The free thought tag police are coming!

Splendid Elles (right) tagged me to answer these series of questions.

Can You Remember The Day That You Officially Became An Atheist?

Officially is a redundant word in the question. I neither am a card carrying atheist, nor had a party where people celebrated my non belief. If you want an action that publicly made that, it would be in front of the White House when to a TV crew I spoke about atheists being treated as equal citizens with everyone else – that it was no reflection on your character or ability to be a moral person.

There is no one moment, where you rid yourself of the blood of the lamb. While at University it was a nagging feeling that there was no evidence for a supernatural being that communicated directly with us. Reading philosophy, and in particular Bertrand Russell, and reading politics just meant that god slipped away as I realised we humans have to take responsibility as the only conscious species in making the world a better place – rather than hoping with death we make it to a better one.

Do you remember the day you officially became an agnostic?

Fairly soon after leaving the study of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It occurred to me that their religion was the work of man and that prophecies claimed in the bible were allegories or concerned with actual events that had already happened. The human yearning though for a spiritual side to existence was one that completed the human experience, but religion was only an answer to that expression rather than the answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything.

Some people think the politically correct thing is to term yourself a skeptical agnostic. Yet becoming an atheist just means that you hold out there being no evidence that there is a god; and refuse to accept any argument by a person as being divinely inspired. They will need rationality, logic, empirical evidence, and the welfare of life to consider.

How about the last time you spoke or prayed to God with actual thought that someone was listening?

When I read Watchtower publications and realised that these were the works of men, with false prophecy and changed dogma. I prayed for realisation of what his will was, and that I may come to an understanding of the ultimate truth of things. The answer to those things is in the living.

Did anger towards God or religion help cause you to be an atheist or agnostic?

No. My anger was directed at the Watchtower organisation. That new editions of books did not highlight changes interpretations. It was almost doublespeak of Orwellian descriptions. My anger was directed at the real possibility of dying from refusing a blood transfusion – one that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed their mind about since 1956 when they first decided it was against god’s will.

Here is a good one: Were you agnostic towards ghosts, even after you became an atheist?

I never believed in ghosts. However nothing wrong with science trying to rationally explain the paranormal experience people have. Everyone has to make a living.

Do you want to be wrong?

If there is a god I think belief in him is the last yardstick by which he will measure your life on earth. The notion of freedom and autonomy for me goes against wishing for a celestial all powerful being to exist. There is no guarantee such a being would be benign – with 99% of all living things now extinct, and the way entities in nature try to survive pointing to life as a reflection of god’s attitude is one that would terrify me.

I do not fear death, just as I do not fear life. My ancestors went through it. People around me do it. You just have to figure out what you want to do in the time you have.

So to spread these ideas around, and keep the meme alive, I better tag some people:

Gary William Murning Online

Copland III

Lambda Delta: Tony Sidaway’s science blog

Despite compelling his children to flog themselves with a five bladed whip during the Ashura ceremony, Syed Mustafa Zaidi was handed a suspended sentence. He claimed that it was his religion, and that he believed he was doing nothing wrong encouraging his children to flog themselves.

Judge Robert Atherton stated:

“I reject the suggestion that they were forced to participate, although I consider it likely that the fervour of events is also likely to have affected their wish to participate.”

The father handed his 15 and 13 year old son the zanjeer whip. How on earth a child can be said to voluntarily, under his father’s direction and instruction, commit self flagellation is a mystery. This was not just a lack of parental care. Religious fervour does not excuse such encouraged acts of brutality by a father done by a minor to themselves. This was child abuse in the name of faith.

The judge further commented:

“You must realise that the law recognises that children and young persons may wish to take part in some activities which it considers they should not.

“It is sometimes expressed as protecting themselves from themselves.

“Your wrongful act was providing the means by which they were able to participate.”

I hope that the sentence provokes an out cry. His wrongful act was not just supplying the means, but encouraging his children to partake in an act of violence that they could not reason for themselves. This is a shameful verdict, given that this was an unprecedented case brought by the Crown Prosecution Service.

All quotes from BBC News.

The father, after whipping himself with a five bladed whip, hands it to his 15 year old son and demands he do the same, followed by his 13 year old brother. However, in court the father claims that he had done nothing wrong. For it is his religion, the Ashura Ceremony. Had he known the law would have been against him would he have spared his children the ceremony.

People sometimes tell me that only through faith can you know what is right and wrong. I wonder if they could do that while looking at the photo of the whip with five curved blades that was used, below reposted from BBC News. There has to be more to what you do then saying it is my religion.

UP DATE 24 September 2008:

new blog on sentencing

Zaidi had denied child cruelty

A devout Shia Muslim has been convicted of child cruelty after forcing two boys to beat themselves during a religious ceremony, in an unprecedented case.

The jury at Manchester Crown Court found 44-year-old Syed Mustafa Zaidi guilty of two counts of child cruelty.

The boys, aged 13 and 15, were forced to beat themselves with a zanjeer whip, with five curved blades.

Zaidi, of Station Road, Eccles, Salford, also flogged himself during the ceremony in January.

The court heard the boys admit that they had wanted to beat themselves, but not under duress and not with the whip.

This is a part of our religion Syed Mustafa Zaidi How a Shia ritual ended in court

The Ashura ceremony takes place during Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar and commemorates the death of Husayn, a central figure in the Shia faith.

Zaidi admitted he allowed them to use the bladed whip, but denied his actions were wrong, saying: “This is a part of our religion.”

A local Muslim leader Safdar Zia has said the community was now working with police and the Crown Prosecution Service on a code of practice for the Ashura practice.

“We cannot eliminate this practice, but we can and will work to a code of practice so that the children don’t get hurt, the law isn’t broken, and the people who do want to take part don’t get prosecuted,” he said.

“We have to take into account people’s beliefs and their rights, and we will respect them.

“But we are not above the law and we never will be and working with the authorities is the best chance we’ve got to prevent any harm being brought against any children.”

The boys suffered cuts from the zanjeer five-bladed whip

During the trial the 14-year-old boy, who was 13 at the time, said that during the ceremony Zaidi told them both: “Start doing it, start doing it.”

The child told the court: “We said ‘we don’t want to do it’.”

He said he saw Zaidi flogging himself before washing blood from the whip and handing it to the 15-year-old boy.

The boy said Zaidi continued to pressure the older teenager to whip himself.

He said the 15-year-old boy “swung it once or twice and said ‘I don’t want to do it anymore’.”

Zaidi told the court: “It was an emotional time and the children were happy, they asked for it. No one forced anyone.

“If I’d known this would be the result of breaking the law I would never have done it.”

This is a very unusual case and the first of its kind to be prosecuted by the CPS in England and Wales Carol Jackson, CPS

The boys both received multiple lacerations to their backs, mainly superficial, with several deeper cuts.

Supt Nadeem Butt, of Greater Manchester Police, said: Zaidi had “abused the vulnerability” of the children, gone against the wishes of his own community and broken the law.

Carol Jackson, of the Greater Manchester Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said the prosecution “was not an attack upon the practices or ceremonies of Shia Muslims”.

“Indeed, the prosecution relied as part of its evidence upon the president of the local Shia community centre,” Ms Jackson said.

“We are satisfied that, given the age of the children involved, the coercion employed by Syed Mustafa Zaidi, who did not accept that he was wrong, and the possibility of such an incident occurring again, the decision to prosecute by the Crown Prosecution Service was the correct one.

“This is a very unusual case and the first of its kind to be prosecuted by the CPS in England and Wales.”

Zaidi will be sentenced on 24 September.

It seems that my ideas about the OUT campaign (a hammer over a feather approach) are not recognised by everyone as being effective. Maybe they fear rather than hammering the point home I will bludgeon it to death and in a way that will not be receptive to the audience wanting to attend Ken Ham’s talk.

 I suppose that my point would be that they do not trust the science as much as they do their interpretation of the bible and the earth being 6,000 years old. As such I would argue that if they do not care about such facts then the fact that there are friendly smiling atheists outside wanting to discuss the matter with them really could change perceptions. I am hardly suggesting that we get A tattoos and start shouting “Delusional fuck-wits” at them.

Rather this is what I had to say to someone on the forum who fears that the A symbol is forcing atheism down people’s throats and would stop us engaging them:

I do not think having an A symbol on my person is ramming my conclusion’s about the natural world down some-one’s throat. As an atheist I am not out to convert people to my world view, but I reject attempts to force creationism in the classroom based on down right lies.

And if you think my opening line will be: “Hi I’m your friendly neighbourhood atheist, godless and a strong supporter of science” then please give me more credit. If I wear the symbol it is because I want to raise consciousness that atheists are not the evil people Ken Ham claims. I think that while science education is important you miss responding to the attacks that Ken Ham throws our way. That there might be something more to protest then his attack on science.

I think that the significance of the A symbol is being missed here. It was chosen because people “brand” atheists as less moral, untrustworthy, not the sort of people to leave your kids with. The campaign is about challenging that assumption. I cannot think of a better way of changing it then having friendly not two headed atheists prepared to have a friendly chat and talk about science with people – who just happen to be atheists. That evolution is a scientific fact that is supported by evidence – let us talk honestly about it.

The problem is that we are letting Ken Ham dictate our tactics here:

The atheists and evolutionists are more aggressive than ever. Indeed, we need your prayers and support to counter their message. Will you stand with us? Will you pray for us? As you’ve seen, the new breed of atheists is attacking the foundations of our faith as never before! Please partner with us now to proclaim the gospel—and combat the hopeless message of the evolutionists.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0116letter.asp

I cannot think of a better way to show that this is about science education then a show that people of faith and none join together in promoting science education – and not a distorted pseudo science that meets some-one’s interpretation of the bible.

Then there is his attack on atheists:

Only the person who believes in God has a basis to make moral judgments to determine what is “good” and what is “bad.” Those who claim God does not exist have absolutely no authority upon which to call something right or wrong. If God doesn’t exist, who can objectively define what is good and what is bad? What basis could there be to make such judgments? The atheist has no basis upon which to call anything good or bad. They can talk about good and bad, and right and wrong—but it’s all relative, it’s all arbitrary. What’s “good” in one person’s mind might be completely “bad” in another’s.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … loving-god

Then we seem to be concerned that Ken Ham may be right about Dawkins:

Dawkins added, “Charles Darwin hit upon a truly brilliant idea that elegantly explains all of life on earth without any need to invoke the supernatural or the divine.”Do you see the irony? The clergy supporting evolution, but the evolutionary, secular humanist insisting such a position is untenable. Dawkins has stated that evolution led him to his atheism.But … Dawkins is right this time—evolution and Christianity are incompatible.
http://www.wposfm.com/HTML%20files/Darwin%20Sunday.htm

I am involved as a contributor to a web site called Ask the Atheists. It enables people who really think that we may eat babies to ask questions – and get answers that show we are a part of humanity as any other. I think that far from turning people off it is important that people of faith and none faith stand together (think Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins). Understand that the mind set you are trying too play to is atheism = Darwinism = evolution = immorality.

My concern is that people actually believe that Ken Ham is correct about New Atheism. Including people that should know better. What can unite faith believers and atheists is the concept of secularism – that will only happen if we challenge Ken Ham’s view of secularism = atheism = evil. That secularism is about government not having tyranny of belief over it’s citizens and is neutral in faith matters, and would allow people their conscience in the private sphere and the universal principle in the public sphere (i.e. anyone outside that faith could agree). If Obama can get that I am sure the people attending the meeting can do too – and an important part of that is changing the perception of atheists.

On that note a new article on Answers in Genesis:

We know wolves haven’t been around for millions of years because the world isn’t that old! From studying the Bible, we can figure out that the world is about 6,000 years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … rom-seeing

This is about using science text books that state that wolves are millions of years old, and teaching children to be discerning about such things so they go to the biblical view. We must show that their claim – we want both sides taught you want one and our approach is fairer – is preposterous.

I think it is possible to do those things, and that the A symbol rather than getting in the way is actually something that could help in starting a conversation going. We all want to challenge Ken Ham on science, but that will entail challenging him on other matters as well because of the web lies he spins and how he connects it that even facts become irrelevant to a supposed greater truth about god given morality.

That issue Richard Dawkins raised in his speech – together with accusations that he is rocking the boat by being outspoken in his atheism and defense of evolution (the hammer school).

That has been made clear to me in an expressed mention by someone organising a protest at a site that Ken Ham will be speaking. They personally think it would be a bad idea to have anyone with the Scarlett letter on display – because they do not want it to be about atheism/secularism or to disenfranchise those that have faith and accept evolution. Not that they want to stop anyone – just a suggestion (the feather school).

Intelligent Design (ID) supporters want their religious belief in the science classroom. What they claim is that this is about equal time with a credible theory. ID is not a credible theory, nor achieves it by leaving blank whether the god in question is Jehovah, Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is about imposing the god concept on children in the classroom. It is about telling children what to believe. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with making belief in the supernatural credible.

The most angry about this state of affairs? Atheist secularists for sure who do not want god to be a matter of education in the classroom. Yet the call is that the protest be based on science – the rejection of ID because it is not a scientifically valid theory.

Yet let us put this another way. Let us suppose that the talk is about condoms not being effective in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Many groups want to protest at this event. Among them is a Gay group. However, there is concern that their visible presence would stop religious believers, who equally believe in the use of contraceptives but not in homosexuality, and suggests that there is no outward sign like the rainbow symbol so that the protest can be as broad as possible because the issue is not homosexuality but STDs.

If you can tell me how the two differ then please enlighten me. Atheists are accused of lacking morality, that we need god to be moral that we use science as a means to spread our unholy message of vice and wickedness. Darwinism is accused by Ham of giving weight to slave trader arguments in America. He has no shame in lying about the historical record, misconstruing science and twisting facts to support the glory of the lord.

The problem is Ken’s goals:

 “What we’re ‘on about’ is upholding the authority of Scripture and proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our ultimate motivation is to preach the gospel to see people saved and won to the Lord Jesus Christ!”

So we only talk about the science, we are not concerned that he really thinks that evolution is a threat to the belief system of Jesus? And for the sake of not making it look like it is atheists that are angry enough to protest we should put on a front that has us just for science.

I am a secularist that believes that the state should be neutral in matters of religion. I am an atheist in that I do not see any evidence for a god. I support science because it is the best method by which we can understand the world and cosmos we live in. Ken Ham is attacking these three principles: secularism, atheism and science. The science classroom is not about reaching out to students to save their souls.

Ken Ham does not care about science. He wants to spread the Christian message and to hell with empirical observations that he thinks contradict the bible. He will not accept science because he believes it to be incompatible with the word of god so he will use pseudo science to make his claims stand up and lay down the path to his saviour.

But to suggest that I should not be outspoken about who I am, because well atheism you know, kind of would cause a stink would it not? And you know Dawkins, well he makes us more of a minority rocking the boat.

To which I have to say – it’s hammer time.

Let them know that atheists are for science, and that we care about what is true and not what people want to be true. That false views of science are unacceptable to confirm ancient texts. That trying to get the supernatural in the science classroom is unacceptable. That promoting faith claims as fact in education goes against the secularist state that defends people to hold the faith or none that they wish. That religious believers should have no fear in joining with atheists in support of science education and that we have no problem joining them in protesting. 

That the A symbol as part of the OUT Campaign:

It is time to let our voices be heard regarding the intrusion of religion in our schools and politics. Atheists along with millions of others are tired of being bullied by those who would force their own religious agenda down the throats of our children and our respective governments. We need to KEEP OUT the supernatural from our moral principles and public policies.

and we are not about to hide who we are:

The OUT Campaign allows individuals to let others know they are not alone. It can also be a nice way of opening a conversation and help to demolish the negative stereotypes of atheists. Let the world know that we are not about to go away and that we are not going to allow those that would condemn us to push us into the shadows.

Let us STAND out!

More on the OUT campaign can be found here.

What will follow is an article by Hitchens on Mother Teresa, but reading it reminded me of something that happened to me in the USA last year which I shall start with linked to the otherwise obscure title of this blog.

This was the first and hopefully last time I am ever accosted for my world view in a bar toilet. That convenience being a restroom in Virginia USA the evening of Hitchens talk at the Atheist Alliance International Conference in Crystal City. Naturally wearing my branded A t-shirt I did stand out. That it said Staff Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science meant that as part of the OUT campaign I was out there with a Red A to a bull in the Men’s Room.

Naturally I did not expect a conversation to start in a restroom with an American, let alone one wearing an Arsenal football top. But he noticed my T shirt and asked about what I was doing. Mentioned that I had just listened to Hitchens and then the fun began.

Because what was worst of all for this young man of catholic faith was the books that Hitchens had written on her -  The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice - was for him all out disrespect for a great person. Now being taken literally on the fly, I pointed out that letters she had written revealed that she did not actually have faith in the supernatural – her belief in belief actually drove her to take a stand which did not help the poverty of people, notably on birth control and safer sex. As a woman that happened to be a nun with a world platform she spoke against the social reform to end poverty – the emancipation of women on equal terms with men in the economic, social and political sphere.

No doubt charity, vaccinations, food, clothing and shelter do give much needed comfort to the poor. These things were much needed in Calcutta (Bengal). It seems less obvious that strict catholic dogma was what above all the poor needed; or that the only way the necessary aid was going to happen was through faith organisations that were promoting the tolerance of the social norms that allowed the poverty to fester.

As I washed my hands, noticing that in the Gents there were baby changing facilities and thinking how good that was he remonstrated with me that it did some good. As I used the hand dryer I pointed to the baby changing facilities pointing out that I had never seen that in England, but it seemed a good idea. I was open to better ways of doing things compared to rigidly defined social and gender norms.

He said well I guess that a heathen atheist would never understand the good people do because of god. I replied that someone wearing an Arsenal top could not be all that bad. I accept that being that close to Washington DC I was in a bubble that is perhaps a different experience to the rest of the USA. Having said that, where else can you get a discussion with a complete stranger in a toilet about Hitchens and Mother Teresa – pity it did not happen at the bar. Would have been more comfortable. Definitely more restful.

Below is the article that brought forth those memories by Hitchens entitled “Belief in Belief”. Enjoy.

A question that interests me very much (and always has) is this: I know that I do not believe in either any god or any religion, and I can give my reasons in a manner that the other side can at least understand, but can the same be said for those who claim that they do believe? A shorter way of putting this is to ask whether our antagonists in this ancient argument truly mean what they appear to say.

The recent disclosure that Mother Teresa had for almost half a century been unable to feel the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the ear of God listening to her prayers, is of great importance here. (See the recent book of her despairing letters, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light.) Not even her most fervent admirers regarded this woman in any sense as an intellectual, and she evidently struggled to combat her doubts in a highly traditional way—namely, by making ever-more extravagant and even masochistic professions of “faith.” This would be superb confirmation of Daniel Dennett’s hypothesis about “belief in belief”— the strange idea that, though faith itself may be ludicrous and incoherent, the mere assertion of it may possess some virtues of its own.

Even though I have sometimes described her as a fraud (for her collusion with rich oppressors of the poor like the Duvalier family in Haiti and for her other corrupt dealings), I would now hesitate to put Mother Teresa in the same category as a Falwell, a Haggard, a Sharpton, or a Robertson. These men have never done a day’s real work in their lives and are or were simple parasites who pinch themselves every morning at their good fortune at living the easy life of exploiting the gullible. For them, religion is nothing more than a trade, or a racket.

The same, I think, can be said of the numberless clerics convicted of child-rape (why on earth do we allow ourselves the silly euphemism of “abuse”?). Their foul crime is not one of hypocrisy. No priest who sincerely believed even for ten seconds in divine judgment could conceivably endanger his immortal soul in this way, and those in the hierarchy who helped protect such men from punishment in this world are equally and obviously guilty of a hardened and obscene cynicism.

But the racketeering and exploitative side of religion, as with its no-less-marked tendency to generate wars, atrocities, and repressions, isn’t the whole story. What of those who try their best to help others and lead a decent life, attributing this conduct to their belief in a Virgin, a Prophet, or to the story of Exodus, or any other such fabrication? I never cease to wonder, in dialogues with such people, whether they are really saying what they mean or meaning what they say.

To any humanist, for example, it’s perfectly obvious that the city of Cal­cutta would benefit from an influx of volunteer nurses, doctors, inoculators, sewage experts, and others, just as it would not benefit from the attentions of people who regard poverty and death as a secondhand share in the “mystery” of the Crucifixion. There are actually quite a good number of activists of the first type (I spent some time there once, watching the great Brazilian photographer Sebastiao Salgado do his work for UNICEF documenting the massive campaign for vaccination against polio), but for some weird reason the only person anyone can name is a woman who spent her entire life campaigning against birth control—a stupid campaign that Bengal most definitely did not and does not need.

Is it not possible that the missionaries of “faith” regard the objects of their charity as mere raw material—human subjects for a tortured experiment in their own psyches? It seems that, the more Mother Teresa lost conviction in the teachings of her religion, the more energetically she silenced her doubts by ostentatious crusades against divorce, abortion, and contraception using “the poorest of the poor” as her backdrop and her excuse. And does this not degrade such work as she actually did? For her, the helpless beggar was just that—helpless, to be sure, yet for that reason easily available for her own exhausting propaganda. The case for assisting starving Bengalis is complete on its own terms, but most of the money raised for the “Missionaries of Charity” went—as Mother Teresa herself happily admitted—to the building of convents that were consecrated, in effect, to her own ambition and her own very extreme teaching of Catholic dogma. These preachings went dead against the only certain cure for poverty—the emancipation of women from the status and condition of breeding machines—that the human race has ever discovered.

In other words, “faith” is at its most toxic and dangerous point not when it is insincere and hypocritical and corrupt but when it is genuine. At that point, its energy of certainty and self-righteousness can be used, not only to reinforce the Church but also (as Mother Teresa’s continuing reputation demonstrates) to impress even the secular. The evidence now is that this is how she and her confessors squared the circle. Repress your misgivings, overcome your despair, redouble your efforts, and we will make you a saint and later claim that you cured the sick even after your death. It’s at this point that the cynical loops round to meet the naïve and say in effect that anything is permissible as long as it keeps the illusion alive. Again, one has to stand amazed before a clergy who can use, as a recruiting sergeant, a wretched old lady whose own faith, as they well knew, had worn to a husk.

I have started a new blog devoted to encouraging people to give blood in defiance of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Dogma. Think of it as something more meaningful than the blasphemy challenge – because when you do this not only are you challenging religious dogma but you are actually doing something altruistic – giving someone the chance of life.

Also it is more hardcore – needles are involved. Right now I am wearing a bruise and feeling pretty good about myself.

For more please check out:

http://thebloodchallenge.wordpress.com/

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Well after giving blood to be honest we were feeling it. Owen (Hyrax) most of all – he was white as a sheet coming out and had to lie down, Joe needed sugar and I had a bruise when the needle went in which stopped me giving a pint – just enough for medical tests.

Thanks to Owen and Joe for coming up all this way to give blood. Hope those that pledged do so too (most have) and that the videos inspire you to do so. All agreed it was worth it. Not just for the tea and biscuits at the end.

Give blood

One question asked prior to giving blood was “Has anyone told you not to give blood?” – which brought a smile to my face as that was one of the things that had brough me to the blood donor centre. The idea that the blood in my body was so sacred that it belonged to a god that would not want me to use it to help others is one that I fully rebuke.

Now Mat has mentioned that in Part 3 it sounds like I may not have been telling the truth on the form. Far from it – but my point there was that if I had been gay I would not have been able to give blood. There was no question asking if I had not used condoms in heterosexual intercourse. But there was whether I had or had not used protection with sex with another man.

It has been raised a few times in the thread on rd.net together with the fact that I could not give blood in the USA because of fears over CJD (which I was asked about here in the UK if any relatives affected by). 

It does seem like something based not so much on science but on fear and prejudice.

Anyway we are all feeling good apart from a little more lethargic than normal. A small price to pay for helping your neighbour.

For more including how you can give blood for the same reasons check out:

http://thebloodchallenge.wordpress.com/

Here on my blog I pledge my support for the amendment, and include the British Humanist Association e mail regarding the bill working its way through the House of Commons which follows below:

 On Wednesday 9th January, an amendment to the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Bill will be made by [Dr Evan Harris MP] to abolish the
offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are abolished.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has long campaigned for the
blasphemy laws to be abolished, and we have been briefing MPs about the
present amendment, as well as representing the case for abolition to
Government – we are strongly supporting it, and you can help to support
it too.

We need to demonstrate to MPs that their constituents support this move
and we have set up a facility whereby you can email your MP directly by
going to http://tinyurl.com/2gkm7w

Please click the link today and help to abolish this antiquated law!

Reasons to abolish the blasphemy laws

There are a number of compelling reasons to abolish the blasphemy laws,
which are listed below.

· The blasphemy law is contrary to the principle of free speech
and is probably contrary to human rights laws adopted by the UK, which
protect freedom of expression. The law fundamentally protects certain,
Christian, beliefs and makes it illegal to question them or deny them.

· There is considerable evidence that the blasphemy law restricts
free speech even in the absence of recent prosecutions. It undoubtedly
influences the behaviour not only of individuals and the media, but also
of bodies exercising official functions.

· The blasphemy law protects beliefs, not people. It is right,
subject to safeguards, for society through its laws to protect
individuals and groups within it from hatred and attack. It is quite
wrong to extend the protection of the law to propositions, creeds and
truth-claims.

· In a free society we must be allowed to criticise religious
doctrines and practices, even if that offends some people. While it may
be offensive to some Christian believers to hear their beliefs mocked or
denied that is equally true of people of other faiths, and of
unbelievers, who repeatedly hear atheism equated with a lack of values
or immorality. In an open and pluralist society there should be no
inhibition to free speech without the very strongest justification, and
robust debate should be expected and accepted in religious as in
political and other spheres.

· The blasphemy law is uncertain. As common law, with a very
limited number of cases, it is impossible to predict how the courts
might interpret the law in any putative case. This is contrary to the
principles of good law, and unacceptable in practice.

· The blasphemy law lacks credibility. Although no one has been
imprisoned for blasphemy since 1921, and private prosecutions are no
longer possible, the possibility of a prison sentence remains, and a law
that is only enforced at intervals of many years is an indefensible
lottery.

· The blasphemy law allows no defence of merit or lack of
intent, which is contrary to the principles adopted in other areas, for
example, obscenity.

· The blasphemy law defends only Christianity (and principally
the doctrines of the Church of England), which is unacceptable in a
society characterised by its diversity of beliefs. Such unequal
treatment naturally arouses resentment and demands for the privilege to
be extended to other groups.

· Rather than extend the blasphemy laws to other religious
beliefs, which in practice would constitutes the severest restriction on
discussion of fundamental matters of profound significance and interest,
the most fair and most equal and equal solution would be to abolish the
laws.

Contact us
The British Humanist Association
1 Gower Street
London WC1E 6HD
Tel: 020 7079 3580

 ADDITIONAL: From National Secular Society:

“In the light of the widespread outrage at the conviction of the British teacher for blasphemy in Sudan over the name of a teddy bear we believe it is now time to repeal our own blasphemy law.

“The ancient common law of blasphemous libel purports to protect beliefs rather than people or communities. Most religious commentators are of the view that the Almighty does not need the “protection” of such a law. We are representatives of religious, secular, legal and artistic opinion in this country and share the view that the blasphemy offence serves no useful purpose. Yet it allows small partisan organisations or well-funded individuals to try to censor broadcasters like the BBC and to intimidate small theatres, the printed media and book publishers.

“Far from protecting public order for which other laws are more suited it actually damages social cohesion. It is discriminatory in that it only covers attacks on Christianity and Church of England tenets and thus engenders an expectation among other religions that their sensibilities should be also protected by the criminal law (as with the attempt to charge Salman Rushdie) and a sense of grievance among minority religions that they do not benefit from their own version of such a law.

“As the Law Commission acknowledged as far back as 1985, when they recommended repeal, it is uncertain in scope, lack of intention is no defence and yet it is unlimited in penalty. This, together with its chilling effect on free expression and its discriminatory impact, leaves it in clear breach of human rights law and in the end no one is ever likely to be convicted under it.

“The Church of England no longer opposes its abolition and the Government has given no principled reason to defend its retention. We call upon MPs to support the amendment proposed by Dr Evan Harris, Frank Dobson and John Gummer tomorrow during the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill Report stage proceedings and for the Governmentt which rightly criticises countries like Sudan for their blasphemy laws to give it a fair wind.”

I ask that question because often we are so caught up in the argument that it maybe the actual goal that we are seeking gets lost in the battle of ideas. Is it about being able to scrutinize ideas, to analyse them, put them under the microscope? This can be done by introspection but that is no substitute for the hot fire that is an opponent who disagrees with you in the strongest terms. In civil society we usually do not think this calls for bloodshed or the killing of someone that has a different opinion from us – however even that tolerance can under certain conditions give way to the desecration of a character that dares to speak out of step with public opinion. Or death.

So here I am not concerned with the argument. Here I am hypothesizing that the secular argument wins. That religion is considered no more than an ideology, and that it can be debated like any other human idea. The question is what is the goal:

a) That religion becomes a concept necessary for history – no one follows it now. The religious are persecuted and subjected to being fixed of their delusion.

b) Religion exists but as a minority, where those that believe it are considered irrational and treated as having less intellect and ability than more rational people.

c) The state does not base public policy on religious belief, but on the welfare of its citizens to whom it is accountable for its actions. The state has no opinion on the validity of religious belief but considers it a choice of the individual who may not exercise in the name of their belief power over another.

Now this is crucial if you are going to understand the heat of the debate that rages and yet you are an outsider looking at the two camps wondering why they are getting so excited about all this. Most secularists will go for c) – indeed c) is a choice that a religious minded person could choose – the state protects them in allowing their belief but does not give them license to impose that belief on others. Or anyone doing that to them.

Yet some believers see secularism as being at best b) and at worst a). With b) the religious believer feels that they are treated as delusional, second class citizens. At worst a) to them suggests a persecution where life as they know it cannot exist, and morality is no longer a word that can describe human behaviour.

Yes I am making the points rather extreme – and yet when did secularism become so polar that religious people felt threatened by the notion of a secular state? It was what guaranteed the freedom of those christian sects that disagreed with each other to a point that it was necessary because religious violence followed into the New Land of the United States. The idea of the separation of church and state was to stop one group of religious people ever being in the position to use the state apparatus to persecute other groups.

In short I am suggesting that we need to rescue the term secularism from the fundamentalist christians. Because they paint it as a dark and shadowy world to live in. When Jerry Falwell blamed secularists for 9/11 he was firmly of the belief that secularism was of the a) category (he later apologised for the remarks but they were out there).

For me it is about protecting human rights, and freedom of thought. Where nothing is held sacred by legislation – ideas are to be unveiled before the body politic, and no past generation holds a future generation to its ideals. It is for each generation to decide how it faces the political challenges of society.

Yet people want to take offense at being challenged in their belief. That their sensibilities count for more than another view on say science, politics, or economics. This is rooted in the idea that challenging a religious view leads to intolerance, which leads to disrespect, and then the persecution of people of the faith. For this notion not to be so the only protection I can think of is the secular state – the only alternative is not to allow people to think about cosmology differently or allow free thinking. The safeguard is human rights enshrined by law.

Do we actually need secular activists? Well the answer is yes. We live in a world where people think that adults allowing their offspring to die because of a parent’s religious belief is acceptable. Where female circumcision is defensible because it is a part of an ancient tradition (let alone the male form). Where a woman can have less political rights than a man because a holy book says it must be that way for in the eyes of god she is less worthy than man. Where religious law campaigns to have a status recognised by state courts.

Many more could be sighted – not least to have creationism taught in science classrooms and attempts to have public health programs stopped because risks of sexually transmitted diseases are reduced. This is done in the name of religion. We are told it is good for us because this is what god wants for us and therefore we should have it.

What do you do if that is not your god? Or if god is only a concept of the mind? Should public policy be based on expert opinion in the field rather than on an interpretation of some holy book?

That is the reason for secular activism. I am not trying to destroy your faith or have it banned. Nor am I trying to create a society where all manner of evils are perpetuated on members of society. I am seeking a level playing field where “god says” is no trump card, where faith groups are not privileged insiders to public policy. And where the way of life is not hampered by imposed religious dogma which cannot prove harm to others but only claim it is wicked in the sight of god.