Month: June 2011

  • Solidarity

    Pious Saudi Arabia, famed the world over for its vast compassion.

    Indonesia is stopping all maids from going to work in Saudi Arabia after the
    beheading of a maid last week for murdering her allegedly abusive employer.

    The execution of 54-year-old Ruhati Binti Sapahi caused public outrage in
    Indonesia, prompting the government to call for the ban.

    Saudi Arabia’s compassionate concern for foreign domestic workers is an old story.

    Sumiati Binti Salan Mustapa, 23, remains  hospitalized after suffering injuries by her employer who allegedly  beat, mutilated and scalded her…The news of Sumiati’s horrendous abuse came just as  another domestic worker’s body was found in a trash bin. The victim,  Kikim Moalasari, another Indonesian maid, was allegedly tortured by her  employer. The culprits in both cases have since been arrested.

    So much for the ummah.

  • Barmaid demonstrates how the backlash works

    Jesus and Mo play their parts obligingly.

  • Saudi Arabia: Indonesian maid beheaded

    Indonesia is stopping all maids from going to work in Saudi Arabia after the beheading of a maid last week for murdering her allegedly abusive employer.

  • South Africa and ‘corrective rape’

    “They were walking behind us. They just started swearing at me screaming: ‘Hey you lesbian, you tomboy, we’ll show you.”

  • Secular law under threat in Rhode Island

    The proposed “religious exemption” in RI would go well beyond New York’s.

  • Less boring than I think, or more?

    I’m reading The Pregnant Widow. I’ve heard some good things about it, and I thought The Information was intermittently brilliant, albeit irritating in places, and boring in places, so I’m reading it. The first few pages were electrifying, and I was all excited, thinking I’d struck gold. But then it turned out the first few pages were different from the next pages.

    I’m pushing. Hard. I’m trying and failing to resist boredom and the resulting feeling of exasperation – the “why are you telling me all this?” feeling.

    Anybody read it? Anybody love it?

  • From Crawford to Waterloo

    Hitchens asks a necessary question about Michele Bachmann and her presentation of self.

    Where does it come from, this silly and feigned idea that it’s good to be able
    to claim a small-town background?…Overall demographic impulses to one side, there is nothing about a bucolic upbringing that breeds the skills necessary to govern a complex society in an age of globalization and violent unease. We need candidates who know about laboratories, drones, trade cycles, and polychrome conurbations both here and overseas. Yet the media make us complicit in the myth—all politics is yokel?—that the fast-vanishing small-town life is the key to ancient virtues. Wasilla, Alaska, is only the most vivid recent demonstration of the severe limitations of this worldview.

    Not as vivid as Crawford, Texas, given that Palin hasn’t actually been president yet. But no matter, the point is the same. Small-town life is the key to nothing in particular, except maybe boredom. “Vote for me, I was bored while growing up.” Tempting, but no.

  • Hitchens on Bachmann

    There is nothing about a bucolic upbringing that breeds the skills necessary to govern a complex society in an age of globalization and violent unease.

  • The ‘Gandhi of Palestine’ awaits deportation

    Salah’s British supporters blatantly lied about the revolting views which led to this action, though they have been documented in many places.

  • On Greg Mortenson and Nicholas Kristof

    Both seem to view themselves as secular saints. They extol their own gallantry and compassion as much as, if not more than, the causes they trumpet.

  • No separation of church and state for Kansas

    Brownback has thrown his support behind a “faith-based” program intended to make sure parolees don’t go back to prison.

  • Another sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan

    Twenty-nine-year old Abdul Sattar was sentenced to death on 21 June.

  • Media and Religious Censorship in Nigeria

    A free press is critical to the growth and development of any society and to the survival and vibrancy of any democracy. Nigeria is said to have a free and independent media, and this is often interpreted to mean that, in Nigeria, journalists are going about their work without state interference. For me, this is a narrow understanding of freedom of the press, and this one-sided view has caused many to mischaracterize the situation of the media in the country. The government is just one out of many agents or actors that could undermine or muzzle the press. Religious agencies, drug cartels, multinationals and other business interests can hamper freedom of the press in a country.

    Today, many people tend to think that in Nigeria, there is freedom of the press. But in actual fact there is not. In this piece I would like to point out a very disturbing trend in the Nigerian media: religious censorship. Religious censorship is very pronounced in the print and electronic media in the country. By this I mean that, today in Nigeria, there are views and reports that cannot be published or broadcast in the media because of religious sentiments, because such reports or perspectives are deemed to be offensive to the religious sensibilities of the faithful.

    In principle, media agencies in Nigeria claim to be objective, factual and balanced in their reporting. They claim to embody ethical and professional journalism. But in practice this is not the case, particularly when it comes to religious issues.

    In most cases, media agencies in Nigeria are biased, unethical and unprofessional in their reporting. Many of what we have as national newspapers – both privately and state owned – are in fact religious – Christian or Islamic or ‘chrislamic’ dalies whose ‘unwritten policy’ is to further these religious interests. Very often the newspapers do not reflect the diversity of views, opinions and perspectives in terms of religious belief and unbelief. Their news, reports and opinions are biased towards religions – Christianity and Islam only. Every week, most media agencies in the country devote a lot of time and space to mainly Christian and religious prayers, preaching and propagation. Most radio and television stations start their daily broadcast with Christian and/or Islamic prayers, devotions and reflections. Meanwhile such opportunities are not extended to those who profess other faiths or none. Still media agencies claim to be free, fair, impartial and objective in their reporting and publications.

    Most media houses in Nigeria do not publish or broadcast views that are critical of religious doctrines particularly Christian and Islamic dogmas. So where is the objectivity, ethical and professional journalism when the perspectives of those who hold contrary opinions or those who belong to religious minorities or those who profess no faith are completely shut out or censored?

    Some of our so-called state and privately owned newspapers, television and radio stations in Northern Nigeria only publish or broadcast Islamic or pro-Islam teachings and preaching. They do not approve the publication or broadcast of a perspective that is critical of Islam. And no one dares question this outrageous media policy.

    Also in Southern Nigeria, there are some state or privately owned newspapers, radio and television stations that only publish or broadcast Christian or pro-Christian news and reports. Any report other than or critical of Christianity, no matter how factual and objective it is, will not be approved by the editorial or management team. Some of the radio and television stations in South East and South South are as good as the Vatican radio. They are Christian media outfits. One of the main reasons for religious censorship in the media is because our media agencies are owned or managed by Christian and Islamic fanatics who use their public offices or private businesses to promote their faiths. They regard their jobs, offices and businesses as tools of evangelism, jihad and religious propaganda. Their media agencies are extensions of their churches and mosques.

    Also our media houses are populated with mostly journalists who double as priests, pastors, imams and Ustaz. And as those supposedly called by God or Allah, they do not want to report or be seen to be reporting or publishing anything critical or contrary to their faiths. They use their ‘pen’ or talents to defend their faith and further the cause of God or Allah.

    Religious censorship is not good for our media and for the development of the country, particularly in this age of information technology. Some of the views which our electronic and print media houses suppress or censor get published any way. Many people who cannot have their religious or non-religious views published in the mainstream media, can now post or publish them on the internet. So media houses that practice religious censorship risk losing their credibility and market as a source of objective and reliable information.

    In conclusion, Nigeria is a country whose democracy, peace, security and development is threatened by religious fundamentalism. Since independence, Nigeria has witnessed protracted religious crises mainly in Northern Nigeria. Thousands of Nigerians have lost their lives to religious riots. And recently an Islamist group, Boko Haram, launched a violent campaign against the government and state agencies. The members have carried out attacks on public places including the Force Headquarters in Abuja and have killed many security agents and civilians.

    Nigerians need a free and uncensored media to safeguard their democracy and combat the dark and destructive influence of religions. The media agencies in the country must do away with religious censorship in other to generate ideas and reliable information which the state and its citizens need to tackle and address the menace of religious fanaticism and other faith-based problems.

  • Artist says SHE is offended by blasphemy fuss

    Lopez said that she’s offended by people taking offence to the piece, and quite right too.

  • Good neighbors

    I just had a very weird experience, or maybe not all that weird in one way, but pretty damn weird in any other way. Not weird given that some people are bat-loony, but weird given that some people ought to know better. (Is it possible for people who are bat-loony to know better? Is that a ridiculous incoherent idea, on a level with belief in free will? Probably no and probably yes…but then the question becomes “exactly how bat-loony are we talking about here?”)

    I was walking along a residential street a few blocks from where I live (so I don’t know anyone there, I don’t recognize faces), mind elsewhere (though nowhere in particular) as usual, and suddenly some grizzled auld fella who was pottering in his garden snarled* at me as he crossed the sidewalk toward the parking strip, “What would it take to make you smile?”

    I jerked to a stop and turned to stare at him in astonishment, and after mulling it for a few seconds demanded why on earth he would ask me that.

    We had a nice little shouty war there on the sidewalk, for three or four or five minutes.

    He was of course surprised to be answered, and did a lot of angry shouting about seeing me walking past here all the time, and I never smile, I never wave, I never say hello. I did a lot of return shouting about being allowed to walk here, and not having even been aware of him until he challenged me, and why would he expect me to be smiling as I walked up the street. He did more angry shouting about there are two sides to the street, and oh fuck off, and I never say hello. I did more repeat shouting about why would he expect me to be smiling as I walked up the street and why would he think he gets to tell me how to arrange my face. He started telling me to go away, and I kept pointing out that he had challenged me. He did more angry shouting about always seeing me walking past, and he’s sick of seeing my horrible face “like this” and he did an exaggerated sad-clown face with the mouth dragged down like Emmett Kelly. Gee I love it when people do that. He wasn’t the first. I told him that’s how my face is. He tripped up then and apologized, but quickly thought better of it and went back to angry shouting.

    Here’s the thing: I’m extremely ugly, especially now that I’m 153 years old. I do have one of those downturned mouths that some people have, so I do look very grumpy when my face is in neutral position. I’ve had acquaintances helpfully point this out to me, in case I wasn’t aware of it – “Gee, you’re a lot less ugly when you smile.” Oh thanks.

    So yes, I’m ugly and I look grumpy when I walk down the street. But I have this core idea that I’m allowed to do that, and that people who live along that street ought not to come running out to tell me I’m uglying up their street. I also have a core idea that I don’t have an obligation to try to look less ugly for any random gardening men who might be pottering about when I pass.

    I eventually got around to asking my antagonist about this – “Do you say that to men who walk by? Do you tell men to smile as they walk past your house?” He swelled up with more outrage, and started telling me he’d been in combat, I wasn’t a woman, get away from here with my lesbian bullshit, he wasn’t afraid of any men, he was afraid of women if they really were women. After lots of shouting back and forth along these lines, he slipped up again and said “But it’s none of my business.” “Exactly!” I said. “Bye!” That was my exit line, but he shouted after me “Have a wonderful day” so I shouted back “You too” so he shouted back “That’s the first nice thing you’ve said this whole time” and I shouted back “Gee I wonder why!” and after that all I heard was muttering, so I won.

    I did you know. He thought he was just going to throw a little male weight around, with no repercussions. He wasn’t expecting a Spanish Inquisition I mean an aggressive ugly ol’ broad shouting at him for five minutes.

    Now here’s what I want to know. Lots of guys here. What do you think? I don’t believe for one second that he ever, ever, ever says that to men. Ever. I don’t think for a second that he thinks it’s any of his business what expression a man has on his face when walking past his house. What do you think? Would a (straight) man ever say that to a man? And has any man ever said anything like that to you?

    *Update: note that he snarled. This was not a friendly or flirtatious or neighborly overture; it was angry and hostile in the opening question, and it got much more so when I replied. When I asked him why he would ask me such a question, he approached me aggressively, demanding “do you know how to smile?” There was no ambiguity about this; it was not borderline; the guy was pissed off, and nasty, and in my face. He also got very rude, very quickly, while I limited myself to insisting that he had no business telling me how to look.

  • “The corrupt political process in New York State”

    The Catholic bishops of New York state are upset. They are displeased about this pesky new same-sex marriage bill. They think it’s most unfair to them, the Catholic bishops of New York state.

    “The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled,” the state’s bishops said. “We strongly uphold the Catholic Church’s clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But

    Ah yes “but.” Good old “but.” You saw that “but” coming a mile away, didn’t you. The instant they produce the bit about “we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love,” you know for a certainty what will immediately follow. But. But we won’t have it. But it’s an outrage. But God said. But we strongly affirm. But one man and one woman (and never, by golly, the other way around). But lifelong loving union that is open to children. But but but.

    This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths.

    Self-pity much? Complain about inability to impose your church’s “teachings” and its “timeless truths” on unwilling other people much?

    “We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization,” the bishops added.

    No, you don’t. You worry that your power and authority and privilege will be undermined by this unremarkable good sense of government in passing legislation that benefits some people and harms none.

    “Our society must regain what it appears to have lost – a true understanding of the meaning and the place of marriage, as revealed by God, grounded in nature, and respected by America’s foundational principles.”

    No, it mustn’t. That’s the very thing it must not do. There is no “God” to do this revealing; Catholic bishops don’t know a damn thing about this “God,” any more than anyone else does. It’s all “church teachings” all the way down, and we don’t have to buy into it, much less obey it.

    A Brooklyn bishop played the populist card.

    “Today, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have deconstructed the single most important institution in human history,” Bishop DiMarzio said. “Republicans and Democrats alike succumbed to powerful political elites and have passed legislation that will undermine our families and as a consequence, our society.”

    The shit. That’s Nazi-talk, that “elites” shit. What does he think he is? What does he think bishops are? They’re an elite if you like. They have masses of illegitimate power and authority; they’re wholly unaccountable; they rigorously exclude women from power and ferociously punish anyone who tries to get a woman admitted; they shield each other from the law and the police; they tell governments what to do. They wear special elite clothes; they perform magical elite ceremonies; they have special elite knowledge. Teh gaze have nothing to match that.

    And he didn’t stop there.

    At a time when so many New Yorkers are struggling to stay in their homes and find jobs, we should be working together to solve these problems. However, the politicians have curried favor with wealthy donors who are proponents of a divisive agenda in order to advance their own careers and futures.

    Right; this is all about rich people trampling on the faces of the poor.

    I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation. Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration.

    The above request is intended as a protest of the corrupt political process in New York State. More than half of all New Yorkers oppose this legislation. Yet, the governor and the state legislature have demonized people of faith, whether they be Muslims, Jews, or Christians, and identified them as bigots and prejudiced…

    Ugly, ugly stuff.

  • Mosque breaks promise on homophobic speakers

    It took the East London mosque just eight days to break its latest promise.

  • NY bishops pitch a fit about same-sex marriage

    Bishops issue a statement saying “we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed.” Srsly.

  • Improv

    Let’s play “Let’s make up some statistics.”

    An interlocutor told me about an hour ago that “most academics everywhere are atheists.” Eh what? I thought. In the UK and Sweden and fortunate places like that, no doubt, but in the US? Which is what we were talking about (via my post on that Catholofascist article in Crisis yesterday). Most academics in the US are atheists? Yeah I don’t think so. Given that most colleges and “universities” in the US are, shall we say, non-elite, and that most teaching is in vocational subjects (most degrees are in Business), I don’t think so.

    Rilly? I said. Do you know that? Any stats?

    She gave the stats for philosophers. Not going to fall for that, was I! I knew about those stats; I wrote them up for an issue of TPM whenever it was. I wasn’t asking about philosophers, I was asking about academics. My interlocutor said as far as she knew “in every discipline religious believers are in a minority.” So I looked it up.

    Riiiight.

    …researchers at the Harvard Divinity School recently implemented a study to determine the religiosity of college and university professors around the country.The study, entitled “How religious are America’s college and university professors?,” has been circulating throughout academia since last year…

    The study found that 23.4 percent of college and university professors describe themselves as either atheists or agnostics, with the remainder reporting some level of belief in God or another higher power.

    23.4%, including agnostics as well as atheists. Not quite “most are atheists.”

    I didn’t just fall off the potato truck this morning, you know.