Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Gentle Jesus, meek and mild

    We hear so much about ‘militant’ atheists and yet it is theists who like to bully people. A science teacher in North Carolina has been suspended for saying caustic’ things about her students at Facebook. The students have been bullying her.

    Parents said the situation escalated after a student put a postcard of Jesus on Hussain’s desk that the teacher threw in the trash. Parents also said Hussain sent to the office students who, during a lesson about evolution, asked about the role of God in creation. On her Facebook page, Hussain wrote about students spreading rumors that she was a Jesus hater. She complained about her students wearing Jesus T-shirts and singing “Jesus Loves Me.” She objected to students reading the Bible instead of doing class work…The flash point for the comments came after the Bible was left on Hussain’s desk in December. The Bible was accompanied by an anonymous card, which, according to Hussain, said “Merry Christmas” with Christ underlined and bolded.

    Twelve-year-old sadists.

  • The Celtic doormat

    Meanwhile, in Scotland…

    A study of schoolchildren has found that most of those questioned thought violence towards women was acceptable if there was a reason behind it. The majority of the pupils said it was justified if the woman had an affair, or if she was late in making the tea.

    Or anything in between, no doubt.

  • If commanded, we will obey

    The Catholic church in Ireland is all heart – like Mr Collins, it graciously consents to do what it is obliged to do.

    The Primate of All-Ireland Cardinal Seán Brady said this afternoon that were the remit of the Murphy Commission to be extended to other Catholic dioceses in Ireland, the Catholic Church “will co-operate fully with that inquiry.”

    Is that not kind? Is that not generous? Is it not affable and condescending and truly gracious? The Catholic church will co-operate fully with an inquiry into its long habit of letting its priests molest children while it keeps the whole thing secret. I’m totally impressed.

    The pontiff also noted “the more general crisis of faith affecting the Church,” the statement said…and he linked that to the lack of respect for the human person and how the weakening of faith has been a significant contributing factor in the phenomenon of the sexual abuse of minors”.

    Aha! So it turns out it’s the atheists’ fault! It’s not the church’s fault, for being a powerful unaccountable arrogant self-protecting bunch of thugs, no, it’s the atheists’ fault for causing a ‘crisis of faith.’ Of course the child-molesting and the horrors of industrial schools have been going on for generation after generation, so one wonders which crisis of faith the pope has in mind…but never mind, the point is the atheists did it, and that’s what matters.

  • A name to conjure with

    The Templeton Foundation is having more and more success at getting its message under the radar. The Times Higher for instance tells us about an upcoming lecture which will include some things we have grown familiar with in recent months.

    It is often assumed that religion and science have always been locked in a life-and-death struggle…Such views would have startled the scholars, including some of the greatest names in British science, who founded what became the Royal Society 350 years ago. In a Faraday Institute public lecture, to be delivered in Cambridge this week, Peter Harrison, Andreas Idreos professor of science and religion at the University of Oxford, will challenge such arguments about the impossibility of being both scientific and religious, pointing out that they “obviously didn’t apply to the earliest fellows”.

    Right…and we have learned some things in those 350 years, so what people thought 350 years ago is not necessarily a conversation-stopper now, but no matter – do go on, I’m listening.

    In reality, Professor Harrison said, “almost without exception, early modern natural philosophers cherished religious convictions, although these were not invariably orthodox. Some – but by no means all – made the point that they were motivated to pursue scientific inquiry on account of these religious commitments.” Far from being militant atheists, they “believed that the disinterested study of the structures of living things could offer independent support for the truth of the Christian religion, and refute atheism”.

    But that of course is not the really important part of what Professor Harrison has to say. I wonder if you can guess what is?

    A historian with a first degree in zoology and “an overt religious commitment”, Professor Harrison regards the recent spate of anti-religious polemics headed by Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion as “intellectually vacuous, although their popularity is sociologically interesting”.

    That’s it! It’s another deadly blow at the ‘spate’ of anti-religious books (the one that occupies two feet of shelf at most at the University Bookstore here, two feet which are embedded in long shelves packed with pro-religious polemics stretching to the horizon).

    The really interesting thing about this is that the article never mentions – never mentions – the fact that the ‘Faraday Institute,’ which sounds so sciency and academicky and serious, is a creation of – wait for it – the Templeton Foundation.

    Thanks to Karel De Pauw for the article.

  • The glowing future

    A guy called Joseph Mayton at Comment is Free tells us about the ‘reform-minded younger generation’ in the Muslim Brotherhood.

    In many ways, these young people have created a new identity and image of the Brotherhood, both in Egypt and abroad. No longer do knowledgeable people view its members as the stereotypical bearded Islamists. Instead, they see members who talk of their desire for democracy and greater freedoms, not to mention their love for American films. The first time I met a group of the MB’s young bloggers a few years ago, they talked for 10 minutes on the upcoming Charlize Theron and Tom Cruise films.

    Aw, gee, really? Isn’t that sweet? Some ‘MB’ bloggers are interested in movies with Charlize Theron and Tom Cruise in them, therefore they have ‘created a new identity and image of the Brotherhood,’ therefore the Brotherhood is kind of cool and reformy and okay and interesting. Kind of like if Hitler and Goebbels had only gotten excited about Carole Lombard and Jimmy Cagney, all that misunderstanding between 1939 and 1945 would have been avoided, because there was certainly nothing wrong with those guys that a little exposure to Hollywood wouldn’t have fixed. Same with the Muslim Brotherhood, ok?

    You’ll think I’m being unfair, but I’m not; there’s nothing in the article that actually gets to grips with what the Muslim Brotherhood is.

  • ‘Faith’ and Science Used to Be Cuddly

    Says an Oxford professor of science and religion in a lecture at the Templeton Foundation’s ‘Faraday Institute.’

  • Women Against Fundamentalism on Sahgal

    We know from global experience that women’s rights are the first to be traded in political settlements.

  • Algerian Survivors of Islamist Violence on Sahgal

    We, Algerains, thank Gita Sahgal for keeping up with the ideal and mission of human rights.

  • Exciting Plans for Hijab Sculpture in Brick Lane

    Let’s celebrate the subordination of women!

  • Vicar Insists That Women Are Subordinate

    It is ‘an eternal principle that women are physically weaker than men’ so men are the boss.

  • ‘The Muslim Brotherhood is Young at Heart’

    Comment is Free sends another love letter to darling Islamism.

  • Kevin Rudd Rebukes Women Who Don’t Breed

    All young women say they can’t, they’re getting a PhD. No really, he said that.

  • Iran Needs a United Democratic and Secular Opposition

    The lack of a strong and united democratic and secular movement in Iran has left the way clear for the Islamic regime for the further destruction, plunder, and bloodshed of our country. Although the panic-stricken bullets of Islamic mercenaries would suffocate any voice of protest, people are brave enough to resolutely claim their freedom despite any risk of torture, rape, and execution as “Mohareb” (heretic).

    Unfortunately, the worst-ever conditions of our people have not enough stimulated responsible reactions among all democratic and secular activists to form a united movement to free the country from the plague of the Islamic regime.

    Sadly, yet the people of Iran must wait; such a liberation movement has long been deemed illusory. It is however expected that this movement should simply be formed without further delay. It should learn from all historical experiences of both our past and all peoples of the world who achieved movements to free their countries. It should realistically use any tactical method and independently accept any international assistance to hasten the fall of the IRI because each day of the IRI parasitic life destroys lives.

    A democratic and secular movement’s programme consists of forming a democratically elected new state in Iran, in which all political authorities will be directly elected by the people. Such authorities must be secular and democratic; their political background must be clean with no ties or sympathy for any religious or unelected form of state. Dictatorial regimes will have no place in the future of Iran. All authorities of free Iran must swear an oath to unconditionally respect Human Rights and democracy; they should be competent and independent — our national interests should never be bargained away by whims of any foreign power.

    Our society is not a lab for another Islamic or extremist experiment. National leaders should be the fruit of the Iranian people’s struggles for freedom from any kind of dictatorial regime. Our society is strong enough not bow to any ideology, religion of submission, or domination of an elite class.

    An Iranian democratic and secular movement now is needed to be nationally present in the scenes of people’s protests. This of course will spontaneously surface in the process of revolution; however, an immediate formation of it will hasten the revolution itself. Such an opposition movement should immediately present its programme which comes in practice after the fall of the IRI. The programme must contain effective solutions to free Iran from the yoke of backwardness and dictatorship.

    The programme should explain how to prepare the conditions for the unconditional democracy, social justice, gender equality, question of Islamic hijab, development of national economy, rehabilitation of an Iranian identity, reviving of art and culture, negation of Islam as state religion, elimination of all religious institutions, removal of all religious influence from education, judiciary, calendar, language, and all aspects of social life in a democratic and progressive process.

    Any new regime after the IRI is expected to bring all criminals of the IRI, since its inception, and all their collaborators before an international court for crimes against humanity. However, we should not ignore the fact that an essence of such a process is not the individual punishment but the reestablishment of justice and rehabilitation of victims of the IRI. As such, the process should emphasise the following tasks:

    No Iranian woman is worth half the value of a man, no Iranian can be punished for political or religious belief. From now on, Iran will never possess dungeons, torture, and political prison. From now on, no Islamic law will be ever permitted to commit stoning, amputation of limb, lashing, or any human humiliation. By condemning the judiciary of a medieval belief system which has been imposed on our country in a very violent and long process, it is time that our generation transmit our lesson to the next generations and those Iranians who need practical proofs to quit the imposed cult of Islam.

    As we know, the key powers are traditionally interested in economic issues. The EU still ignores the fact that their barrels of Iranian oil cost many lives extinguished by the criminals of the Islamic regime. We should demand an adequate policy from the EU. For the moment we must forget Russia and China, because of their dictatorial past and present undemocratic states. In fact, these have never learnt an integration of Human Rights and human ethic into their policy. The US, despite the rhetoric of regime change under the Bush administration and the appeasement policy of the Obama administration, can be ultimately satisfied with some reforms within the regime. An Iranian democratic movement should not rely on the agenda of any foreign power that tries to influence their politics toward the illegitimate IRI.

    US conflicts with the IRI have nothing to do with the fact that the IRI is trampling on the basic elements of democracy and Human Rights in Iran. US concerns are derived from the fact that the IRI is stirring sectarian conflicts in Iraq, and its nuclear ambitions can be a future danger for Western interests in the region especially if it threatens the existence of Israel.

    Neither the US nor our heroes will topple this despised Islamic regime in Iran. People with their raised fists, roars, and red blood need to be organised to crush this regime. Only the organised people will sow seeds of freedom and secularism in a free Iran.

    Occasional human rights violations in Iran are not the main concern of the West. Also, these accusations are true of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and many other allies of the US. The US has arranged notorious compromises with Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden’s Islamist movement, Islamists in Pakistan, and corrupt Sheiks in the region. This can be also done in the case of Iran. As a matter of fact, if today the bellicose IRI refuses to enrich uranium for its nuclear programme and does not disturb the US in Iraq, a likely sympathy of the Obama administration for “Green Movement” can be overnight forgotten.

    In the ongoing critical conditions, and under pressure of a chain of crises, the ruling IRI can be further divided into many cliques and factions. Secular and democratic opposition should be vigilant by avoiding accepting any variation which keeps the IRI or one of its Islamic factions in power. The least demand of our people is “no” to all models of the IRI.

    The fact that a nuclear Iranian regime will have greater bargaining power to use as a lever to intensify its dictatorship must be recognised by all freedom-loving Iranians; therefore an opposition movement should take part in any international campaign against the IRI nuclear ambitions. However, it should not be forgotten that the greatest danger is not the regime’s nuclear programme but the IRI’s parasitic existence itself.

    What practically can be used from this atomic conflict is to internationally isolate the regime. Therefore, along with condemning the IRI’s dangerous nuclear programme, we should always put the priority on the question of defending the basic rights of people. The basic rights of our people cannot be guaranteed under this regime or one of its factions led today by “reformists” such as Moussavi and Karrubi.

    The nuclear conflict is intentionally propagated by the IRI and its factions to mask the totalitarian character of the whole regime; it is a cover-up to associate its parasitic existence with the alleged “national” right of having a nuclear programme for the “peaceful” needs of the nation.

    It is wrong to reduce the whole legitimacy of the IRI to the nuclear conflict; for Iranians the problem is the existence of the IRI itself with or without this conflict. In the nuclear dispute, both the IRI and the West are adding fuel to the flames and making nonessential assertions to attempt a dangerous escalation. This is however not our main problem, one should argue that the IRI is a totalitarian regime with a capacity of thousands of brainwashed jihadi who can blow up any “enemy” of God. So, nuclear technology in the hands of such Islamists means a new weapon for jihadis; only because of this jihadi and anti-human character of this regime, a nuclear arsenal should not fall into the hands of IRI authorities.

    There are no military solutions to the nuclear ambitions of the IRI. Economic sanctions cannot solve our real problems with this regime. Not only these are immoral, but also counterproductive and even exacerbate the activities of both Mullahs’ mafia and state repression in Iran.

    Nevertheless, more than 40% of the domestic consumption of gasoline is now mainly imported in Iran from India. If this delivery is timely and temporarily stopped, not only will a shortage of Iran’s domestic consummation create a series of uncontrolled popular riots, but it will mainly affect the repressive machine of the regime so that it will be in a short while paralysed and vulnerable. In such a case the heroic people of Iran can do the rest by sending the whole regime into the dustbin of history.

    India supplies a great part of the needed gasoline which helps the Mullahs’ regime to survive. If Russia and China, as close accomplices and partners of the IRI, are undemocratic states, India is known as the greatest democracy of the world. We, all freedom-loving Iranians, solemnly expect India to suspend its delivery of gasoline to the IRI.

    The IRI must be internationally isolated, all diplomatic, cultural, and sport contacts with it must be suspended. All foreign accounts of IRI officials must be frozen. Their mafia activities in the Persian Gulf and around Iran must be internationally controlled and the IRI Mafiosi must be internationally prosecuted.

    International mandates must be issued against IRI officials for their crimes against humanity. So, there are many other sanction regimes that can be imposed on the IRI, but neither military nor economic sanctions can be yet accepted by a majority of Iranians.

    The outstanding point is the illegitimacy of the IRI: it is illegitimate because its Supreme Leader is unelected, and its repressive organs permanently violate Human Rights. Therefore, the UN and the Council of Europe must demand resolutions which put the IRI and political Islam on an equal status as fascist, racist, and criminal organisations. Such resolutions are not beyond judicial facts, but legal contributions to elaborating a charter of principles for the totalitarian IRI.

    Once an Iranian democratic and secular movement is officially formed and internationally recognised, this movement must try to represent the Iranian people in the UN and any international institution as the only legitimate delegation of that people.

    In short, although a common platform is difficult to specify for all opposition groups, at least such a movement must respond to the following four major aspirations of most Iranian people:

    • Organising and leading Iranian people’s struggles to sweep away the IRI and all its Islamic relics, institutions, and suppressive organs.
    • Forming a temporary government to organise a constitutional assembly for a new constitution. The new constitution is only legal when it is approved by the majority of people in a referendum supervised by the international inspectors.
    • Preparing conditions as quickly as possible for a democratically elected parliament and government based on the right that people can elect and dismiss all key authorities.
    • Transferring the power to the hands of the new government without monopolising or influencing on the military or political apparatus.
  • Might makes right in Sevenoaks

    That curate in Kent is standing by what he said – he’s not backing down just because a lot of boring politically correct rightsy types are pissed off. He’s got principle. He really thinks women should be submissive to men.

    Two weeks ago the curate delivered a controversial sermon at St Nicholas’s Church in Sevenoaks in which he triggered outrage by partly blaming the high divorce rate on women no longer submitting to their husbands…During yesterday’s sermon Mr Oden said he wished to make it clear that he did not believe women were “weaker intellectually” but that it was “an eternal principle that women are physically weaker than men”.

    Well, it’s not the case that all women are physically weaker than all men, of course, but leave that aside – even if that were the case, what would follow from that? Is there an ‘eternal principle’ that physically stronger people should, morally speaking, be the boss of physically weaker people? Is that what follows from Mark Oden’s inaccurate claim? No. Nobody thinks that. In fact there’s a word for that thought, a pejorative word: that word is ‘bullying.’ There is of course a reality that physically stronger people often do boss people who are physically weaker, but that’s not a moral principle. On the contrary the fact that it’s not a moral principle is something that adults try to teach children, and that decent people try to teach bullies. It is odd that an Anglican curate would want to offer an argument from bullying in a sermon.

  • I am shocked, shocked, that there is child-rape going on in this establishment

    So the pope is doing the ostentatious hand-washing thing – though of course it would be impolite to murmur anything about Pontius Pilate.

    Pope Benedict XVI will today complete his interrogation of Ireland’s 24 bishops before pontificating on one of the most shocking clerical scandals of recent times: the extensive sexual abuse of children by Irish priests and the pervasive campaign to conceal it…The Pope has said he is “disturbed and distressed” by the abuse in Ireland and shares the “outrage, betrayal and shame” felt by the Irish people…Observers note that widespread abuse of children by priests is not unique to Ireland.

    To put it mildly. But what fewer observers seem to be noting is the absurdity of the pope’s display of shock-horror now. As I have mentioned before, the pope’s pretense of outrage now sits uneasily with that order he issued in 2001 when he was still just Joe Ratzinger.

    …an order ensuring the church’s investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001. It asserted the church’s right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

    That order. One wonders if any of the Irish bishops are shouting about that letter while the pope shouts at them for obeying it, or are they just sitting quietly while he goes through the motions because all of them know perfectly well it’s a charade, not to say a pageant, and that they just have to read their lines and be done with it.

    Yet these are the people who claim the right to tell everyone how to be good. These thugs who fiddle with children and then protect each other as long as they can get away with it, and by way of rest and relaxation tell the people of Africa not to use condoms. With friends like thse who needs the Mafia?!

  • Crucial distinctions

    Gary Rosen, the chief external affairs officer of the Templeton Foundation, reviews Timothy Ferris’s The Science of Liberty in The New York Times.

    Nor is it clear, as Ferris would have it, that science furnishes the ideal template for liberal democracy. Science, he notes, is antiauthoritarian, self-correcting, meritocratic and collaborative…But crucial distinctions are lost in these comparisons. The scientific community may be open to everyone, in principle, but it has steep and familiar barriers to entry…[M]odern science is, in the most admirable sense, an aristocracy — a selection and sorting of the best minds as they interact within institutions designed to achieve certain rarefied ends. Experiment, equality and freedom of expression are essential to this work, but it is the work of an elite community from which most people are necessarily excluded.

    But crucial distinctions are lost in Rosen’s claim, too. Very crucial. ‘Most people’ are not excluded in the most pernicious sense of the word – formally, permanently, without appeal, because of who they are rather than what they know or what they can do. Nobody is excluded in that sense, and that distinction is as crucial as it gets. People are ‘excluded’ by for instance not wanting to do the hard work it takes to be a scientist, but that’s a very provisional kind of exclusion. Steep barriers to entry are very different from absolute barriers to entry. There are more or less steep barriers to entry to all forms of work, but it remains possible to try, or to dream about trying. That’s a different thing from knowing that you will never be allowed to do a particular kind of work no matter how much education you get and no matter how good you are. This matters enormously, and there’s something faintly sinister about exaggerating the amount and kind of ‘exclusion’ that science entails.

  • Pope Scolds Irish Bishops Over Child Abuse

    No mention of Ratzinger’s 2001 letter to all Catholic bishops telling them abuse was Church business.

  • Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World

    New evidence that part of the history of radical Islamism was written in Berlin in WW II.

  • Hitchens on Amnesty and Gita Sahgal

    Amnesty did not defend IRA bombers and Khmer Rouge killers and Gens. Pinochet and Videla.