Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Mark Lilla and Richard Sennett Open Letter

    To the Anti-Defamation League, on the cancellation of a talk by Tony Judt at Polish consulate.

  • Hitchens on Tony Judt’s Persecution Complex

    We have a right to express an opinion, but not at a meeting of a private group that disagrees.

  • In a Sea of Uncertainty, We Grab at Anchors

    Like other subtle biases, anchors influence people at an unconscious level.

  • On the Right to Give Offence

    Believers in absolute truth revealed by God are unlikely to allow pestiferous notions of freedom of speech.

  • Turkey Struggles to End ‘Honour’ Killings

    Issue is complicated by the fact that the murders are associated mainly with the Kurdish minority.

  • 9/11 Doubter to Leave Post at BYU

    Physics instructor belongs to group who believe US orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

  • Kenan Malik on What Muslims Want

    Politicians prefer to see them as people who can be politically engaged only by other Muslims.

  • Not rocket science, nor brain surgery

    An interesting (at least in places) discussion at Pharyngula of Eagleton on Dawkins. One of the interesting bits is the one where Andrew Brown drops by to comment. He notes that he reviewed The God Delusion for Prospect with a follow-up at Comment is Free (I put both in News here, and I think commented on one or both; they’re not new). He draws a rather irrelevant analogy.

    The shortest form of all these objections is this analogy: Suppose that I, knowing nothing about economics, write a book saying that the world would be better off without money: that money has led people to terrible crimes, and may even be thre root of all evil — “and besides, when you look at it money doesn’t even exist: who is this ‘I’ who promises to pay the bearer on demand? Why should we believe in dollars when no one believes in Reichsmarks or in cowrie shells?” Would this be a scientific work? Would it advance our understanding of money, or of economics?

    But religion isn’t economics, and it’s not like economics. Religion is not an expert subject. That’s why I find all these questions about theology beside the point. Religion of course can be an expert subject, but it isn’t of its nature an expert subject, especially not in the form of the various Protestant denominations. Religion is public, and democratic, and inclusive, and all-embracing; furthermore, people are constantly making us a present of their religious beliefs in all sorts of public media, from newspapers to political campaigns to radio shows to tv dramas. It is a perfectly legitimate and indeed necessary undertaking to look at and dispute with that form of religion – public religion – everybody’s religion – Bush’s religion, Blair’s religion, Cristine Odone’s religion. That’s why economics is beside the point.

    Brown goes on:

    There are lots of us who believe that religion is primarily a social reality. The way to study social realities, and to understand them, is not to ponce around saying “Nyah nyah nyah it’s all just an illusion.”

    Well, there are also lots of us who believe – for good reason, I would say – that religion is a social reality that rests on particular supernatural beliefs – to wit, that there is a personal omnipotent benevolent omniscient god who is real but out of our reach and who is transcendent but nevertheless answers our prayers and is involved in our world. One way to study and also criticize a social reality that is based on those beliefs is indeed, surely, to ask whether there is any reason to believe all that. Why wouldn’t it be? When we’re always being urged to believe all that ourselves, and urged or commanded to respect people who believe it, and told to be quiet about our opinion of it, and having plays and museum exhibits closed down before we can see them because of it. It’s our business, isn’t it; it’s everyone’s business. Economics isn’t.* I wouldn’t apply for the job of chairman of the Federal Reserve, because I quite agree that I don’t know enough about economics, but religion isn’t like that (not that I plan to apply for the job of archbishop of Canterbury either).

    I can see saying that approach is not terribly interesting or challenging, I can see not wanting to bother with it, but Brown seems to be saying that it’s illegitimate, and I don’t buy that. I don’t think an approach that disputes religion as it is commonly (and often) presented is in the least illegitimate, in fact I think it needs doing.

    *Well, economics is, but not in the sense of being able to criticize it cogently merely because we know how to spend money.

  • Looney American Foundation threatens to sue the Nobel Committee

    Background Information: Since last September, Hindutva (Hindu
    supremacist) groups have attempted in vain to doctor sixth grade
    social science textbooks in California [1]. With the solid backing of
    their Indian allies, and aided by a battery of expensive lawyers and
    the PR firm Ruder Finn, these groups sought to elide discussion of
    caste and sex-based discrimination (in India) in the textbooks [2].
    Their efforts were first opposed by a European-American scholar (Michael Witzel,
    Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University), and the California State
    Board of Education is predominantly European-American, so the Hindutva groups and
    their supporters cynically assumed the mantle of an aggrieved minority
    [3]. What follows is an (as yet) imaginary account of the developments
    following the announcement of the Nobel Physics Prize in a Hindutva
    community; the lack of context and critical information (in the
    account below) is typical of how the mainstream press has covered
    Hindutva-related issues in the U.S.

    The Looney American Foundation (LAF), an advocacy group of Hindus,
    today announced its intent to sue the Nobel committee for “gross
    violations of due process” in awarding the 2006 Nobel Prize for
    Physics to space scientists John Mather and George Smoot. Dismissing
    the Nobel Committee’s judgment that the awardees’ work “looks back
    into the infancy of the Universe and attempts to gain some
    understanding of the origin of galaxies and stars”, LAF President
    Pravin Singhal asserted that the origin of the universe never held any
    mystery for true Hindus.

    “The Puranas speak of the creation and destruction of the universe in
    cycles of 8.64 billion years, which is quite close to the currently
    accepted value [13.7 billion years] regarding the time of the big
    bang, give or take a few billion years. We Hindus are never given our
    due”, he said in a voice choked with emotion, and quoted Swami
    Prakashanand Saraswati (spiritual leader of the Vedic Foundation) in
    support: “Hindu scriptures reveal the scientific axioms that are
    extremely helpful in the research and the development of science. But,
    the intelligentsia of the world as well as the researchers of the
    physical sciences, being skeptical of Hindu religion, never thought of
    using the scientific knowledge of the Upnishads and the Puranas to
    promote their study and researches in the right direction.”[4]

    His voice now a rising crescendo of righteous indignation, Singhal
    continued: “We have been silent way too long, but the latest affront
    is one too many. We will not rest until the Christian West recognizes
    the contributions of ancient Hindu sages who not only predicted the
    creation but also the destruction of the universe (the latter still
    beyond the grasp of modern science).”

    “If only we had the means to file a suit, we would have done so
    already”, a colleague ruefully reminded. “Our California effort has
    all but emptied our coffers, and we are averse to dipping into our
    pogrom funds [5] to finance what’s surely going to be a long-drawn
    legal battle”, Singhal clarified, and appealed to “all Hindus and
    defenders of minority rights to help us set the record straight, and
    give credit where it is due (our ancient sages).” He concluded on a
    promising note: “We already have endorsements from the Organization of
    Upper Caste Hindus (OUCH), Parents for Equality of Stupidity in
    Textbooks (PEST) and the Vishwa Looney Parishad (VLP or the World
    Looney Council).

    Meanwhile, a little known group calling itself the American Loonies
    Against Discrimination (ALAD) threatened the Nobel Committee with a
    suit of its own for legitimating what it called a “false” theory. Andy
    Shah, President of ALAD, explained: “Swami Prakashanand Saraswati has
    already proved that the big bang and the inflation of the universe
    never happened, that our planetary system (along with all the
    celestial abodes) was originally created by Brahma 155.5219719616
    trillion years ago, and that our Hindu religion was first revealed
    111.52 trillion years ago [6]. So, attributing a far more recent
    origin to the universe (13.7 billion years) is a malicious attempt by
    anti-Hindu forces to contradict the glorious antiquity of our
    religion. This is a gross violation of minority rights and a grievous
    assault on our tradition and the self-esteem of all Hindus,
    particularly children.”

    As an out-of-breath Shah paused to catch breath, one of his underlings
    intervened: “Such willful disregard for the glorious traditions of
    Hinduism can only give greater fillip to brazen assertions of equality
    by the Dalits.”

    Shah brusquely cut him off and continued: “What my friend meant to say
    is that a society with no respect for tradition will slowly but surely
    degenerate into anarchy. We are all for equal rights for everyone, we
    most assuredly are not sectarian. In fact, every day we preach the
    message of Jesus Christ to the Dalits: Blessed are the meek: for they
    shall inherit the earth. We also agree with Pope John Paul II that we
    mortals ‘should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was
    the moment of creation and the work of God’. We do hope to work with
    the Vatican to halt the march of godless science and its cheerleaders
    (like the Nobel Committee).”

    Notes:

    1. The groups involved are the Hindu American Foundation, the Hindu
    Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation, all of them with
    demonstrable links to the Sangh Parivar (family of Hindutva groups) in
    India. For details, see the amicus brief filed by the Friends of South
    Asia and its allies here [pdf].

    2. For a short list of such edits, see this.

    3. The irony was not lost on those familiar with the workings of the
    Sangh Parivar; see “Indian Jim Crow in Victim Garb”.

    4. All quotes attributed to Swami Prakashanand Saraswati are from his
    book, “The true history and the religion of India”. For more on his
    scholarship, see “Move Over Intelligent Design, Here Comes Bhartiya
    Creationism”
    .

    5. The Sangh Parivar’s work in India is partly (but significantly)
    financed by its foreign fronts masquerading as charities. See “The
    Foreign Exchange of Hate: IDRF and the American Funding of Hindutva”
    and “In Bad Faith? British
    Charity & Hindu Extremism”
    .

    6. The Vedic Foundation used to proudly display this “fact”. When
    challenged in public, it quickly cleaned up its website but not fast
    enough to vanish without a trace. For your amusement, an archived copy
    is available here.

    Ra Ravishankar is a contributor to the Campaign to Stop Funding
    Hate
    .

  • Anti-gay Catholic Group Harassing a Priest

    Catholic Truth, a right-wing newsletter, trying to out an Edinburgh priest.

  • Trevor Phillips: Veil Debate Could Start Riots

    ‘This is not what anyone intended and it is the last thing Britain needs.’

  • Shazia Mirza Off to India to Joke About Veils

    The British Council is sending her for bridge-building purposes.

  • Might Secularism be a Good Idea?

    Is it time for Britain, as a state, to turn secular?

  • Sam Harris on Bad Reasons to be Good

    The link between religion and morality in our public life is almost never questioned.

  • Deborah Solomon Interviews Harry Frankfurt

    ‘People in this country are starved for the truth.’

  • Free Speech at Columbia

    In the last month Columbia has been embroiled in four separate free-speech controversies.

  • Pope Warns Scientists Against Doing an Icarus

    By doing research that the Vatican disapproves of. Don’t touch that apple.

  • Bérubé’s ‘What’s Liberal’ Reviewed

    ‘An unrepentant liberal, fond of postmodern culture, but not of Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore.’

  • Columbia Teachers College and ‘Loyalty Oaths’

    Does stated ‘respect for diversity and commitment to social justice’ amount to an ideological loyalty oath?