Author: Ophelia Benson

  • ‘Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered’

    You know, human rights are risky. Equality is risky. Freedom is risky. That is to say, movements to gain or restore or promote those things are risky. Tyrants and exploiters and authoritarians don’t just smile politely and go home – they fight back. Being tyrants and exploiters and authoritarians, they fight dirty. That’s why they’re being fought in the first place. So people who are attempting to promote or gain more equality or rights have to consider the fact that they may be putting other people at risk, because they usually are.

    The Civil Rights movement (in the US in the 50s and 60s) had that problem. We tend to forget this now, but it was a huge issue at the time. Plenty of black people in the South were deathly afraid of the whole thing, and with good reason. So there was a moral issue: is it right to put other people in danger in struggling for rights? Is it right to take risks of that kind, risks that are risks to non-participants as well as participants?

    There’s no slam-dunk answer to that. There are a lot of ifs. If one knew for certain ahead of time that the struggle for civil rights would trigger a genocide, then the answer would probably be no (or no, not yet). If one thought it very likely that there would be reprisals – some people would still say no, others would say yes, and that’s what happened, and few people (as far as I know, and die-hard racists apart) now think it wasn’t worth it.

    Why? Why is it worth it?

    Perhaps because, as La Pasionaria said, it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

    That’s a very rhetorical slogan, and yet, it’s not just rhetorical. It’s not good to live on your knees. It’s worth some risk in order to bring about a situation in which no people are made to live on their knees.

  • Trust me, I’m a prince

    Charles’s vanity and delusion are being taken out for an airing again. He

    has told confidants he would like his role to “evolve” so that his knowledge and experience are not wasted once he inherits the crown.

    What knowledge and experience? What knowledge and experience does he have that would be ‘wasted’ if he didn’t use his accident of birth to publicize them? His knowledge and experience about GM crops? About alternative medicine? About architecture? What special unique irreplaceable knowledge and experience does he have on those subjects?

    None, right? Do correct me if I’m wrong – but as far as I can tell, the answer is none. He has strong opinions on the subjects, but so do lots of people. He has perhaps spent lots of time or some time reading and otherwise gathering information about them – but so have lots of people. What he has not done is get systematic training in any of them, which lots of people have done – so why does the world need his amateur ‘knowledge’ when it already has access to professional knowledge? What is this special irreplaceable knowledge and experience he has that it would be a pity to waste if he became king?

    There isn’t any. His status doesn’t replace professional training, and his amateur dabbling doesn’t either. Nobody needs Pris Chos laying down the law about GM food or homeopathy because there are already thousands upon thousands of people who can do that much better than he can. I’m a great fan of autodidacticism, being an autodidact myself, but that doesn’t mean that I think the world needs amateur agronomists or amateur medical researchers. If Charles really wanted to be an influential expert in one of these fields he should have gotten the appropriate training to do so. It’s incredible arrogance and the most literal kind of elitism to think that his royal birth somehow makes that supererogatory.

  • Karen Armstrong squares the circle

    It’s not a newsflash that Karen Armstrong is not one of the clearest thinkers in the world – but nevertheless the opening sentence of her sermon on compassion at Comment is Free set me back a little.

    The practice of compassion is central to every one of the major world religions – but sometimes you would never know it.

    But sometimes you would never know it – good one. Did she write this while taking a bath and watching Celebrity Big Brother, or what? But more to the point is the fundamental and pathetic incoherence of the basic thought: the practice of compassion is central to every one of the major world religions, and yet oddly enough in real life the very opposite is enacted daily and hourly. Hum hum hum. So in what sense is it central then? Eh? Eh? If sometimes we would never know it, how does Armstrong know it? If sometimes we would never know it, in what sense is it fucking true?

    It’s not true. It’s flattery. It’s a greasy smear of flattery for a nasty institution that perpetrates stupid or vicious cruelties everywhere you look.

    Instead, religion is associated with violence, intolerance and seems more preoccupied by dogmatic or sexual orthodoxy.

    It seems more preoccupied by dogmatic or sexual orthodoxy because it is. Armstrong perhaps wants to persuade it to better by heaping coals of fire on its head – but she shouldn’t talk nonsense in the process.

  • Bad Science: ‘I Married a Horse’

    Surely the magazine had a responsibility to verify medical information before publishing such claims?

  • Matthias Rath and Alternative Health Eurosceptics

    The alternative health sector is lobbying the EU parliament against legislative regulation of their products.

  • Paul Krugman: Depression Economics Returns

    The rules of economic policy no longer apply: virtue becomes vice, caution is risky and prudence is folly.

  • Karen Armstrong Talks Literal Nonsense

    ‘The practice of compassion is central to every one of the major world religions – but sometimes you would never know it.’

  • Mormons Tipped the Scale on Prop 8

    Leadership issued a decree to be read to congregations: ‘the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan.’

  • Any freedom from religion on offer?

    So the whole UN really is infected with this ‘defamation of religion should be banned’ virus.

    United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann said on Tuesday that the world body should ban defamation of all religions and disagreed that such a move would impinge upon freedom of speech. “Yes, I believe that defamation of religion should be banned,” he said in response to a question at a press conference to highlight the interfaith conference at the UN headquarters. No one should try to defame Islam or any other religion, he said, adding: “We should respect all religions.”

    Well now how would you go about banning ‘defamation’ of religion without impinging on freedom of speech? How would anyone? You might as well say ‘Yes, I believe that defamation of capitalism [or socialism, or monetarism, or economics, or photography, or mushrooms, or rabbits] should be banned’ and disagree that such a move would impinge upon freedom of speech. It makes the same amount of sense. And another thing – there is a difference between saying that no one should try to X and saying that X should be banned – a big and very important difference. It’s more than a little depressing that a guy (a priest, as he is) who is UN General Assembly President doesn’t get that distinction, or perhaps doesn’t think it matters. It’s a little depressing that the UN General Assembly President thinks the UN should ban kinds of speech that the UN General Assembly President doesn’t like.

    So much for Austin Dacey’s recent work at the UN. So much for other protests.

    But oh well, not to worry – King Abdullah is on the case.

    Maybe King Abdullah, by articulating the central Muslim value of religious pluralism on the world stage, will find the citizens of his Kingdom demanding that he implement it at home.

    The central Muslim value of religious pluralism? The…what?

    Where? Where is that the case? Where is religious pluralism a central Muslim value? Malaysia? No. Pakistan? No. Somalia? No. Afghanistan? Now you’re just being silly. Saudi Arabia? Be serious. Where, then? And if the answer is ‘nowhere,’ what reason is there to think that religious pluralism is in fact a central Muslim value? There could be such a reason, or reasons; it could be the case that it is such a central value but that the ruling elites have all turned their backs on it; but I want a reason to think so before I will go ahead and think so.

    Just to make the confusion complete, Bush tells us that ‘Freedom is God’s gift to every man, woman, and child.’ No it isn’t. It isn’t God’s gift to me, for instance. Some people choose to attribute freedom to God, but that doesn’t make the attribution accurate. It’s irritating that Bush blathers about religious freedom and in the same breath imposes his imaginary God on all of us. It’s not just believers who want and who get to have freedom; atheists are entitled too, but you’d never know it to hear the godbotherer in chief.

    German minister of state Hermann Groehe defended the right to convert to another faith — a right not recognized in some Muslim countries. “It is unacceptable that up until now laws in some countries threaten those who want to convert with the death penalty,” said Groehe, without naming any countries.

    Yes, but again, it’s not just conversion from one religion to another religion that is threatened (and sometimes rewarded) with the death penalty, it is also rejection of religion itself – yet Bush and Groehe are not reported to have mentioned that.

    President Asif Ali Zardari of Muslim Pakistan said there was “nothing more un-Islamic” than discrimination, violence against women and terrorism, but also denounced hate speech against Islam in countries he did not identify.

    Ah…there is nothing more un-Islamic than violence, is there. That would explain why Zardari’s wife was murdered by…You Know Who.

  • Support Political Prisoners in Burundi

    Several opposition leaders have been arrested including Jean Claude Kavumbagu and Alexis Sinduhije.

  • ‘Christian Voice’ Gets Book Launch Canceled

    Patrick Jones said he had not singled out Christianity in his poems, but was questioning beliefs in society.

  • UN: ‘Defamation of Religion’ Should be Banned

    ‘Yes, I believe that defamation of religion should be banned,’ official said in reply to question.

  • Wishful Thinking

    Saudi King is ‘articulating the central Muslim value of religious pluralism.’ The wot?

  • Bush Says Freedom is God’s Gift

    Defends ‘religious dissidents and believers’; no mention of atheists.

  • Two blogs

    As you may have seen, Edmund Standing has started a blog, amusingly called ‘I kid you not’ as a compliment to Sarah Palin. Okay not a compliment exactly. Palin has been saying things again, as Edmund notes.

    Then there’s the whole down to earth ‘mom next door’ persona. Palin, it should be remembered, proudly announced herself to the Republican National Convention as ‘just your average hockey mom’…So, we have a woman who calls herself ‘average’, thinks some ‘God’ or other gives her career guidance, is completely ignorant of evolutionary biology and the history of the world, and conducts political interviews while cooking moose for her ‘guy’…And this woman wants to become President of the most powerful nation on earth. Sam Harris had it nailed just prior to the election when he rightly noted that average isn’t good enough.

    No it damn well isn’t – and one of the many joys of the recent election is that for once (and very very belatedly) that particular bit of nonsense not only didn’t work, it did a great deal to destroy the Republican ticket. It pleased ‘the base’ but it was finally one too many for the undecideds and independents and Republicans with enough nous to walk and chew gum at the same time. It wasn’t only Sam Harris who noted that average isn’t good enough, too – Jon Stewart has noted the same thing on more than one occasion, and John Cleese (yes, really) had a good time noting the same thing on Olbermann a couple of days before the election. Yes really – I was so wound up about the election by that time that I was reduced to watching little bits of Olbermann and Maddow. Anyway Cleese said what I always say, which is that I want somebody who’s so smart I’d be scared to open my mouth in his or her presence. I don’t want average, I want stellar. Average is easy to get, stellar isn’t; let’s go for the rare and the best.

    Another excellent blog is Richard Wilson’s ‘Don’t Get Fooled Again’, which is the title of his book, which I’m reading.

    Check them both out; tell your friends.

  • The Dogma of Halal and Haram

    If you walk at random in any Muslim district in Europe, you will certainly find somewhere an Islamic butcher with the word ”halal” written on its shop-window. For meat products, the word “halal” is a badge of Islamic quality.

    Muslims believe that since blood is not ritually a pure substance, slaughter is necessary to inhibit the thorough draining of all of the animal’s blood. Furthermore, the verse” Bismillah al Rahman Al Rahim”, in the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful, is necessary to render the meat halal or lawful to eat.

    The word halal refers, here, to meat killed and prepared in line with Islamic dietary laws. Jewish and Islamic religions demand that slaughter be carried out with a cut to the neck or throat, rather than the more widespread and humane method of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter.

    Generally, halal means anything permissible under Islamic law, in contrast to haram, that which is forbidden. This includes behaviour, speech, dress, conduct. The term halal is also used to judge the right of sexuality after marriage, even temporary marriage which is a Shiite tradition called “Sigheh,” which is believed by some to be legalised prostitution. To rape a female slave or even a non-Muslim prisoner of war is halal—in this light, many political female prisoners of the Islamic Republic of Iran who were considered “non-Muslims”, were ”legally” raped by their Islamist torturers before being executed.

    In an extended sense, halal means fairness of business dealings or other types of transaction or activity. Therefore, it represents values that are held in high regard by Muslims. It contains standards for social norms, morals, foods and other services that meet Islamic regulations. Needless to say, in Islamic countries, these are the only available standards for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

    Slaughter is an old tradition of Jewish and Islamic clan society. As a matter of best practice, the killed animal is supposed to be distributed among the members of the clan right after being slaughtered so that each family can often have fresh meat to eat. Like many other traditions, this one was also accepted as a principle in Islam.

    Slaughter reminds us of an old instinct of pre-historic hominids, to which a prey must be killed by the hunter—the instinct can be seen in a great number of beasts of prey. In another perspective, we see a characteristic disposition of this instinct beyond Islamic laws (Sharia), where beheading and amputation of the accused resemble routine rituals, where blood of the accused is figuratively considered as halal and the executer does a halal job.

    Halal blood can be also a reason for honour killing in Islamic societies. Honour killing is committed by male family members against female family members, who are perceived to have brought dishonour upon the family. A female can be targeted by her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, having sex outside marriage, or even being the victim of a sexual assault.

    Halal has nothing to do with prophylactic or hygienic precautions or medical meaning. To better understand halal, we must see what its opposite term “haram” means. Haram has roots in revulsion which is an old instinct of evolution. Revulsion is a sense of loathing without any logical reason or clear explanation. As an instinct, it was a necessary reaction of early human beings when exposed to an unknown food, unknown object, or an unconventional situation.

    The object of revulsion is culturally conditioned. It means that what is repulsive for the members of one society does not necessarily provoke the same revulsion for others. In a historical sense, terms like halal, haram, and negis are nothing but the instinctive reflections, which were integrated into Islam.

    In many cases, Islamic commandments and rituals are not only the traditional reflections of desert dwellers of pre-Islamic Arabia, but also based on the Prophet Muhammad’s habits, his sexual preferences, his favourite things, and his dietary habits.

    Since sexuality is taboo in Islam, sexual organs, vaginal secretion and sperm are considered as “negis” (loathsome and impure). Therefore, they should not be touched – if they are unintentionally touched, ceremonial washing and rituals must be done. Blood and any slimy substance secreted by a mucous membrane of the body have more or less a similar sense of negis. Needless to mention, all these secreted or mucous substances, regardless of their odour and colour, belong to normal functions of our body.

    Not only non Muslims, ethnic groups, slaves and women, but even animals in Islam are not freed from this discrimination. Dogs and pigs are the most negis animals. The term “negis” characterises their absolute and unchangeable impurity. Pork meat is absolutely haram, and the dog as a “negis” animal can never be a proper pet in a Muslim house. Touching a dog, especially a dog’s saliva, requires a ritually hygienic procedure to get the hand clean—if a dog eats from a dish, the dish must be washed 7 times, the first time with sand. The dog, despite all its uses in many ways, is discriminated as a negis creature.

    While Marriage of Muslim men with women of the Book (Muslims, Christians and Jews), based on Islamic rituals, can be permitted, all varieties of marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men are considered haram. As a patriarchal religion, Islam granted a little concession only to Muslim men. Muslim women are not allowed to marry men outside of Islam (unless the men convert to Islam). No marriage is permitted between Muslims and “Mushriks” (atheists, polytheists, other belief systems which are considered by Muslims negis). The Koran says, “A believing slave woman is better than a mushrik woman”!

    As mentioned, terms like halal, haram, and negis are not more than rituals of particular conditions and environment. These terms have no logic and scientific credentials at all. They are only the legacy of per-Islamic values of the Arabian clan- society which still impose themselves on today’s society.

  • Human Solidarity in a World Without God

    Human solidarity is in fact a rational response to the ‘human condition,’ as Schopenhauer saw.

  • Acid Attack on Afghan Schoolgirls

    Attackers have sprayed acid in the faces of at least 15 girls near a school in Kandahar.

  • Thailand: Prison for Lèse Majesté

    Army warns it will not tolerate anything that could be interpreted as criticism of the royal family.

  • Catholic Bishops Warn of Abortion Fight

    Bishop Jaime Soto fumed, ‘There really is plenty of choice for women in this culture.’