Tag: Theocracy

The Telegraph is again sitting at George Carey’s knee, drinking in his wisdom and insight about the vicious persecution of Christians in the UK.

Carey says worshippers are being “vilified” by the state, treated as “bigots” and sacked simply for expressing their beliefs.

The attack is part of a direct appeal to the European Court of Human Rights before a landmark case on religious freedom.

In a written submission seen by The Daily Telegraph, the former leader of more than 70 million Anglicans warns that the outward expression of traditional conservative Christian values has effectively been “banned” in Britain under a new “secular conformity of belief and conduct”.

His comments represent one of the strongest attacks on the impartiality of Britain’s judiciary from a religious leader.

Leo Igwe has an excellent article about religious laws versus human rights, which I think is a statement he made to the UN Human Rights Council a few days ago. Leo has very concrete, in your face, up close and personal experience of the relationship between religious “laws” and human rights, since he spends much of his time trying to repair the damage done by witch hunts and witch hunters and people who make claims about child “witches” in order to get money from the children’s parents to get rid of the “witches.”

Religious laws are legalised religious doctrines. They are “revelations” turned into rules to govern society. Religious laws are sacred dogma institutionalised. They are sins criminalised. They are religious hatred, intolerance, discrimination and fanaticism turned into state policies. In most parts of Africa, the negative impact of religious laws on democracies and human rights systems is clear and compelling – from the wars, conflicts and anarchy in Somalia, Northern Uganda, and in the Sudan, to the threats posed by Islamism to the Arab Spring in North Africa and the peaceful coexistence of people in Nigeria; from the witch hunts in Malawi, Nigeria, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Kenya, Guinea Conakry, Mozambique and the Central African Republic, to the wave of homophobia sweeping across different countries with overt and covert support from the OIC, the Vatican and other religious agencies that foster religious laws and its discontents across the globe. How we address this ‘sensitive’ issue of religious law – particularly here at the Human Rights Council – will go a long way in determining the future of democracy and human rights in the world.

I hope the HRC listened very attentively to Leo, and thought hard about what he said.

Also inspired by religious laws are those persecuting alleged witches in Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Benin, Burkina Faso, the Congo, Central African Republic, Kenya, Uganda, Malawi and Angola. Even where there are enabling state laws to address the problem, in many cases the religious laws in the minds of the people overwhelm, and take precedence over state laws. Or the existing law will be twisted and misinterpreted to convict the alleged witch and acquit the accuser.

Hence it should not surprise anyone that theocratic agencies like the Vatican, the Church of England, the OIC and their member states have not come out openly and categorically to condemn accusations of witchcraft and spirit possession sweeping across Africa and Asia and among African and Asian overseas communities.

It’s a good question, isn’t it. The Vatican is terribly terribly concerned about fetuses…why is it so unconcerned about children accused of being witches? The OIC is terribly terribly concerned about “defamation” of religion and “blasphemy” and cartoons and the like – why is it so unconcerned about children accused of being witches? Why do theocratic organizations have such horribly twisted priorities?

Homophobia: And now compare the deafening silence and indifference of African states to combating witchcraft related abuses with their vehement and strident opposition to recognizing the human rights of gay people. The reasons often cited to justify and sanctify homophobic legislations in the region are as follows: That homosexuality is unbiblical, un-Koranic and ungodly! In other words, the African states have these sacred texts, not their constitutions, as their grundnorm.

Recently, many African states and most of the OIC member states walked out of the session convened by the Council to discuss violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. With that walk out, they have made their position clear:  they do not want these human rights violations to be discussed or addressed, nor will they be party to addressing them. They should not be held responsible and accountable. In other words, they are saying that the human rights abuses on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity should continue, because that is in accordance with the ‘divine’ law in these countries.

Exactly so. How terrible it is that Leo’s voice is such a singular one.

Sigmund keeps an eye on the Iona Institute, and he alerted me to its report on a report by a Christian panic-group about “attacks on Christians.” The report on the report is indeed risible.

Christians are the victims in 85pc of ‘hate crimes’ in Europe according to a new report published yesterday.

The report, published by the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe, a European body established to record instances of anti-Christian bias, provides a series of examples of attacks on Christians in 2011.

Spoiler alert: the “attacks” are not “attacks.”

Among the examples cited in the report were:

• In Spain, students were prevented from attending weekly Mass on a Wednesday because of a protest by secular students until the university could guarantee the safety of the Mass-going students
• In Germany, a mother of 12 children, Irene Wiens, was jailed for 43 days for refusing to enroll her children in a State-run sex education class which she deemed to be too permissive
• In the UK, a Conservative MP, Mike Weatherley, has called for a ban on marriages in Christian churches if they continue to refuse to perform same-sex marriages
• In Jersey, postal workers refused to distribute CD copies of St Mark’s Gospel after deeming it offensive material
• In Spain, a Catholic GP was forced to refer women for abortions by a court in Malaga
• New guidelines in the Netherlands say that doctors who have ethical objections to euthanasia must refer patients to doctors who will carry out euthanasia

It’s a very theocratic mind that sees any of that as “attacks on Christians.”  It’s a very theocratic mind that pretends to see any of that as “attacks on Christians” for the purposes of bullying secularists.

Launching the report, Dr Gudrun Kugler, the director of the Observatory, referred to research showing that “85pc of hate crimes in Europe are directed against Christians”…She said that her organisation had also noticed increasing examples of professionial restrictions for Christians: “a restrictive application of freedom of conscience leads to professions such as magistrates, doctors, nurses and midwives as well as pharmacists”.

See? Theocratic. Dr Kugler thinks magistrates, doctors, nurses, midwives, and pharmacists should be able to refuse to do their jobs on religious grounds, while sane people think that people shouldn’t take jobs they’re going to refuse to do on religious grounds.

The New York Times puts it a little differently. More politely. Too politely.

Facing vocal opposition from religious leaders and an escalating political fight, the White House sought on Tuesday to ease mounting objections to a new administration rule that would require health insurance plans — including those offered by Catholic universities and charities — to offer birth control to women free of charge.

That’s much too polite. What “religious leaders”? What are “religious leaders” anyway? And since when do they get to dictate to the elected government? Since when do unelected self-appointed so-called “religious leaders” get to tell secular representatives what to do? Since when did we give “religious leaders” a veto?

The White House, meaning the Obama administration, could just say that. It could and it should. It could just firmly say that a tiny number of men at the top of the Catholic hierarchy has no standing to boss the administration around.

Really. It should. It should point out, with cold politeness, that Catholic bishops don’t in fact represent anyone, they just act as if they do. They’re not elected, they’re not accountable, they can’t be recalled by the membership – they don’t represent anyone. They boss people, but they don’t represent them.

As the Republican presidential candidates and conservative leaders sought to frame the rule as showing President Obama’s insensitivity to religious beliefs, Mr. Obama’s aides promised to explore ways to make it more palatable to religious-affiliated institutions, perhaps by allowing some employers to make side insurance plans available that are not directly paid for by the institutions.

But that’s not their job, and it’s not something they should be doing. The government shouldn’t be trying to make laws “more palatable to religious-affiliated institutions.” That’s just an opening wedge for theocracy, so it’s a really crappy idea.

Even though Roman Catholic bishops and some Catholic institutions have sounded vocal opposition to the law, recent polls, which Obama officials were pointing to on Tuesday, show that a majority of Catholics favor the new contraceptive rule…

So what business can Obama possibly have helping their autocratic rulers take the new contraceptive rule away?

“I can’t tell you how many times we went over this,” one administration official said, speaking on grounds of anonymity. In the end, it was Mr. Obama himself who made the decision, aides say, calculating that at the end of the day, the issue of public health access outweighed the concerns of the religious institutions.

Good. Quite right. Now stick to it. When the Republicans bleat about “religious freedom,” defend the principle.

What was that about US Catholic bishops insisting on imposing Catholic dogma on the entire US population by telling presidents and legislators to obey their rules? Well it worked.

White House advisors, including one of President Obama’s top faith consultants, are signaling a potential compromise on a controversial new mandate that requires some religious institutions to cover contraception costs for employees.

David Axelrod, a senior campaign adviser for the Obama reelection campaign, said Tuesday that Obama may be open to a compromise that would expand a religious exemption in the new Health & Human Services mandate to satisfy religious groups.

“We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms,” Axelrod said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “So we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventive care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney said later on Tuesday that the adminstration is eager to allay the concerns of Catholic leaders livid over the contraception mandate.

Why? Why, why, why, you fucking bastards? Why are you eager to allay the concerns of Catholic “leaders”? And they’re not “leaders,” by the way – they’re just self-appointed bosses of an unelected unaccountable godbothering organization. They’re just some men at the top of a vicious antiquated hierarchy. The laws are none of their god damn business and they have no right to interfere with them. They can be livid all they like, but you guys should not be eager to allay their tantrums. We don’t live in a theocracy. We don’t have that form of government. We’re not all Catholics. We don’t need or want Catholic bishops telling us what laws we can have. We don’t need or want you collapsing before their wrath.

It’s simply revolting.

H/t Melody Hensley.

It’s interesting how cheerfully unabashed the Telegraph is in its belief that Catholic bishops should tell US presidents and legislators what laws to make. It’s interesting that they take theocracy – and reactionary all-but-falangist Catholic theocracy at that – for granted. It’s interesting and somewhat surprising. Would they really like reactionary Catholic bishops making laws in the UK?

Roman Catholic leaders have furiously criticised President Barack Obama for approving new regulations that compel religious organisations to include morning-after pills and other contraceptives in employee health insurance coverage.

New rules, introduced under Mr Obama’s overhaul of the US healthcare system, mean that religious charities, universities and other groups must now provide contraception in staff insurance packages.

…

At least 153 US bishops have spoken out against the change. A letter from a leading bishop, accusing the president of waging a “severe assault on religious liberty”, has been read to dozens of congregations.

“We Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so,” wrote Alexander Sample, the Bishop of Marquette.

Mr Obama has been accused of backtracking on an assurance that he made in a 2009 speech at the University of Notre Dame, a leading Catholic university in Indiana.

Speaking specifically about his planned health reforms, he said: “Let’s honour the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause”.

So Egypt is doomed. Islamists control two thirds of the seats in the People’s Assembly. In other words, the Assembly is in the hands of avowed theocrats.

The final results in Egypt’s first post-Mubarak parliamentary elections confirm an overwhelming victory for Islamist parties.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won the largest number of seats under Egypt’s complex electoral system.

The hardline Salafist Nour party came second.

…

The overall results mean that Islamist parties control around two-thirds of the seats in the assembly, though the final share out of seats is not yet known.

It’s a disaster.

Check out some Islamists in Derby.

Ihjaz Ali, 42, Kabir Ahmed, 28, and Razwan Javed, 27, were found guilty of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

They distributed a leaflet entitled Death Penalty? at a mosque and through letterboxes, Derby Crown Court heard.

…

The court heard the leaflets showed an image of a wooden mannequin hanging from a noose and quoted Islamic texts. The leaflets said capital punishment was the only way to rid society of homosexuality. They were handed out near the Jaima Mosque on Rosehill Street, Derby, and put through the letterboxes of people’s homes in surrounding streets. The court heard the leaflets were made and used as part of a campaign to publicise a protest in response to the Gay Pride festival held on 10 July 2010 in Derby.

By saying that gay people should be executed.

The men admitted distributing the leaflet but said they were simply following and quoting what their religion taught them about homosexuality and did not intend to threaten anyone.

Yes see that’s completely incoherent. “Simply” following and quoting what their religion taught them about homosexuality is indeed to threaten “anyone” when what their religion teaches them about homosexuality is that people should be executed for it. It’s not an escape clause or an “oh that’s all right then” or a decency stipulation to say “oh that’s just my religion.” Egypt’s Islamists can say exactly the same thing only now they have their hands on the power of the state so they can put the threat into practice. We don’t get to say “Oh well but they won’t do that” – not with the example of Iran to look at.

One gay man, who gave evidence but cannot be identified for legal reasons, said he received the Turn Or Burn and Death Penalty? leaflets through the door of his home on two occasions.

He said the first leaflet, Turn Or Burn, made him feel “quite horrified” and it was after he received Death Penalty? that he called the police.

“They made me feel terrorised in my own home,” he said.

“Sometimes I wondered whether I would be getting a burning rag through the letterbox or if I would be attacked in the street.”

The unfortunate people of Egypt won’t have the option of calling the police when the Islamists start to close in on them.

Jonathan Turley was on the case in the Los Angeles Times in December.

This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled “Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18.” The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to “deter” some speech in the name of human rights.

Although the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify the prosecution of those who speak against religion. The members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, have been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.

And liberals and secularists have been pushing back – like the IHEU and CFI last March:

This week the Center for Inquiry joined the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) in opposing blasphemy laws at a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.

CFI holds special consultative status as a non-governmental organization, or NGO, under the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Both CFI and the IHEU have been active in recent years opposing so-called blasphemy laws, which aim to suppress criticism and free speech about religious beliefs.  Such laws have been used to persecute nonbelievers, religious minorities and religious dissidents.  In some countries, including Pakistan, the “crime” of blasphemy carries the penalty of death.

CFI drew up a joint statement, which was delivered before the Human Rights Council.

We welcome the report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief [A/HRC/16/53] and note that violence in the name of religion is apparently growing in many counties. For example, the recent murders in Pakistan of Governor Salman Taseer and Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti have shocked us all.

In this context, we note the excellent statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, released on 2 March [1] in which she condemned the assassinations and went on to call on the Pakistan Government to declare a moratorium on the application of the blasphemy laws.

We recognise the problems faced by governments around the world, including Pakistan, in confronting extremism, but the extremists must be confronted, Mr President.

The Pakistani assassins reportedly gave their victim’s opposition to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws as the reason for their murders, so it is incorrect to argue that the murders cannot be linked to the blasphemy laws – as the distinguished representative of Pakistan did here last Thursday.

For many years the OIC has argued for the criminalisation of defamation of religion, thereby providing legitimacy for their infamous blasphemy laws – infamous, because it is only in Pakistan and certain other States that blasphemy carries the death penalty.

It’s appalling that the Obama administration seems to be going in the other direction.

This year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton invited nations to come to implement the resolution and “to build those muscles” needed “to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.” Those “old patterns” include instances in which writers and cartoonists became the targets of protests by religious groups. The most famous such incident occurred in 2005 when a Danish newspaper published cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. The result were worldwide protests in which Muslims reportedly killed more than 100 people — a curious way to demonstrate religious tolerance. While Western governments reaffirmed the right of people to free speech after the riots, they quietly moved toward greater prosecution of anti-religious speech under laws prohibiting hate speech and discrimination.

The OIC members have long sought to elevate religious dogma over individual rights. In 1990, members adopted the Cairo Declaration, which rejected core provisions of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed that free speech and other rights must be consistent with “the principles of the sharia,” or Islamic law. The biggest victory of the OIC came in 2009 when the Obama administration joined in condemning speech containing “negative racial and religious stereotyping” and asked states to “take effective measures” to combat incidents, including those of “religious intolerance.” Then, in March, the U.S. supported Resolution 16/18′s call for states to “criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” It also “condemns” statements that advocate “hostility” toward religion. Although the latest resolution refers to “incitement” rather than “defamation” of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law.

At that rate – we could all be prosecuted, or at least shut down. Good idea? No, I don’t really think so.

The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of “intolerance.” Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of “respect and empathy and tolerance.” One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people. In September, a Kuwaiti court jailed a person for tweeting a message deemed derogatory to Shiites. In Pakistan last year, a doctor was arrested for throwing out a business card of a man named Muhammad because he shared the prophet’s name.

That’s the thing. The OIC member states are not the ones to tell secular liberal democracies how to talk about religion. There’s not one secular liberal democracy in the OIC, unless we’re thinking of the transitional ex-dictatorships as potential secular liberal democracies in the making – which, given the way the Egyptian elections are going, would seem to be more than a little over-optimistic. That’s why it’s appalling that Clinton is helping them hold their meeting.

Although the OIC and the Obama administration claim fealty to free speech, the very premise of the meeting reveals a desire to limit it. Many delegates presuppose that speech threatens faith, when it has been religious orthodoxy that has long been the enemy of free speech. Conversely, free speech is the ultimate guarantee of religious freedom.

But not of religious orthodoxy, so…

I don’t normally like to agree with Republican Representatives, but I’m afraid this one time I’m going to have to. Actually I think I’ll see his bet and raise it.

A US lawmaker has urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to push back against the “criminalization of speech deemed critical of Islam” at a meeting next week of the world’s largest Muslim body.

In a December 8 letter, Republican Representative Ted Poe pressed Clinton to use a December 12-14 meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Washington to address the issue.

What.the.fuck.

What the fuck is Clinton doing having a meeting of the fucking OIC in Washington?!

When’s the last time Clinton held a meeting of the Organization of Christian Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Christian Conference) in Washington? Oh that’s right, never, because there isn’t one.

Does Clinton have a clue what the OIC is? She must, being the Secretary of State…but then what the hell is the administration doing inviting it to Washington.

Remember the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam? There’s an examination of it in Does God Hate Women? Here’s a little refresher.

The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.

Wishing to contribute to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah…

…

ARTICLE I:

(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, color, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. True faith is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human perfection.

(b)All human beings are God’s subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most useful to the rest of His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.

…

ARTICLE 9: (a) The question for knowledge is an obligation and the provision of education is a duty for society and the State. The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee educational diversity in the interest of society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam and the facts of the Universe for the benefit of mankind.

(b) Every human being has the right to receive both religious and worldly education from the various institutions of, education and guidance, including the family, the school, the university, the media, etc., and in such an integrated and balanced manner as to develop his personality, strengthen his faith in God and promote his respect for and defense of both rights and obligations.

ARTICLE 10:
Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.

…

ARTICLE 12: Every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari’ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether inside or outside his country and if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall ensure his protection until he reaches safety, unless asylum is motivated by an act which Shari’ah regards as a crime.

When it says “man” it means man, not human being. That’s one of the many ways the Cairo Declaration re-wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make it sharia-compliant.

The Cairo Declaration is the work of the OIC.

It’s an outrage that Hillary Clinton held a meeting of the OIC.

It appears that David Cameron is jealous of theocracy. He wants him some of that extra goddy power!

Prime Minister David Cameron has said the UK is a Christian country “and we should not be afraid to say so” in a speech in Oxford on the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible….

And he staunchly defended the role of religion in politics and said the Bible in particular was crucial to British values.

Catherine Pepinster, editor of the Catholic weekly The Tablet, is chuffed.

“But what Christianity is really about is putting the least first. It requires us to feed the hungry, visit prisoners, have time for the lonely, fight for the oppressed, and love our enemies.”

No it isn’t. If Christianity were about putting the least first then it wouldn’t have put women last all this time, nor would the pope and the Vatican be telling the world’s Catholics not to use condoms despite the existence of the Aids virus, nor would Catholic bishops try to force Catholic hospitals to refuse to save women’s lives via abortion.

In a world riven with inequality, the belief that we are all equal before God requires that we speak up against those inequalities.

Bullshit, Catherine Pepinster. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Your church is one of the last big defenders of inequality.

More sinister than Pepinster, though, is MCB member and imam from Leicester, Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra:

As Muslims we also believe in the Bible. We believe in the teachings of Jesus. Not only that, but in the teachings of all the biblical prophets, including Moses in the Torah. So this is something that we feel is absolutely in tune with the Muslim thinking. We have to base our behaviour according to scripture, God’s revealed message.

For a long time Muslims have been trying to express this idea, that for us as Muslims Islam is not just a religion but a way of life. To divorce politics from religion is not something we are able to do, we cannot leave our religion at home or in the mosques, it comes with us wherever we go. So it’s refreshing to hear the prime minister say Christians should do the same.

As Maryam said – be afraid.