Author: Ophelia Benson

  • High Court: Take down gender-separation barrier in J’lem

    Justice Beinisch says minority groups cannot take over public spaces, says there should be no segregation in Mea Shearim.

  • Israel: Court upholds ban on Sukkot gender segregation

    Large billboards posted throughout Jerusalem’s ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods last week forbade women to enter Mea She’arim Street during the Sukkot celebration.

  • Boxing governing body tells women to wear skirts

    For boxing. Boxing in a skirt. Seriously.

  • For a free and secular Middle East and North Africa

    76 secularists and human rights campaigners, including Mina Ahadi, Nawal El Sadaawi, Marieme Helie Lucas, Hameeda Hussein, Ayesha Imam, Maryam Jamil, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasrin, Farida Shaheed, Fatou Sow, and Stasa Zajovic have signed on to a Manifesto for a Free and Secular Middle East and North Africa.

    In light of the recent pronouncements of the unelected Libyan Transitional Council for ‘Sharia laws’, the signatories of the manifesto vehemently oppose the hijacking of the protests by Islamism or US-led militarism and unequivocally support the call for freedom and secularism made by citizens and particularly women in the region.

    Secularism is a minimum precondition for a free and secular Middle East and for the recognition of women’s rights and equality.

    We call on world citizens to support this important campaign by signing on to our petition.

    We also ask that supporters click ‘like’ on our Facebook page to support this important campaign and Tweet: #freesecularMENA in support of a free and secular Middle East and North Africa.

    Manifesto for a Secular Middle East and North Africa

    The 2009 protests in Iran followed by the Arab Spring have the potential to herald a new dawn for the people of the region and the world. The protests have clearly shown that people in the region, like people everywhere, want to live 21st century lives.

    We, the undersigned, emphasise their modern and human dimension and wholeheartedly welcome this immense and historical development. We are vehemently opposed to their hijacking by Islamism or US-led militarism and support the call for a free and secular Middle East and North Africa made by citizens and particularly women in the region.

    Secularism is a minimum precondition for the freedom and equality of all citizens and includes:

    1. Complete separation of religion from the state.

    2. Abolition of religious laws in the family, civil and criminal codes.

    3. Separation of religion from the educational system.

    4. Freedom of religion and atheism as private beliefs.

    5. Prohibition of sex apartheid and compulsory veiling.

    SIGNATORIES

    1.Mina Ahadi, Spokesperson, International Committees against Stoning and Execution, Iran/Germany
    2.Marieme Helie Lucas, Sociologist, Founder and former international coordinator of Women Living Under Muslim Laws and founder of Secularism Is A Women’s Issue, Algeria/France
    3.Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran, Iran/UK
    4.Shahla Abghari, University Professor, Iran/USA
    5.Siavash Abghari, Esmail Khoi Foundation, Iran/USA
    6.Ahlam Akram, Palestinian Peace and Human Rights Writer and Campaigner, Palestine/UK
    7.Sargul Ahmad, Women’s Liberation in Iraq, Iraq/Canada
    8.Mahin Alipour, Coordinator, Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran, Iran/Sweden
    9.Reza Alkrami, Human Rights Activist, Iran/USA
    10.Farideh Arman, Coordinator, Committee to Defend Women’s Rights, Iran/Sweden
    11.Sultana Begum, Regional Gender Adviser, Diakonia Asia, Bangladesh
    12.Djemila Benhabib, Writer, Algeria/Canada
    13.Codou Bop, Journalist and Director of GREFELS, Dakar, Senegal
    14.Ariane Brunet, co-founder Urgent Action Fund, Québec, Canada
    15.Micheline Carrier, Sisyphe, Québec, Canada
    16.Patty Debonitas, Iran Solidarity, UK
    17.Denise Deliège Femmes En Noir, Belgium
    18.Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran, Sweden
    19.Fanny Filosof, Femmes en Noir, Belgium
    20.Mersedeh Ghaedi, New Channel TV Programme host, Iran/Norway
    21.Groupe de recherche sur les femmes et les lois, Dakar, Senegal
    22.Laura Guidetti, Marea Feminist Magazine, Italy
    23.Zeinabou Hadari, Centre Reines Daura, Niger
    24.Anissa Hélie, Historian, Algeria/France/USA
    25.Rohini Henssman, Human Rights Activist, India
    26.Hameeda Hossein, Chairperson Ain o Salish Kendra, Dhaka, Bangladesh
    27.Khayal Ibrahim, Women’s Liberation in Iraq, Iraq/Canada
    28.Leo Igwe, Founder, Nigerian Humanist Movement, Nigeria
    29.Ayesha Imam, Women’s Human Rights and Democracy Activist, Nigeria/Senegal
    30.International Campaign in Defence of Women’s Rights in Iran, Sweden
    31.International Committee against Execution, Germany
    32.International Committee against Stoning, Germany
    33.Iran Solidarity, Iran/UK
    34.Maryam Jamil, Women’s Liberation in Iraq, Iraq
    35.Sultana Kamal, Executive Director, Ain o Salish Kendra and Chairperson Transparency International, Bangladesh
    36.Abbas Kamil, Unity Against Unemployment in Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq
    37.Harsh Kapoor, South Asia Citizens Web, India
    38.Akbar Karimian, Human Rights Activist, Iran/UK
    39.Cherifa Kheddar, President of Djazairouna, Algeria
    40.Monica Lanfranco, Marea Feminist Magazine, Italy
    41.Houzan Mahmoud, Representative of Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, Iraq/UK
    42.Nahla Elgaali Mahmoud, Biologist, Sudan/UK
    43.Anwar Mir Sattari, Human rights Activist, Iran/Belgium
    44.Amena Mohsin, Professor, Dept. International Relations Dhaka University, Bangladesh
    45.Khawar Mumtaz, Director Shirkat Gah, Lahore, Pakistan
    46.Taslima Nasrin, Writer and Activist, Bangladesh
    47.U. M. Habibun Nessa, President, Naripokkho, Bangladesh
    48.Partow Nooriala, Poet, Writer and Human Rights Activist, Iran/USA
    49.Asghar Nosrati, Human Rights Activist, Iran/Sweden
    50.One Law for All, UK
    51.Pragna Patel, Southall Black Sisters, UK
    52.Fariborz Pooya, Iranian Secular Society, Iran/UK
    53.Protagora, Zagreb, Croatia
    54.Hassan Radwan, Activist, Egypt/UK
    55.Mary Jane Real, Women’s Human Rights Coalition, Manila, The Philippines
    56.Edith Rubinstein, Femmes en Noir, Belgium
    57.Nawal El Sadaawi, Writer, Egypt
    58.Fahimeh Sadeghi, Coordinator, International Federation of Iranian Refugees, Iran/Canada
    59.Gita Sahgal, Director, Centre for Secular Space, UK
    60.Nina Sankari, Secularist and Feminist, Poland
    61.Secularism Is A Women’s Issue (International Network)
    62.Aisha Lee Shaheed, London, UK
    63.Farida Shaheed, Shirkat Gah, Lahore, Pakistan
    64.Siba Shakib, Filmmaker, Writer and Activist, Iran/USA
    65.Sohaila Sharifi, Women’s Rights Campaigner, Iran/UK
    66.Issam Shukri, Head, Secularism and Civil Rights in Iraq, Iraq/Canada
    67.Southall Black Sisters, UK
    68.Fatou Sow, Sociologist CNRS, Dakar, Senegal
    69.Afsaneh Vahdat, Coordinator, International Campaign for Women’s Rights in Iran, Iran/Sweden
    70.Lino Veljak, Professor of Philosophy, Zagreb University, Croatia
    71.Fauzia Viqar, Director Advocacy and Communications, Shirkat Gah Women’s Resource Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
    72.Anne Marie Waters, One Law for All, UK
    73.Vivienne Wee, anthropologist, feminist and human rights activist, Singapore and Hong Kong, China
    74.Women In Black, Belgrade, Serbia
    75.Sara Zaker, Theatre Director, Bangladesh
    76.Stasa Zajovic, spokesperson Women in Black, Belgrade, Serbia

  • It could turn out like Iran

    Middle-class women in Tunisia are not thrilled about the win of the “moderate” Islamist party.

    In Sunday’s election Tunisia, birthplace of the “Arab Spring” uprisings,
    handed the biggest share of the vote to Ennahda, a moderate Islamist party that was banned under decades of autocratic, secularist rule.

    “We’re afraid that they’ll limit our freedoms,” said Rym, a 25-year-old
    medical intern sitting in “Gringo’s”, a fast-food outlet in Ennasr.

    “They say they won’t but after a while they could introduce changes step by
    step. Polygamy could come back … They say they want to be like Turkey but it
    could turn out like Iran. Don’t forget, that was a very open society too.”

    Not to mention the fact that Turkey is getting more Islamist, not less so. These “moderate” Islamists are only as “moderate” as they’re forced to be. As soon as they can, they go stricter.

    Many of them do not trust assurances from Rachid Ghannouchi, Ennahda’s
    leader. He says he will model his approach on Turkey’s moderate ruling AK Party, will not impose Islamic values on anyone and will respect women’s
    rights.

    Nadia Khemiri, a 39-year-old former public relations executive who is now a
    housewife, says it is not Ghannouchi that worries her, but the message his win
    will send to the streets.

    A few days before the election, Khemiri was handing out leaflets in support
    of a rival party with other women activists.

    “There were some men who looked at us and said: ‘You keep doing what you’re
    doing. But it’s not going to last long. Soon you’ll be staying at home’,”
    Khemiri recalled in an interview on Tuesday.

    “We have seen incidents that justified our fears of excesses from certain
    people, who are now going to feel stronger, and that they can get away with
    anything.”

    Just so. As soon as they can, they will.

    Ennahda’s victory means Tunisia will finally have a leadership who share the
    values and Muslim identity of the majority of the population.

    …

    “It’s men not looking you in the eye; talking to your husband, not you,” said
    another woman, who did not want to be named. “I have a daughter and I worry
    about her.”

    Khemiri said she was shocked to see separate queues for men and women at
    polling stations in areas where Ennahda is strong.

    “In some working-class districts, when you go to pay the gas or electricity
    bill, there are men who come with their wives and try to enforce separate queues…”

    Not good.

  • Tunisia: secular women fear rise of Islamism

    “They say they want to be like Turkey but it could turn out like Iran.”

  • Egypt imprisoning bloggers for “insulting the military”

    Ayman Youssef Mansour also received three years, not for offending the demigods of the military but rather for “insulting” Islam” on Facebook.

  • CBO report on income [pdf]

    One body of research has focused on the very large pay increases for top corporate executives…

  • US: income inequality increased sharply in last 30 years

    The Congressional Budget Office said income had trebled for the richest 1% between 1979 and 2007.

  • Wubete and 100,000 more

    Ever seen Nova’s “A Walk to Beautiful“? I was sure I’d posted about it at ur-B&W but I didn’t find such a post so I guess I didn’t. It was repeated on one of the local PBS stations last night so I saw it for the third time.

    It rips my guts out every time. It’s about a hospital in Addis Ababa that repairs fistulas in women, which means it’s about a hospital that receives women who are outcasts, miserable, isolated, lonely, and repairs them. Everything about it is moving.

    The real killer is Wubete, who is there for the third time, because the first two didn’t work. They tell her to do exercises and she’s in despair, because she’s been doing them and they don’t work…and she doesn’t want to go home because they all reject her there. Her father forced her to marry as a child – she kept refusing, she kept running away, but finally she got pregnant so she had to stay. She was 11 or 12. It wouldn’t have happened, she says miserable, if her mother had been alive. Then having the stillborn baby destroyed her bladder – and the hospital can’t fix it. Tears roll down her cheeks, and the nurse tells her (very kindly – they’re all very kind at that place) not to be so broken-hearted. Later Wubete goes to the head nurse and says she doesn’t want to go home, is there any way she could stay on? She’s so forlorn. I know how it comes out for her and still it just about kills me to watch it. (*Spoiler)

    I always wish I were Bill Gates when I watch it; I would like to give that hospital $1 billion, so that they could repair more than a tiny fraction of the women who need it. But much better would be if Ethiopians and others would stop marrying off girls who are way too young and small to bear children. (One of the saddest things about the Ethiopian women is that they start doing hard labor very young, so they don’t have enough calories to grow, so they are small.)

    *It comes out well.

  • Disseminate the word

    JT Eberhard of the Secular Students Alliance and Freethought Blogs says spread the word. What word? This word.

    1. Like the SSA Facebook page. You do not need to be a student to do this, you need only support our cause.
    2. Upvote the reddit article to push back against all the Christian down votes.
    3. Become a member of the SSA ($35/year, $10/year for students) and/or donate to the SSA. You do not need to be a student to become a member! The upcoming generation of secular activists requires the support of the previous generation! And you know that we’re a 501(c)(3), so this shiz is straight up tax deductible, homie.
    4. Spread the word even further! Tweet about it. Facebook it. G+ it. Shout it from the mountain tops. Get a pic. Do a blog! Tell them the taaaaaaaaaaaaale!

    They got a big bounce from being on the front page at Redditt but then the religious types rushed in to downvote and there is a a $20,000 matching offer at stake so they need the word spreaded.

    Thank you for your attention in this matter.

  • Way back

    I’ve been following (and doing what I could to share and draw attention to) Maryam’s work for a long time – since 2004. I did a search at the ur-B&W and had to click “previous entries” a lot of times to get to the first ones.

    One of the first ones is The Politics Behind Cultural Relativism, an International TV Interview that Maryam did with Fariborz Pooya and Bahram Soroush.

    Bahram Soroush: You are absolutely right. When you talk about the West, it is accepted that there are political differentiations, that people have different value systems, that there are political parties. You don’t talk about one uniform, homogeneous culture. But why is it that when it comes to the rest of the world, suddenly the standards change? The way you look at society changes. It doesn’t make sense. But it makes political sense. We are living in the real world; there are political affiliations; there are economic ties; there are very powerful interests which require justifications. For example, how can you roll out the red carpet for the Islamic executioners from Iran, treat them as ‘respectable diplomats’ and at the same time dodge the issue that this government executes people, stones people to death, carries out public hangings, and that this is happening in the 21st century. It’s a question of how to justify that. So, if you say that cultures are relative; if you say that in Iran they stone people to death and they veil women because it is their culture, your conscience then is clean. This is the reason that we are seeing that something that doesn’t really make sense to anyone, and which they would not use to characterise anyone else in the Western world, they use it to characterise people from the third world. In fact it is very patronising, eurocentric and even racist to try to divide people in this way; to say, it’s OK for you. For example, to say to the Iranian woman that you should accept your fate because that’s your culture. This is part of the larger discussion of what lies behind this sort of thinking, but the motive is very political.

    Maryam Namazie: You hear this also from the progressive angle as well. People who like what we say – for example, that we are standing up against political Islam – immediately assume that we are ‘moderate Muslims’. In the interview that you Bahram Soroush gave on the incompatibility of Islam and human rights for example, you clearly said that you were an atheist. But it just doesn’t seem to register, even among progressives. Why is that? I understand the political interests of Western governments, but why do even progressives have that opinion of us?

    August 2004, that is.

    In 2005 the NSS named Maryam Secularist of the Year.

    Maryam Namazie received a standing ovation when the time came to reveal her as the winner. Introducing Maryam, Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director said: “Maryam is an inveterate commentator and broadcaster on rights, cultural relativism, secularism, religion, political Islam and many other related topics. The present revival of Islam has heightened interest in Maryam’s work, and at last her writings are gaining a mainstream audience. She has spoken at numerous conferences and written extensively on women’s rights issues, particularly violence against women.”

    She’s a star.

  • Maryam

    Here’s some Maryam, so that you can see why it’s good news that she’s joining FTB.

    Iran Solidarity Stall at Frankfurt Book Fair 12-16 October

    It is quite unbelievable that a regime that brutally kills off free expression
    and those who use it, that forbids women to sing in public, a regime that bans
    and censures books, films and the media in the tradition of the vilest
    dictatorships will be able to freely spread their views and propaganda at the
    fair. No doubt this will be done displaying a show of civility that the Islamic
    regime hardly shows to its own people. In the name of representing ‘Iranian
    culture’ we will see some well dressed, smiling henchmen of the very regime that has just honoured Iranian actress Marzieh Vafamehr with 90 lashes and one year in prison for playing in the film ‘My Tehran for sale’ which was first given permission (yes, films need to be approved by the regime) but subsequently banned. Inside Iran, the regime imprisons writers, journalists and directors – abroad it takes part in the Frankfurt Book Fair.

    Multiculturalism Conference must oppose all forms of fascism – including Islamism

    On Saturday 15 October 2011 a National Conference to Celebrate Diversity and Multiculturalism is being jointly held in London by One Society Many Cultures and Unite Against Fascism. The conference describes its aims as opposing Islamophobia and racism.

    One Law for All condemns racism and hatred unequivocally, and rejects the racist and violent politics of groups such as the English Defence League (EDL). We also reject the far-right hatred of Islamist groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir and Muslims Against Crusades and reject attempts to silence criticism of Islamism under the guise of multiculturalism or Islamophobia.

    We are concerned that the practice of multiculturalism, as it is being manifested in Britain today, allows a blind eye to be turned to the human rights abuses often perpetrated against people within minority communities; in particular the oppression and mistreatment of women and girls. Sharia law, forced marriages, female genital mutilation and the increased forced veiling of women and girls must be condemned as human rights abuses and not legitimised in the name of culture or pluralism.

    FTB roolz.

  • Good news!

    Maryam Namazie is joining FTB.

  • The not just making it up community

    That thing about drawing the boundaries in a different place, again.

    Julian drew them as:

    1. science
    2. everything else, especially the humanities and looking at a painting

    I want to draw them as:

    1. science and all other kinds of inquiry that are constrained by reality
    2. storytelling
    3. the arts, aesthetic experience, appreciation

    I think we both put religion in a separate category, and both think it overlaps with the arts, storytelling and the like. I think we both think it’s in conflict with our respective 1s, but I think Julian muddled the issue by not including all other kinds of inquiry that are constrained by reality in his 1.

    I think it’s good to emphasize the fact that many kinds of inquiry that are not strictly science are nevertheless constrained by reality. If they’re not they become pseudo-whatever it is. David Irving, who falsifies his evidence, does pseudo-history.

    This is the bit that Rational Inquiry doesn’t name, and the reason I wanted (and still kind of want) a new name. It’s what Ron Susskind pointed up with the famous line from the Bush admin official about not having to bother with “reality-based” thinking. It’s the really important difference between theist thinking and whatever the word is for my 1 – reality-constrained inquiry is what I mean, but it’s a clunker of a phrase. The important difference is (to spell out the obvious) the difference between just making it up and knowing that just making it up won’t do.

    Just making it up is fine for some purposes. It’s what my 2 is all about. It’s compatible with my 3. But for my 1, it’s the kiss of death; it’s the one thing you must not do. If you’re trying to find out the truth about anything, including something as trivial as where you put the dog’s leash, just making it up will do you no good. Educated guesses may do you good, intuitions may get you started, but just making it up will thwart your purposes.

  • Iphigenia in America

    Vyckie Garrison reviews a Quiverfull classic, Me? Obey him?

    I am no less rational than my (ex)husband.  He also is gifted with a strong intuition and emotional intelligence.  Convinced as we were that I was more susceptible to Satanic deception, our family was deprived of my reasonable input in decision making.  My intelligence was squelched, my intuition was distrusted and my feelings were denied.  My husband developed an artificially inflated sense of his own powers of logic.  I can’t count how many times he said to me, “What you are saying sounds reasonable, but how do I know that Satan is not using you to deceive me?”  I had no good defense.  According to the Scriptures, we had every reason to believe that I was indeed being used to lead my husband astray.

    What a horrible, sad, tragic way to live. How heart-breaking that Vyckie was convinced that she was susceptible to Satanic deception.

    But it gets even more so.

    When a concerned friend reported our family to Child Protective Services, my ex-husband lost custody of the children due to his abuse.  The social worker told me that I was guilty of “failure to protect.”  The only thing that prevented me from having my parental rights terminated and my children placed in foster care was my willingness to submit to a full psychological evaluation, undergo individual and family counseling, and cooperate with random unannounced home visits by Social Services.

    My older children rightfully blame me for not protecting them against their father’s abuse.  Even though they know that I was influenced by books such as “Me? Obey Him?” to believe that it was God’s will to submit to the abuse, my children cannot be fooled into thinking that I was not really responsible for their suffering.  I have apologized for my neglect.  Most of my children have forgiven me — still, the damage is done and some things can’t (and shouldn’t) be forgotten.

    Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum. (That was about a parent abusing a child too. Iphigenia.)

  • Vyckie Garrison reviews ‘Me? Obey Him?’

    “Convinced as we were that I was more susceptible to Satanic deception, our family was deprived of my reasonable input in decision making.”

  • Cooking people is wrong

    I saw a thing on tv a few days ago about a “spiritual retreat” in which some people looked for spiritual whatevers via a sweat lodge, and three of them died.

    The “self-help guru” who ran the show was convicted of negligent homicide last June. He could have been convicted of manslaughter but that required ruling that he knew the sweat lodge was potentially fatal, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I was glad I didn’t have to be on that jury, because I would have been sorely tempted to convict, for legally bad reasons. I would have thought that if he didn’t know a sweat lodge could be dangerous, he should have. I thought the same thing about that “therapist” who suffocated a child to death in a crack-brained “rebirthing” exercise in 2000. Candace Newmaker, was the child’s name.

    Mr Sweat Lodge.

    Before the disastrous ceremony outside the New Age playground of Sedona, Ray had been on a rapid ascent in the rarefied, $11-billion industry of self-help gurus. Thousands attended the free lectures he gave around the country, and many of them later ponied up thousands of dollars to enroll in one of his many workshops.

    Propelled by an appearance in a 2006 documentary called “The Secret,” about rules for success, he had appeared on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” and “Larry King Live.” His business, based in Carlsbad, Calif., brought in $10 million annually and was growing fast, according to Inc. magazine.

    During the trial, witnesses testified about the chaotic, two-hour event in the steam-filled sweat lodge. It ended with dozens of clients being dragged from the building. In addition to the deaths, more than 20 people were hospitalized.

    Self-help gurus shouldn’t go around putting people in physical danger. That’s not asking too much, is it?

  • Scraping the barrel

    Some fella says Richard Dawkins is bad and stupid and cynical and anti-intellectual because he refuses to debate William Lane Craig.

    Really?

    Well not the bad and stupid part, no, that’s my paraphrase, but it’s not far off; and the rest of it, yes, really.

    Richard Dawkins is not alone in his refusal to debate with William Lane Craig. The vice-president of the British Humanist Association (BHA), AC Grayling has also flatly refused to debate Craig, stating that he would rather debate “the existence of fairies and water-nymphs”.

    Yes, and? Are they required (morally though not legally) to debate anyone who asks? Are they not allowed to choose?

    Given that there isn’t much in the way of serious argumentation in the New Atheists’ dialectical arsenal, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Dawkins and Grayling aren’t exactly queuing up to enter a public forum with an intellectually rigorous theist like Craig to have their views dissected and the inadequacy of their arguments exposed.

    Oh, I see; it’s  intellectually rigorous theists that they’re not allowed to refuse to debate. Well there might be something to that, but what makes Daniel Came (he is the fella in question, the one who wrote the Comment is Free Belief piece) think Craig is intellectually rigorous? From what I hear he’s not a bit; what he is is a practiced debater, not a rigorous intellectual.

    In his latest undignified rant, Dawkins claims that it is because Craig is “an apologist for genocide” that he won’t share a platform with him. Dawkins is referring to Craig’s defence of God’s commandment in Deuteronomy 20: 15-17 to wipe out the Canannites.

    …

    I am disinclined to defend the God of the Old Testament’s infanticide policy. But as a matter of logic, Craig is probably right: if an infinite good is made possible by a finite evil, then it might reasonably be said that that evil has been offset. However, I doubt whether Craig would be guided by logic himself in this regard and conduct infanticide. I doubt, that is, that he would wish it to be adopted as a general moral principle that we should massacre children because they will receive immediate salvation.

    No, but he would defend it in the case of “God,” thus defending what ought not to be defended. As for infinite good, since no one can possibly know anything about such a thing,  it’s not very useful as a reason to say “oh well ok then” to wiping out a tribe or a nation. Dawkins is right to be indignant and Daniel Came is wrong to palter in this way.

    As a sceptic, I tend to agree with Dawkins’s conclusion regarding the falsehood of theism, but the tactics deployed by him and the other New Atheists, it seems to me, are fundamentally ignoble and potentially harmful to public intellectual life. For there is something cynical, ominously patronising, and anti-intellectualist in their modus operandi, with its implicit assumption that hurling insults is an effective way to influence people’s beliefs about religion. The presumption is that their largely non-academic readership doesn’t care about, or is incapable of, thinking things through; that passion prevails over reason.

    That claim might make some sense if Dawkins refused to debate anyone, but of course he does no such thing. He refuses to debate Craig, largely, I believe, because Craig is a dogmatic apologist, not a rational inquirer. You don’t go to William Lane Craig if you’re after thinking things through.

    H/t Eric.

  • Coming out as atheist is inherently oppositional

    We are saying, implicitly, “If you believe in God, you’re mistaken.”