Who died ten years ago today.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Remembering Carl Sagan
A lot of people do.
-
Little Atoms Remembers Carl Sagan Friday
Special edition commemorating Sagan on 22nd December, with Ann Druyan, Louis Friedman, more.
-
Cornell Remembers Sagan
‘Carl was a candle in the dark. He was, quite simply, the best science educator in the world this century.’
-
France’s Best-selling Philosopher [link fixed]
‘Against the rabbis, the preachers, the imams, ayatollahs and mullahs, I persist in preferring the philosopher.’
-
Satan is Hot
Over the past half-century, the Devil has rarely been out of fashion.
-
Teacher Threatens Students With Hell
‘If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong. If you reject that, you belong in hell.’
-
Theo Hobson Attempts a Joke
He probably thinks women aren’t funny.
-
Paola Cavalieri on Animals and Justice
Does extending rights to animals weaken rights for humans?
-
You belong in hell, the teacher said
And people wonder why atheists get shirty. Or ‘arrogant’ as apparently Rod Liddle repeatedly said we are on his channel 4 encounter with Dawkins. Well maybe we don’t much want people saying everyone but Their Team is going to hell. Could that be it? We really just don’t want to hear from people who get their rocks off imagining their religious enemies being tortured to death forever. I don’t like people like that. In fact, I hate them. I think they’re disgusting, I think they’re rock bottom, I think they’re bad. Not as bad as people who make toddlers sleep in their own shit, not as bad as people who imprison small children in industrial schools and tell them their mothers are dead when they aren’t and force them to make rosaries and beat them and call them names – not as bad as that; but very bad. Morally bad. People who take pleasure in contemplating the suffering of other people are bad. I don’t want to hear from them, and I imagine that few atheists do. So we are ‘arrogant’ enough to resist. And then we get death threats.
And all this is ten miles from Manhattan. Err…
Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it. Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz broke the church-state boundary. “If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,” Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. “He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.”
‘You belong in hell.’ No, actually, I don’t think a history teacher should be telling students that. But ‘the larger community’ apparently does.
…students and the larger community have mostly lined up with Mr. Paszkiewicz, not with Matthew, who has received a death threat handled by the police, as well as critical comments from classmates.
They’re getting closer. I was at Safeway yesterday and I heard an announcement over the store’s pa system – ‘all available employees to the back for – ‘ what? – ‘afternoon service.’ For what? Did I just hear that? Did I just hear what I think I heard? I wasn’t absolutely sure, because I wasn’t paying attention until I thought I heard what I thought I heard – so maybe I didn’t hear it. That is what it sounded like though…and it was Sunday. If that is what I heard it just creeps the bejeezis out of me. We’ll all be in a Christian concentration camp soon at this rate.
-
Evangelical atheism
More strange reaction to atheism, more bizarre confusion and surprise where no surprise should be.
And herein lies one of the central paradoxes of Richard Dawkins. Fervent atheist he may be, but he’s also a curiously evangelical figure. It requires no great leap of the imagination to envisage him declaiming from a pulpit, lambasting sinners for their moral laxity.
That’s not a paradox at all. It’s silly to think it is. Atheism is one thing and moral indifference is quite quite another. It’s simply a blank and rather stupid misconception to think that atheism entails lack of moral energy or that passion requires religion. It’s getting increasingly depressing to discover what inane ideas many people have of what atheism is.
Yet Dawkins’s dislike of any notion of God – along with his scorn for anyone who persists in believing in God – is so strong that at times it threatens to unbalance him. As anyone who saw his two-part television documentary The Root of All Evil? will recall, moderation tends to drop away. In its place comes a kind of wintery exasperation at the foolishness and primitivism he sees all around.
I don’t recall that, actually. What I recall is that moderation did not tend to drop away except during the moment when the ineffable (and, we now know, closeted) Ted Haggard decided to tell Dawkins what’s what about evolution. It wasn’t the theism that caused moderation to drop away, it was the (theism-motivated) combined ignorance and presumption of the claim that evolutionists say things developed ‘just sort of by accident.’ The rest of the time, Dawkins was pretty dang polite. So…what does the journalist mean by ‘moderation’? Politely agreeing with everything theists say? That would be asking rather a lot, wouldn’t it? Not raising the issue in the first place? But is it really non-moderate to ask questions about religion? Probably the journalist had no exact meaning in mind, just a formula. The formula is: Dawkins is a rude or harsh or extreme or scornful or unbalanced or fervent or evangelical atheist. Start from there, then embroider. Journalism has its recipes.
-
Religion’s Role in the Expansion of AIDS
Note: this article was published for the first time in Persian by “Sekoolar” (the Secular), a publication of Anti-Religion Society. Hereby we translate it to English and publish it again in the event of AIDS day 2006. The final two paragraphs, which were specific about Anti-religion society, have been omitted from the text.
Among the numerous burdens of capitalism that are taking away human lives everyday, some are seemingly “natural” burdens, the result of the tension between nature and human; in some theories these are even nature’s reaction to human violence against it.
Of these burdens we can name deadly diseases in general and AIDS in particular.
AIDS has put its shadow on the entire world like a spectre. The virus has been known for less than a quarter of a century, but its shadow has changed all our lives. More than 40 million people, which is more than the population of Spain, live with HIV. More than 25 million people have died from AIDS, more than a million people every year. In this very recent year, 2005, more than 3 million people (at least half a million being children) have died from this disease.But is AIDS entirely a natural burden? Is it only a disease that humans are not able to cure? Let’s just say that the notion that unpreventable killing of humans by this disease is a “natural” thing, is a delusion.
Religious moral and sexual relations
Nearly two centuries after the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, religion not only interferes with people’s lives, but it has gone from being the “opium of the people” to being, as Korosh Modaressi once said, the machine of opium gangsters.
Many humans understand the world via religion and religious morality, and they are raised and educated accordingly. In Islamic countries, this story is a sadder one. That is where many girls have to wear the Islamic hijab from childhood and Islamic moralities shape their lives in many ways. One of the most important of these “morals” is antagonism toward sex and sexual relations. The reality that many humans, all over the world, live with the superstitious belief that “sex before marriage” is non-acceptable and generally have a hostile attitude to sexuality is a crime of religion that one could write a great deal about. But when it comes to AIDS, this and other religious moral prove deadly and play a direct role in humans’ deaths.
Religious Taboos on sexual education: a road for AIDS expansion
It is no secret that one of the chief routes of AIDS transmission is sexual relations between humans. Therefore one of the most important ways to prevent AIDS is using a condom in a sexual relation. Today it is widely accepted that sexual education, including education about the need to use condoms, and making condoms widely available for all, is an important condition to prevent AIDS. Conferences, bulletins and publications on AIDS are emphatic about this. But religion is a major obstacle against the AIDS fighters and medieval moralities overshadow the lives of thousands of people who are, one way or another, chained by them.
The issue is simple. Sex and sexual relations of humans, that as Marx said are the most natural relations between humans, have become a “Taboo” in religion such that one can’t easily even speak of them. To talk about one’s body or that of the opposite sex, or any talk on sexual relations, is a major sin in a culture of religious moralities; anybody who has been unfortunate enough to live under a religious regime, as we did, can truly understand this. Therefore sexual knowledge is terribly low in religious societies; sometimes even to utter the word “condom” (at least to do so before marriage) is a sinful act.
Religion transforms sex and sexuality to a taboo and thereby obstructs sexual education and the wide availability of condoms. This opens the door to AIDS and other STDs. A society that has made a taboo out of sex is very open to AIDS. (And I believe this has been noted in declarations and resolutions of conferences against AIDS). Lack of information about sexual relations and the unavailability of condoms can easily lead to unsafe sex and reproduce the monster of AIDS.
The belief that with abstinence from sex you can avoid AIDS is absurd. Sex is a natural relation between humans and you can’t avoid AIDS by avoiding sex, any more than you can avoid polluted air by simply not breathing it. But religion proclaims this ridiculous idea and points to “licentious people” as the ones responsible for AIDS, a policy which produces tragic results.
Unfortunately religion and the machines of organized religious have started their own way and have already caused the expansion of AIDS. Pope Jean Paul II officially opposed the use of condoms, perhaps to show how backward, reactionary and ridiculous Christianity is. We all know that in our very own Islamic Republic, there is not a slight availability of condoms and more important, sexual education. There are people who up to the age of marriage are clueless about sex.
There are more particular examples too. Right now, the activities of the Malaysian Aids Council have been banned in the states of Terengganu and Kelantan that are ruled by the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS); thus these two provinces are under more danger from AIDS.
And then we have thousands and millions of families who, living with the chains of religious law, ban sexual education for their children and prevent their participation in sexual education classes even in the heart of European families. Indeed, it appears that the recent researches of some wise and respected inventors of “cultural relativism” have shown that people who are born in a Muslim family may not need sexual education at all.
Religion and AIDS victims
An antagonistic attitude toward sexual relations shows its sinister aspect in its attitude toward AIDS victims. It is here that those who have become infected with AIDS because of religious moralities and lack of information are boycotted from the society by those very moralities; now they are to suffer the stigma of “having the virus”. This is especially true because AIDS is seen as a homosexual disease (which is not the case) and, to the religious, this adds to the stigma.
The fact that a human has a virus and has to live with it throughout life, and some moralities, rather than helping, claim that these victims “deserve” it is one of the bitterly painful realities of today’s world. The life of AIDS victims in religious societies or even religious families, or those families with religious moralities, is a life of great tragedies.
Life free of religion
The demand to expand sexual education, along with decriminalizing and helping AIDS victims, are among the demands of gatherings and conferences that usually take place on International Aids Day (December the 1st). We should fight for these demands. We should force the Islamic Republic and any other reactionary government in the world to accept these demands. This should be among the primary principles of human’s rights.
A large obstacle in AIDS activists’ way is their lack of radicalization against religions. They, according to the public rhetoric, denounce only “religious fundamentalism”. Of course I don’t say that every activist and campaigner should always denounce all religions, but at least these moralities and beliefs should be opposed as “religious” moralities, and not, as they often are, as “misinterpretation of religions.” They have made obstacles in wide sexual education even in Europe and US and this is caused by nothing but religious moralities in Islamic, Christian, Jewish and other religious families. These obstacles must be removed, and this should be a more specific demand of AIDS activists.
We should proclaim that people with AIDS are part of our society and we are responsible for taking care of them. We should expose and renounce those religious and sub-religious ideas that demand the transportation of AIDS victims to segregated islands.Religion and religious moralities should get out of people’s lives. The sexual relations of humans have nothing to do with any god, and any belief that casts a pall over these relations should be resisted. Laws are not enough. Each and every one of us should work for the emancipation and enlightenment of our friends, relatives and loved ones from the chains of religion. We should declare that everyone should refer back to humans and humanity.
Arash Sorx is a young Iranian activist.
Arash_redcat@yahoo.com
-
Anti-Ahmadinejad Students Flee for their Lives
His supporters have threatened them with revenge.
-
David Thompson on Art Bollocks Revisited
Art bollocks has become institutionalised and normalised, is now almost the default way of writing.
-
Two Books of Philosophy That Aren’t Really
Colin McGinn on Shakespeare’s philosophy and a Critique of Criminal Reason.
-
The Financial Times Does Lunch with Dawkins
‘I don’t want just to annoy people – I want to change people’s minds.’
-
They were shivering and were all colours of the rainbow as they stood there waiting to be cleaned
[OB] You may remember that last month I did a brief comment on Goldenbridge, which I knew little about until I saw some comments Marie-Therese O’Loughlin had recently left on a comment from 2005 on industrial schools in Ireland. I asked Marie-Therese to tell me more, and she has; we’re working on an article which will be on B&W soon. Yesterday I asked Marie-Therese for a little basic detail about daily life – and she sent some. I don’t feel like waiting to publish it.
Warning: the following contains material which some readers may find disturbing. I know I do. Marie-Therese finds it very disturbing to recall it.
Morning at Goldenbridge
The children got up at six o’clock each morning. A staff member who grew up in the institution stormed into the dormitories and switched on the lights and roared ‘Get out of those beds immediately!’ If a child hesitated at all the bed covers were flung across the floor, if a child became even more stubborn, as often happened, the mattress with the child was toppled over onto the floor. We then had to make our beds to hospital standards.
Goldenbridge housed on average two hundred children, which included infants and babies; a good percentage of them were infants, babies and toddlers. I remember clearly, at 6:30 in the mornings, when I was eleven years old or thereabouts having to go to St Joseph’s babies/infants dormitory. I had to dress the toddlers. It was normal for some of them to have slept in their own excrement. When I took them from their destroyed beds, I found it so upsetting as they were always covered from head to toe in excrement. They were shivering and were all colours of the rainbow as they stood there waiting to be cleaned. I had to use the clean corners of the destroyed sheets. The only place to get water was from a very small toilet bowl. I dipped the sheet in the bowl and then cleaned the children. The whole dormitory which was a dark dank cold place stank to high heaven. The head honcho of the Sisters of Mercy at this time of morning was up in the convent saying her prayers. The sheets were placed in a soiled open sheet, and with the help of another child we carried them down to the school laundry. There were other sheets there from the Sacred Heart dormitory.
Children like myself who had no family visitors, or big girls who wet the bed, were given the grotesque taks of handwashing the sheets in cold water in the laundry.
This story, like that of the rosary beads, can be properly told only by those who were hidden in Goldenbridge, the ones who were imprisoned behind the doors, who were the lowest on the rungs of the institutional Goldenbridge ladder. Bernadette Fahy, author of Freedom of Angels, or Christine Buckley who appeared in the documentary ‘Dear Daughter,’ would not have been doing this despicable job, as they were both allowed to go to outside school.
-
Jesus and Mo on the Efficacy of Prayer
God is amazing.
-
Jesus and Mo Quiz the Barmaid
Why are atheists so angry at the religious?
-
Jesus and Mo on the War on Christmas
They want people to remember it’s Jesus’s pretend birthday.
