Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category
Australia: Adelaide gets rationalised
If anyone ever wants to debate with me the existence or non existence of God/s they will find me unresponsive. Of things I consider important to discuss it ranks near the bottom, slightly higher than discussing the existence of ghosts and unicorns. The views of either side are well known, documented and available on youtube. Religion on the other hand, and the space afforded to its views in the public sphere is something worth debating, scrutinising and challenging.
May I therefore introduce you to the newly formed Atheism South Australia, the first active such group in Adelaide for 40 years:
“We’re not interested in sitting around debating whether God exists or not,” says Morris. “It’s a dead argument anyway. Our aim is to take an active role in a vast range of social issues being dominated by the Christian lobby groups – issues like euthanasia, marriage equality and the teaching of evangelism in schools.” [The Guardian]
50% of the Australian population identify as non religious according to Morris; though in the 2011 census it was just under 25% – still a sizeable demographic. Recently the group have called for less leading questions in the census for a more accurate picture for the 2016 census.
Rather than embracing a newly formed non religious group, the Archbishop had this to say about them:
Certainly, it didn’t take long before Atheism SA earned some thinly disguised contempt from Anglican Archbishop Dr John Hepworth. “We’re just not a secular society,” the Archbishop told FIVEaa during an on-air debate with Morris, “either constitutionally or in the nature of our laws. Or, dare I say, in the actual beliefs of the majority of our people.” [Ibid]
There can be arguments whether we do ourselves any favours arguing social issues with atheism on our sleeves. It certainly shows we care about social policy without relying on dogma to inform our decision making – atheists have ethics and care about the well being of people and society without need of supernatural guidance or invocation. On the other, it can feel like we are mimicking the religious faith heads and we are lying down in the chalk outline they frame the argument in – namely we end up with that dead argument over God/no God.
I wish the group well because their voice is one that needs to be heard.
Facebook page (picture below from there)
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
May there never be compulsion in religion
Religious freedom is truly one of the great ideas to be expressed by the enlightenment. Though we can trace those ideas to other thinkers before, it was this movement which went beyond speaking and acting as freethinkers to actually challenge orthodox organised religion’s monopoly on thought and explanation. Humanism, emboldened by empirical observation and reasoning beyond scriptures, came out of the shadows of being an act of religious reflection. Humanist thought became a way of understanding the world, morality, ourselves and the cosmos without strict adherence to the confines of the divine or preceding tradition. Natural philosophy, and the scientific method ushered in a new era.
Whilst this age of reason is one to celebrate, one of the challenges to the notion of religious freedom is the consequence of leaving a faith – being an apostate. Here I am trying to lay out the battle for the idea of where it comes from and means now in Islam. The reason this matters is quite simply the death penalty that exists, or the process of being excluded by family and other believers, if someone renounces the faith they grew up in. Let alone principles of free speech and freedom of expression which together with freedom of religion are classed as universal rights.
Apostasy matters now
As my good friends at the Council of Ex Muslims Britain Forum (CEMB) observe:
Countless individuals accused of apostasy and blasphemy face threats, imprisonment, and execution. Blasphemy laws in over 30 countries and apostasy laws in over 20 aim primarily to restrict thought, expression and the rights of Muslims, ex-Muslims and non-Muslims alike. [CEMB]
In my critique of Islam I mentioned concern that by cherry picking the Koran and Hadith it gave cover for Islamists to kill apostates. For example:
Qur’an (4:89) – “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim. [Ibid]
When discussing this with Sam Harris he made these observations:
A modern retelling
In Abdul-Azim Ahmed’s article for the Rationalist Association, he explains why as a Muslim he fully supported the Apostasy project using Koranic quotes to justify:
“The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who desires believe and let him who desires disbelieve.” – 18:29
“If they accept Islam, then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, your duty is only to deliver the message.” –3:20
“And if your Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Will you then force people till they are believers?” – 10:99 [Rationalist Association]
It would be amiss of me not to point out that Ahmed stresses European Colonialism as having a theological impact on punishment for apostasy in response to machine guns and missionaries. Regrettably, death for apostasy existed way before the British Empire ever attempted to prevent the sun setting on it.
Yet sociological and political factors are playing a part. Acceptance of principles like pluralism and secularism mean challenging concepts such as apostasy. In the battle of ideas some modern theological thinkers are pointing out the subjective spin put on death for apostasy in the past, though often stating such a view is controversial to the point of putting a bullseye on your thinking cap even now.
As Usama Hassan mentions in a concept paper:
There is no explicit sanction in the Qur’an and Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) for the criminalisation and punishment of blasphemy: in fact, the opposite is the case; the few scriptural texts that are misquoted in this regard all refer to wartime situations, and the harsh, mediaeval Islamic jurisprudence on blasphemy was developed centuries after the Prophet himself.[Quilliam Foundation]
The War of Apostasy, also known as Ridda Wars shortly after the death of Mohammed suggests that violence was sadly a means of preventing dissent which was considered a threat to cohesion let alone future territorial ambitions on Persia and beyond. Conquest existed way before modern European colonisation.
The title for this post will be familiar to those aware of The Koranic verse, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256). A critique of the context of that verse can be found on the CEMB forum site. That rather than a call for tolerance it is the manifest destiny that Islam is the faith for us to follow when quoted in full:
“There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.”
Still that is a hallmark of a particular religion that it is the right way. The narrative given in the Quilliam Foundation concept paper: NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION: AN ISLAMIC CASE AGAINST BLASPHEMY LAWS is certainly an answer to Sam Harris’ earlier remarks.
It is the practise of political Islam by Islamists which concern all of the people mentioned above. Where we differ in belief we would uphold the values of pluralism, free speech and free expression. An inherent inalienable right we would agree is religious freedom. I am delighted to see that the Quilliam Foundation takes the radicalisation of people by some within Islam very seriously and looks to challenge that.
Maybe not in the next world
As mentioned in the past I wish we did not have to argue over interpretations of sacred texts but could move beyond them. That is not the world we live in. As such we will continue to debate and argue with each other over such things.
The bare minimum is that none should be put to death for the argument, and dissent from others beliefs should not just be tolerated but considered a cause for celebration in a pluralistic and free society.
Those who believe, those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God is witness of all things. – Koran 22:17
I hope mothers and fathers can embrace their children no less just because they no longer follow their religion. It really is a matter of free thought and not a reflection on them. However, the fear of the next life is one that still grips people. Apostasy will still concern people even in a free society.
Perhaps until we are free of the fear of death freedom of religion will not be absolute in this life when people consider the stakes are eternity and the blessings of the Almighty are available even now if all follow His will.
My thanks to Sam Harris, CEMB, Maajid Nawaz, Usama Hasan, and the Rationalist Association UK (and Abdul-Azim Ahmed) for known or unknown assistance in writing the above article (which is written by me and not necessarily endorsed by the above) and to @yakuza72 for passing on the cartoon.
Please support the Apostasy Project
Update 18/6/2013: Tribune article on blasphemy in Pakistan
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Religious Freedom is For Everyone
Thomas Jefferson liked to think, and for him free thought was more than just an inalienable human right. It was an essential part for humanity to make progress. How infidels of the past were viewed he was all too aware was how his compatriots (and fellow slave owners) would be viewed in the future. Religious freedom is an essential liberty, and in the Virginia Statute he created made this clear:
II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
It was not just a revolutionary thought then, written by the man who would become the intellectual provocateur with Thomas Paine for Independence. It still speaks to us that when we think of that wall of separation between church and state, and how a secular society functions.
No one should suffer on account of their religious opinions or beliefs, all shall be free to profess, and maintain their opinion in matters of religion.
The historical underpinning of religious freedom was to safeguard the plurality of religious thought – and the protection of infidels. As Jefferson argued to his nephew the inquiry into the nature or existence of God was one any such being if He existed would welcome, and without impediment such thought should be allowed by humanity.
We live in an age now where Alain de Botton can call the existence or non existence of God boring – like Jefferson he wants to separate the gold from the religious superstitious faith experience. Yet, as Richard Dawkins acknowledges whether you genuinely think there is or is not a God fundamentally changes the nature of your existence on earth – belief for him is wrongly making sense of the world for what appear to be valid reasons, a delusion. Peter Hitchens believes noting that there is no scientific evidence for God, and no divine mandate for humans to enforce on others but for him it makes sense to believe, so chooses to. Lawrence Krauss argues that you can have a universe from nothing.
The debate goes on, and the scientific advances in thought and empirical evidence gathering would have enraptured Jefferson as I imagine the debate today would have. However religion is still with us. Those values of religious freedom are still valid now.
So when we go on twitter we can express our religious opinion, and be challenged in that opinion. We can refuse to justify ourselves to anyone for our personal beliefs and we can can freely chose to argue for them.
We may never force anyone via the state or other coercion to suffer for their belief by those that do not chose to hold them, whether they be a minority of one or the majority. This secularism has remained from childhood student of Jehovah’s Witness to Atheist blogger.
Jefferson’s memorial is not just a monument for atheists, like the group I led above after the Atheist Alliance International Conference in 2007, starting at the memorial site onto the White House in support of religious freedom and the OUT campaign as atheists.
It is for all of humanity – and we have still to live in a world where those of faith, infidels and apostates have the religious freedoms that Jefferson wanted to be remembered for espousing.
Secularism is for the religious and the non religious – the cause of religious freedom should unite lovers of liberty and free thought alike.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Putting childhood things away as a child because of religion
How I open my apostasy story has stuck in some people’s minds:
I was nine years old when childish things were put away.
I watched my toys being packed up and sealed into a cardboard box. Presents from Christmas, like my treasured Millennium Falcon and X-Wing fighters, bought after watching Star Wars for the first time and my given-for-birthday Spectrum games where I fought valiantly against hordes of ghosts and monsters to save the damsel in distress.
The selection was made by an elder who would decide if the toys were to be buried or burnt. They were chosen on the basis of whether they suggested a power beyond that of Jehovah – blasphemy for Jehovah’s Witnesses like us – or evoked the occult and satanic machinations. Even Pacman could not escape this moral maze.
The full story, as part of the Apostasy Project can be read here.
A commentator has kindly shown a video produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses that demonstrates how to reason with a child to give up playing with a toy that goes against Jehovah.
It is a typical “role play” like style we did at Theocratic Ministry School to learn to convert people to our way of thinking.
This is childhood indoctrination. This is child abuse.
Please support the apostasy project.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Great Arab Freethinkers: Al-Ma'arri
Such was the nature of the power of Christianity, its dogma, its insecurity, during the Middle Ages, that a great writer, humanist, and long time friend of the King could be put to death for nothing more than refusing to swear that King Henry VIII was the Supreme Head of the Church in England. Thomas More was lucky in one sense.
Mo Ansar, the extremists, and moral relativism
Mo Ansar stands for the rights of persecuted Muslims.
Part of the way he has stood up for those rights has been to belittle and humiliate Lejla Kurić on twitter. She is a Muslim, and survived the Bosnian genocide. She lives here in the UK and has taken exception to how he expresses the faith.
His response has been she does not know what she is talking about, and she should leave these shores which are her home.
Here is Mo on gender segregation:
The insults Mo gives critics and detractors are distasteful (as I discovered personally yesterday) but he crossed a line with Lejla.
Her response was to actually show his tweets for how they are regarding Bangladesh and the protest “massacre”.
Read her post – Hang Atheist Bloggers And Be Polite.
The tweet by Mo that is getting the attention:
This is far removed from reported figures of 27 (BBC News) and no link to news source was given by Ansar. The figures lack credibility; as Leila explains extreme Islamic websites are quoting those fatality figures. No harm in an inquiry ensuring force was proportionate by the police and if not justice be done.
Thankfully her article is getting the attention it deserves and I recommend you click/tap the link:
The problem Mo is moral relativism – calling for atheist bloggers to be killed and law abiding protestors being killed are both wrong.
An accusation of poor form … sounds familiar.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Buffet Style Religion – cherry picking
Literalist interpretations of sacred texts are a rarity in serious discourse in the United Kingdom. Bible bashing would be a sign of no serious argument as much as resorting to ad hominem ignoring what the discussion is about.
Video above from “The West Wing” a great bible rant about the need to cherry pick for a humanist religion
President Josiah Bartlett may have been in the back of the mind as Neal Donald Walsch’s article Buffet-Style Bible Believers about reactions to Boy Scouts of America decision on allowing membership to openly gay youths. He uses different bible quotes regarding killing rebellious offspring, killing brides that have no virginity, women avoiding the groin in a fight, the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals.
So with respect, I ask you to excuse me, Pastor Reed, if I am not totally convinced that humanity’s infallible answers will be found in the Bible. You may not agree with all of the above verses, either. But if we are going to be Buffet Bible Believers, rather than a Literal Word of God Believer, than might you please tell us which verses of the Bible we are advised to ignore, and which we should apply to the letter?
Thank you, sir. That would be very helpful. We would not want to be called hypocrites for citing some verses of God’s Word when they support our personal prejudices, and ignoring others when they do not, now would we?
In my post about Islam I mentioned concern with cherry picking verses in Koran and Hadiths – not because I and others may be misrepresenting the true nature of Islam as believers live their faith – but because extreme radical Islamic political ideologues use those same verses to legitimise their wanton acts of coercion either through the state or by means of terror.
That is a different thing to respond to. Spin those verses were for a particular context that do not exist today, that they were one off commandments not applicable now, other verses make clear not right thing to act on in the way they do.
Tied down by parchment, the need for revisionism and winning with your interpretation becomes the battleground of ideas. Over a millennium later it really is a matter of life and death how Iron Age texts are read. That private belief can be enforced on the populace to deny their own pursuit to happiness while living a good life.
Whether you believe in God or not, this is a rather sorry state of affairs for humanity to still find itself in.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Turkey on my mind
Turkey has been on my mind for awhile. The use of terror to indoctrinate severe learning disabled children into believing in Allah last April. Last December I highlighted the tension between Islamism and the republican secular ideals that modern Turkey was founded on.
I did not imagine that the protest regarding the redevelopment of Taksim Gezi Park would lead to this:
Or this:
The creeping slide from secular republic towards an autocratic Islamist state was one that flew low under the radar for most western media outlets before the six nights of protests. What is happening is not an Arab spring – and we are not just talking about geography. Turkish leader Erdogan has won three elections.
Yet the idea of elected dictatorship is well understood. It is when a government makes use of legislative dominance and control over law and order to push through reforms which go against universal rights and norms of citizens. Such as kissing at train stations, national airline stewardesses wearing lipstick, the selling of alcohol and the use of twitter – by no means an extensive list but a flavour of what Islamists worry about. The issues are well summarised on the following placard:
If you cannot tell when an elected government is using clerical fascism for inspiration, then you have not been looking hard enough. It is there for us to see, and the Turkish people have by the overt force on peaceful environment protestors taken to the streets to express their overall grievances.
At it’s height so far about two to three thousand people in over 90 cities were arrested. The police response has been heavily criticised as the two photos above serve to demonstrate.
In an excellent post which I encourage you all to read, Rob Marchant sums up my feelings on what the protestors are doing:
In short: although they should take great care to stop their protests degenerating into violence, looting or even revolution, the Turkish demonstrators should not stop.
And that is because they are saying something important about democracy: it needs protecting and it has, even in the quite imperfect form it exists in in Turkey, served them pretty well. Their continued presence is an overdue slap-down for Erdogan; a message to both him and future leaders that in a democracy the people, and not the politicians, are the masters. Above all, that religion needs to be free and tolerant, not a behavioural tyrant imposing itself on the masses.
The young Turks seem to have suddenly realised that they largely already have what their counterparts in North Africa were protesting for. The last thing they need is for it to gradually slip away without a fight.
Secular solidarity for my fellow comrades of free thought in Turkey.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Will Mo Ansar keep his word?
“O you who believe! Fulfill (your) obligations.” (Quran 5:1)
Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful) ‘Ali (RA), in his letter to Malik al-Ashtar, wrote:
“If you conclude an agreement between yourself and your enemy or enter into a pledge with him, then fulfil your agreement and discharge your pledge faithfully. Place yourself as a shield against whatever you have pledged, because among the obligations of Allah there is nothing on which people are more firmly united despite the difference of their ideas and variation of their views than respect for fulfilling pledges.” [Source]
One of the most read blog posts last March was covering the conversation on twitter between Mo Ansar and Tom Holland regarding Islam and Slavery. Today that post was linked to in an article on Exposing the Pseudo Moderation of Mo Ansar. This article I had nothing to do with in writing and was only made aware of by people coming to my site via it.
My original post stemmed from Mo’s tweet:
Mo Ansar seemed reluctant to provide the context himself for the tweet – I hoped my blog post would encourage him to see where the criticism was coming from.
At the time of writing my article I offered Ansar the right of reply, not least because via twitter he had told me to look for the context of his slavery tweet. I reprinted the context and looked at the article he linked to on slavery when writing my blog post. His reply in March:
Dialogue is important and I was encouraged by his initial response. The new link to that post nearly three months later served as a reminder I had not received his reply, so tweeted once more today. The reception I received was a lot less cordial accusing me of bad form:
I hope if Ansar does read this, he will reconsider. The subject of slavery and Islam matters to a lot of people, and I hope he can clarify his thinking on the subject. I hope he does so by showing good form through keeping to his word.
UPDATE: 22:20 having sent this post as a reminder of the cordial offer of dialogue, which he embraced in March, his final word is clear enough:
Update 6/5/2013: Mo has – three months after I asked – given a tweet pic of his full conversation with Tom Holland. You can find that here.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Tony Blair Islamophobic?
Tony Blair had a number of things to say about Islam in The Mail On Sunday. Having said there was no problem with Islam as a religion of peace:
But there is a problem within Islam – from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. And we have to put it on the table and be honest about it.
Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.
At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the world view goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large we don’t admit it. This has two effects. First, those with that view think we are weak and that gives them strength.
Second, those within Islam – and the good news is there are many – who actually know this problem exists and want to do something about it, lose heart. All over the Middle East and beyond there is a struggle being played out.
On the one side, there are Islamists who have this exclusivist and reactionary world view. They are a significant minority, loud and well organised. On the other are the modern-minded, those who hated the old oppression by corrupt dictators and who hate the new oppression by religious fanatics. They are potentially the majority, but unfortunately they are badly organised.
The seeds of future fanaticism and terror, possibly even major conflict, are being sown. We have to help sow seeds of reconciliation and peace. But clearing the ground for peace is not always peaceful.
There is an enemy within that Islam needs to deal with – an ideology that cherry picks the Koran for a jihad against the west for being a pluralistic, liberal open minded society. For some though that goes against the grain of blaming western interference in the Arab region as the number one cause for Islamic extremism.
Blair’s critics would rather paint Islamic radicals as victims reacting against imperialist aggression, put on a war footing caused in no small part by the “war criminal” Tony Blair himself. That however does not work when we see in public policy how Islamist governments behave, and the political goal of Al Qaeda as a single Islamic nation for the Arab world and as a social movement for theocratic absolutism.
Update 3/6: More on that can be read on this post by Edisa of the Humane Intervention Centre.
Mo Ansar has taken exception to what Tony Blair wrote:
The cricket did not seem to help much:
I have asked Ansar to give a detailed critique rather than mud slinging. Blair went out of his way to praise Islam as a religion of peace and call the problem an ideology. The only modern way he suggests this can be beaten is:
The better idea is a modern view of religion and its place in society and politics. There has to be respect and equality between people of different faiths. Religion must have a voice in the political system but not govern it.
We have to start with how to educate children about faith, here and abroad. That is why I started a foundation whose specific purpose is to educate children of different faiths across the world to learn about each other and live with each other.
If that makes Tony Blair an islamophobic the word has been debased as an attempt to silence critics rather than deal with hate and violent crimes committed against Muslim people.
Ansar, we need to talk about the ideology that exists within Islam and how it is going to be challenged externally and internally. In the meantime we will do our best to maintain a secular liberal pluralistic society as our contribution. We need you to tackle the ideology of the extremists. You are ideally placed to complete this mission, knowing Islam as you do. Maybe the way you reacted, throwing your toys out of the pram, was just a cover for the real task that lies ahead. That in reality you will seek and counter hatred that is perpetuated in the name of your faith. Maybe it is so covert we just cannot see this in action through the mud racking.
Time for some intrafaith dialogue even if behind the scenes.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
