Author: Ophelia Benson

  • 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.

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali answers questions

    Very damn well.

  • Muslim weightlifter wants to alter uniform

    The rules require arms and legs to be bare so judges can see when elbows and knees are “locked” to determine if a lift is successful.

  • Lebanon: clerics reject domestic abuse law

    Highest Sunni Muslim authority rejected bill aimed at protecting women from violence and rape, saying it would lead to the demise of the family.

  • When professors deny the truths of faith

    Patrick J. Reilly has written an article about the heterodoxy of ethics and law professors at several Jesuit universities. Who is he?

    Patrick J. Reilly is founder and president of the Cardinal Newman Society, a national organization to advocate and support the renewal of genuine Catholic higher education.

    Ah. So he’s someone with a clear agenda, and one that is a contradiction in terms. “Genuine Catholic higher education” clearly means orthodox Catholic “education” that adheres to established dogma, which means it is fundamentally opposed to genuine education. What he means by “education” should better be called information-stuffing, or just memorization.

    Here’s his beef. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops – the one that subscribes to the bishop of Phoenix’s policy that preganant women’s lives must not be saved if it takes an abortion to do so, no matter what, including even no matter if the fetus won’t survive in any case – has a position on assisted suicide, which of course is that it’s evil.

    …as with so many moral issues, the bishops need look no further than our Catholic institutions to find that the “nationwide campaign” in opposition to Church teaching has been ongoing for many years.

    Suicide’s legalization has been advocated by prominent professors in Catholic universities including Georgetown, Marquette, Santa Clara, and Boston College.

    In other words, faculty in “our” Catholic institutions are being disobedient. They are defying authority. They are using their own judgement. This is scandalous.

    As reported in “Teaching Euthanasia,” an exclusive report in the June 2005 issue of Crisis, multiple professors at Catholic universities had taken positions on end-of-life issues that seemed to conflict with Vatican teaching.Today, some of those professors are no longer teaching at Catholic universities, but others remain perched in Jesuit law schools and theology and philosophy departments.

    Which is an outrage, because they are Catholic universities, therefore the Vatican owns them, therefore the professors are forbidden to take positions that conflict with Vatican teaching. Yet there they still are.

    Catholic universities are partly responsible for such professors’ influence by virtue of their employment. Academic freedom protects professors’ rights to seek truth according to the methods of their discipline. But when professors deny the truths of faith and disregard the common good — especially of those whose lives are snuffed out prematurely — they violate the mission of a Catholic university.

    When professors deny the truths of faith they violate the mission of a Catholic university.

    That’s on the record. Helpful of him to make it so very unambiguous.

  • Aikin and Talisse on various kinds of straw men

    When we commit a straw man fallacy, we fail to live up to the responsibilities of the exchange of reasons.

  • Devon “witch” receives Christian leaflets

    “God bless them, they’re wanting to save her from going to a lost eternity.”

  • Catholics who disagree with church teaching shock

    “When professors deny the truths of faith and disregard the common good they violate the mission of a Catholic university.”

  • It depends where you start

    Emily Manuel at Religion Dispatches talks to Adam Kotsko about his new book, which is about atonement. She mentions someone posting on his blog that “we haven’t really thought through a proper atheism yet.”

    Right. I think that you can see this with the New Atheists. Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ and Dennett’s books are a kind of simplistic critique of religion that’s basically not going to change anyone’s mind. I think there has to be more to say about religion other than the fact that it makes no sense as an empirical claim. That’s just too obvious to be interesting. I think that we as a society deserve a better form of atheism.

    The claim that the simplistic critique of religion is not going to change anyone’s mind is, frankly, simply ridiculous. He hedges it with “basically” but it’s not clear exactly what the hedge is – the simplistic critique will superficially change anyone’s mind but just not basically? I have no idea what that means.

    The claim is ridiculous because it’s not true, and it’s easy to find out that it’s not true.

    It’s also not even plausible. Why would the simplistic critique of religion not change anyone’s mind? Is everyone’s mind changeable only by complicated critiques? Certainly not. Most of the time it’s the other way around, surely – a clear easily-grapsed critique with few moving parts is the best way to change someone’s mind. That’s true even for clever people. “I’m going to take Lilac Road.” “Lilac Road is closed for repairs.” “Ah – I’ll go via Pepperville Drive then.”

    The thing about the simplistic critique of religion is that lots of people have never been exposed to it. A lot of religious belief is what people have because no one has ever offered them a critique of it, simplistic or otherwise. Sometimes just realizing that there are people who don’t think the magical being exists at all is indeed enough to change anyone’s mind.

    That doesn’t mean that’s all there is to it, of course, but it does mean it’s a lot too hasty to announce that it’s not going to change anyone’s mind.

    Sure, there’s more to say than that religion makes no sense as an empirical claim, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth saying that religion makes no sense as an empirical claim. By all means say more if you want to, but don’t ignore the value of saying that. It may be too obvious to Adam Kotsko to be interesting, but that doesn’t mean it’s too obvious to everyone to be interesting. If you’ve never thought of it before and then you do, it can be quite interesting.

  • Matt Taibbi on Michele Bachmann

    Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.

  • Farzana Hassan on burqas and bans

    The women’s rights activist explores whether the burqa is a symbol of religious expression or a tool of oppression.

  • The real problem is new atheism

    Nick Cohen has a terrific, ferocious piece on Trevor Phillips’s failure, indeed refusal, to do anything about caste discrimination in the UK. Since Phillips is the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, this failure/refusal is striking as well as tragic.

    Nick starts by clearing some stupid lumber out of the way.

    You can tell that speakers are preparing to say something scandalous when they assert that “militant atheists” are the moral equivalents of the religious militants that so afflict humanity. Trevor Phillips, whose flighty management of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is becoming a scandal, was no exception when he announced last week that British believers were “under siege” from “fashionable” atheists.

    …

    Trevor Phillips’s attack on “fashionable” atheists for exercising their right to speak their minds shows he does not begin to understand modern sectarianism. From his ignorance flows a cowardly refusal to face down those who would bully and harass others, as a story that deserves more attention than it has received shows.

    Phillips also, I would add, does not begin to understand people’s right to speak their minds. The endless flow of crap about #BadNewAtheists demonstrates that a lot of people don’t begin to understand that, because the whole “omigod #BadNewAtheists” thing depends on the assumption that there is something obviously Bad about atheists spelling out what they don’t believe.

    Faced with the prospect of confronting the prejudices of core supporters, the Labour government preferred holding on to seats to living by liberal principles and backed away from extending anti-discrimination law to cover caste. With Labour gone, campaigners for just treatment for tens of thousands of British Asians have a glimmer of hope.

    They are trying to persuade the coalition to take seriously a study of bullying and harassment conducted by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It is a dispiriting read – little more than a list of pointless cruelties. The Indian supervisor of an NHS worker discovers that he is from a lower caste and makes his life such a misery he becomes ill under the pressure and is suspended; a social services care worker refuses to help an elderly woman wash herself because the old lady is from a lower caste and so it goes on through dozens of examples.

    But Trevor Phillips doesn’t want to know.

    A search of the Equality and Human Rights Commission records shows that it ignores caste discrimination in Britain.When I phone its press office to ask why, its public relations officers fail to return my calls.

    Why tf not? Seriously: why? As it’s a press office, they must know Nick will report the failure, and where he will do so. Are they content with that? An article in the Observer noting that they can’t be bothered to pay attention to a report on caste discrimination? Too busy opposing “fashionable” atheists are they?