Thou shalt not bear false witness

Feb 4th, 2012 5:20 pm | By

From a few days ago, the same old dreck – the priest George Pitcher calls Richard Dawkins “shrill.”

First there’s the usual boring empty non-argument -

The narrow and rather meaningless argument to which Dawkins confines himself is the incessant charge that there is no “evidence” for God. And evidence, of course, is defined only within the strictures of his own empirical scientism. The problem is that faith isn’t primarily evidential, as he demands it to be, but revelatory – and we would claim no less true for all that in explaining the human condition.

Oh yes? We need a “revelation” to explain the human condition? And when we have one, it’s reliable? Please.

That contemptuously lazy pass at justifying belief in god accomplished, Pitcher gets on with the “shrill” accusation.

The shrill voice of Dawkins is gradually being marginalised by those of no more faith than him, but who nevertheless perceive mystery in humanity and, while not accepting the presence of God in the world, are prepared to face in the same direction as the rest of us and stand in awe and wonder.

God that’s bad writing. “Of no more faith than him”? Yuck. And then he moves on briskly without bothering to pick a subject for the verb, and then changes to a new one – what a dog’s breakfast. But as for shrill – George Pitcher has a nerve calling anyone else shrill. Remember him after the election, rejoicing that Evan Harris had lost his seat?

A stranger to principle, Harris has coat-tailed some of the most vulnerable and weak people available to him to further his dogged, secularist campaign to have people of faith – any faith – swept from the public sphere. The Lib Dems served the purpose of providing him with a parliamentary seat, but his true love was the National Secular Society. For a doctor, he supported the strange idea that terminally ill people should be helped to kill themselves.

I commented at the time. That’s the man who thinks Dawkins is shrill.

At any rate – Russell posted on the “shrillness” meme, and Richard pointed out that Pitcher told a big fat lie in the Mail piece. Yes, a whopper. Pitcher said Hitchens said cuddly things about Christianity near the end, “much to the evident frustration of his interlocutor Richard Dawkins.” That was rather stupid of him, since he should have realized Richard could just say “no he didn’t.” But apparently he is stupid (as well as shrill), because he said it anyway. Richard said “no he didn’t.”

I was his interlocuter in his very last interview, for the Christmas issue of New Statesman, which I edited, and I can state with total certainty that he expressed no sympathy whatsoever, generous or otherwise, for the Christian worldview. So that is a lie, and so is the “evident frustration of his interlocutor Richard Dawkins.”

Shrill George Pitcher caught in lie shock.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Oh if only

Feb 4th, 2012 3:41 pm | By

I get envious of people in other countries quite often. The other day on the CBC’s The National I saw an item about a politician suggesting that certain criminals should be given a rope, so that they could decide to hang themselves if they liked. There was outrage from all parties. Here in the US the outrage is all for people who want to get rid of the death penalty.

And in the UK – the Advertising Standards Authority has told a Christian group it can’t tell people God will heal them.

The ASA said the leaflet read: “Need Healing? God can heal today! Do you suffer from Back Pain, Arthritis, MS, Addiction … Ulcers, Depression, Allergies, Fibromyalgia, Asthma, Paralysis, Crippling Disease, Phobias, Sleeping disorders or any other sickness?

“We’d love to pray for your healing right now!

“We’re Christian from churches in Bath and we pray in the name of Jesus. We believe that God loves you and can heal you from any sickness.”

The ASA said it had been alerted to the adverts by a complainant, and concluded that they could encourage false hope and were irresponsible.

That would never happen here.

[gazes longingly out the window toward distant lands]

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Standup in Tehran

Feb 4th, 2012 12:38 pm | By

Ah it is sweet of Mehr to provide so many pretty pictures of Khomeini’s re-enacted Return to Iran as Cardboard Dude.

 A cardboard cutout of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during a ceremony on Tuesday commemorating his return from exile in 1979.

It’s cool that Khomeini is a giant. It’s cool that he has no feet. It’s cool the way his two handlers’ white gloves appear discreetly on his shoulders and at his sides, while his own hands don’t appear at all. It’s just all so dignified and holy and impressive.

 The New York Times likes it too.

Shortly after the airport arrival, another cardboard cutout made an appearance in southern Tehran at Refah School, which served as Ayatollah Khomeini’s base of operations. There, it was joined by officials, including the education minister, who sat in a large circle with the silent version of the revered leader and awkwardly drank tea.

Well now I don’t see why that would be awkward, do you? Officials sitting around with a giant cardboard Dude, drinking tea? Where does the awkwardness come in?

(Oh I bet I know. They didn’t dare burst into shrieks of laughter, yet it must have been so hard not to. Of course; that would do it.)

There’s something missing though. There should be a giant cardboard Khomeini issuing a giant cardboard Fatwa.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Atheism in America

Feb 4th, 2012 12:08 pm | By

Well at least Julian now realizes that we Murkan atheists haven’t been exaggerating about the level of hostility to atheism and atheists there is in the US. He took an evidence-gathering trip here last year, and a long article in the FT talks about what he found.

As I found out when I travelled across the US last year, atheists live in isolation and secrecy all over the country. In a nation that celebrates freedom of religion like no other, freedom not to be religious at all can be as hard to exercise as the right to swim the Atlantic…The issue is somewhat neglected because it’s not usually perceptible on the coasts and in the larger cities, but the almost complete absence of overt atheism is striking at all levels of US public life, even in cosmopolitan areas.

I don’t think the issue is “neglected” but maybe that’s because I’m thinking of my particular corner of the Internet, which talks about it all the time. At any rate: yes indeed: the almost complete absence of overt atheism is striking at all levels of US public life. This is one reason we (in this particular corner of the Internet) talk about it so much. It’s worth talking about, plus talking about it makes it less true. We talk about our absence and thus make ourselves a little more present.

This week, Barack Obama was invited to speak at the 60th National Prayer Breakfast, an interfaith gathering which every president since Eisenhower has attended.

And he accepted, too. Boy did he ever.

it’s always been an opportunity that I’ve cherished. And it’s a chance to step back for a moment, for us to come together as brothers and sisters and seek God’s face together. At a time when it’s easy to lose ourselves in the rush and clamor of our own lives, or get caught up in the noise and rancor that too often passes as politics today, these moments of prayer slow us down. They humble us. They remind us that no matter how much responsibility we have, how fancy our titles, how much power we think we hold, we are imperfect vessels. We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to Him. Avoiding phony religiosity, listening to Him.

Vomit.

This is why we have to be so noisy and obnoxious – it’s because the president of a secular democracy feels obliged to talk sick-making drivel like that, which is made especially illiberal and objectionable by all the “Him” crap. He wouldn’t use language that implied that “God” is white; he has no business calling “God” male. He should leave the whole damn thing alone.

But he can’t, or at least he and his handlers think he can’t; so back to Julian’s article.

Julian talked to Harry Purdy, of Manchester, who met his GI father for the first time in 1991, and then moved to the US – only to have all his newly-found relatives reject him because he’s an atheist.

“I’ve been told things like ‘I hope you have an accident, die and go to  hell.’ So that’s what I’ve been up against.”

Friends have rejected him. “I used to be a good running friend with somebody who doesn’t live far from here. I mentioned on one occasion that I was an atheist and I’ve never seen him again … I came here knowing this was the Bible  Belt, but I didn’t realise it was a more like a totalitarian Christian society:  you’re either one of them or you’re not and there’s no in between. So I’ve learnt this lesson, to keep it to myself as much as possible.”

There’s a woman whose relatives had no problem with her babysitting for their children when she was a crack addict, but won’t have it now that she’s not an addict but is an atheist.

No wonder atheist groups talk of modelling their campaigns on the civil rights,  gay and women’s liberation movements. It is not that they claim their  persecution is on the same level but that they suggest the way forward requires  a combination of organising and consciousness-raising. “We want people to  realise that some of their best friends are atheists, some of their doctors, and  lawyers and fire chiefs and all the rest of them are atheists,” says Dennett.

And that there are a lot of us; that we’re here, and we’re not leaving; that we’re not fanged or rabid or given to eating babies.

The word is getting out, Julian notes; numbers are rising; things may be improving.

When it comes to identifying the main cause of atheism’s recent growth, most  people agree. “It’s all about the internet,” says Silverman. “The reason that  atheism is on the rise is because there is no way that a person who is an  atheist can think they’re alone any more. When I was growing up, I was the only  atheist I knew. I had to get on my bike, ride to the public library and take out  the one atheist book that they had in the whole library: The Case Against  God by George Smith. Now any atheist can go on Facebook or Myspace and find literally millions of friends.”

Or Freethought blogs…

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Cardboard Khomeini tours Tehran

Feb 3rd, 2012 3:52 pm | By

No really, it does.

It sits in on meetings and everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38-ifm9-nxI

h/t Sigmund.

Update: I should have included a picture.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Justin gets a megaphone!

Feb 3rd, 2012 3:26 pm | By

Wo! The BBC has done a huge long feature article about our man Justin Griffith and Rock Beyond Belief.

As an active-duty sergeant in the US Army, he’s leading the charge to get atheists more respect in the armed forces. In the process he is earning attention, both positive and negative, from around the world.

Mr Griffith’s most ambitious project is Rock Beyond Belief, a day-long event on the military base Fort Bragg, North Carolina, complete with children’s activities, rock concerts and a lecture by atheism’s most visible proponent, author and scientist Richard Dawkins….

Scheduled for 31 March, Rock Beyond Belief comes two years after another controversial concert at Fort Bragg, “Rock The Fort”. Sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Rock the Fort was billed as an “evangelical event” with Christian bands, family activities, and an emphasis on spreading the gospel to the entire community.

Just what the world doesn’t need: another evangelical military. Hence the need for Justin Griffith.

Military culture is full of religious ideology and symbolism, says Griffith. For instance, he cites the traditional flag-folding ceremony, which cites faith in God in multiple instances.

“These things have been here for years. It’s tradition,” he says. “How do we go about getting them out?”

Prior to planning the concert, he registered his complaints against the army’s spiritual fitness test, a campaign that he continues. That test, implemented last year as part of a wider resiliency and suicide-prevention program, rates servicemembers on the strength of their spiritual life.

He’s also working to ensure that servicemembers can have “atheist” listed on their official military records. “It took me a year and a half to get my records changed to atheist. When I told them I was atheist, they put ‘no religious preference’,” he says. “I told them that’s unacceptable. I do have a preference, and that’s atheism.”

Similar to my view of god. It’s not just that I don’t believe in god, I also dislike god.

Through his efforts, Mr Griffith has become a figurehead within the atheist movement. His blog gets around 100,000 hits a month and he says he puts in about 40 hours a week of activism on top of his military duties. In July, he was appointed the military director of American Atheists.

“I definitely have a bigger microphone now,” he says.

BBC links to FTB! I think that might be a first.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Don’t protest the thing you are protesting

Feb 3rd, 2012 12:05 pm | By

There was an extraordinary discussion on the Rally for Free Expression Facebook page a couple of days ago. The rally, of course, is a project of One Law for All and Maryam. The discussion started when a KCL student asked, “Whose idea was it to use a Jesus and Mo picture to advertise this rally?” and when told it was One Law for All’s, said, “Bad move. Very bad move.”

Uh. Seriously? But that was the whole point – to say that Jesus and Mo is not the kind of thing that should be banned or bullied into silence or concealment.

Maryam replied, sardonically,

I decided to use it. I couldn’t find a photo of us kneeling down in submission and agreeing not to offend but that also showed a demand for free expression. I guess that’s because it doesn’t exist… Jesus and Mo is the point.

Along with a post on the subject.

But another student who thought it was a bad move entered the fray -

It was an idiotic, attention seeking, and potentially dangerous decision. The point of this rally is free speech. The point of this rally is not to inflame. The original publishing of the cartoons was satirical, funny and definitely not an attempt to offend, whereas this is either an attempt to offend or sheer idiocy. If the leaflets get onto campuses then it certainly won’t help Athiest societies’ causes, with the union and with fellow students. There’s no issue with saying, at the rally, “ooh look, this isn’t offensive at all, but some people got offended and tried to stop this being published” and showing the pictures, but distributing the pictures on leaflets in this fashion is, as [student #1] said, a very bad move.

So the rally shouldn’t advertise the rally with the picture that is the very issue the rally is about. So if there’s a violent racist incident and people call a rally to protest racist violence, the rally shouldn’t be advertised with photographs of the violent racist incident? War protests shouldn’t mention The War? Occupy Wall Street shouldn’t mention Wall Street?

It’s mind-boggling.

From Maryam’s post:

Some atheists are not happy with One Law for All’s use of the Jesus and Mo cartoon on leaflets to promote the 11 February Day in defence of free expression. They feel that since the Jesus and Mo cartoons have been deemed offensive, it is best not to use them.

But that’s the whole point isn’t it?

We’re rallying in order to say that the right to offend is part of free expression. No one needs to rally for inoffensive speech, do they?

And if I hear one more hypothetical on why we shouldn’t offend if we can avoid it, I might just scream. The latest one: ‘If a Muslim comes to your house you will not plaster the Jesus and Mo cartoon all over to offend them on purpose now will you?’

No, but I won’t hide them, either!
square format logo

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Tragic failure of education

Feb 3rd, 2012 10:34 am | By

Via the LSESU ASH Facebook page and later via Alex Gabriel, a poster advertising an event put on by the LSE Socialist Worker Student Society. It reads:

Religious discrimination is irrefutably on the rise at LSE. Both the Atheist Society’s efforts to publish inflammatory “satirical” cartoons in a deliberate attempt to offend Muslims, and the ‘Nazi themed’ drinking games serve to highlight a festering undercurrent of racism.

What does really lie behind the claim that religious communities cannot be the target of racists?

Is atheism the road to social progress?

Why do Marxists defend religion?

That’s illiterate. “Religious discrimination” is somehow related to Nazism, and then it turns out to be a matter of racism, but then whoops it’s back to religion again – and all the wheels fall off with a resounding clatter.

But more to the point, notice the vicious language about the LSE ASH. Note the “efforts to publish” when the site of “publication” was the group’s Facebook page. Note the malevolent paranoia of “inflammatory.” Note above all the (one could say “inflammatory”) accusation that that was a “deliberate attempt to offend Muslims.” Note, in short, the frothing hatred of secularism, free speech and discussion, and failure to grovel before religious taboos.

In the next paragraph, note the “religious communities,” which sweeps all Muslims into the group “invariably outraged by even the most anodyne criticism of or jokes about their religion.”

Note it all, and hope they learn to think better soon.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: , ,


“Open to all” does not mean “pleasing to all”

Feb 3rd, 2012 9:33 am | By

The LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society issued a statement yesterday.

It starts with thanks for support from various groups (including One Law for All) and a chronology of the exciting events of the last couple of weeks, the first being an invitation from the SU to come in for a chat.

Friday 20th

In the meeting, the LSESU advanced that we were not providing a safe space for Muslim students to interact, as the pictures on our Facebook page were offending Muslims.

But again – why is an Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society expected to provide a safe space for Muslim students to interact? Why is that an issue? Are all student societies expected to provide a safe space for their own opposites to interact? Wouldn’t such an expectation render all student societies utterly meaningless and void? Or is it only the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society that is expected to do that? But in that case…why the fuck?

On the 25th the SU clarified this point somewhat:

When activity comes under the banner of the Student’s Union it should be open to all members…….. The images which are posted there present a clear barrier to entry for a large number of students at LSE……. the cartoons has caused not only reflects negatively on the LSE SU brand but more importantly has caused significance offence to our members.

So there we have the fundamental confusion: the confusion of being open with having no “barriers” when barriers are understood as “anything some students might dislike.” The activity is open to all members, but that doesn’t require it to be attractive to all members. At that rate there could be no musical society, because some people dislike music; there could be no socialist society, because socialism would “present a clear barrier” to free-market libertarians; there could be no feminist society, for reasons which there’s no need to spell out.

ASH made the same point crisply in response to the SU:

Disagreeing and even being offended by some of the contents of a social space do not represent a barrier to entry.

It must be dispiriting to be at university with people who have to be told that.

January 30th

We asked the SU to “cite the relevant literature that shows conclusively that “Muslim students cannot look at pictures of the prophet Muhammad”.” No answers received.

The LSESU Socialist Workers Society posted the posters on campus that included the following statement:

“The Atheist Society’s efforts to publish inflammatory “satirical” cartoons in a deliberate attempt to offend Muslims serve to highlight a festering undercurrent of racism.”

Budding George Galloways, all of them.

…we have now changed the name of the Facebook group back to “LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society”.

During the two weeks of the on-going investigation, the LSESU has not been able to justify their request to remove the ‘Jesus and Mo’ cartoons from our website and their request to change the name of our Facebook group with reference to the LSESU constitution or bye-laws.

The SU answered our letter, but was still unable to state explicitly the effective and binding bye-laws on which their request has been based. Therefore, we are back to our old name, and will stay with our name until the SU can prove to us that we are in violation of any of their regulations or bye-laws.

We await further developments.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: , , ,


Unhand that banker, you filthy cad

Feb 2nd, 2012 4:43 pm | By

Brendan O’Neill is hilarious, in an irritating way. His one trick is Defending the Indefensible. The only surprise he offers is what obviously bad exploitative ruthless item or person he can next find to claim as a victim of the mob.

This week it’s bankers. Yes bankers, who are so hard done by, being allowed to trash the global economy for the sake of stuffing their own wallets and then allowed to keep their wallet-stuffing jobs and continue getting gigantic bonuses to reward them for trashing the global economy in order to stuff their own wallets. Naturally they need defending by the fearless non-conformist quirky gang at Spiked.

The mad pursuit of Fred Goodwin and his ill-gotten knighthood confirms that bankers are the new paedophiles. Bank bosses are to posh commentators what paedos were to hacks at the News of the World – wicked creatures one can rail against in order to feel puffed-up and Good.

Pffffffff. One could just as easily say the same of O’Neill. He doesn’t know that that’s why people “rail against” Fred Goodwin, any more than I know that he writes this kind of coat-trailing shite in order to feel clever and Savvy.

Of course, the difference between the old tabloid wars against paedos and the current moralistic hounding of bankers is that the latter has been sanctioned by the influential chattering classes, giving it a reach and clout the News of the World‘s crusade against paedos never achieved.

Brilliant; he sounds like Terry Eagleton heaping scorn on “Islington man” from whatever blighted slum he would live in if only he hadn’t become so prosperous over the years.

There’s lots more of this formulaic bullshit; read it all if you like that kind of thing.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Why a book about censorship?

Feb 2nd, 2012 3:53 pm | By

The Economist talked to Nick Cohen about his new book, aptly titled You Can’t Read This Book.

First question was

What made you want to write a book about censorship?

Now what do you suppose he said.

Firstly, it was watching a Russian oligarch with a criminal record using the libel law in Britain to silence all newspapers that wrote articles about him. Secondly, a great feminist writer, Ophelia Benson, co-wrote a book called “Does God Hate Women?” which was denounced overwhelmingly by the liberal press in Britain, including the paper I write for, the Observer. So once you start with an idea, the logic of the book then takes over.

That’s not bad. Almost worth having one’s book overwhelmingly denounced by the liberal press.

It was you know. I went over it all at the time, naturally, but not everyone who is reading now was reading then, so just by way of a reminder or a quick background – that’s exactly what happened. The Independent denounced it, the Observer denounced it, the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ denounced it. BBC 3′s Night Waves invited not one but two defenders of religion to tell me how wrong we were and how feminist Islam and Catholicism are. One of the best and least mendacious reviews the book got was in – wait for it – the Church Times. Seriously.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Taslima’s readers and fans

Feb 2nd, 2012 3:25 pm | By

Taslima Nasreen has a lot of tweets about the cancellation of (or move outside of) her book launch in Kolkata. News media have been quoting her tweets, so I might as well do a few too. (How nice it would be if she had a blog.) She is getting plenty of support. The bullies don’t have a monopoly, by any means.

Wow! Veiled girls buying & reading my books. I hope they would soon remove their veils & start living w dignity.

Dhaka: Eminent writer Syed Abul Maksud holds Taslima Nasreen’s autobigraphy books ‘Nirbasan’ at Ekushe Boimela.

pic.twitter.com/vSE6Ou52

One from twelve hours ago:

Dhaka Book Fair in Muslim Majority Bangladesh now successfully launched my book. Kolkata Book Fair in Muslim minority India could not.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


More publications that will uphold love for truth

Feb 2nd, 2012 11:40 am | By

Now it’s Taslima Nasreen’s turn.

Taslima Nasreen has faced protests at the launch of her latest memoir, with an event at the Calcutta Book Fair cancelled. Ms Nasreen is not at the event, and tweeted that her publisher was forced to launch the book outside the hall.

It would be nice if she had a blog. Twitter is all very well, but a blog gives a person room to move. I do think Taslima Nasreen should have a blog.

The protest comes in the wake of an intensified debate over artistic free speech in India. UK writer Sir Salman Rushdie recently had to abandon plans to attend a literary festival in Jaipur amid security concerns. On Sunday an artist was assaulted in a gallery in Delhi, where he is exhibiting a number of nude paintings.

And don’t forget Aseem Trivedi.

Ms Nasreen was launching Nirbasan (Exile), the latest instalment of her memoirs that gives an account of her flight from Calcutta in 2007-08…Ms Nasreen has written dozens of books of poetry, essays, novels and short stories in her native Bengali language, mostly in exile. Her most controversial book, Lajja (Shame), was banned in Bangladesh and she fled after Muslim extremists called for her death. The publisher of the latest instalment, Shibani Mukherji, told the Press Trust of India it was “determined to go ahead with more publications that will uphold values, love for truth and social progress”.

Props to Shibani Mukherji!

Now if only Taslima Nasreen had a blog…

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Treason and offending

Feb 2nd, 2012 11:05 am | By

How not to understand free speech.

The case of a cartoonist charged with treason and offending India’s national sentiments reflects a growing debate over what constitutes freedom of expression in India. His accusers argue that while it is permissible to make fun of politicians, you cannot make fun of the state.

That’s how, right there. No no no, that’s entirely wrong. Yes you can make fun of the state. The state and the church or mosque are right at the top of the list of things you must be able to make fun of in order to have free speech at all. If free speech applies just to things that don’t matter, then it’s not free.

Aseem Trivedi, a 25-year-old political cartoonist, was charged with treason and insulting the Indian national emblems, according to local news reports and CPJ interviews…

Trivedi, a freelancer from the central state of Uttar Pradesh, was inspired by the well-known social activist Anna Hazare‘s fight against corruption and graft. Trivedi drew cartoons criticizing the Indian government, some of which were exhibited while Hazare was fasting in Mumbai in December.

Back in Mumbai, Trivedi faces another legal attack. There, lawyer R.P. Pandey has filed his own complaint, alleging that the cartoons are “defamatory and derogatory” and requesting “strict legal action,” according to news reports. While Mumbai police have yet to file charges, the complaint has had repercussions: Big Rock, a domain name registrar, suspended Trivedi’s website, www.cartoonistsagainstcorruption.com, citing the criminal complaint, The Times of India reported.

Speaking to CPJ from Mumbai, Pandey said that while parodying politicians was a legitimate pursuit, mocking national institutions like the Indian Parliament and national symbols was “completely unacceptable.”

No no no. You can mock institutions. Mocking institutions is a very important component of free speech.

Certainly, the blocking of Trivedi’s website has caused a sense of disquiet. Sudhir Tailang, a well-known political cartoonist based in Delhi, says, “The very essence of cartoons are their anti-establishment note. Take away that and you take away dissent.”

Exactly. Do better, India.

 

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Richard, Nick, Salman, Ayaan

Feb 2nd, 2012 9:51 am | By

Richard Dawkins has a response to “Froborr.”

Ok I’m lying, he doesn’t really, but it might as well be. Plus it’s a response to all the “oh won’t you please think of the poor fragile believers?” wails that keep being wailed.

Actually he’s talking specifically about the Jaipur Festival (where he was one of the speakers) and Salman Rushdie and Nick Cohen’s new book – but he’s also talking generally, as is only natural, since all of those items have wide implications.

I have just returned from the Jaipur Literary Festival, infamous for the recent reprise of the 1989 threats against Sir Salman Rushdie by Muslims the world over, lamentably applauded by leading churchmen, politicians, historians and otherwise liberal journalists. Coincidentally, I am reading You Can’t Read this Book, Nick Cohen’s brilliant broadside against ‘censorship in an age of freedom’.

I’ve already read Nick’s book, because I read it as it was being written. I’ll be reading it again though. Anyway the point is, the subject of Nick’s book keeps being re-enacted, more absurdly and invasively and threateningly all the time.

Richard said at Jaipur:

Our whole society is soft on religion. The assumption is remarkably widespread that religious sensitivities are somehow especially deserving of consideration – a consideration not accorded to ordinary prejudice. . . I admit to being offended by Father Christmas, ‘Baby Jesus’, and Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer, but if I tried to act on these prejudices I’d quite rightly be held accountable. I’d be challenged to justify myself. But let somebody’s religion be offended and it’s another matter entirely. Not only do the affronted themselves kick up an almighty fuss; they are abetted and encouraged by influential figures from other religions and the liberal establishment. Far from being challenged to justify their beliefs like anybody else, the religious are granted sanctuary in a sort of intellectual no go area.

Froborr take a bow.

Richard quotes Nick on the new atheists:

The new atheists thought that the best argument against Islamist terror, or Christian fundamentalism, or Hindu or Jewish nationalism, was to say bluntly that there is no God, and we should grow up. Fear of religious violence also drove the backlash against atheism from those who felt that appeasement of psychopathic believers was the safest policy; that if we were nice to them, perhaps they would calm down. Prim mainstream commentators decried the insensitivity and downright rudeness with which the new atheists treated the religious. The complaints boiled down to a simple and piteous cry: “Why can’t you stop upsetting them?”

The answer is simple. If the criterion for what is allowable in public discourse becomes “that which will not upset anyone” then public discourse will be a vast desert of nothingness. We can’t have thought or inspiration or development or change without the risk of upsetting some people. “Not upsetting” is simply the wrong criterion for permissible discourse.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: , ,


Why the Theodosian Code is so hysterically bad

Feb 1st, 2012 4:35 pm | By

Skeptic lawyer went to a really nice reception last night at the Scottish Parliament building, which is apparently almost as ugly as the Experience Music Project here in Seattle, and in much the same style -

…a fellow lawyer suggested that it looked like someone had eaten a giant jigsaw and then thrown up on the Old Town.

master.scottish_parliament_towers

Behold the EMP:

 Very much as if someone had thrown up a huge jigsaw.

But that’s not the real subject. The real subject is that reception; what a jolly occasion it sounds.

it was a reception for equal marriage (same sex marriage) held at Holyrood  and co-sponsored by all four parties currently represented in the parliament.

To quote from the linked article in the Scotsman:

Labour’s Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson of the Conservatives, Willie Rennie of the Lib Dems and the Greens’ Patrick Harvie signed a pledge expressing their backing for homosexual weddings.

The four opposition leaders signed a declaration saying that they would “campaign to beat the ban on same sex marriage”.

At an event in the Scottish Parliament organised by the Equality Network, they cut a wedding cake to symbolise their support for a change in the law. The cake-cutting ceremony was carried out before MSPs of all parties attended an evening reception co-sponsored by the openly gay SNP MSP Joe Fitzpatrick.

That makes me very wistful. Such an event couldn’t possibly happen here, in the land of paleolithic views married to relentless pandering.

It pissed off the right people, too. Guess who got all scowly.

Last night John Deighan, parliamentary officer for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said: “It is disappointing that party leaders have been so cavalier in joining the bandwagon for redefining marriage. We deserve a more reflective approach from those in a position of political leadership.

“Marriage is essentially linked with recognising and supporting the roles of mother and father. There is a lack of real tolerance when that view is sweepingly likened to a form of discrimination or bigotry. This is, of course, an attempt to win a political position by intimidation rather than by coherence of argument.”

Disgusting as always – the bullying Catholic church accusing elected politicians of intimidation.

But the party leaders were unrepentant, indicating their strong support for changing the law.

Oh that makes me so wistful. Here they would be falling all over themselves to apologize and mollify and attempt a compromise.

Skeptic lawyer has some wonderful commentary on Roman law and the Theodosian code.

 Apparently, the reason the Theodosian Code is so hysterically bad is because it wasn’t drafted by lawyers, but by various Christian mates of the emperor. The Roman legal profession kept its paganism with great tenacity, only capitulating when — after repeated professional harassment — they were all threatened with the loss of their practicing certificates (ius respondendii) if they failed to convert. At the same time, women were driven from the Bar and shortly thereafter, the Greek schools of philosophy were closed.

In other words, the conservative Christian attempt to define marriage so that gays and lesbians can’t use it is intimately linked to misogyny and hostility to intellectual freedom. That’s worth keeping in mind.

That’s just a snippet; read it all.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


This is really true

Feb 1st, 2012 4:15 pm | By

Jesus took a leaf from Jefferson’s book and did a condensed Koran.

dross

Mo said “sheet.” That’s offensive!

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/02/01/dross/

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Ideas that undermine received wisdom

Feb 1st, 2012 10:59 am | By

This claim of “Froborr’s” is really appallingly hostile to a great many of the foundations of a liberal open thoughtful society or culture or world.

First, the move to make a truth claim about reality part of one’s identity (“a huge part of who I am”) is death to thinking. It’s the same move the shouters about “hurting religious sentiments” make: it turns one’s ideas into one’s Self in a move to make it taboo to question them. Making it taboo to question ideas is death to thinking.

Second, the move to equate public discussion with forcible conversion is, obviously, death to public discussion. If all argument that [X is better or more true or more evidence-based than Y] amounts to forcible conversion and thus is “evil in one of its purest forms” – well I don’t even need to say more: the upshot is obvious.

The whole thing is an alarming ploy to make all existing world-views indistinguishable from people’s identities and therefore sacrosanct and not to be challenged. That’s simply a recipe for mental stagnation.

Russell Blackford made a related point the other day, in connection with Elaine Ecklund.

An important component of the role of universities is the creation of a space where what seem like commonsense ideas – handed down through socialisation and tradition – can be held up to the light and challenged. One thing that we want from academics, especially in fields such as philosophy, is the capacity and courage to attack popular ideas, including popular ideas of morality. This kind of intellectual critique, which may involve the development of unpopular critiques of how ordinary people think, is one way that we make progress as a society.

Accommodationist thinkers in the style of Ecklund or, say, Chris Mooney, want to reverse this. The idea is to market a product, such as science, by showing how it is safe for people to consume without it challenging their existing worldviews (which may be based on religion or traditional morality). People with various existing worldviews are taken as demographics, and the idea is to market science to them.

But science and scholarship are dangerous – not necessarily in the sense of creating physical risks, but in the sense that they can lead to ideas that undermine received wisdom. Universities are places where dangerous ideas, in this sense, are created, refined, and tested in debate. To suggest otherwise, and adopt the marketing strategy favoured by accommodationists, is profoundly ignorant and anti-intellectual.

I think that’s absolutely spot-on, and crucial.

It’s really not a good idea to try to persuade everyone that only safe ideas are permissible, much less that potentially unnerving ones are pure evil. It’s a blow for ignorance and anti-intellectualism and against learning, change, growth, surprise, development – and freedom.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


“Evil in one of its purest forms”

Feb 1st, 2012 10:14 am | By

Are we seeing a new trend? A new variety of passive-aggressive accommodationist mendacious gnu-bashing?

Ray Moscow alerted me to a new* entry in the genre at something called The Slacktiverse by someone called “Froborr.” It starts with: I’m an atheist. That’s my identity. It would be traumatic to change that. It’s just as traumatic to change the other way around. It ends with: Therefore, Greta Christina and other overt atheists are evil.

There’s a lot in between, of course, but that’s where it ends up.

Greta Christina posted last month[1] that, “For many atheists, our main goal is persuading the world out of religion.” She goes on in the same post to establish herself in favor of that position:

We don’t want to see this happen by law or violence or any kind of force, of course. But we think religion isn’t just mistaken. We think it’s harmful. Some of think it’s appallingly harmful. Some of us think it’s inherently harmful: that the very qualities that make religion unique are exactly what make it capable of doing terrible harm. What’s more, we see religion as not just hurting atheists. We see it as hurting billions of believers. So we’re working towards a world where it no longer exists.

So, according to Greta Christina, her primary goal as an atheist is to make most of the world’s population suffer the trauma of losing their faith, so that they can then be better (read: more Greta Christina-like) people with truer (read: more similar to Greta Christina’s) beliefs. And I should be okay with this, because she promises not to use legal coercion or violence to bring it about.

I am not okay with this.

The post in question is What Are The Goals of the Atheist Movement? (Why is there a footnote instead of a hyperlink? What’s that about? The hyperlink is a convention for a reason: it’s much easier. What on earth is the point of reverting to the print convention?)

Now, notice that Froborr misrepresents what Greta said, immediately below the passage where she said it. She said “we’re working towards a world where it no longer exists” and Froborr misrepresents that as “mak[ing] most of the world’s population suffer the trauma of losing their faith.” Here’s the mistake: working towards a world where religion no longer exists means just that, not working towards a world where everyone has been converted from theism to atheism. There’s a whole spectrum of ways that can happen. One is that atheism becomes more visible and available, and people who are lukewarm or doubtful or closeted feel more free to become atheist or secular or humanist (or all three). Another is that as that happens, more children grow up without pressure to be theist. Another is that many people are persuaded by atheist arguments but the process is not traumatic or an experience of “losing” something, but a liberation or a revelation of vast possibilities. And then over all, there is no actual missionary activity. There is public discussion; there is not knocking on the front door with a tract. There are books; there are not atheist gangs invading churches and mosques.

Froborr ends up with:

You do not have a right to make others suffer for your beliefs.

No one has that right. Ever.

If Greta Christina’s assessment of religion were correct–if all religious belief is both false and inherently harmful–then religion would be not only a mental illness, but the most widespread mental illness in history. But even if that were true (and I do not believe it is), you do not have a right to cure people by force unless they are demonstrably an immediate danger to themselves or others.

I cannot reiterate this enough: Proselytizing is yet another word for making people suffer in order to transform them into what you think they should be, for no other reason than because they are not what you think they should be.

What Greta Christina advocates–what any atheist advocates when they suggest “increasing the numbers of atheists” as a laudable goal, what any adherent of any religion advocates when they suggest “increasing the number of members of my religion”–is evil in one of its purest forms.

Evil in one of its purest forms.

Extraordinary.

*New but brand-new; it’s dated January 16 thus pre-dates Be Scofield’s similar piece.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


We are all Jay Leno, or at least Craig Ferguson

Jan 31st, 2012 3:24 pm | By

Can I play too?

Want to see Arianna Huffington’s garage?

Want to see where bankers go camping?

Want to see Barbra Streisand’s little house in Malibu?

 That’s enough blaspheming and “hurting the sentiments” for one day.

 The BBC is more sympathetic than I am. The BBC takes it all rather seriously, or pretends to.

The US has defended comedian Jay Leno’s right to free speech after India condemned a reference he made to the holiest Sikh shrine.

A Leno skit showed the Golden Temple of Amritsar as the summer home of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Mr Romney has faced questions over his wealth and many Sikhs are angry the temple has been depicted as a place for the rich.

But then the BBC says something predictable but incredibly idiotic.

The Sikh community has launched an online petition over the comment.

It has? The whole community? All Sikhs acting as one have launched a petition?

I don’t believe that for a second. Neither would the BBC if it thought about it. Why does it say things like that? Why does it treat certain perceived groups as if they acted as a bloc? Why does it do that so determinedly and predictably that it ends up saying something as imbecilic as “The Sikh community has launched an online petition”? Why is the BBC so allergic to the very possibility that Sikhs or Muslims or Christian can disagree with each other? Why does the BBC simply assume that all Sikhs take the same view of this ludicrous pseudo-outrage about a minor joke?

An Indian minister called Leno’s comments “objectionable” and said “freedom does not mean hurting the sentiments of others”.

Oh shut up. Just shut up, all of you. Just shut up about the babyish “hurting the sentiments” nonsense. You used that to drive Tasleema Nasrin out of India, you used it to keep Salman Rushdie out of Jaipur, you use it every time some godbotherer takes a deep breath – just cut it out. Shut up.

And by the way -

Take my Golden Temple,  please.

 

I’m looking for a place to store old magazines, this looks about right.

 

 I look forward to your letters.

Update:

Popehat is way ahead of me.

First up, we have Dr. Randeep Dhillon!  Dr. Dhillon is suing Jay Leno.  Is he suing Jay Leno for being a trite, phone-it-in placeholder?  NO!  There’s no California cause of action for that!  SAG would never allow it!  No, Randeep Dhillon is suing Jay Leno for a lame joke about Mitt Romney suggesting that his vacation home was the Golden Temple of Amritsar, a holy site for Sikhs! …

Congrats, Dr. Dhillon!  You win a date with California’s robust anti-SLAPP statute!  You’re going to pay Jay Leno’s attorney fees in this case, which I will estimate to be $50,000!  And because some people will generalize about Sikhs based on the act of one asshole — you — you’ve just done more to expose Sikhs to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy than that threadbare hack Leno ever could!  Way to go!

Exactly. That one stupid sentence of the BBC’s did more that way than Leno did or could.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,