Ikwro director Diana Nammi said families often tried to deny the existence of honour
attacks and those who carried them out were “very much respected”.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
UK police reveal numbers for “honour” violence
-
What’s the big idea?
Just for the sake of argument, or exploration, let’s take seriously this claim that atheism is a little idea and god is a big one.
Atheism has become a very little idea, an idea that has to be shouted to seem important. And that is a shame, because God was a big idea, and the rejection of the existence of God was also a big idea, once upon a time.
Was god a big idea?
Perhaps I’m not taking it seriously after all, because I can’t honestly see that it was.
Really. I can’t. It seems to me that god was and is a very little idea, and a very boring one (which shows how little it was and is). It has no moving parts to think about. It has no detail to think about. It’s like a smooth mound of ice – only less interesting because not organic.
I can’t think of anything that is about god that’s at all interesting – any book or description or analysis, I mean. That’s why movies like Oh God! and Dogma show god as a person, I should think – to make it interesting enough for people to watch.
God is almost never a character in literature, and when it is it’s boring. The only way to make it not boring is to make it like a human – which just shows how boring it is as itself. God is nowhere near as interesting as Hamlet or Dorothea Brooke or Abraham Lincoln or Emily Bronte.
Why not? Because it’s not a big idea, it’s a little idea – it’s simple. It’s just omni-everything…which is as boring as it gets.
This is one reason Jesus is such a big deal, by the way; ditto Mo. They’re there for the interest. Things happen to them. What can happen to god?
All this is in human terms, obviously, but then that’s what we’re talking about. We don’t have access to other terms.
Humans want to go somewhere. That’s built in. We want some kind of improvement. There are a million versions of improvement, just as there are a million versions of happiness, but we pretty much all want it in some form; it’s our engine. Poor god can’t want that, because it’s already perfect. What could be more boring? Big is not the same as interesting, to be sure, but I think the littleness is the source of the lack of interestingness. It’s a little idea because it’s just a formula of words, and it’s one that doesn’t go anywhere. God is perfect; end of story.
One orthodox version of heaven is an eternity of gazing on god, in bliss. That’s always sounded like torture to me.
What am I missing?
-
Paper wasps have facial recognition
This is the first time that scientists have discovered this humanlike ability in an insect.
-
Kenan Malik on outrage
Muslims, Christians, atheists, liberals, conservatives – for every group outrage has become an expression of self-definition.
-
Saudi academic claims that cars rape women
A report in Saudi Arabia has warned that if Saudi women were given the right to drive, it would spell the end of virginity in the country.
-
Gay Marriage and African Politics
I am writing to condemn in no uncertain terms the recent passage by the Senate of the the anti gay marriage bill. The passage of this bill once again demonstrates how disconnected Nigerian politicians and lawmakers are from the realities of the 21st century. It has confirmed that our lawmakers indeed prefer to fiddle while our social, political and economic house, called Nigeria, burns. Otherwise how does one explain the relevance of this bill at a time when Nigeria has become almost a failed state due to terrorist attacks, sectarian violence, corruption, poverty, diseases, abuse of office, tribalism and nepotism, misguided politics and mistaken sense of statecraft?
The passage of this bill has shown clearly how misplaced our priorities are, or better, how misplaced the priorities of those who claim to lead this country are. Our Senators should answer this question clearly: How does an anti gay marriage bill contribute to the greatest good of the greatest number of Nigerians?
Does this bill put food on their table or money in their pocket? The answer is: No. Does it provide them jobs? No. Does it enhance their much needed security and peaceful coexistence? No. Does it improve the standard of education in the country? No. Does it make Nigerian parents more responsible in terms of child support, upbringing and other family responsiblities? No. Does it improve the love and harmony in homes and communities across the country? No. Will this bill improve trust in marriages and relationaships in Nigeria? No. Will it in any way strengthen the much talked-about marriage institution or family values? No. Can the Senators tell me the practical, political, moral relevance of this bill, except to legislate and institutionalize hatred and persecution of minorities, gay cleansing, moral hypocrisy and inquisition?
The true test of a democracy is not how it panders to the so called will (real or imagined) of the majority but how it treats and respects its minority. The test of a society’s humanity is how it protects and defends vulnerable members of the population.
And with this bill, has the Nigerian democracy and society failed this test? The answer is an unequivocal ‘Yes’.
This anti gay marriage bill is a clear indictment of our sense of common humanity and our commmitment to human rights principles as a people and as a nation. The state cannot legislate when it comes to sexual relationships among consenting adults. The politicians and lawmakers cannot dictate for adults whom to relate with. Lawmakers have no business in the bedroom of adults.
For me this anti gay marriage bill is another pointer to where we have chosen to go as a nation – backward. Today the global trend is to unban, not to ban gay marriage.
Yes, the Senate vote to ban gay marriage is another indication of how our politicians have refused to confront our real challenges and to tackle and address our real, urgent and pressing problems as a nation and as a people. Instead our lawmakers prefer to pursue shadows and to engage in wasteful debates and counter-productive legislation. Yes, I want to reiterate that the whole idea of debating and passing a bill against gay marriage which has been going on since 2006 is a waste of our limited legislative resources, a huge distraction from more pressing issues, and a mark of our warped sense of politics and lawmaking. In fact it is an abuse of Nigeria’s legislative space. The obsession with homophobia among our lawmakers is unwarranted and uncalled for. It is rather an indication of political futility and emptiness, lack of vision, and failure to focus politically expedient programs for nation building and good governance.
I still want to know from our Senators and all those clamouring for an anti gay marriage legislation the rationale behind such a bill in a country where homsexuality is a crime. Can any gay marriage act or pact legally stand in a situation where homosexuality is illegal? The answer is NO. So why do our Senators think we need an anti gay marriage legislation at this time?. Today as we all know most countries are striving to make their laws compatible, not in conflict, with human rights. They are either reviewing, amending or repealing laws like those against homosexuality and blasphemy and for the death penalty, which are not in line with human rights, or introducing new laws that are in accordance with human rights.
And instead of moving forward with these countries and working towards repealing obnoxious laws, our politicians and lawmakers prefer to move backward by tightening the laws against homosexuality on the basis of religious and fanatical sentiments, and an ill-defined sense of African culture and tradition. Culture is not static. Culture is diverse and dynamic. There were acts, norms and habits deemed culturally unacceptable centuries ago but which are commonplace cultural practices today. Those who are saying that respecting people with homosexual orientation is unAfrican are really misrepresenting the African culture. If there is anything history tells us it is that Africans have been traditionally tolerant of people with same-sexual orientation prior to the introduction of criminal provisions based on the alien religions of Christianity and Islam. African politicians and lawmakers should make African traditions compatible with human rights. Unfortunately, the anti gay marriage bill entrenches and legalizes homophobia not human rights.
Meanwhile, there has been some vague reference to the recent threat by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron who, at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth, moved to cut add cut to countries that do not reform legislations banning homosexuality. Some have interpreted the statement as an attempt by the UK to impose its values on the rest of the world. I don’t think this is the case. Britain is a democratic country where the people’s voices and opinions matter.
I believe that the so-called threat was a reflection of the voices and wishes of the British people. Britian has decriminalized homosexuality and made significant progress in the protection of the rights of gay people. The British government is simply saying that they cannot be protecting the rights of homosexual persons and also be providing aid or financial assistance to countries where the same people, who are protected under British law, are persecuted or treated as criminals. No country, even Nigeria, would agree to provide aid or assistance to countries where black people are treated as criminals or thrown into jail because of the colour of their skin. How do we then expect Britain to extend aid to countries that persecute and legislate against individuals based on their sexual orientation? But this is a simple logic which the homophobia of many African politicians and lawmakers cannot allow them to understand or appreciate.
-
The milk of human kindness
And then there’s Gulnare Freewill Baptist church, which told a parishioner – ever so politely, you understand – that her fiancé couldn’t come to the church again, on account of how he’s not a white person. Perfectly understandable. It’s because they (church members who voted on “the issue”) want to promote greater unity among the church body and the community. Obviously you can’t do that if there’s a not-white person at the church when all the other persons there are white. That would promote lesser unity. Everybody would look around uneasily and kind of split apart.
Melvin Thompson, former pastor of Gulnare Freewill Baptist church, proposed the ban after Stella Harville brought her fiance, Ticha Chikuni, to services in June. Harville, who goes by the name Suzie, played the piano while Chikuni sang.

Before stepping down as pastor in August, Thompson told Harville that her fiance could not sing at the church again. Harville is white and Chikuni, a native of Zimbabwe, is black.
Last Sunday, church members voted 9-6 in favor of Thompson’s proposed ban. Others attending the church business meeting declined to take a stand on the issue.
“That the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church does not condone interracial marriage,” the resolution states, according to WKYT.
“Parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services and other church functions, with the exception being funerals. All are welcome to our public worship services. This recommendation is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve.”
God is love.
-
Oh yes, go right ahead
Memri reports a fatwa that says it’s fine for mujahideen to kidnap “the infidels’ women” and rape them, because once they’ve been kidnapped the infidel men don’t own them any more.
The inquiry in response to which Al-Athari issued the fatwa reads as
follows:[1] “Is it permissible for mujahideen in jihad fronts
to kidnap the infidels’ women and hold them as their captives? What is the
ruling regarding a captive in our times? How should they be divided [among the mujahideen]? Is it permissible to imprison [an infidel woman who has been taken captive] in an infidel land, or must she be brought to Dar Al-Islam[the abode of Islam]? How much time must one wait before having sexual intercourse with her, regarding both one who is a virgin and one who is not?”Notice the assumptions. Notice first the assumption that women are property – “the infidels’ women”; and notice second that they are things, which can be carted around, divided, taken, brought, and generally handled as one might handle a desk or a lawnmower – heavy but manageable; and notice third that the whole point of them is to fuck. Is it permissible for mujahideen to grab other men’s women and bring them back in order to fuck them? That is the question.
Al-Athari replies: “There is no doubt that taking the women of the combatant infidels captive – whether they are from AhlAl-Kitab [i.e.,
Christians or Jews] or pagans – is permitted according to the shari’a…And that’s all that counts. The holy book of roolz says it’s permitted, so of course there’s no need to think about it, to evaluate it, to try to empathize with the women and judge whether or not it’s really an ok decent humane thing to do. There’s no need to try to have the imagination and compassion and sympathy to realize that kidnapping and raping people is 1) shitty 2) a war crime (because of 1). Just ask an imam and that’s the end of it.
In his discussion of “concrete proofs,” Al-Athari quotes Al-Qurtubi, who says: “Most scholars, including Malik [ibn Anas], Al-Shafi’i, Abu Hanifa, [2] and others, thought that taking [infidel women] captive removes the protection [they previously enjoyed], and permits whoever is holding them to have sexual intercourse with them.” Al-Athari also quotes another scholar whose interpretation of Al-Qurtubi’s ruling says that the latter uses the word “protection” to refer to married women, who are forbidden to men other than their husbands. That is, when these women are taken captive, their marriage contracts with their infidel husbands become void, and they become permissible to their captors. Al-Athari adds that the amount of time a captor must wait until having sexual intercourse with a captive infidel woman depends on her condition: if she is pregnant, he must wait until after she gives birth; if she is menstruating, he must wait until after her period is over; and if she is young and has not yet begun menstruating, he must wait a month from her capture.
That last is a nice touch. If she’s seven and hasn’t reached puberty, the guy who kidnapped her has to wait a month before raping her.
-
Fatwa says mujahideen can kidnap and rape “infidel” women
It’s perfectly all right, because once they’re kidnapped, the infidel men don’t own them any more.
-
Headline: “Fish could protect against Alzheimer’s”
Body: “this research did not account for lifestyle factors such as other foods or exercise which could also have had an effect.”
-
Robert Talisse talks to Robert Audi
In Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State, Audi proposes a novel and forceful account of the proper role of religious conviction in democratic politics.
-
NSS to Court: town council prayers are unlawful
The society is acting on behalf of atheist councillor Clive Bone, who had tried to have the prayers stopped.
-
There goes the neighborhood
I saw Joseph Hoffmann’s post saying how tiny atheism and atheists now are a few days ago, when it was new, and decided to ignore it*, on the grounds that it was little different from its many predecessors and that nobody except one indefatigable fan was paying any attention so why bother. But then I saw that PZ had done a post on it, and then I saw that Eric had, so starving the beast is not an option, therefore I might as well do my share.
What does it say? That atheism is not good enough.
I cannot imagine a time in the history of unbelief when atheism has appeared more hamfisted, puling, ignorant or unappealing.
Is this because its savants are also described by those adjectives, or because their fans are just being fans, merchandising the cause: t-shirts, coffee mugs, quick fixes, blasphemy competitions, and billboard campaigns? (Axial tilt is the reason for the season: Honest Jethro, I thought I’d never stop laughing). I mean, who are we unless someone is offended by who we are? What good is blasphemy if no one is getting their knickers in a knot anymore, for Christ’s sake. How can we “come out” when there’s no one standing outside the closet to yell “Surprise!” at? And, by the way you churchy jerks: we are victims.
Atheism has become a very little idea, an idea that has to be shouted to seem important. And that is a shame, because God was a big idea, and the rejection of the existence of God was also a big idea, once upon a time.
But now, ah now, the grubby vulgar unlearned rabble have gotten their nasty unlearned hands on it and ruined it. It smells like a locker room now. It has potato chip crumbs all over it. It puts its shoes on the furniture. It chews with its mouth open. It doesn’t quote Goethe.
The post starts with a little display of erudition meant to put us in our place.
Lieber Gott: Bitte kommen Sie wieder. Wir sind sehr traurig, daran zu zweifeln Sie. Ihr, Faust.
Cool, except that a commenter at Eric’s is a German speaker and says the quoted bit doesn’t make any sense. The “Ihr, Faust” particularly reeks of a machine translator – translating “Yours, Faust,” which isn’t said in German. So that’s pretty funny – a display of snobbish hostility that starts with…ahem.
It gets worse as it goes on. It’s an unpleasant, even embarrassing display. There’s no apparent point to it except to express disdain and superiority.
Atheism has become a very little idea because it is now promoted by little people with a small focus. These people tend to think that there are two kinds of questions: the questions we have already answered and the questions we will answer tomorrow. When they were even smaller than they are now, their father asked them every six weeks, “Whadja get in math and science?” When they had children of their own, they asked them, “Whadja get in science and math?” Which goes to show, people can change.
They eschew mystery, unless it’s connected to a telescopic lens or an electron microscope or a neutrinometer at the Hadron Collider at CERN. “Mystery” is not a state to be enjoyed or celebrated like a good wine or a raven-haired woman with haunting and troubled eyes: it is a temporary state of befuddlement, an unknown sum, an uncharted particle, a glimpse of a distant galaxy, the possibility that Mars supported microbial life.
Ihr,
Faust
*Apart from a brief mention on the interview post, that is.
-
Brazen
It’s funny, in a way – Iran’s infamous PressTV is claiming that its embassy in London has been attacked.
Iran’s embassy in London has been attacked by a group of anti-revolutionary elements in an organized campaign after its closure by the British government.Reports suggest that the residence building of the Iranian ambassador to London has also been targeted.
Uh huh. Sure. Odd that no one else is reporting it though.
-
Religious believers distrust rapists and atheists
Even in more secular Canada, distrust of atheists ran high.
-
And they lived happily ever after
Oh how sweet, Hamid Karzai has pardoned a woman who was serving a 12 year prison sentence for…arson? Armed robbery? GBH? No; for being raped. That’s what women who are raped get in Afghanistan (and not only there): they get long prison sentences, and that’s if they’re lucky; the less fortunate ones get stoned to death. Here’s why: it’s because a man was able to get access to the aperture between her legs, and allowing a man to get access to that is of course a horrendous crime. It’s no good calling it “rape”; it’s the woman’s job to make the aperture inaccessible, period; it’s not the man’s job to refrain from shoving his penis into it when he gets the chance.
But in this case it all works out, because Gulnaz, the woman in question, isn’t actually being set free (to go on making her aperture accessible to random men, the slut), she’s being let out of one prison so that she can enter another: marriage to the man who raped her.
Some 5,000 people signed a petition for Gulnaz’s release. News of her pardon came in a statement from the presidential palace.
It said a meeting of the judiciary committee had “discussed the issue of rape… and the issue of her imprisonment”.
“As the both sides [Gulnaz and the rapist] have agreed to get married to each other with conditions, respective authorities were tasked to take action upon it according to Islamic Shariah,” it said.
Darling Islamic Shariah, which hands a rape victim over to her rapist.
-
Islamist named Morocco PM
The Justice and Development Party is a “moderate” Islamist party, according to the BBC.
-
Should religion trump laws mandating humane slaughter?
The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe took the position in 2002 that “the practice of
slaughtering animals without prior stunning is unacceptable under any circumstances.” -
Jailed Afghan rape victim “freed” to marry rapist
Gulnaz’s lawyer told the BBC she hoped the government would allow Gulnaz the freedom to choose whom to marry.
-
Padraig Reidy on instant outrage
The sheer volume of righteousness becomes off-putting.
