Why Dont You Blog?

Well it seems Toutatis does indeed work in mysterious ways. After reading, and responding to a post which chastised this blog and Atheists in general, for concentrating on attacking Christianity, I stumbled upon an article in the Daily Mail which managed to shock even my jaded mindset.

On the off chance some of you are faint hearted, I should warn you the original article has a some pictures which could be construed as quite shocking although given the subject matter they could be worse. If you visit the Mail article please be aware of this and don’t come crying to me afterwards.

The Daily Mail carries an item about a 17 year old girl who was beaten to death (in Northern Iraq) by her family, while “hundreds” [according to the Mail] of onlookers cheered and shouted support of the murderers. In typical Daily Mail writing style the article begins:

(*Update: it seems while I was writing this, the post I am discussing vanished from the Savvygeek site – it may have been posted in error, but I think the comments made in it were common enough that they can be addressed anyway*)

There seems some debate recently about reconciling science and religion (or even if some thing is possible). For the record, this is something I have no major issue over, religion is (to me) nonsense so if scientists want to be religious it is no different than if they think socks and sandals look cool. I also see no driving reason for science and religion to be “reconciled,” nor do I have any idea how such a thing can take place.

Today I came across a post on Savvygeek called “Religion Vs Science” which made some points which intrigued me. Broadly the post is saying:

Now if it had been a Christian, I could understand it. Some seem very unwilling to learn about anything which happened before their Saviour came to Earth and to them the Old Testament is a bit harsh and cruel. Oddly this is a Rabbi showing little real understanding of historical events. On MSNBC there is an article by Rabbi Marc Gellman (hat tip – Pharyngula) titled “In God’s Image” with a tagline of “The death of Captain America and the movie ‘300’ raise questions about the duty of the truly religious to protect freedom—even with their lives.“

Blimey. Talk about reaching out for straws…

After an intro about the enlightenment and the problems with fascism, communism and jihadism, the Rabbi writes:

This same conflict lies behind the comic-book death of Captain America and the cinematic death of Leonides in the movie “300.” The Spartan Greeks, led by Leonides, could have chosen to live under the rule of Xerxes and the Persian Empire. They could have traded their imperiled freedom for a secure life of slavery. The choice of Leonides and the 300 Spartans to die in a doomed but heroic battle is the clear choice of those who believe that nothing—no faith, no material wealth, nothing—justifies the surrender of freedom to tyranny.

Strangely, I agree with his last sentence. Nothing, especially no faith, justifies the surrender of freedom to tyranny. I suspect the Rabbi and I have a different idea of how that is interpreted in the real world though but that is a whole different matter…

Often ignored is that, in addition to the 300 Spartans (Leonidas’ royal guards) there were 700 Thespians (from Thespiae) at the final battle. I am sure, as they were largely a “subject” city at the time, their freedom didn’t matter much though… Further on, the article continues:

Neither Leonides nor Captain America were religious, but both of them stood for that part of the religious world that believes in a God who fights for freedom.

Wow. While I can not comment on Captain America (he is a comic book character and not a real person!), I think it is reasonable to assume Leonidas was a very religious person. Maybe the fact it wasn’t Judeo-Christianity so it doesn’t count? Spartans always sought guidance from their Gods before pretty much anything (sports, war, trade etc) and part of the problem at Thermopylae was “ill omens” from the High Priests. However the nonsense, continues:

They both stood for the proposition that freedom is the foundation of all meaningful life. Religiously speaking, this is the belief that God gave freedom to all people made in His image, and that those who oppose freedom must be prepared to fight God.

Wow (again). The Spartans (remember Captain America is not real) were certainly NOT supporters of freedom – even by their contemporary standards. They were a military dictatorship in almost every sense. All citizens were geared for war and this was built on a bedrock of slave labour. Even the other Greek states (with their own slaves) thought the Spartans were oppressive. One of the reasons the Persian kept attacking Greece was the poor Greeks spent most of their time trying to stop the Spartans enslaving them.

The piece closes with:

Embracing the need to spiritually justify the fight for world freedom carries its own perils. Chief among these dangers is what we now see in the world of Islamic fascism: the use of religion to extol death and tyranny. The biblical name for this is idolatry, and the seductions of idolatry are hard for some to resist. In the end, though, the spiritual truth of freedom’s cause is eventually clear to all.

Leonides and Captain America were heroes not because they entered the field of battle with a shield of Vibranium or were in possession of abs of steel, but because they entered battle with a spiritually authentic idea: that God is free and we are made in God’s image to be free as well. We were not placed on planet earth to avoid death. We were placed here so that we could avoid surrendering our God-given freedom to tyrants.

Well again we hit an little dichotomy. Generally when people say things like “it is clear to all” or “every one can see” and my favourite “it is obvious”, the point being made is nonsense. Here, I think this is still valid. While I strongly agree the we should never surrender our Freedom to Tyrants (nothing to do with who gave us our freedom – that in itself implies tyranny but this is a whole new post..), I think the rest of it is nonsense. Leonidas was not a hero, and Captain America is not a real person so cant really be heroic.

The tyranny of religion is not limited to Islamic fascism – although that is the most overt form. Read the blogosphere about how gay people should be punished for an example of how otherwise moderate people are happy to subject others to religious tyranny. But I suppose that is ok though, cos it is a “good” religion…

(p.s. It is interesting how many sites / blogs (rightwingers) seem to see Thermopylae as a parallel to the west vs Iran/Iraq type thing. Dangerous comparison to be making… Why do the religious RIGHT get so confused when it comes to the media – remember March of the Penguins? Can’t they just accept a film is a film. It is there for entertainment. Study the reality if you want to draw cultural parallels…)

(For UK citizens) Nullfidian has posted on his blog about some online petitions which may be worth checking out. I have copied the extract below verbatim (as various technical problems are making any online time scarce here):

Here are a number of petitions that you can sign to help raise awareness:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister…

…to Abolish all faith schools and prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology in all UK schools.

…to ban within government-funded schools the promotion or practice of any particular faith or religion.

…to prevent the use of creationist and other pseudo-scientific propaganda in Government-funded schools.

…to separate church and state and create the United Kingdom a secular democracy.

…to Remove tax-exempt status for religions (granted such privilege) within the United Kingdom.

…to cease the creation of more faith schools, take existing public-funded faith schools from the control of religious bodies and convert them to unbiased schools for all.

…to refuse to reimburse the Church of England with public funds for repairs or maintenance to their own, private buildings.

Each petition includes more information about the exact nature of and reason for the petition. If you agree with the sentiment of the petition, please add your name to the list. If possible, to help increase the audience for these issues, please repost these in your own blogs, MySpace, LiveJournal, FaceBook, etc.

If you can think of other petitions either comment here or on Nullfidian’s blog.

Well this is two of our favourite blog topics in one, so I couldn’t let it pass.

On Richard Dawkins’ own website, there is a link to an e-petition against faith schools of any kind in the UK.

I know it will get a patronising refusal to pay any attention but I still think it’s worth adding your name to it, if you are a UK resident and you have a problem with paying tax to segregate kids by religion….

Although, it’ s probably fair to warn you. Google your name when the petition’s closed and you’ll probably find it with the topic of the petition and a few names of people who signed before or after you.

If you live in a notably faith-obsessed or evn fundamentalist community, you might find that your local priest or imam starts to take an unhealthy interest in your opinions. OK. It’s not exactly going to be on a par with the sort of comebacks that Kareem experienced in Egypt. But education can become a real battle-ground. “Give me a child before the age of seven”, and so on.

(Dawkins’ own blog seems self-evidently worth looking at, and I’ll probably come back to discussing it soon.)

I said previously that I was going to come back to the debate about the Call to Prayer a Mosque in Michigan is trying to get played over loudspeakers. It has taken a few days but I am not going to let it lie…

Now, I am not an apologist for Islam or anything and I certainly do think the religion is the source of more dangerous crackpots than Christianity (albeit less entertaining ones). All imaginary friends are just as insane, and those who “devoutly” follow the teachings of their interstellar teapot deserve maximum ridicule. It is, therefore, with a heavy heart that in this instance I feel I may side with the Islamic nutcases. (Hopefully not..)

In a nutshell, a Bangladeshi Mosque has applied for permission to play the call to prayer over loudspeakers five times a day. Now, I would object to this. Why on Earth should I have to listen to some one else’s devotional wailings. This is not me being “anti-Islam.” I am not demanding they listen to Richard Dawkins five times a day… The people who run the Mosque are the ones wanting their beliefs to be forced upon others. It should also be noted that there are other Mosques in the area who haven’t asked for the call to be broadcast.

So far, I am very against the plans of this Mosque. Urban areas already have enough of a noise problem and adding to it (although I like the call to prayer) is a “BAD THING™.”

Now, reading through the article on CBSNews makes me change my opinions a little. We get some comments from the Mosque:

“It takes only one minute — what is it, five times a day? Five minutes only — that’s all we are asking for,” Masud Khan told CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan.

If only it were that simple. Just because the inconvenience is minimal does not make it “right.” If it is such a small thing, why do they want it? Can’t they telephone the faithful and tell them the prayer is on? Broadcast it over the Internet? Anything. Five one minute interruptions add up to more “annoyance” than a five minute interruption.

Next there came a bit I cant help but agree with:

Muslims figured it was no different than Christians ringing church bells which incidentally ring just across the street from the mosque five times a day, reports Cowan.

Actually, I agree. Cant have one rule for one and one rule for another can we?

If the Christians get away with noise pollution (and I suspect the bell ringing will last longer than a minute a time), why cant the Muslims? Why cant every one else? Do Rastafarians get to play loud music five times a day?

The good old Christian Tolerance kicks in eventually:

Joanne Golen, a lifelong Hamtramck resident, said she finds the content of the call to prayer offensive. “It says Allah is the one and only God. I am Christian. My God is Jesus Christ. That is my only objection — that I have to listen to a God other than the one I believe in praised five times a day,” said Golen, 68.

Really? It is nice of Ms Golen to solve that theological argument – however I am not convinced that saying “My God is Jesus Christ” is really a legitimate phrase. While it could be argued that the holy trinity means Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, this is different. Still, the devout don’t need to know their religion in depth – they have FAITH.

Caroline Zarski, 81, said allowing the call would put Islam above other religions.

Really? Why? Are church bells banned? Aha, I hear you say:

Opponents take issue with that comparison, saying that church bells today are used to mark the time of day and have no religious significance. If the bells are the issue, then turn them off, they say.

Ok. Turn them off then. If they are stopped there are no grounds for the Muslims to get the call to prayer. If the bells continue, I can’t see what logical grounds can deny the Call to Prayer.

It seems that people who are guided by their belief in an imaginary being often get confused over what Atheism means. Atheism is not not “just another form of belief” and it is not a religion. Remember, Dawkins, Harris, Myers (et al) are not the Prophets of Atheism. They are not Ministers of Atheism.

People who follow a religion, and let it guide their lives sometimes have difficulty coming to terms with the concept, but part of being an Atheist is making up your own mind. There is no doctrinal book which says what all Atheists must believe, or how they should behave. Atheism allows the human to make their own choices. While this should be common sense, it seems some people really can not grasp it (for example Debbie Schlussel is convinced all Atheists are Muslims or brainwashed).

It is not just the offensive and idiotic theists who make these mistakes as well. Otherwise normal, decent followers of various religions can, sometimes, get confused over the matter. Take this example:

At the end of the day, we all have faith in something. Even an atheist has a kind of faith; faith in the absence of any god. (The Sleepless Nights Reading File)

Now, sorry to say, but no. Not all Atheists have faith in the absence of any God (see above for why I do not speak for any Atheists other than myself though). My understanding of the word “faith” is it means a belief in something without any evidence. A quick visit to Google and I can’t find any better definition.

Given this, I feel fully confident when I say I do not have faith in the absence of any god.

I have mentioned in the past the problem of debating matters of faith with theists, and this is a good example. I can think of nothing that I “believe” which can not be falsified. Every concept and I idea I hold, I can think of a way in which it could be proven wrong and I would (reluctantly maybe) have to rethink. I suspect the majority of theists are similar to Andrew Sullivan, in that when it comes to their religious faith, not only will they hold it without any supporting evidence, they will hold it in the face of contradictory evidence.

Maybe this is why some people think of religion as a mental illness. If I went about my daily business, believing (for example) that Cars could talk to you and gave you guidance as to how to live your life, I wouldn’t spend long before I started sleeping in a padded cell. Is it a double standard that we allow people to make the same apparently insane commentary simply because they can claim their “religion” has lasted for a few centuries?

For those who are interested, the debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan is continuing. You can catch up with Page 4 (the most current) or start from the beginning.

Currently, it seems to be getting a bit long winded and part of the problem with this sort of “online blog-war” style of debate is that each post contains a number of points, but with a few exceptions these are overlooked. The responses on both sides seem to focus on one salient point that the other has made, then build in another 10 – 20 spin off points of their own.

It might have been better if the combatants in this particular war were forced to keep each post to a single point and there was some moderation to focus them. Both are excellent writers and both are more than capable of “spinning” their viewpoint to the extent that onlookers (myself included) can see the logic and “reasonableness” of what they are saying. I really do think this is a debate which will never, ever end.

Before anyone gets started, this is not science. This is a debate about faith on a website called Beliefnet. You still can not do science by debate .

[tags]philosophy, society, Religion, Sam Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Blog War, Debate, Faith, Religious Tolerance, Atheism, Religious Moderates[/tags]

It seems barely a day can pass without coming across more examples of religious hatred, intolerance and the mockery that the “faithful” make of their own gospels.

Now, I have been asked a few times recently why Christianity bears the brunt of my attacks here, rather than the other two crackpot, abrahamic religions. This is especially relevant as most of my vitrol towards religion is based on its refusal to accept science and its abhorrent intollerance. On the face of it, Christianity is “more” tolerant than Islam or Judaism, so why do I attack Christianity the most?

After the last monster post (which Technorati seems to want to ignore), I think a short one is called for. On beliefnet.com there is an ongoing blog-debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan on; Faith, Religious Tolerance, Moderates, Islam and Atheism.

While it started very polite and civil, it certainly turned into the sort of debate you would hope for. While page three (Sam Harris’ latest post) is the most entertaining, you can always start from the beginning.

First off, I am sorry. I had hoped that I would be able to avoid blogging on either Dawkins or religious nutcases again today. I have failed.

By chance, I found a link saying Richard Dawkins was BBC Man of the Year 2006, which I found very odd as I hadn’t noticed it anywhere else (and a general search of Google or the BBC does not provide this either). This seems to be an American Buddhist related website which found a link to a blog written by William Crawley, who works with BBC Northern Ireland and had put together his own list of “Person of the Year.” The Integral Options website seems somewhat scathing of Dawkins but nothing off the rails or anything and about 50% of the population don’t like him anyway.