Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘koran’

– Whenever voluntary euthanasia is discussed, the concern is brought up about it being pressured or forced upon people who aren’t ready for it. And apparently, if you think this idea is frightening enough that you can score some political points off it, you’re allowed to just make shit up.

– Santorum: Burning copies of the Koran in Afghanistan was a mistake, but it wasn’t an intentional act, and so apologising for it “shows weakness“. He must’ve been a fun kid to play with. “No, Ms Huxtable, I won’t apologise to Susie for accidentally kicking her in the face while showing off my kung fu moves. It wasn’t an intentional act and so an apology would show weakness. Is it naptime yet?”

Dave Gorman is married, and reckons he and his wife would do just fine if same-sex couples wanted to do the same. He’s got an interesting analogy to explain why some people might disagree.

– Your computer could be curing cancer while you watch porn. Go Team Atheism!

Read Full Post »

The Ministry of Truth has a good post up about the way some religious believers champion their holy texts as holding fantastic scientific advancements.

Of course, as they’ll often tell you, God is completely removed from the world of science, and his presence could never be refuted by any such coarsely human thinking. But when science comes along with discoveries that might bolster their ideas, well, that’s another matter.

And while Judaism isn’t particularly known for its kooky fundamentalist extremism – all the Jews I know personally are atheists, in fact – the Rabbi behind Intergalactic Judaism (yes, really) isn’t doing the rest of them any favours.

The thing is, the idea of God imparting scientific knowledge about the world in some divine text, centuries before it was independently reached by lowly mammalian researchers, would be easy to verify and quite profoundly conclusive, if it actually happened. Inserting an unambiguous description of quantum theory into the Bible would surely not have been beyond Yahweh’s powers; people would have pondered the curious words as they were copied faithfully for hundreds of years, until eventually someone noticed the uncanny similarities between these ancient passages and the recent ground-breaking work of Planck or Bohr or Einstein. The astounding insight shown by these millennia-dead nomads would lend some real credence to whatever else they had to say.

But the people with a religious agenda to push tend to be overwhelmingly impressed by the most flimsy of evidence, and don’t seem to recognise that everything in the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and every other holy book can be quite satisfactorily read as the reasonable understanding of the people who lived at that time.

As Unity wonders:

The Gaon of Vilna wrote in a similar vein, “Everything that was, is and will be is included in the Torah… even the details of every animal, plant and inanimate object, with all their features.”

Really? Every animal, plant and inanimate object?

So where’s the section that deals with dinosaurs?

What about Kangaroos and Koalas – are they in there, and if so, can someone point me to the relevant passage?

And as the Torah is supposed to contain details of every inanimate object, can someone show me the reference to the iPhone?

And the Rabbi’s assertions just get emptier and more futile as it goes on:

When God uttered metaphors referring to light, He knew that light bends in a strong gravitational field and that certain kinds of light can blast through solid rock. When He spoke of the heavens, He knew of the dark matter which permeates them.

Okay, but… isn’t this supposed to be about things God told us hundreds of years ago? The idea of light being bent by gravity would have been truly revolutionary and surprising at the time the Torah was written, but it’s not in there. So now you’re claiming that God didn’t tell us about any of this stuff until we’d figured it out anyway, then claimed he’d obviously known it all along.

Tortured metaphors by which “And then there was light” is meant to be a nuanced recounting of the Big Bang just aren’t convincing. Maybe believers would be advised not to press this angle if they don’t want to look desperate.

Read Full Post »

I was starting to think I might have to write something new about Pastor Terry Jones, his latest tedious publicity stunts, the horrific backlash, and some of the more atrociously misjudged aspects of the media coverage.

Fortunately, Heresy Corner has this one absolutely covered, and I really don’t think I need to add anything.

Now, can someone please do the same with David Willets?

Read Full Post »

I started writing this when I was still going on about the Protest The Pope campaign, and the resulting backlash against Dawkins’s few minutes of speaking to a small crowd, which for some people who weren’t there was the only important thing about the 12,000-strong day of campaigning. But then I forgot to get it finished.

And actually, this post is a return to another prominent bugbear of mine from recent weeks. This article was written in response to the Koran book-burning that didn’t go ahead last month. What would be the global reaction to a similar “attack” against a demographic who were not religious?

Atheists, who hadn’t been expected to come out in pick-up trucks with gun racks on their rear windows and circle his church with their engines revving like goaded Rottweilers, didn’t.

In Britain and France, countries that remember the Enlightenment, and in Russia, with her seven decades of secularism still befuddling her, nobody burnt Uncle Sam in effigy and mobs of unbelievers didn’t riot and burn churches, nor were believers flogged or beaten. So far the body count is nil. Atheists have turned the other cheek. Christians have called this a nasty plagiarism.

All sounds about right. And makes me wonder, in fact, whether we shouldn’t consider encouraging such an event ourselves, as a chance to demonstrate the value of chilling the hell out about shit that doesn’t matter.

So, maybe the next time some Koran-burning or similar kerfuffle makes it into the news (and you know it’s only a matter of time), this would be a way of showing what we’re about. Sure, buy up some Dawkins, Hitchens, Darwin, and the rest of them, and consign them to the fire. So long as they’re your property and you’re not contravening fire safety laws, you will find no objection from the atheist quarter. We’re proud of our message, but we don’t feel driven to indignant fury and unjustifiable personal attacks, over nothing more than an impersonal and unobtrusive sign of disrespect.

Ooh, I’ve just had a thought: Bonfire Night’s in a month. Maybe this would be a good time to make a point with a selection of literature.

(h/t The Friendly Atheist)

Read Full Post »

Another thought regarding the Koran-burning thing.

Nobody’s disagreeing that Pastor Jones’s chosen form of protest was both metaphorically and literally incendiary. I imagine everyone shares the concerns that the Islamic extremists’ response would be violent, and would hurt people unnecessarily. As I’ve said before, these concerns are both reasonable and demonstrably correct.

One place where a difference of opinion comes in, though, is in whether Jones should be allowed to go through with it anyway. Is he acting within the boundaries of his own rights to free expression? Or do those rights not extend to a knowing incitement and provocation to violent acts?

I’ve seen more than one person comparing what Jones is doing to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, a classic free speech cliché intended to demonstrate that it’s sometimes necessary to place some restriction on people’s right to say any damn thing they want. A case can be made that, for instance, concerns for public safety overrule anyone’s first amendment rights to go raising a ruckus.

However, I don’t think this is a fair comparison.

The first distinction you might notice is that shouting fire would only be considered unworthy of protection under free speech laws if it is knowingly untrue. Of course you’d be justified in alerting people to an actual fire, and presumably if you had good reason to suspect that there was a danger then you’d be on safe ground too, even if it turned out to be a false alarm.

Burning a Koran, on the other hand, is not an explicitly declarative act. There’s no potentially untrue or defamatory statement being made.

But this might not matter, if the incitement is still predictable as a result of the act. There’s a more interesting point I haven’t seen being made yet though.

If you do raise some kind of alarm amidst a packed crowd in an enclosed space, you may cause people’s lives or health to be endangered as they charge towards the exits to get the hell out of there. You can reasonably expect that they’ll take your warning at face value, and might be harmed while responding reasonably to this.

However, the danger from Muslim extremists was not because Pastor Jones had provided them with a falsified threat, and they were reacting appropriately to a perceived danger. A violent reaction might be predictable, but you’d only cause violence and harm in response to someone else burning some books if you’re fucking crazy.

People should run for the exits if they’re stuck in an enclosed space and told that there’s a fire. If they’re sensible, they’ll be compelled to take action by a legitimate fear. But whatever reason the extremists might think they have for attacking the nearest standing structure in fury at someone’s disrespect, they are wrong.

In the case of the Koran-burning, then, people will only get hurt if other people behave like unreasonable shits.

Nobody’s entitled to shift the blame for their evil actions onto somebody else’s provocations, simply because they made threats or have a reputation for being dangerously irrational. Which is why I don’t buy Pastor Jones’s actions as an incitement to violence that should be censored.

Read Full Post »

So the big news story of the past week was that some guy owns some books and that’s it.

I just spared you several million words and many hundred hours of pointless news coverage. He’s not burning them. Nothing is happening.

There are four distinct fails worth reporting on here, I think, from different people letting the side down in different ways. In increasing order of egregiousness:

4. Me

My productivity has sucked lately, which is why this post is arriving several days beyond its moment of relevance. I was ill for a while, then I was travelling across Kent to see the Scott Pilgrim movie and my friend Sara, both of which were fantastic. But I’m getting back on the wagon now.

3. Pastor Terry Jones

The guy pretty much sounds like a dick.

He made a massive deal out of his intent to burn some books, as a protest against the “Ground Zero” “Mosque” (which is evidently neither), then called it off, as may have been the intent all along. Having got all the press attention conceivable, there’s really no need to actually go through with it now.

But it was an obnoxious form of protest in the first place. And it’s worth my explaining why, as someone who has defended – and indeed taken part in – a deliberately provocative protest against extremist Islam before.

Everybody Draw Muhammad Day was a response to the threats, violence, arson, and murders committed by religious extremists in response to some cartoons being published in a newspaper that precisely zero people were forced at gunpoint to read. It was a way of telling the dangerous lunatics that they do not get to make the rules for the rest of us, and we will not accept their barbaric attempts to enforce a blind adherence to their theocratic dogma on the rest of us.

Most of the people who took part in it accompanied it with an explanation of their intentions, and were careful to contextualise any offence given. The protest was a legitimate one, against unacceptable acts committed in the name of religion, and I think it made its point well.

Pastor Terry Jones is not protesting against anything worth making a fuss over – the “Ground Zero” “Mosque” is in no way an oppressive or extremist action, and infringes not even slightly on anyone else’s rights. He has no sensible reason to be upset, and so his protest seems unmeasured and ill-conceived.

Moreover, the way he’s going about it is distinctly hostile. The Muhammad drawings were, for the most part, unobtrusive and friendly. There were a lot of smiling stick figures, comical cartoons, sketches that were parodic without descending into tawdry piss-taking. Even the less respectful ones were just images which can easily be looked away from.

Burning a book, on the other hand, is an inherently violent and destructive act. Not a criminal one, by any means, but far from conciliatory. As Rebecca Watson pointed out on the SGU podcast this week, book-burning is aggressively symbolic of silencing others, and suppressing free speech, even while not being an explicit act of censorship in itself. It represents the destruction of ideas by force, regardless of their merit, which is entirely anathema to rationality or humanism.

I was never among those standing by Pastor Jones on this, or planning to acquire a copy of the Koran just to take a match to it. I did not endorse his protest, and I don’t think I want to associate with those who did.

2. The media

One lone idiot decides he wants to make a spectacle of himself, by means of an unoriginal idea which the Westboro Baptist Church have been keen to point out they were doing years ago. And the media fall over themselves to help him do just that.

Although they’re deplorable on many other matters, the HuffPo pretty much have this one right. It’s been a media circus of the most infuriating kind – the kind where I’ve been compelled to put on the clown make-up and join in, lamenting at great length that people are still talking about this non-issue at any length at all.

It’s just some guy who doesn’t like the Park51 centre – and there’s no short supply of those – and his congregation of fewer than 50 people, making their tedious point known to anyone who’ll listen. Nobody should know anything about these people. It doesn’t merit anything like the attention it’s received. But the circus has already come to town.

A special mention in this category goes to the politicians who have assisted in drawing attention to this nonsense and making it a story of even greater media interest by publicly condemning it. Obama’s come out against it, and Pastor Jones apparently received a phone call about it from Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary.

It’s depressing that someone with a job title that makes him sound like he really ought to be a very busy man is personally bothering with stuff like this. This one guy is a very small part of the problem here. Much bigger is the artificial furore that’s been constructed around him, and which he’s no doubt been delighted by.

That’s still not the biggest part, though.

1. The religious extremists

Let’s not forget why someone destroying their own property in a way that harms no-one is even a problem in the first place.

What Pastor Jones is doing (or not doing, it now seems) is offensive. I’m not saying that as a condemnation – that’s me downplaying it. All it is is offensive. The worst it does is offend some people. Its not their books being taken from them and destroyed. The ideas in their heads remain intact. Those who take offense are diminished or physically wounded in no way whatsoever by someone else’s decision to mutilate their own copy of these printed pages. It neither picks their pocket nor breaks their leg.

But the response has been predictable. It’s as clear as ever that large numbers of Muslims want to force us to abide by their rules, and will feel righteous in their use of violence against us if our expression of our rights ever goes outside their own concept of the sacred.

So there’s eleven injured here, one shot dead there, and probably more victims scattered around the globe.

The reason for this is a little bit because of one lone idiot stating his intention to burn some books. It’s partly because of the media almost universally deciding that this should be a matter of worldwide interest and immense gravity.

But it’s mostly because some people think they have a god-given right and duty to react with violence when their sensibilities are offended.

Those dangerous maniacs are the prime failures here.

Another special mention, though, goes to those commentators who have been asserting the need for tolerance and a more sensitive approach, but who act as if Pastor Jones is the one most in need of this lecture, and effectively become apologists for religious brutality. At a mosque in London recently, a Muslim spokesman said:

A number of churches have condemned this act. There is nothing wrong with intellectual or theological debate, but this should be conducted within the bounds of decency and tolerance. Instead, what we are seeing is hatred being spread.

He was talking about the proposed book-burning. Not the rampaging mob charging down the streets to attack a Nato base, because of something going on thousands of miles away which they heard about on the news and which does not concern them in any material way.

Others have been calling for the book-burning, if it’s attempted, to be “prevented”. The US government have been urged to “take steps” to make sure it doesn’t happen.

The idea of holding free expression as a valued principle doesn’t seem to occur to them. But the lectures about tolerance continue.

There are also those who, while not personally offended, still consider Pastor Jones’s stated intentions “irresponsible”, because of the inevitable incitement of the Muslim communities who will take offense. That was the point of Robert Gates’s phone call, after all – it was feared that there could be violent repercussions.

And, well, clearly they’re not wrong about that. But there’s a problem with simply saying that people shouldn’t exercise their rights, because of how someone else can be trusted to react. Specifically, it fails to suitably condemn and place the responsibility for violent acts on the people actually doing the violence.

The logic is identical to that employed by those devout Muslims, and others, who refuse to allow women to be seen in public without being covered head to toe in thick fabric, because the mere sight of a wantonly flaunted ankle may incite men to acts of violent, lustful passion. If the sight of women being allowed some basic autonomy will do that to men, then it’s the men who need to get a fucking grip.

I don’t buy that someone else’s evil, unhinged, unjustifiable arrogance and fury is enough reason to warrant limitations being placed on my rights.


Well, there’s the chart run-down. I hope some of your own favourites made it onto the list. Next week: the top eight things I hate about Buddhists. Those bald wankers have had it easy for too long.

There’s more on this from PZ, Index On Censorship, and PZ again.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: