, so Ken is an idiot – what else is new? The real scandal, however, was only mentioned in an aside: in the US you can discriminate legally against religion, sex and sexual orientation of your employees as long you are a ministry.

As you can in most European country. And these dimwits do discriminate on a daily basis, shouting hate at the top of their lungs – while maintaining that they are moral leaders.

Ok, so Ken is also not alone.

Mother lode mining

Posted on by

Sam Harris, while on Bill Maher’s Real Time with actor Ben Affleck as another panelist, said:

We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas

Affleck, for reasons unknown, seemed intent on outing Harris, whom he had never met before, as a religious bigot. Had Ben not been so focused on finding flaws in what Harris said, and had Harris – who was visibly surprised by Affleck’s hostility – slightly amended his statement, the whole discussion could have taken a turn for the better.

Had Sam said ‘Islam, like Christianity, is a Mother lode of bad ideas’, even Ben would have seen Harris’ intent. Since Sam didn’t, Ben deemed the statement to be a one-sided attack on Islam.

Now, the occasional good point aside, all religions are Mother lodes of bad ideas. Their claims of absolute truth and inerrancy make them intrinsically poisonous to the mind. As I wrote, the debate could have turned there and then: Pointing out that Christianity and Islam have the same amount of bad ideas (actually, Levicitus, Numeri and Deuteronomy alone are as bad as anything the Quran can offer) could have led to the discovery of the fact that even though Christians posses their own Mother lode of Really Bad Ideas, today fewer Christians act on them than their Muslim counterparts (which, I think, was Harris’ point all along).

Sam Harris wrote

After the show, Kristof, Affleck, Maher, and I continued our discussion. At one point, Kristof reiterated the claim that Maher and I had failed to acknowledge the existence of all the good Muslims who condemn ISIS, citing the popular hashtag #NotInOurName.

In response, I said: “Yes, I agree that all condemnation of ISIS is good. But what do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Koran on tonight’s show? There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when ISIS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousands—all in the name of Islam—the response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag.”

That is the difference between Islam and Christianity, and we should be able to say this openly. Ben’s ambivalence on this comes close to the racism of low expectations. Christianity has had more time (and they literally took their bloody time) to moderate their doctrine of hate, homophobia and misogyny to today’s (still unacceptably high) levels. A majority of Muslims today believe that death is the appropriate punishment for apostasy as earnestly as Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross. Neither see anything wrong with their belief.

From an ethical standpoint, neither ideology is defensible; cutting Islam some slack because it has to ‘catch up’ is not an option – that would be the ‘low expectation’ trap. All religions must be measured by today’s standards. Yet that is not even the real issue here.

The real problem is that the world has progressed technologically too far to let Muslims have their own Crusade or Inquisition. Muslims around the world must ‘do the time warp’ into ethical present or risk that their faith becomes the cause for the greatest catastrophe in human history. IS(IS), Boko Haram, al-Shabbab and Taliban may well be mere precursors of what is come if they don’t.

Why bother?

Posted on by

Often, I’m asked why I even bother; why don’t I just shut up and ignore all those religious idiots? After all, it’s none of my business; I really should care less about what people believe. As one exasperated fundamental Christian asked: ‘If you don’t believe in God, why do you keep talking about Him’? And isn’t belief in a benevolent God a good thing?

Of course, most of that is correct: I shouldn’t care about other people’s religion; mostly I don’t. Belief in supernatural beings can be benign. The problem is, however, when someone’s superstition adversely affects the freedom and well-being of others.

In 2004, a devastating Tsunami hit the Aceh province in Indonesia. A horrendous tragedy. Every rational person agrees that this happened naturally. In deeply religious (and therefore scientifically retarded) Aceh, however, those in power saw it as a sign from God that they weren’t pious enough. As a result, Aceh now has one of the most draconic, barbaric and misogynistic Sharia in place that punishes even trivial things like not going to prayer on Friday. It’s irrelevant if you are a muslim or not, by the way. You either go to prayer – or the stockades, awaiting your punishment. Sharia has outlawed cinemas, heavily restricts what – if any – music you may listen to. Women must no longer straddle a motorcycle, nor are they allowed to wear pants.

If you now think that perhaps I’m citing an extreme example to make a point – please recall that less than 50 years ago, children’s playgrounds where closed on Sunday, and dancing was forbidden on holy days – in the UK, Germany, Switzerland and most other European countries.

So the next time you ask why bother, ask yourself: how would you like ten lashes from the whip for skipping a service for the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his noodly appendages)?

That is why I bother.

And so should you.

Neal Larson: Moran

Posted on by

Neal Larson is angry at ‘militant atheists’. Why? It’s not entirely clear, but after carefully reading his ‘Militant Atheism Rears its Ugly Head‘, I conclude it’s because these terrible, ungodly people dare to speak up for themselves.

Since we should never assume malice where simple incompetence suffices, let’s be kind and assume that Neal really lost his marbles writing this.

First, he flat out states that he

would refuse to vote for a proud and vocal atheist for high office, regardless of any offsetting credentials.

But he would vote for proud and vocal theists who flaunt their faith – who make a show of going to church, and make it a point to use phrases like under god during allegiance, …so help me god for their oath, or finish their speeches with God bless America. Because double standards are a sign of healthy morals, right? I guess his regardless of any offsetting credentials is the cherry on top to underscore his open-mindedness.

He then unintentionally proves that he doesn’t know the difference between private and official roles, claiming that a school official who leads everyone into prayer over the intercom is merely someone who privately affirms their faith. A little later he bemoans the fact that many Americans are falling prey to political hyper-correctness, who then outlaw phrases like ‘bless you’. Doing that would indeed be silly – but it is in no way something that Atheists would demand. It’s what religious people do because they erroneously believe that saying ‘bless you’ would offend Atheists. It doesn’t. And here’s a hint: we don’t mind people saying ‘merry Christmas’ either. We know how to interpret kindness, thank you very much.

But those are only small fry. Neal goes full-on Moran with this:

While atheists are certainly capable of doing good works, those good works are not inspired by an absence of belief in God. How could they be? If atheists do good, it is in spite of – not because of – their atheism, so let’s stop acting like not believing is just another super awesome way of believing.

Can you be more condescending while spouting world-class stupidity? His complacent ‘How could they be?’ alone is weapons-grade stupid, merely underscoring the fact that Neal has skipped Ethics 101. So he’s never heard of Euthyphro – his (rather obvious) loss. But to really kick this into a universe of stupidity of it’s own is to accuse Atheists that they believe Atheism to be a religion. Not understanding non-belief is one thing. But confidently stating an idiocy of this magnitude is really asking for it.

He then whips himself into a truly righteous anger, condemning the activities of some atheists:

Particularly insidious are the atheists who get a sense of satisfaction eroding the faith of others and behave as though it is a favor to rattle another’s belief in a higher power.

Although I, too, have qualms about ‘proselytizing’ Atheists, I would like to pose the following two questions to Neal:

  1. Do you think that Christian missionaries are equally reprehensible?
  2. How do you define the word hypocrisy?

At the end of his text, Neal forgoes the classic ‘Hitler’ argument (which I was expecting), likening atheists to jihadists instead:

I think we could all be more tolerant of unintrusive atheism, because who doesn’t have doubts? But let’s separate them from the purveyors and jihadists of Godlessness

It requires an extraordinary level of incompetence – or, ideed, malice – in times of daily beheadings, rape and torture by jihadist ISIS and militant believers who kill for their god, to use either term in conjunction with atheists who until today have never killed, tortured or raped anyone in the name of unbelief.

What a piece of self-important, hypocritical, holier-than-thou drivel. It’s difficult to believe someone can be that incompetent.

Write less, think more, Neal.

… 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.

Serene Killings

Posted on by

Yesterday a convicted murderer was executed in Arizona. Most of the US States still have, and carry out, the death penalty. Most civilized countries, and even Russia, frown upon capital punishment. To them, killing is an act of barbarism. First, there is always the possibility (currently estimated to be as high as 1 per cent) that the convict is not guilty of the crime they are to be killed for. But more importantly, although most perpetrators of crimes deemed fit for capital punishment may deserve to die, it is the defining mark of humanity to not be a savage, to refrain from indulging in the same cruelty as the criminal. A rational argument would also be the fact that capital punishment has never been shown to be a more effective deterrent than incarceration. This only leaves revenge as the main reason for capital punishment – something no ethical person would deem sufficient.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, himself a supporter of the death penalty, shone a harsh and revealing light on a truth that the US would like to ignore. He wrote

Using drugs […] to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and beautiful.

It’s indeed remarkable that the US prefer lethal injections to other forms of execution for one reason only: to make the act of killing look better. Kozinski is the first US official who states it that clearly. In his dissent in the Arizona death penalty case of Joseph Rudolph Wood III, Kozinski put it more aptly than I ever could:

But executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf.

Although personally I find this a rather disquieting argument in support of capital punishment, I can’t help but notice that most of the countries that stoop so low to kill their criminals also revel in that brutality; most execute publicly. To re-quote:

Executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality.

Perhaps the US should either own up to the fact that they are primitive savages, or finally come to their senses and stop this barbarism.

Angry Atheists

Posted on by

Increasingly, atheists are being asked: “Why are you so angry?”

It’s not that difficult to explain. A few days ago, I read the heart-breaking report of adorable little 3-years-old Victoria Wilcher, who a few weeks ago was attacked by three pitbulls. The attack broke her upper and lower jaws, nose, cheek bones, and right eye socket. Victoria completely lost her right eye. Last week, on the way back from a doctor’s appointment, Victoria and her grandmother stopped at a KFC to eat.

They were asked to leave because Victoria’s injuries upset the other customers.

Victoria square 100

Image Credit: Facebook

If you now feel shock and anger, you are not alone. Few people would not get angry when learning about such cruel, hurtful treatment. Rightly so. Little Victoria deserves better, and that is obvious to most.

So why am I telling you this? Because that is exactly how atheists feel about a lot of other things that are happening around the world. Yes, many atheists are angry. But we are not angry at how we are being treated – in most countries, we now can take care of ourselves. Nor are we angry because some god or fairy betrayed us. We are angry at the cruel, hurtful way religious people treat other (mostly) religious people: When women are treated as if they were dreck; when homosexuals are humiliated and killed for being what they are; when religious people callously deny help, or feel they are entitled to tell others what they may, or may not do; when religious people intentionally injure or kill other people.

Unlike the perpetrators and their religious peers, we feel the hurt, anguish and pain inflicted upon helpless individuals, and we are angry at those who inflict it; we are outraged at the ‘justifications’ that believers proffer for their actions: that a god wants it so.

So yes, many atheists are angry. At religious people. But, unlike religious people who feel offended and are angry at us for telling them off, we have legitimate reasons.

Fifty Percent

Posted on by

In Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church rules. In 2014, abortion – even after rape – is illegal, and prosecuted. The church claims that this is done to save the life of the unborn. Last week, from a ‘Home for Unmarried Mothers and their Children’, the world witnessed first hand the dark, sinister side of this ‘protection’ and what adherence to Christian moral can result in.

Before we go on, we must recall that between 1930 and 1960 – not only in Ireland, but especially there – Mothers who birthed children out of wedlock were called ‘fallen women’ and were ostracized; with them, their babies:

The children of these women were denied baptism and segregated from others at school. If they died at such facilities, they were also denied a Christian burial.

These women and their children were forced to live in these church-run ‘homes’, where they were constantly shamed, humiliated and degraded, spat upon and punished for their ‘sins’. Harrowing accounts from many independent sources, children who grew up at the same time alongside the outcasts, support their stories:

One woman, who deeply regrets her actions today, recounts how, when she was in second grade, she

wrapped a tiny stone in a bright candy wrapper and gave it to a Home Baby as a gift. When the child opened it, she saw she’d been fooled.

It was a cruel prank, and everyone but the victim laughed heartily. They didn’t know they were cruel; the children of unmarried mothers were scum. Why? Because the Church said so.

Mistreating the ‘Home Babies’ was generally accepted, and pervasive. In what appears to be the tip of the iceberg, a more or less open secret has been dragged into light last week:

Research into the undocumented deaths of some 800 children from 1930 to 60 revealed some shameful results. All deceased were ‘Home Babies’; all died from neglect. The story became notorious when a journalist alleged that the bodies where found in the remains of a septic tank. The authorities knew about this: Child mortality rate among Home Babies was reported as high as 50% and more – much higher than average.

Some people try to defend the neglect as a result of the Nuns who ran the Home being overwhelmed by the sheer number of unmarried mothers and their babies. Perhaps; I don’t want to point an accusing finger at the nuns. But the fact remains that the problem was entirely created by the Church and their doctrine of sin. That nuns perpetrated these atrocities out of their desire to help is tragic. And it certainly does not justify the contempt and injustice these mothers and their children had to endure.

This double standard still persists today. Catherine Corless, a local historian, published her research into the deaths of 796 children at the Tuam Home in a local journal in 2012. This was largely ignored. It was only a few weeks ago when the world started to take notice, and only after it was sensationalized throught the addition of the (probably untrue) septic tank detail. Yet, mirroring the developments around the systematic rape of children by priests, official reaction was slow and hesitant. If anyone except the Church were implicated, the whole area would have been cordoned off immediately and would be swarming with forensic experts. So far, the Irish Government has announced that it was putting together a group to investigate.

Yet, indeed, there is no rush. We all know why these children died: because the majority of the population adhered to a perverse morality, founded entirely on religion.

Heartbreaking.

Intellectual submarines

Posted on by

Proving that ultra-nationalists are about as smart as they are ethical, a few members of italy’s right wing populist Lega Nord found themselves aboard a sinking ship – literally. Ignoring the sad fact that each year more than 1’700 refugees drown trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa to Europe, a group of seven ‘concerned patriots’ embarked on a trip to prove that taking this journey was still far too easy.

And so they checked out a Zodiac, and tried crossing the Mediterranean from Italy to Tunisia, only to have their outboard motor catch on fire close to Malta. Brave men as they were, they decided to call it quits and signal Malta’s coast guard. Unfortunately their collective brain trust wasn’t enough to even get this matter right – they managed to fire the flare directly into their boat, sinking it.

Luckily, the story ends well on not one, but two accounts:
The clowns were rescued by the Maltese coast guard. And the incident proved that Lega Nord’s beliefs really are as stupid as their members.

Sharia-conform blood diamonds

Posted on by

Ah, unreason. The other name for faith, bigotry and hate. Consider this:

There is no doubt that the word ‘sharia’ carries huge challenges in relation to public relations. If you talk about anything [related to] ‘sharia’, the first vision people get is chopping off of people’s hands, having four wives and all sorts of unusual practices which, in today’s world, are not compatible with the values which we live by.

So far, everyone would agree. The problem: thus begins a staunch defense for Sharia law. How is that possible? There’s a reason we associate Sharia with chopped-off hands, misogyny and homophobia: because Sharia law is exactly that. This isn’t even a matter of contention – it’s documented in the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith, and actively fought by major Human Rights Organizations. Just like Christian or any other religious law, Sharia law is highly immoral. A pig’s a pig, no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It boggles the mind how grown, educated people manage to add One plus One, and arrive at Lalateen.

It’s fitting, then, that the person who uttered above quote is UK’s Minister of Unreason, Baroness Warsi. She attacks the problem of Sharia’s bad reputation from the wrong direction. Instead of trying to correct what’s wrong, she wants to make Sharia law more acceptable in the UK by tapping into Sharia-conform finance.
This comes from the same woman who is on the record as bemoaning that Islamophobia had “passed the dinner-table test” and become socially acceptable in the UK. Yet she sees no problem when expressedly barbaric, misogynic and homophobic Sharia law does pass the same test.

To be blunt: Sharia-conform financing is the ethical equivalent of purchasing blood diamonds. It’s advancing morally corrupt and unacceptable behavior. It’s unfathomable how Warsi can’t see it.

Now, Warsi admittedly isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. But is it really that much to ask of a member of a country’s government that they perform some gross error checking before speaking up? She’s starting to make american ex-governess Sarah Palin look good.