Month: September 2008

  • God’s Messenger

    In the Cape Argus for July 24, 2008, I was drawn to an article about a “cult”. The article was your typical shocking piece of journalism, where the accused are a “deranged” lot. Their beliefs most would scoff at: “How could they have done that?” “Anyone can see they were crazy to belief that nonsense!”.

    It says:

    Durban (in the province of Kwa-Zulu Natal, in my country South Africa) brother and sister Hardus and Nicolette Lotter [who are] charged with murder of their parents, had apparently belonged to a cult. They had been influenced by Nicolette’s boyfriend, Mathew Naidoo, who claimed he was “God’s messenger”.

    After being called to the house, 20-year old Hardus told police he was accosted in his house and locked in his bedroom. His 26-year old sister returned from work to find both her parents slain. Their father had been strangled, their mother stabbed several times. After picking up Naidoo for questioning, all three were charged and brought before the court.

    And this was not the first time.

    Apparently the three had conspired previously to kill the parents, Johan and Riekie Lotter. One of the previous attempts involved poisoning Johan Lotter’s drink. The Lotter siblings retracted their statements, saying “they were under the influence of Naidoo, who told them he was ‘God’s messenger’ and the ‘third son of God’ and that he [Naidoo] had received a message from God that they should kill the [Lotter] couple.”

    Which God, you might wonder? I expect all sorts of No-True-Scotsman fallacies to be quivering in most reader’s thoughts. The article ends with: “Johan and Rieikie had received several anonymous death threats with messages from the Bible.”

    Let me summarise: Naidoo believed that the God from the Bible had chosen him as His third Son. The God from the Bible, as Naidoo believed, had then told him that the Lotter couple must die. The newspaper article defined them as belonging to a “cult”. But why? What is a ‘cult’? And why does the article not say “religious fanatics”?

    I find this a reasonable question: What is the difference between a cult and a religion? To answer simply: not much, only in so-called mild religions, people can still live open, thriving lives. Michael Shermer gives these characteristics of one of these (I ask you whether he is talking about a cult or a religion. I will give the answer at the end):

    • Veneration of a leader: Glorification of the leader [to the point of virtual sainthood or divinity].
    • Inerrancy of the leader: Belief that the leader cannot be wrong.
    • Omniscience of the leader: Acceptance of the leader’s beliefs and pronouncements on all subjects, from the philosophical to the trivial.
    • Persuasive techniques: Methods, from benign to coercive, used to recruit new followers and reinforce current beliefs.
    • Hidden Agendas: The true nature of the group’s beliefs and plans is obscured from or not fully disclosed to potential recruits and the general public.
    • Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything they should know about the leader and the group’s inner-circle, and particularly disconcerting flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances are covered up.
    • Absolute truth: Belief that the leader and/or the group has discovered final knowledge on any number of subjects.
    • Absolute Morality: Belief that the leader and/or group has developed a system of right and wrong thought and action applicable to members and nonmembers alike. Those who strictly follow the moral code become and remain members; those who do not are dismissed or punished.[1]

    Shermer here is describing characteristics of cults. But perhaps the terrifying similarity to religion was demonstrated by a silent reading, stemming the tides of self-veneration upon contemplation. This is not a unique case, I am not claiming it as such. Call it a reminder, call it a question. Why is Naidoo and the Lotter’s grouping called a ‘cult’ and not religion?

    Perhaps the question lies in: Who is the cult-leader? Is it Naidoo or the God from the Bible? I feel this is a legitimate question. I think we need to radically assess this in light of the source of Naidoo’s absolute truth, his morals and his beliefs. The source lies in the drawers of nearly all hotels around the world: a Bible. Once again, I am not attacking religion as a cult because that is an old argument. I am simply assessing the usage of the term ‘cult’.

    The line of separation is as thin as dust between fanatical religious belief and cults. In Shermer’s case, he was making the claim that there is in fact a cult surrounding Ayn Rand, in the US. It fit the criteria I have highlighted above. I won’t go into detail as it does not play a part in this discussion but I urge you to read this very important book to understand why (I myself love Ayn Rand, but do not subscribe to her bizarre philosophy in any way, shape or form. Her abilities as a ficiton writer are all that fascinate me).

    Let me reiterate: Why did the Argus dub these people belonging to a cult? After all, Naidoo was using the Bible, the Christian Holy Book. He claimed he was the “third son of God” – I have yet to discover who the second is if Jesus is the first (if we’re all God’s children, what use is a Son?). Unless we are speaking of Adam – but I do not think that Naidoo was being austere to technical theological obscurity. He claimed he was God’s messenger.

    I just find it strange that we label him a ‘cult’ leader (or member) and not a religious one. I find it strange that because “ordinary” people branch off into violence, like a burst vessel of the body of society, and claim a religious justification they are a ‘cult’. Yet when someone who believes he is doing Allah’s work blows himself and many others to pieces, he is a ‘religious fanatic’.

    Let us drop the semantics and the playground name-calling. Let us call it what it is: blind faith. This the damage that absolute faith in a personal deity can have. Sure – the Lotters and Naidoo balance on the so-called fringe of ordinary, humble religious people. But those same good people who would reply: “They are crazy to believe such nonsense”, I ask this: How can you prove Naidoo is not “God’s messenger”. Is he not a “true Christian”? A “true believer”?

    A true Christian would never commit such atrocious acts you say, but that is the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

    You can not disprove he was God’s messenger. You can not say his God was any different from the God of Abraham (who also asked for strict obedience and no-questions when commanding Abraham to slaughter his son); the God of Deuteronomy (who commands you to kill any person who professes sympathy for other gods even if he/she is family); or the God of the New Testament. He used the same book did he not? The same book that justifies abortion, that justifies slavery, and also abolishment and so on.

    I can see no way for a Christian to display Naidoo being any different in his belief. Yes, you are correct: his beliefs are bizarre. But why are they different from any religious believers’. I think we have seen that it is incorrect to label this a ‘cult’ activity because there is no difference. Why is this a ‘cult’, but not Al’Quaeda? Why is Naidoo a cult leader, but the Ayatollah Khomeini was not?

    We need a radical reversal of understanding. We need to tear these veils and see them for the blind-faith that encompasses it all. As Žižek highlights, ‘With God, everything is permitted.” Even the coercion of ordinary people into murdering their parents. Why? Because God said so.

    ********

    UPDATE: The replies I have received from people reading this have fairly attempted to answer the question: “Why is Mathew Naidoo considered a cult leader but not the Ayatollah Khomeini, Bin Laden, Ted Haggard, Rick Warren, Paul Hill, etc.?” The answer I predicted was going to be “Well, they had a political agenda and it’s wrong to place all those kinds of people into one category.”

    1. I speak about Paull Hill a lot, but he is once again an appropriate example. His agenda was not politcal. His agenda was based on the fact that the doctor was “killing babies”. Readers are welcome to view it for themselves by looking at Rev. Spitz’s comments on my article “Belief as Poison”. You can even visit the Army of God website. There is no political agenda here, unless you want to get into the pathetic semantics of what constitutes “political”.

    The opening words are from Psalms, their basis for attacking and killing doctors is based on the Bible. What does this sound like? Blind faith, yet again. There is nothing political here so this answer does not work. I ask how we define the difference between this radical right-wing Christian group that believes that “babies” are being killed by doctors and God has told them to stop this at any cost – and Naidoo being told he is God’s messenger, and being told to kill the Lotter family at any cost.

    2. Sure, lots of these are political. I do not ever make the claim that religion is the source of evil or dismay in the world. In a lot of cases, people are actually made happy by it. But if you accept this, I feel that you must accept that people unconsciously separate ‘cults’ and ‘extremists’ groups. Though the one might have a political agenda, it still fits the criteria for a cult. I still think we need to radically reassess our views on cults and so-called fringe religious mindsets. Both will give their lives to the cause, both obey the leader as speaking for or from God, etc. This also raises no opposition to my point.

    Reference

    1. Michael Shermer (2002) Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Owl Books. Pp 119-120

  • Confidence

    I’m not a huge fan of our future president.

    [A] Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said. “You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!” Ms. Palin walks the national stage as a small-town foe of “good old boy” politics and a champion of ethics reform…But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image. Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance…

    We’re supposed to think she’s just a real nice gal, and that a real nice gal like that is just who should be the next president as soon as that pesky John McCain gets out of the way. But why we are supposed to think that is mystifying to me. I never do quite get why people don’t want someone better than they are to be in a job like that. I certainly want someone better than I am to be in a job like that. I can’t even keep my bookshelves tidy, so how could I not want someone better? But other people apparently cry with one voice ‘She’s just like us!’ and swoon with bliss. I don’t get it.

    Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

    Oh, good, that’s just what we need – after eight years of an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy, another one that does the same thing.

    I particularly dislike what she said in that interview –

    “Can you look the country in the eye and say, ‘I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?’” When Palin said she [didn’t] hesitate in saying “yes,” Gibson asked her if that didn’t perhaps show some “hubris.” Palin countered that it shows “confidence” and and “being so committed to the mission.”

    Yes it shows confidence, but confidence is not a good thing when it’s unwarranted (except in very rare circumstances, when you have to jump or die). Bush showed great ‘confidence’ when he went after the presidency, too, but he shouldn’t have, because he has none of the qualities required to do the job well. Neither does Palin, and Palin hasn’t even gone through the primary process (flawed as it is), yet we’re very likely to be stuck with her as president. It’s a bad joke, and a nightmare.

  • Global silencing

    So we need to get permission from Jordan to say things now.

    [A] Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans in an extraterritorial attempt to silence the debate on radical Islam. The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on Jordanian soil.

    Yeah and because the ‘crimes’ are not crimes in places that are not, you know, insane. We’re not used to thinking of ‘insulting the prophet Muhammad’ as something that is covered by a Penal Code. We don’t want to get used to it, either.

    Jordan’s attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders wouldn’t be so serious if it were an isolated case. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to intimidate critics of militant Islam…[T]he U.N. Human Rights Council in June said it would refrain from condemning human-rights abuses related to “a particular religion.” The ban applies to all religions, but it was prompted by Muslim countries that complained about linking Islamic law, Shariah, to such outrages as female genital mutilation and death by stoning for adulterers. This kind of self-censorship could prove dangerous for people suffering abuse.

    Well I guess no one will be reading Does God Hate Women? aloud at the UN HRC then. Too bad.

    Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a crime in their home countries…Neither Denmark nor the Netherlands will turn over its citizens to Interpol, as the premise of Jordan’s extradition request is an affront to the very principles that define democracies. It is thus unlikely that any Western country would do so, either. But there is no guarantee for the defendants’ protection if they travel to countries that are more sympathetic to the Jordanian court.

    So the noose tightens – a little more all the time.

  • Ben Goldacre on Academics and the Press

    ‘The newspapers grossly and crassly misrepresented everything we are doing.’

  • The Teleological Argument is Easy

    Reiss’ position is a massive concession to pressure from religious groups.

  • Steve Jones on Nonsense of Teaching Creationism

    ‘Like me starting a university lecture on genetics and inheritance by discussing the theory that babies are brought by storks.’

  • UN HR Commissioner Urges Greater Efforts

    Gender roles ingrain ideas of inferiority of women, superiority of men, stereotyped division of labour.

  • Certainly, Go Right Ahead

    Saudi judiciary official issues fatwa: ok to kill owners of TV networks that show ‘immoral content.’

  • Creeds

    Michael Reiss, a priest, a biologist and the Royal Society’s director of eduation, says he ‘feels’ that ‘creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view.’

    But a world view can be a misconception, and often is. The two are not contradictory or mutually exclusive. That is in fact a problem with a lot of world views: they are based on misconceptions.

    Other scientists, fortunately, disagree with Reiss.

    Professor Reiss, a biologist, was speaking at the British Association’s Festival of Science in Liverpool. Other scientists were vociferous in their response, saying that creationism should remain entirely within the sphere of religious education. Professor Lewis Wolpert, of University College Medical School, said: “Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. It is based on religious beliefs and any discussion should be in religious studies.” Dr John Fry, a physicist at the University of Liverpool, said: “Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence. Creationism doesn’t challenge science: it denies it!”

    The Independent takes a ‘this side that side’ view, as if it were running for office.

    Proponents of evolution believe species change by a process of random genetic mutations. They believe the world is 13-14 billion years old. Creationists, in contrast, believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that its existence is the result of one of the processes described in religious texts like the Bible.

    It’s not a matter of each side ‘believing’ things in exactly the same sense, and shouldn’t be presented as such. One side has grounds for the ‘belief’ and the other side doesn’t, so it’s misleading to use the same word for both unless that is pointed out.

  • Grayling Answers Fuller’s Answer

    ‘Chance? Who said anything about chance, whether in the aetiology of stars or the biological sphere?’

  • Steve Fuller Answers Grayling’s Review

    ‘The dispute ranges over who bears the greater burden of proof: defenders of design or chance.’

  • Should Creationism be Taught in Science Class?

    ‘Proponents of evolution believe this, creationists believe that.’ Not exactly.

  • What is the Difference?

    ‘Creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view.’

  • Royal Society: Creationism Should be Taught

    Last year the society issued an open letter stating that creationism had no place in schools.

  • Freedom of humour in Italy

    Sabina Guzzanti could get five years in prison for ‘offending the honour of the sacred and inviolable person’ of Benedict XVI. Who knew? Who knew the pope’s person was ‘sacred and inviolable’ as a matter of law in Italy? I suppose I might have guessed it was if anyone had asked me directly – ‘Excuse me, do you think the person of the pope is sacred and inviolable as a matter of law in Italy?’ – but no one had asked me directly, or indirectly either – ‘Excuse me, how do you think Italian law treats the person of the pope? Any guesses?’, and I didn’t know. I can’t be everywhere at once you know – I only have two hands.

    But now I do know, and I think it’s an outrage.

    Giovanni Ferrara, the Rome prosecutor, is invoking the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Vatican, which stipulates that an insult to the Pope carries the same penalty as an insult to the Italian President.

    Oh – so an insult to the Italian President carries a penalty of five years in prison? Who knew? That one I wouldn’t even have guessed, even if someone had asked me directly. I would have said oh don’t be so silly, of course there’s no such law in Italy. Shows what I know.

    The July rally [at which Guzzanti committed her crime] was called to protest against alleged interference by the Vatican and the Catholic Church in Italian affairs, from abortion to gay rights, but also to attack the Prime Minister for passing “ad personam” laws to protect his own interests and avoid prosecution on corruption allegations.

    Gee, I can’t see why anyone would object to laws like that, can you? ‘I, the president, rule that it shall be against the law to attempt to charge with with any crimes I may happen to have committed while in office.’ What’s wrong with that? Guy’s got to be able to concentrate, after all.

    The move to prosecute her over her anti-papal remarks was praised by some on the centre Right, including Luca Volonte, a Christian Democrat, who said that “gratuitous insults must be punished”.

    By a prison sentence. Of five years. What an interesting way to think about the matter.

    Pink News points out that this is all a tad fascist, literally.

    The Minister of Justice in Italy has given prosecutors permission to use a Fascist-era law to punish a comedian for mocking the Pope…Now the Rome prosecutor has been given permission to proceed against her under the 1929 Lateran Treaty. The treaty, between the Vatican and the Italian government, was signed when fascist leader Benito Mussolini was in power.

    Gone but not forgotten, apparently.

  • Why We Evolved to be Superstitious

    Better to interpret a rustle in the bushes as a threat just in case it is a bear or another real danger.

  • Comedian Charged With Violating Fascist Law

    Mussolini-era Lateran treaty: an insult to the Pope carries the same penalty as an insult to the Italian President.

  • Comedian Sabina Guzzanti ‘Insulted’ the Pope

    She faces prosecution for ‘offending the honour of the sacred and inviolable person’ of Benedict XVI.

  • Absence of Minimal Public Integrity

    ‘So we now find out again that John McCain is prepared to tell an absolute lie – in public, verifiable, uncontestable.’

  • Criminalizing Criticism of Islam

    Jordan is prosecuting 12 Europeans for ‘blasphemy,’ has asked Interpol to arrest and extradite them.