Backwards Glances Index 2006 part
1
A word of warning - owing
to the Weekly Glance's attempted topicality some of the links below may be
even more ephemeral than usual. (Tip - a search for cached versions of
missing sites is often productive using either
Google or The Internet Archive
Way Back Machine.)
January 7th 2006
Cry Baby Bunting
January 14th 2006
Prancing
Mahmoud Hidden Imam
January 19th 2006
China Syndrome
February 1st 2006
Home Thoughts
February 4th 2006
Cartoon Capers
February 6th 2006
If It Quacks
Like a Duck
February 8th 2006
Questions
February 14th 2006
SPECTRE of
Dick
February 15th 2006
Rant
January 7th 2006
Cry Baby Bunting
- Madeleine Bunting,
writing
in the Guardian, seems eager to try and get in a preemptive strike on Richard
Dawkins' two part TV show, The Root of All Evil? (see below).
In fact so eager, she has made a ham-fisted job of it. She sets the tone with
her use of phrases like "take up the cudgels against religious faith" and
"increasingly shrill chorus of atheist humanists". She asks what could have so
upset these unbelievers and then supplies her own answer, "they fear religion is
on the march again". Too bloody right. 80 doesn't know where Bunting has been
hiding, but is she unaware of the rise of the religious right in America and its
wish to make that country a theocracy? Has she not noticed the worldwide
bombings and murders in the name of militant Islam? It would seem so, for she is
still capable of describing one of the most divisive factors in our war torn
world as "one of the most complex and fascinating phenomena on the planet".
Different and incompatible faiths all claiming to possess the answer to
life's problems are not, and never will be, a recipe for global harmony. She
trots out all the tired old claptrap about the "unmatched" violence of "atheist
political regimes" in the 20th century and paraphrases GK Chesterton, saying
"the problem when people don't believe in God is not that they believe nothing,
it is that they believe anything." This is patent nonsense and displays how
little Bunting understands atheism. Not believing in God does not leave a hole
that must be filled by some other irrational belief - it just simply means not
believing in God(s). A suitable retort to this kind of nonsense was made by
Pierre Laplace who, when he published his theory on the formation of the solar
system, was asked by Napoleon where did God fit in his theory. Laplace's answer
was "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis." Bunting, it would appear, cannot
imagine life without a metaphysical crutch to lean on - 80 cannot visualize a
life with one.
Whether this intellectual gulf can ever be bridged is most unlikely and, apart
from one major sticking point, would probably be unnecessary. This sticking
point is the wish of the more rabid religionists to enshrine their superstitions
in law, law which would also govern those unencumbered by faith or whose
religion differs from that of the legislators. That such a state of affairs
would be deeply unfair and intolerable does not seem to occur to such as
Bunting. She also doesn't seem to understand the convenient labelling that
religion provides for those that wish to discriminate or ethnically cleanse.
Whether the root cause of troubles between groups of people is racial, economic
or ideological, religion provides a remarkably handy way of marking those you
wish to persecute as being different. In Northern Ireland the labels of Catholic
and Protestant continued to be used as a figleaf for what had in fact had long
become nothing more than gangsterism. The Abrahamic religions are particularly
divisive in that each one lays sole claim to the truth - thereby immediately
marking out those of other faiths as wrong, sinful, heretical or wicked. If
Dawkins' TV shows are putting an atheist point of view for the UK audience their
two hours duration does little to redress the balance with religious output. The
BBC in particular has been pumping out religious propaganda since its
foundation, and yet a mere two hours from Dawkins is enough for Bunting to start
whining. She takes particular exception to Dawkins' description of that "process
of non-thinking called faith". She counters this with one of her more fatuous
statements "For thousands of years, religious belief has been accompanied by
thought and intellectual discovery, whether Islamic astronomy or the
Renaissance." It scarcely needs pointing out that the enlightened Islam of an
earlier period of its history has little to with the current militant revival,
just look at bin Laden's murderous crew. In a society run by the Taliban how
well did science fair? About as well as the education of girls - a crime for
which schoolteachers in Afghanistan are still being beheaded. As for the
Renaissance, scientific advances were made in spite of the church, not because
of it. Why did Copernicus not publish De revolutionibus until he was on his
death bed? Because he would have had to endure the kind of treatment that was
meted out to Galileo.
One thing that really seems to get Bunting's goat is what she calls Dawkins'
lack of empathy for "for how people in other ages or cultures imagine the
world." Dawkins is wedded to the view of the universe revealed by science and
verified by experiment and observation - one can have sympathy, pity, and even,
in the case of, say,
Pat Robertson, contempt for those who keep their noses stuck in ancient
religious texts rather than witness the real and amazing cosmos that is all
around us, but empathy? No. It is laughable that someone who is defending
beliefs that belong to humankind's ignorant past should ascribe to Dawkins a
"terrible poverty of...imagination", when he undeniably has the gift, like the
late Carl Sagan, of vividly expressing a sense of wonder at the universe science
has begun to show us. The ancient world views in the Bible and Quran are
interesting for historical reasons, but they are completely inadequate at
conveying a sense of the huge stage of Deep Space and Deep Time on which we have
evolved. For the first time humans have some inkling of the true vastness and
majesty not of some petty deity, made in man's image, but an astounding and
marvellous cosmos. That Bunting seems to find this threatening says a great deal
about the terrible poverty of her own imagination. (For an entirely different
take on Dawkins read
this piece
from Johann Hari - recommended)
Did He or
Didn't he? - an interesting court
case is
under way in Italy right now over whether Jesus actually existed. Luigi
Cascioli has written a book, The Fable of Christ, which attracted the ire of
Catholic priest Father Enrico Righi, who denounced the work. Cascioli's reaction
was to take the priest to court with the result that the judge, Gaetano Mautone,
has challenged Righi to prove that Jesus existed. Righi's case does not look
good, particularly when he claims that "there was overwhelming testimony to
Christ’s existence in religious and secular texts. Millions had in any case
believed in Christ as both man and Son of God for 2,000 years." The religious
texts nearest to the supposed lifetime of Jesus, the letters of St Paul, appear
to refer to a savior-god little different from
others around at
the time. Even when Paul's case could be bolstered by quoting sayings of Jesus
or by reference to events in his earthly life Paul singularly fails to do so. In
fact he seems ignorant of the character whose life is described in the much
later gospels. Even these are hopelessly inconsistent on the order and location
of events and the names of the disciples. As for secular mentions of Jesus these
fall into two kinds - firstly material written many years after the supposed
lifetime of Jesus and postdating the gospels, leading to very serious doubts of
their use as independent witness and secondly deliberate interpolations made by
the pious into older works, interpolations that do not fit the context of the
work into which they have been introduced and jar with the narrative. The most
detailed and thorough argument for a mythical Jesus has been made by Earl
Doherty in his book and web site,
The Jesus Puzzle (also
see this essay by
Rev. Madison Shockley in Truthdig) Righi's statement that "millions believed in
Christ" is hardly admissable as evidence either. Personal faith is not proof of
existence. Cascioli has said he will drop his case against the priest if Righi
can come "up with irrefutable proof of Christ’s existence by the end of the
month." The Daily Telegraph dryly notes "The Vatican has so far declined to
comment". And why should they? As Pope Leo X, in office 1513-21, is reported to
have said "It has served us well, this myth of Christ." (Also see
Passover Plot and The God Who Wasn't
There)
A Sinister Embrace
- concerns over the historicity of Jesus are far from the minds of the creators
of Israel's latest tourist trap. Plans have been announced for a Holy Land theme
park on the shores of the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias) to be built by a
consortium of American evangelists, including the charmless Pat Robertson (see
Voice of Unreason), and called Galilee World Heritage Park, according to
this
Guardian article. While many in Israel (the Ministry of Tourism for one)
have welcomed the $48 (£28) million project project, others are not so happy.
They are wary of fundagelical Christians' apocalyptic belief that the entire
"Holy Land" must be under Jewish control before all Jews are converted to
Christianity and Armageddon can happen. Yossi Sarid, a former government
minister told the Guardian "I am not enthusiastic about this cooperation because
I have no desire to be cannon fodder for the evangelists. As a Jew, they believe
I have to vanish before Jesus can make his second appearance. As I have no plans
to convert, as an Israeli and a Jew, I find this a provocation. There is
something sinister about their embrace." But for the Minister of Tourism,
Avraham Hirschson, the lure of the dollar beats any other considerations, "I'm
not a theologian, I'm the minister of tourism, and I'm not interested in the
politics of our tourists as long as they come here. They come here as tourists,
and they're friends of Israel." (For more on the evangelicals' new found
"philo-semitism" see
this from the Washington Post. Incidentally, the article contains 80's
current hot favorite for oxymoron of the month - "evangelical intelligentsia".)
Root of All Evil?
- is the name of Richard Dawkins' 2 part TV show (although the name is not his
idea) to be aired on Channel 4 in the UK in January. The first part, The God
Delusion, goes out at 8:00pm Monday, 9th January and the second, The Virus of
Faith, at 8:00pm Monday, 16th January. Here is the blurb from Channel 4's web
site. "Professor Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist,
whose atheism has earned him the nickname of 'Darwin’s Rottweiler', takes a
personal journey through the world’s three great monotheistic religions:
Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Dawkins thinks it is time for science to stop
sitting on the fence. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence that, he
believes, shows a supreme being cannot exist, and in a world in which religious
conflict and bigotry are increasingly centre stage, Dawkins argues that for the
good of humanity, religion needs to be challenged and disproved. Never one to
shy away from a debate, Dawkins meets leaders from the Christian, Jewish and
Muslim religions to find out how their beliefs fit with modern science's
extraordinary knowledge of our world and the wider universe. In The Root of All
Evil Dawkins accuses the religious establishment of preying on people’s desire
to believe in a greater being; abusing reason and humanity in the process.
Ultimately he asks how they can defend what religion has done, and is doing to
us?" Definitely not something to miss. (also see Cry Baby
Bunting)
January 14th 2006
Prancing Mahmoud, Hidden Imam
- This is scary
stuff. it looks like the Christian fundamentalist nitwits have an Islamic mirror
image according to
this article in the Telegraph. The saber-rattling president of Iran, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, we are told, is a believer in the
Hidden Imam, an
apocalyptic figure whose re-appearance will herald the end of the world. Sound
familiar? It should do - this Imam idea seems to borrow a lot from
Jewish/Christian ideas of a messiah whose return will bring about Armageddon and
is just as nonsensical. This could go a long way to explain Ahmadinejad's
outspoken behavior and the desire for nuclear weapons. He has already said that
he believes that the Western democracies have a "dark
ages mentality" - an interesting point of view for a fundamentalist. He and
his followers actually seem to believe he was surrounded by a glowing light
during a speech/rant at the UN. As the President himself put it, "... for 27-28
minutes all the leaders did not blink…It's not an exaggeration, because I was
looking. They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit.
It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic." In
common with some of the weirder fundies and revisionists he also thinks that the
mass slaughter of Jews in Europe in World War II did not occur. It would seem
that the huge amount of documentary evidence and eye-witness testimony of the
Holocaust has passed this clod by completely. (He is holding a
conference to debate the matter - perhaps he would like to invite fellow
idiots David Irving
and Hutton Gibson.
It is deeply ironic that the platform
from which Ahmadinejad speaks has been largely created for him by the actions of
the Bush administration. The refusal to even consider decreasing the US appetite
for oil and the ill-thought out, destabilizing invasion of Iraq have created a
world stage for Ahmadinejad on which to prance and posture. Attempts to rein in
Iran's nuclear research/weapons program by the US and Europe are heading towards
the UN security
council but whether China or Russia will support a call for sanctions is, as
yet, unknown. Also unknown is whether Israel, a country that Ahmadinejad said
should be
wiped from the map, will repeat the kind of preemptive strike it made on
Iraq's Osiraq
nuclear reactor site in 1981. The removal of Ariel Sharon from the Israeli
political scene has bolstered the cause of the ultra-hawkish
Binyamin Netanyahu,
who has said Israel should take "bold
and courageous action". Reuters report him as saying "It must be understood
that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear threat against Israel. I will
pursue the legacy of (Prime Minister) Menachem Begin, who through a bold and
courageous move did not allow a neighbour of Iran, Iraq, to develop such a
threat. I believe that this is what Israel should do." The explosive mixture of
nuclear weapons, oil and fundamentalist religion in the Middle East is going to
require much more than mere military action - something which 80 hopes the Bush
camp (or at least Condoleezza Rice) has managed to grasp. One ray of hope is
that even the mullahs of Iran will find Ahmadinejad too much of a loose (not to
say loony) cannon and
remove him
from power. To appreciate the scale of the danger imagine say, the US with Pat
Robertson as president - are you scared enough now?
Steve Martin -
Showing he is in good form in
this piece from The Huffington Post about a certain Bill O'Reilly and the
dastardly leap second.
Parkless Pat
- Following the
offensive clown Pat Robertson's less than Christian display of compassion over
Israeli premier Sharon's medical predicament it seems that his plans for a
Christian theme park near the Sea of Galilee (see A Sinister
Embrace) will
come
to nothing. 80 would have thought rejection was inevitable purely on the
grounds of taste but it was Robertson's big mouth that did the trick. The
previously enthusiastic Israeli tourism minister, Avi Hartuv, has now changed
his tune, saying "We will not do business with him - only with other
evangelicals who don't back these comments. We will do business with other
evangelical leaders, friends of Israel, but not with him." Robertson had said of
Sharon, still critically ill and hospitalized following a stroke, "He was
dividing God's land, and I would say: 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who
takes a similar course', God says: 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better
leave it alone'." This is the latest in a long line of offensive pronouncements
by Robertson and sadly will not be the last. For more on his idiot mouthings see
Voice of Unreason.
With God on My Side
- "He [God]
has been walking me through an incredible journey, and it all comes down to
worldview. He is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical
worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is
working with me." Tom Delay, ex-majority leader of the House of Representatives,
quoted in a Salon article,
Let us
prey, by Joe Conason. Here is the intro to the piece "Jack Abramoff and his
deeply religious right-wing cronies express their "biblical worldview" by
swindling Indian tribes and bribing legislators. Verily, mysterious are the ways
of the Lord." Note that to read the article an ad has to be viewed first.
The Science Blacklist
- is an archived
online
radio show with Justin Webb, BBC Washington correspondent. Webb investigates
"the growing number of US science scandals - from editing climate change
research to repressing the sale of contraceptives." A fascinating and deeply
worrying look at the political and religious manipulation of inconvenient
scientific findings, including the odd story of the
FDA and Plan B. Not to be
missed.
Browney, You're
Doing a Heck of a Job - no, you
haven't fallen into a timewarp, this is not George Bush's nepotistical nitwit
Michael Brown, but
an altogether larger individual, crap psychic and bullshitter par excellence
Sylvia Browne. That's right, the one that accepted
Randi's challenge on TV
way back in March 6, 2001. (Talking of her acceptance, you can
see a video of Browne doing just that at the
James Randi Educational Foundation site - and while you are there, why not sign
up for Swift, Randi's
excellent weekly newsletter?) Anyway, back to Browne who dropped the latest and
biggest clanger in her ghoulish career over the West Virginia miners tragedy
when she told the Coast-to-Coast radio show that they were still alive, only to
be proved tragically and devastatingly wrong moments later. Even 80 cringed
reading her
pathetic attempt to regain some sort of initiative. But will this teach the
bulky queen of bunkum to button her fat lip? Don't hold your breath.
Nursing a
Grievance - the next time you see a
nurse at your local clinic or hospital don't be surprised if, among all the
regular questions about health, she asks for your star sign.
Tony Youens'
Commentary has the details and he's not impressed..
January 19th 2006
China Syndrome
- here is an interesting piece in the Guardian,
Sea Change by Jonathan Watts, about the Chinese map of the world that
supposedly proves the discovery of the Americas happened in 1418, and was
accomplished by Admiral Zheng He - a claim made incidentally by Gavin Menzies in
his book 1421 The Year the Chinese Discovered
the World. Whether the map is authentic remains to be seen -
the
claims made for it by the owner also include the discovery of Australia, the
north-west passage and the circumnavigation of the world, all within a 13 year
period, which, in 80's view stretches credulity to breaking point. (The first
"discovery" of North America should surely go to the ancestors of Native
Americans, who were chronologically followed by Norse colonists and European cod
fishermen. This would make Admiral Zheng fourth on the list.) It is indisputable
that Zheng's fleet was the most advanced for its time and made a remarkable
voyages of discovery along the coasts of India, Arabia and Africa but what is
far more significant is what happened subsequently. Instead of building upon
these achievements the fleet was recalled and mothballed and by 1500 it was a
capital offence to go to "sea in a two-masted ship without permission".
Effectively China turned its back on the world, only to be rudely awakened
hundreds of years later by the arrival of the Europeans on their shores. This
Chinese retreat from discovery seems incredible to us - to have learned so much
about the world only to reject it seems insane. Yet this is exactly what is
happening in so many areas today - the attempts by religious fundamentalists to
have their mythology taught in science classes, the current obsession with
unproven alternative/complementary "medicine", the embracing of irrational New
Age beliefs are all indicative of a retreat from reality. Perhaps we are already
in the grip of our own latter day China Syndrome. If the ballyhoo over the
"Zheng map" draws attention to the lessons to be learned from China's retreat
from the world then, whether authentic or not, it will have served a useful
purpose. (also see
Why We
Explore by NASA's Chief Historian, Steven J. Dick and this
great piece
by Simon Jenkins. When claims such as Gavin Menzies' appear to rewrite known
history 80 recommends a trip to Doug's
Archaeology Site, a huge repository of information. Scroll down the page to
find critical pieces by
Mark Newbrook and another by
Geoff Wade.)
The Lord's Agenda
- a rural school system in El Tejon, California has ceased teaching so-called
Intelligent Design/creationism in a high school course that was seemingly set up
to circumvent the law governing the promotion of religion in the classroom. The
school backed down following legal action by a group of parents represented by
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). 80 cannot help but
feel the IDiots made a pretty poor job of hiding what they were really up to.
The course "..relied almost exclusively on videos that presented religious
theories as scientific ones." If that was not enough, the teacher of the course,
Sharon Lemburg, a minister's wife, social studies teacher and soccer coach is
quoted in the
Washington Post as saying "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted
me to teach." AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan summed it up this way, "This
course was far from intelligently designed. It was an infomercial for
creationism and its offshoot, intelligent design. The class would never have
survived a court challenge, and the board of trustees made the right call by
pulling the plug on it."
Bigfoot No Show - cryptozoologists
surely dream of having the resources to track down the Loch Ness Monster, the
Yeti and other fabled beasties and yet now this has actually happened the result
is disappointing. The fact that these resources were deployed at all was down to
a fortunate coincidence. The ivory-billed woodpecker, thought extinct since
1944, was seen in Arkansas in 2004. In an attempt to verify this sighting in
2005 an operation, involving "knowledgeable researchers with sophisticated
equipment in the field for extended periods of time", was launched to scour the
sixteen-square-miles of forest. This
article by Benjamin Radford tells us that this same area is claimed by
Bigfoot aficionados as one of
the hangouts of this large, ape-like biped. Consequently one would assume that
such a comprehensive search for a small bird would have to turn up at least
some evidence for these "hairy bipedal giants". Particularly as massive
resources were used, including "Global Positioning System equipment, binoculars,
digital video cameras, and cell phones. Tree-mounted digital cameras capable of
taking time lapses, motion detection, infrared, and high-definition.....
High-tech, multidirectional audio units able to record sounds up to 200 meters
away..." And yet no such beasties were found, no footprints, no hairs, no
droppings, nothing. For the more fanatical of the cryptozoologists it must seem
that what you wish for may not give the result you want. Funnily enough, this is
how science in the real world works. Will this dampen the Bigfoot fans
enthusiasm for this astoundingly, impossibly elusive creature? Of course not,
but it will be interesting to see what excuses/explanations are offered for this
null result. As is evident from the field of religion a belief held devoutly
enough is undamaged by any awkward facts.
February 1st 2006
Home Thoughts
- after 3 weeks of infrequent updates (courtesy of BTYahoo, thanks a bunch), 80 has returned to some rare good news. The absurd and poorly
drafted religious hatred bill was
passed (a word which, in this case, seems aptly excretory) by the House of Commons in a much amended form.
This was the work,
ironically enough, of that unelected body the House of Lords. Even more
joyous was the news that Labour lost the vital second ballot by a single vote -
the vote of one Tony Blair, MP for Sedgefield and outgoing Prime Minister,
(lame duck is so hackneyed) who did not deign to attend. The changes
made by the Lords crucially altered the wording of the bill meaning that
one can only be charged with an offence for using "threatening" language
rather than the "threatening, insulting and abusive" language which
(rightly) applies in cases of racial hatred. 80 for one would never use
threatening language toward religionists - that would be trespassing on
their territory. As for insults and abuse, as far as 80 is concerned it is
business as usual. I make no apology for yet again quoting the words of
Mark Twain, which although aimed at Christians, sums up 80's attitude to
anyone who tells me how to live my life based upon their supernatural, childish nonsense. "You believe in a book that has talking animals,
wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food
falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical,
absurd and primitive stories, and you say that WE are the ones that need
help?" Beliefs that are based upon no evidence whatsoever may be fine for
individuals, but placing them on a pedestal, beyond criticism and mockery
is in itself a complete nonsense.
The same goes for
respect
for such irrational beliefs. Tolerance is enough, and believe me I find
even that difficult enough to achieve when I hear some
idiot on the radio condemning, say, homosexuality, as evil. Why should
I stay quiet when some
silly sod
from Christian Voice threatens people with fire and brimstone (and
harassment) for staging a musical? One aid worker in the third world is
worth a million such ignorant bigots. In the Guardian report on the
hatred law junior minister Paul Goggins was asked whether the
Danish
Mohammed cartoons which have caused such a
ridiculous fuss could attract prosecution under the new law - he
answered in the affirmative, so obviously things are far from perfect but
could have been much worse. (Let's hope no one tells Goggins about
Jesus and Mo.) On the
subject of the
Danish cartoons, in the face of widespread anger and
threats of violence from Muslims two German and one French newspaper (Die
Welt, Berliner Zeitung and France-Soir) have
reprinted the offending images in a gesture of solidarity that
emphasizes the right to free speech (Will any UK newspaper join them?
Don't wait up. Update - it seems the
BBC has taken the
plunge.). The overreaction from various states,
including the boycott of Danish goods and the recall of ambassadors (by
those bastions of fair play Saudi Arabia, Libya and Syria) show the
increasing touchiness of all religionists to anything that they perceive
as offensive (It also involves the popular pursuit of bandwagon-jumping by
repressive regimes, the better to curry favor with the downtrodden but not
actually do anything to better their lot. Why do you think Hamas supplies
social services? It cleverly spotted an opening in the market). What is so objectionable about a few lines on a page
compared to such outrages as the judicial murder of gays or the stoning of young women, as
practised in some Islamic countries? Or the deaths of young soldiers
fighting an unjust war? Or the murder of innocent families in a missile
strike dismissed as "collateral damage"? If someone's deity, Christian,
Jewish or Muslim, is as all powerful as he is claimed to be, why does he need his
outraged acolytes to threaten those who do not share their
beliefs with violence? Surely this is true religious hatred, not the criticism and
mockery that Blair's government has tried so hard to criminalize? Where
the hell is their sense of proportion?
Update
- you can read the
unelected Muslim Council of Britain's (MCB) somewhat tetchy statement
about the religious hatred bill's passage
here.
Sir Iqbal Homophobe Sacranie's mischaracterization of the wide-ranging
opposition, both secular and religious to the legislation as
"...misinformation and mischief making from popular comedians and some
influential sections of the media, supported by certain political groups."
should come as no surprise. For him to say "Freedom of expression and
speech was never threatened under the incitement to racial hatred laws nor
was it to be threatened under the proposed law." is utter nonsense. He
merely wished to gag those that criticize his own particular set of
supernatural beliefs. Happily for democracy such well-merited criticism
can now continue.
Those Cartoons Again
- The MCB's affiliate, the Muslim Association of Britain,
(such grand names but just how representative are these organizations?)
has weighed in on the Mohammed cartoons row with this statement "Printing
or republishing these images is not advisable, knowing that they are going
to offend. It will only infuriate the British members of the Muslim
community and Muslims around the world. It will be insult to injury. You
can't reproduce these images in a sensitive manner." How do they know how
infuriated the "British members of the Muslim community" will be - have
they asked them all? If so it was a remarkably quick poll. One religious
group, be it Christian, Muslim or
Pastafarian cannot dictate what is or is not permissable in a
democratic secular society - something these people seem incapable of
grasping. If things weren't bad enough already a Danish tabloid, reported
here, claims
"...that Danish Muslim leaders and imams, on a tour of the Islamic world
are handing out to their contacts to “explain” how offensive the cartoons
are. The report contains 15 pictures instead of 12. The first of the three
additional pictures, which are of dismal quality, shows Muhammad as a
pedophile deamon, the second shows the prophet with a pigsnout and the
third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog. Apparently, the
12 original pictures were not deemed bad enough to convince other Muslims
that Muslims in Denmark are the victims of a campaign of religious
hatred." If true, there is much more going on here than just freedom of
speech versus religious sensitivity.
(This
page,
brought to 80's notice by the NSS
Newsline,
features portrayals of Mohammed through the ages - many originating from
Islamic countries.)
Quote
- "Communicating with the public seems to be
essential, because public concern is probably the only thing capable of
overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic." James E.
Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies who
claims
the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out on global
climate change. Given that Vice President
Dick Cheney is
in
bed with big oil such stifling of debate would hardly be surprising.
President Jonah
- is the name of an
essay by Gore Vidal in the latest issue of online magazine
Truthdig. It
more than demonstrates that the grand old man has lost none of his insight or his
biting wit, in this instance directed at the the current White House
incumbent and his cronies. Also of note in the comments section below
Vidal's piece is a fine
rant by Susan Block. Rarely has such well-justified anger been expressed
so eloquently and vehemently. 80 has recommended Truthdig before and the
quality of these contributions only serves to reinforce that sentiment.
February 4th 2006
Cartoon Capers
-
here are a couple of comments posted to a BBC "Have
Your Say" page on the Mohammed cartoon row that bear closer attention.
This first one is from someone in Norway and makes a very valid point "To
you in favor of banning the drawings: The "Have your say" page is based on
freedom of expression. If you are against this right, why do you use it
here? Is freedom of expression only OK only if you agree with the
expressions, and should those in conflict with your views be banned. No
person has the right to impose their religious belief and rules to people
not following the latter religion. It you are in favour of censoring views
other than your own, is it OK if your opinions are censored?" This puts 80
in mind Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who seems to think that
freedom of speech should not include comments deemed offensive by those with
supernatural beliefs. According to
this BBC report
Straw thinks that "freedom of speech did not mean an "open season" on
religious taboos". So religion, in his opinion, should be beyond certain
kinds of criticism - or maybe it only applies to those religions whose
followers threaten violence, such as the London protesters
described in the Guardian as "carrying banners calling on Muslims to
"massacre" those who insult Islam and chanting: "Britain, you will pay, 7/7
on its way." Such disgusting threats are a massive overreaction to any
perceived offence over some, let's face it, not very good cartoons. (But see
here for a moderate
Muslim view of these idiot protesters) As 80 asked recently in another
context, where is the sense of proportion? Are these cartoons any more
offensive than the president of Iran hosting a
conference that questions the reality of the Holocaust? Far worse cartoons
depicting Jews, fully the equal of anything produced by the Nazis, are
commonplace in many newspapers in the Middle East but the editors do not, as
far as 80 can ascertain, receive death threats.
The second comment on the BBC Have Your Say page is from the UK. "Salaam and
hello. I am a revert to Islam, English in ethnicity and the cartoons
published of the Beloved are disgraceful. Any pios (sic) Muslim would never
caricature the Prophet Jesus and this is the sad thing. We, as Muslims, love
every messenger of God and the fact so much hate and disgrace has been shown
to the religion of Islam, God, and the Prophet is disgraceful and if the
press knew what was best they would formally apologise to the whole of the
Muslim world for such disrespect." The totally irrelevant point is made that
any pious Muslim would not caricature Jesus. Firstly that is an unprovable
assertion, and secondly the "offensive" cartoons were originally published
by a newspaper editor and drawn by professional cartoonists. Equating a
newspaper editor/cartoonist with a pious Muslim/Christian/Jew whatever, is a
meaningless comparison and adds nothing to the debate. As for making an
apology "to the whole of the Muslim world" what difference would that make?
(Assuming the "whole of the Muslim world" is offended) The extremists
who are making the most noise would dismiss such a belated apology as the
cynical gesture it would surely be. (In passing, doesn't the verb "revert"
make the action sound like a backward step? It is like being "born again"
instead of growing up.) Even when the current fuss dies down there will only
be short lull before something else upsets those religionists who are ever
ready and willing to be offended. 80 is also offended, offended that with
many real problems facing the world such as global climate change, bird 'flu
and widespread famine, to name just three, so much time and energy is
devoted to complaining about a dozen cartoons. If the aim is to garner
"respect" for Islam then this is entirely the wrong way to go about it -
threats of violence will have exactly the opposite effect and engender not
respect, but fear and anger - and the world has more than enough of that
already.
State of the Union
- by Gore Vidal. This address is, as you might well imagine, made from a
very different viewpoint to that of President George W Bush. Vidal is
unsparing in his critcism of, and contempt for, the current occupant of the
Oval Office "Now, we’ve had idiots as presidents before. He's not unique.
But he's certainly the most active idiot that we have ever had. And now here
we are planning new wars, ongoing wars in the Middle East. And so as he
comes with his State of the Union, which he is going to justify
eavesdropping without judicial warrants on anybody in the United States that
he wants to listen in on. This is what we call dictatorship. Dictatorship.
Dictatorship. And it is time that we objected." A transcript is available
here,
where you can also download an mp3 file (podcast). (For an interesting
perspective on the official State of the Union address see a
Tale of Two
Presidents.)
Dirty Secrets
- sometimes there really is no pleasure in
having one's suspicions confirmed. It seems Bush and Blair's duplicity in
the run up to the attack on Iraq was complete. This from the
Guardian "Tony
Blair told President
George
Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he
sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a
second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war
published today. A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the
White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion -
reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not
there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of
a banned Iraqi weapons programme." The whole illegal process is described in
Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, QC and professor of international law at
University College, London. Will this lead to the impeachment and
prosecution of either of these callous liars? Of course not, and even if it
did it wouldn't help the thousands of human beings, civilian and military,
that are dead and maimed, or wipe out the recruiting boost the invasion
handed al Qaeda and similar religious extremists.
Darwin Day
- celebrates one of the greatest scientists
in history, whose "..200th Birthday will occur on February 12, 2009; it will
also be the 150th Anniversary of the publication of his famous book On
The Origin of Species. So, together we have time to evolve a truly
International Celebration to show our appreciation for the enormous benefits
that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity,
has contributed to the advancement of humanity." The preceding paragraph is
a quote from the official web site
where you can find information on events all around the globe.
The Now Show
- is a topical comedy show on BBC Radio 4
which this week, among much other good stuff, features a hilarious rant by
Robin Ince on the subject of so-called complementary/alternative medicine
(sCAM). Either listen to the
whole show or fast forward to 21 mins 29seconds. This item is archived
until Saturday. To listen you need the basic Realplayer or 80's preferred
player, Real Alternative, which you can download
here.
February 6th 2006
If It Quacks Like a Duck
- is it a religious belief? It seems the
SFGate.com series of interviews called Finding my Religion has widened its
remit to include uncritical plugs for quackery - not that the remit needed
widening that much as religion and quackery have at least one thing in
common, faith, or more accurately, blind belief without evidence. The
latest interview
is with Margy Henderson, who claims to be a sound
healer. She learned this disipline after meeting a shaman on a trip to Peru,
but had already done some speaking in tongues when in a charismatic prayer
community. She describes such speaking as being " really about speaking in a
language that is expressed through your heart and bypasses your brain. [She
makes gibberish sounds.]" Sadly the interviewer,
David Ian Miller did not try and transcribe that last bit. On the other
hand, noises made by people who "bypass their brain" are not all that
uncommon so maybe it is no big loss. Henderson decided to be a sound healer
after she "...heard an interior voice that said, "It's time to tell people
that you are a sound healer."" She has now graduated to using
Peruvian whistling vessels. These, she claims, without a shred of proof
"...create binaural beats. Binaural beats are used to balance the left and
right hemispheres of the brain, and they create a wonderful sense of
well-being. It's a sound-healing technology that people have been using for
2,500 years -- can you imagine!" No, but Henderson obviously can - in fact
she goes further, much further "The best way I can explain it is to say that
our bodies are vibrating at different frequencies. The most obvious example
is your heartbeat, but really every system in your body gives off a sound.
And when you're not feeling well, those frequencies can get out of
alignment. Sound healing is a technique for retuning those frequencies and
reestablishing inner harmony."
Now 80 has
experienced some transcendent musical moments at, say, a
Grateful Dead concert but this sound healing is way beyond that -
certainly beyond any kind of evidence. It seems with this Finding My
Religion series Miller has now entered the twilight realm where religion and
so-called complementary/alternative therapies meet. This presents a problem,
for it is not considered polite in many circles to question a person's
religious convictions. But if a religious belief embraces unproven "medical"
treatments, does it place such treatments beyond question as well? Regular
readers will know that 80 considers both areas should be given equal
critical scrutiny but many reporters, and it seems Miller is one of them,
don't. The result, in this particular instance, is that a column ostensibly
about personal religious beliefs becomes little more than free publicity for
an unproven therapy. Perhaps Miller sees no problem with this, but, if he is
any kind of journalist at all, he should.
Unsound Astrology - 80
decided to look for more on sound healing and came up with the web site of
Acutonics, which is full of more
gibberish than a whole cathedral full of charismatics. To take just one
paragraph, referring to the trans-Neptunian minor planet, Sedna, on which a
course is offered, "Taught by Acutonics co-founder, Donna Carey and our
Director of Astological (sic) Studies, MichelAngelo." The question is asked
"Why has Sedna appeared at this time, our newest planet with deep ties to
indigenous cultures, Hopi and Mayan prophecy, and the Inuit? In this new
elective* students
explored the many faces, and healing attributes of this powerful newly
discovered planet..." Where to begin? Sedna did not "appear" but was
initially
discovered by astronomers using the Mount Palomar telescope. The timing
of the discovery is down to an ongoing survey of the outer solar system -
Sedna is just one of many
Kuiper Belt Objects (KBO) now being revealed by the combination of
astronomy and technology. The name Sedna has no mystical significance but
was bestowed (unofficially) by the discoverers (it is officially 2003 VB12)
Sedna is the name of
an Inuit ocean goddess and was chosen for two possible reasons. One would be
the desire to include mythological names from a culture other than that of
ancient Rome or Greece, and the second is more practical - we are simply
running out of names from classical mythology. Any attempt to ascribe some
deep significance to the name by the folk at Acutonics is, not to put too
fine a point on it, bollocks. 80 can't wait to hear their musings on the
significance of the unofficial names of two of the latest discoveries -
Xena
and Buffy.
(New Scientist has a
selection of
suggested names for the "tenth planet".) It is noteworthy that none of these
KBOs have ever been predicted by astrologers - they also failed to do the
same for Pluto, but are more than happy to include that frozen ball of rock
revealed by science in their
gobbledegook.
(And no, prediction does not include the kind of crap espoused by such as
pseudohistorian Zechariah
Sitchin either, but that is part of a whole other story, one you can
learn from
Bad
Astronomy.)
*"Look for this exciting new class to be offered again
in the Spring of 2006. The Sedna Set includes a mid, high and low frequency
tuning fork." The mind boggles........
Pots and Kettles
- Here is a
response to a question about those damn'
cartoons
and Europe's liberties from a successful Hamas candidate in the recent
Palestinian elections, Aziz Duwaik, of the Najah University of Nablus.
"Press freedom is a great ideal. However, could one argue that Hitler and
the Nazis were practising their freedom prior to the Holocaust? We know the
Holocaust started with cartoons like this against Jews, and with books like
Mein Kampf, and then came Kristallnacht ... and then we know what happened."
The professor wants to try opening his eyes to see the same kind of cartoons
as published by the Nazis
appearing everyday in the Arab press. At least he does not appear to
deny the reality of the Holocaust, so perhaps we should be thankful for
small mercies. Update - it is reported
that an Iranian right-wing newspaper " announced it would retaliate by
running images satirising the Holocaust." The editor is quoted in the
Guardian as saying "The western papers printed these sacrilegious
cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean
what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons." So let's get this
right, this clod thinks that the publication of some not particularly good
cartoons of the founder of his religion justifies his paper publishing
cartoons mocking a real life instance of mass murder. Meanwhile the Times'
says
The centre must hold, Moderates of the world: unite in a plea for
sanity.
Question
- 80 is puzzled by the wide availability of Danish flags for burning in
mid-eastern countries such as Syria and Lebanon. Has someone spotted a
lucrative, if hopefully shortlived, gap in the market? Perhaps a secret
cabal of flag manufacturers planted the Mohammed cartoons in Jyllands-Posten
as they were running low on stocks of the Stars and Stripes, the
flag-burners regular choice. Update -
at least one Palestinian entrepreneur is doing
good
business, and not just in Danish flags, Reuters tells us that "he buys
Israeli flags from a merchant in Israel, even though he sells them to be
burnt at anti-Israeli rallies."
Relativity
- Pope Ratzinger's first encyclical "Deus
Caritas Est" ("God Is Love") is discussed in a New York Times op-ed piece,
Believing
in Doubt, (reg rqd) by Austin
Dacey of the Center for
Inquiry. Dacey looks at the old autocrat's views on relativism,
something that the pontiff treats with disapprobation. Dacey tells us "The
pope has used the term "relativism" to describe not only non-absolute
standards, but also uncertain ones. The alternative to certainty, however,
is not nihilism but the recognition of fallibility, the idea that even a
very reasonable belief is not beyond question. If that's all relativism
means, then it is hardly the enemy of truth or morality. Accepting that we
are fallible doesn't keep us from thinking that we're right. It just keeps
us from thinking that we couldn't possibly be wrong." But he also describes
another, damaging kind of relativism in a paragraph that needs quoting in
full, especially in light of the Mohammed cartoons row that has travelled
around the globe like a (deliberately
fanned) wildfire and the "clash of civilizations" it is claimed to
represent. "Perhaps a future encyclical will concentrate on the truly
harmful kind of relativism. This is the misguided multiculturalism that
keeps Western liberals from criticizing the oppression of women, religious
minorities and apostates in Islamic societies for fear of being accused of
Islamophobia. In such cases we should not shrink from the ideals of autonomy
and equality but affirm them openly for what they are: objectively
defensible principles of conscience." Also read
this piece by
Ibn Warraq,
author and senior research fellow at the
Center for Inquiry, which is
an impassioned plea for solidarity (are you listening Jack Straw?) in the
face of threats from Islamic extremists over, yes, those bloody cartoons
again. "Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it
or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the
Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a
valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished
traditions to Enlightenment values." Also read Warraq's
Islam and Intellectual Terrorism and this 2001
interview from Radio National's The Religion Report.
Fooled Again?
- meet the new boss, same as the old boss is
the message in this piece in The Nation by John Nichols, called
A Boehner
in the Henhouse. Apparently instead of the squeaky-clean, fresh-faced,
reformist shine given to DeLay replacement John Boehner by much of the
press, the unvarnished truth is darker and dirtier. Nichols pulls no punches
in describing the new House Majority Leader "Boehner is an old-fashioned
shakedown artist whose promise of "change" amounts to little more than a
pledge that he won't get caught like DeLay did. The Ohioan may be smoother
than the Texan, but only a fool, or a Washington pundit looking to cozy up
to the new boss, would mistake a better haircut and the absence of the
stench of bug spray as evidence of ethics." Plus ça change.........
February 8th 2006
Questions
- Firstly, in Islam aren't
depictations of all living things supposed to be forbidden, if not in the
Quran
itself then at least in the
Hadith, not just images
of Mohammed? Yet there are, in fact,
many instances of images of living
creatures, animal and human,
including
Mohammed from Islamic culture, so is such a prohibition a matter of
interpretation and therefore fallible? Secondly, if someone is not a Muslim, why should they
be bound by the rules of Islam? Thirdly, it is often said that the ban on images of Mohammed is
in order to avoid the sin of idolatry.
Surely to hold a person in such high regard that you are prepared to kill
another human being for depicting him is itself a form of idolatry? (For
more on the Quran see
here,
here and
here.)
Update - these religious prohibitions on
imagery don't seem to have bothered an Egyptian newspaper, al Fagr, overmuch - they
published some of those infamous cartoons back in October without one
murmur of offence, outrage or death threat. If any proof is needed that
things were stirred up and exaggerated by Danish imams this is surely it.
80 wonders if they feel any regret at the deaths, destruction and cultural
harm they have caused? Thanks, Sandmonkey. Meanwhile, in Denmark, some
morons have aided those that cry Islamophobia at every opportunity by
desecrating Muslim graves. What did they hope to achieve with such a
disgusting act? Lastly, what do
cartoonists think
about the whole bloody mess? Read this fine and thoughtful piece by Daryl
Cagle on
Cartoon Jihads.
Thin Skins
- do take a moment to read Matthew Parris' eminently sane
opinion piece on the cartoon row and the increased tendency for
various groups to take offence - and not just religionists - although they
do tend to hog the limelight. As Parris puts it "People of faith and people
of none cannot escape attaching themselves to claims that are inherently
offensive — and at the deepest level — to other people." He concludes
"Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic, but
mockery. Structures of oppression that may not be susceptible to rational
debate may in the end yield to derision. When people see that a priest,
rabbi, imam or uniformed official may be giggled at without lightning
striking the impertinent, arguments may be won on a deeper level than
logic. We should never, therefore, relinquish, nor lightly value, our
right not to argue in the face of other people’s gods — but to fart." Also
please find the time for Muriel Gray, writing in the Sunday Herald, who
asks "How can we have respect
for Islam when we are too fearful to criticise it?"
Cartoon Anger
-
- here is an interesting
roundup of stories and comment by Cinnamon Stillwell at SFGate.com
about the ongoing and idiotic row over the Mohammed cartoons and the
assault on free speech. Stillwell makes a valiant attempt to place the
whole sorry affair in some kind of perspective. Much more
challenging is this
essay from Sam Harris, published in the excellent
Truthdig, which not only takes on
the cartoon row, but uses it to illustrate his own attitude to militant
Islam, an attitude shared by many and one that is bound to become more
widespread, given the totally disproportionate and violent reaction to a
handful of drawings. Both pieces are well worth a moment of your time,
whether you agree with the views expressed or not. As with many deplorable
events in the world, what we are seeing here is a failure of education. In
80's view the obsessive, blinkered study and interpretation of a single
book, be it Quran or Bible, in the belief it is divinely inspired and
contains unbreakable rules governing all the minutiae of everyday life is
not education. Indoctrination maybe, but not education. The former
narrows the mind, the latter widens it. As Arisotle said "It is the mark
of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting
it." 80 is admittedly far from fully educated, at least by Robert Frost's
definition. "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without
losing your temper." The news that people have now lost their lives over
this insane business is surely grounds enough for rage, and sadness - how
can people be so bloody stupid? The answer to that question is Richard
Dawkins' famous
elephant in the room. Until we humans are rid of our childish
religious fantasies, from whatever source, we are never even going to grow
up, let alone be properly educated.
...And Furthermore
- For more commentary see
Cartoon Debate The case for mocking religion, by Christopher Hitchens,
who, true to form, comes out swinging and this piece
Depicting Mohammed
subtitled Why I'm offended by the Danish cartoons of the prophet. The
author, Reza Aslan, is of the "I am all for freedom of speech but it must
be limited" persuasion. He then proceeds to undermine his own argument by
completely ignoring the far more
scurrilous and cruelly racist cartoons of Jews in the Arab press and
elsewhere, (his
Chicago Tribune reference is an obvious red herring). To be fair,
Aslan does make one very important point, "Of course, the sad irony
is that the Muslims who have resorted to violence in response to this
offense are merely reaffirming the stereotypes advanced by the cartoons."
but then he spoils things by saying that the "Europeans" that have made
that very same observation "...reaffirmed the stereotype of Europeans as
aggressively anti-Islamic." So it is OK for Aslan to say this but not
"Europeans"? Which particular Europeans does he have in mind? Certainly
not
Jack Straw. When 80 last checked the European Union had 25 member
countries - does Aslan's remark cover the inhabitants of all of them? This
is as daft as referring to Shiites and Sunnis as one, homogenous group -
the Europeans have at least managed to stop
killing
each other. An
editorial from the National Secular Society points out a
dangerous and possibly unbridgeable gulf in understanding, "The Arab world
finds it incomprehensible that a culture can tolerate such disrespect for
their supernatural ideals. The Danish Prime Minister explained on Arabic
television this week that he does not have the power to control the press.
The Islamic regimes that he was speaking to were completely
uncomprehending of such an idea." In common with, it often seems, the
Bush
administration. Finally here is a
story from the Washington Post on how technology, particularly email
and phone text messaging, have helped fan the flames worldwide by
spreading misinformation and rumors. The fundamentalists may hate the
decadent and sinful west, but oh boy, how they love the gadgetry.
February 14th 2006
SPECTRE of Dick
- for the definitive report on the Deadeye
Dick quail shooting faux pas take a look at this
clip
(courtesy Crooks and Liars) from The Daily Show featuring Jon Stewart, Ed
Helms and Rob Corddry. Hilarious doesn't cover it. What is far less amusing
(apart from the shooting of an old man) is the way the whole affair of the
hunting accident has been
handled
by Cheney and his team. It only serves to reinforce the negative image that
the vice-president has in many eyes - particularly those of the White House
press pack
whose collective noses were put out of joint that the story was revealed by
the owner of the quail-hunting ranch,
lobbyist Katharine Armstrong, to a local paper (some are
asking whether she was coached - some smell a Rove). A lack of comment
(or apology) so far from Cheney (update
- He has now spoken
exclusively to Fox news - "Cheney, whose last press conference was in
2002, apparently hasn't scheduled any other interviews". ) has been
interpreted as yet more evidence of his disdain for the press and public
opinion. The man dubbed Vice-President Strangelove by the New York Times'
Maureen Dowd has done nothing to dispel the feeling of many observers that
he is a shadowy and unaccountable presence in the Bush administration. A man
obsessed with
secrecy, a man who could
trash a CIA agent's career with a casual word to his minions, a man
prepared to lie repeatedly over WMD and the non-existent
Saddam/al Qaeda connection, a
man who convenes a secret
industry cabal to write energy policy. There has been much talk about
the actor cast as the new James Bond, but 80 would like to make a suggestion
for the role of arch-villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Dick might be needing to
fill his time with something. Even Blofeld's organization SPECTRE,
standing for Special Executive for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge,
Extortion, seems appropriate somehow. The only one missing is
Torture.......(As a public service 80 offers a picture of a
quail and a picture of a
78-year old lawyer - there, that should help avoid any further
confusion)
Megalomaniac?
- if further proof is required that Italian
prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is deranged, read about his
latest
Napoleon and Jesus remarks. He has certainly handed his opponents in the
upcoming elections some useful ammo. Hopefully this will go some way in
balancing his leverage in the polls - he owns Italy's three main TV stations
and has also been making full use of his post of prime minister. The
Guardian
tells us " For the past fortnight the billionaire tycoon, who owns Italy's
three main private television stations, has been on a broadcasting blitz. He
has given in-depth political interviews, appeared on lightweight chat shows
and, on a football programme, talked about his electoral chances as well as
about football." For background on Berlusconi's business interests see
An Italian story and
Dear Mr Berlusconi... from The Economist. The phrase "nasty piece of
work" springs to mind.
Lost His Religion
- David Ian Miller, he of the Finding My
Religion feature on SFGate.com, has partly redeemed himself this week after
the uncritical plug he gave to Sound Healing (see If It
Quacks Like a Duck). Today's
subject is Brian Flemming, maker of the movie
The God Who Wasn't There.
(In 80's view a flawed but very worthwhile attempt that questions the
historicity of Jesus). With the current climate of burgeoning religiosity in
the US making such a film requires guts and commitment, and Flemming is to
be commended. After reading this interview 80 certainly had a better sense
of what Flemming's intentions are than were conveyed by the movie. He comes
across as more thoughtful and perhaps less strident, as in this exchange,
when asked "Have you ever had any spiritual feelings?" Flemming replied "I
think "spiritual" is a word with so many definitions that it's almost
useless. I don't really know what people mean by it. If they mean, "Do I
believe in supernatural forces that are affecting our world?" -- then the
answer is that I haven't seen any evidence for it yet. But if they mean, "Do
you believe that humanity can create its own set of morals and can lift
itself up to a better state than it's in right now?" The answer is yes! I do
believe in that. I believe in humanity, not in some sort of magical book
that's going to tell us how to do that." If you want a copy of the movie the
US web site is here and for those
of you in the UK click on the image of The God Who Wasn't There in the
sidebar of this page - your purchase will aid the
National
Secular Society. As for the definitive work on the ahistoricity of
Jesus, take a look at The
Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty. Highly recommended.
February 15th 2006
Rant
- 80 has had
more than a few people complain that too much attention on these pages is now
being focussed on religion and not enough on quackery and pseudoscience. This is
a matter of priorities, the need to concentrate on the greatest threat to a free
and rational society, and that threat comes not from quacks and the peddlers of
pseudoscience but from the upsurge in religiosity that has occured over the last
few years. The three fields are not unrelated, as the irrationality that accepts
miracles and gods is just as likely to accept quackery and pseudoscience. The
connecting strand is the rejection of evidence and the emphasis on blind belief,
on faith. The point about religion is that it places far more people in jeopardy
than the other two, despite, say, the idiotic rejection of childhood vaccines by
quacks or the current
state of denial over global warming by some governments, an example of
pseudoscience if ever there was one, but even here the evidence is becoming so
overwhelming that scientists cannot be successfully cowed or gagged for much
longer.
It is blind faith that is so dangerous, from that of the bloodthirsty
fundamentalists right across the spectrum to the wishy-washy, "spiritual" types
who, through sheer inertia or ignorance, are happy to feel that, at heart, all
religions are somehow beneficial and well-meaning. With (very) few exceptions
they are not - they are divisive and sectarian and cloud the minds of otherwise
reasonable people. To quote physicist Steven Weinberg "Good people will do good
things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things
-- that takes religion." As the recent fabricated rioting over a few cartoons
proves, religion is a effective way for repressive regimes to channel the
frustration of their citizens by providing an outlet. Anyone who thinks a mob
could destroy an embassy in Syria without government connivance is hopelessly
naive - all Hassad had to do was to push the button marked religion. Even in a
largely secular society like Britain the Labour government under Blair is
pushing as hard as it can for the establishment of faith schools despite the
lessons from such schooling in Northern Ireland, where old sectarian hatreds
were passed from one generation to the next in a segregated education system.
The thought of a whole new generation of children in the UK being taught the
cruel old Iron Age myths as holy writ should concern (and frighten) anyone who
has any any hopes for the future of human beings on this planet. The worst
culprits are the so-called abrahamic, patriarchal religions, Christianity, Islam
and Judaism, although they are not the
only ones. We
can all cherry pick the various "sacred writings" to find instances of kindness,
compassion and tolerance but they are more than outweighed by the widespread
cruelty, misogyny and hatred. Moderate religionists who are, say, Christian,
seem to find nothing wrong in this choosing of the kinder passages and ignoring
the many instances of xenophobia and war. Meanwhile the fundamentalists of that
faith can all too easily find plenty of passages that justify bigotry and
repression.
One of the contradictions that atheists and agnostics often present to moderate
Christians is that of theodicy, something long wrestled with by Christians
themselves. How can there be a caring and loving god who sees the fall of a
single sparrow and yet allows war, famine, cancer and natural disasters? The
moderates jump through metaphysical hoops to get around this question, but the
fundamentalists don't have to - they actually embrace the concept of a cruel and
vengeful deity. Naturally they assume that they are favored in some way and the
fire and brimstone is for everybody else. This is far from just a Christian
attitude and fundamentalists in Islam and Judaism all sound very much the same.
These rules by which we choose to live, they say, are given to us in a holy
book, the word of God, the supreme being, therefore it is only right that our
beliefs should become the norm, enshrined in the laws of the land so that all
must comply. The similarity in outlook between the Taliban in Afghanistan and
rabid right-wing Christians in the US is no coincidence, they are cut from the
same cloth, and differ only in degree.
Those who place their hopes in a fairer, juster world by the application of
religious values are making a terrible mistake. Those who hope to bring about
the end of the world to fulfil their particular vision of paradise are even more
mistaken - but both groups are a danger to everybody on the planet. The whole
point of revealed religion is that it is based on supernatural authority and
therefore beyond question. There is no room for rational criticism, and no room
for decisions based upon the evidence. Religionists will even make a virtue of
believing in nonsense - the more ridiculous the better - for this demonstrates
the strength of their faith. Religion has had thousands of years of completing
claims, of jihad and crusade, of persecution and Inquisition, and what has it
achieved compared to the advances made in the short time since the
Enlightenment? Whether we like it or not we now live in a world that can only be
sustained by science and technology - no amount of praying is going to help with
global climate change, famine, overpopulation and diminishing resources. Some
will say that it is the misapplication of technology informed by science that
has caused many of the world's troubles such as pollution, and, in some
instances, this is certainly true - but this does not mean the answer is to turn
your back on logic and embrace the supernatural. People who do not acknowledge
evolution will not, cannot, produce the solutions that are needed to combat
rapidly evolving diseases. Overpopulation will not be solved by religions that
still espouse the thinking of an outnumbered desert tribe - even to the point of
denying the use of condoms by people at risk from AIDS/HIV, people often of a
different faith.
If the above seems to be a bilious diatribe, that's because it is. It is a
reaction to the loss of a dream and the realization of a
nightmare. Instead of a world that is united, where there is liberty and
justice, where people are enabled to become all that they can be, there is a
world of hatred, of illogic, of appeals to authority instead of evidence, a
world that is tipping over into a new dark age. And it is religion that is to
blame, not capitalism, not communism, but religion, and I for one am scared, not
for myself but for the generations to come. There is a continuum running all the
way from young men beating women in the street for being "provocatively"
dressed, to the Blair government's unreasoning push for a flood of
state-sponsored "faith" schools. There is a continuum between filling children's
heads with fairy tales and threats of hell, to wanting to behead someone for
drawing an insensitive cartoon. There is a continuum between the quiet,
well-dressed middle class congregations and the bombing of abortion clinics and
the murder of doctors and nurses. I am scared and I am angry - this is the
reason for the amount of religion that has forced its way onto my pages - for it
has also forced itself upon the world and its terrible effects cannot be
ignored. Whether this tide can be turned I don't know - optimism is hard to
maintain but as I have said in an earlier piece there is no option but to keep
bailing. Retreat into either despair or indifference is not an acceptable
option. (For those who think there is not enough about the malign effects of
religion here see Faith
Based News. Also quackery and pseudoscience are still fair game for 80.
Homeopathy and chiropractic, for example, qualify as both, as well as being
faith-based. Also
see Rant For the
Day.)
80's Recommended Reading
Links
from Number 80
©Copyright 2006
Ross W Sargent All rights reserved