The idea of the state being the end, and the people the means to which the state is, results in individuals and groups being suppressed if they do not deliver according to their masters wishes. Such tyranny confuses the well-being of the state with that of the people – or rather it claims that the victims are a necessary valediction of the glorious revolution that has delivered the people. Evil people know well how to cloud their cruelty with poetic justification. The demagogue makes them all the more effective.

So to China, where because a Tibetan monk burned himself alive in protest, the whole monastery of 300 monks is undergoing “patriotic re-education” to use the regime’s lingo. The sleepless nights will not be for studying to pass an exam – there will be torture, suffering which no amount of mediation can prepare you for.

It would be small comfort to imagine that the People’s Republic of China fears a middle east style uprising as was sparked by similar doused diesel in Tunisa. Self-immolation does not end the suffering of others, though it’s symbol can become, for want of a better analogy, a standard bearer for others that understand the grievances highlighted.

For like the matrix, China knows how to handle dissent having done so many times, and is not afraid to act to safeguard the politburo. The only hope is that a calculation goes wrong or the government weakens it’s resolve, or embraces political reform.

Ultimately it wil be up to the people of China to demand and seize what is rightly theirs. Individuals have rights. There is a solidarity of humankind when these rights are infringed – an instinct to strike back against the oppressor. It comes from a sense of justice. We can do more then just stand on the sidelines.

Amnesty International

Free Tibet

It is not only Hollywood celebrities that are accused of hurting people’s sensibilities when it comes to religion (Natalie Portman). Pat Condell, a comedian who has been featured on Richard Dawkins Website, had his video on Sharia Law flagged by users and complained about by Muslim Groups when posted on 30 September. YouTube have reinstated the video stating:

“YouTube is a platform for expression of all kinds. Our Community Guidelines prohibit speech that promotes or encourages hatred or violence towards certain groups or individuals, and the video was flagged by our community on that basis. Upon further review of the context of Pat Condell’s comments, we’ve reinstated it.”

Richard Dawkins welcomed the decision:

I congratulate YouTube on an excellent decision. Pat Condell is hard-hitting, but always quietly reasonable in tone. That some people say they are ‘offended’ by something is never a good reason for censoring it. Incitement to violence is. Pat Condell never incites violence against anybody. He always signs off with “Peace” and he means it.

Freedom of speech can not be limited based solely on people saying they are offended. There is a huge difference between not respecting ideas and inciting hatred and violence towards people. That distinction needs to be kept in mind and free citizens need to be vigilant against that distinction being eroded at the cost of all  our civil liberties.

Here is the video:

Sign the Petition: Stop Islamic Sharia Law being used in Great Britain

10 Downing Street Petition Stop Sharia Law

[N.B. Only British Citizens can sign these petitions - the first one runs out today; the second one 1 January 2009 - thanks to Stephen Gash for comment]

OTHER BLOGS:

Archbishop up holds Sharia Law in England – a critique of what he said

The circular argument – the con artist (features Pat Condell video on atheism at bottom)

Officials relax and pose for photos

In a few hours the opening ceremony will start (if anyone else says anything about today being 08/08/08 I shall smile feebly). Amnesty International reported that some human rights improvements had occurred in the build up (for example senior rather than local courts deciding the death penalty) but there has been a deterioration – not least the forced eviction of people from their homes to make way for construction to cater for the event.

While the AI has also been pushing for less Internet censorship, it is worth noting that any WordPress bloggers going to China will not be able to blog directly – wordpress is one of many sites that are blocked. One blogger, Splendidelles, got around that by e mailing the blog she wanted to send from China to me. To console yourself you can now get access to Playboy.

Whether Chinese nationalism – that seems to be the new under pinning of state ideology rather than Marxism – will end up being a cause for concern in international relations time will tell. Meanwhile men in baseball caps roam around venues and if they spot any trouble it will be dealt with promptly. “Positive propaganda” is the order from on high to the media. Yet there are voices in authority calling for change:

After the Olympic party (a dour one if security officials do not relax), many in China are likely to wonder whether it was really all worth it. Wang Yang, a member of the ruling Politburo and one of the more outspoken leaders (a rare breed), has called for tolerance of public grievances. Attempting to suppress people’s views might create an “opinion quake lake”, he said recently, referring to the perilously unstable lakes that were formed by landslides during the Sichuan earthquake. China’s leaders would do well to take heed.

Quote from The Economist “Welcome to a (rather dour) party” July 31st 2008.

In Ecuador the constitution is being rewritten, and one of the people involved has suggested that sexual education should be included. This would cover the ability for a woman to be sexually satisfied – thus has it been termed the right to the female orgasm.

However there is a serious point in trying to break down the taboos that exist in the country about sex – not least because half of the country is under 19. The link here shows the positive impact of sex education in Ecuador.

Below is the initial BBC News report that first attracted me to the story. Considering the benefits of sex education in reducing unplanned pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases who would be against it in schools … (answer the usual suspects).

Ms Soledad Vela wants laws covering life, health and sexual education

A woman from the governing party in Ecuador has proposed that a women’s right to enjoy sexual happiness should be enshrined in the country’s law.

Her suggestion has provoked a lively debate in conservative Ecuador.

Maria Soledad Vela, who is helping to rewrite the constitution, says women have traditionally been seen as mere sexual objects or child bearers.

Now, she says, women should have the right to make free, responsible and informed decisions about sex lives.

‘Orgasm by law’

Ms Soledad Vela is a member of the governing party on the Constituent Assembly that is rewriting the country’s constitution.

Its aim, among other things, is to ensure a better distribution of wealth and rights for indigenous communities and the poor.

Women, she believes, should not be left off that list.

But her comments have provoked a lively response – mostly, unsurprisingly, from men.

Opposition assembly member, Leonardo Viteri, accused her of trying to decree orgasm by law.

Another called the proposal “ridiculous” and said that such an intimate topic should stay intimate and not be enshrined in law.

Ms Soledad Vela responded to the criticism, saying she had never requested the right to an orgasm – merely the right to enjoy sex in a free, fair and more open society.

She explained that sex was a difficult subject to discuss in Ecuador and that what she wanted were clearer laws covering life, health and sexual education.

The Pope has announced that there will be a Catholic/Muslim summit between 24 scholars and religious leaders of each side. This will happen just over a year from when the Pope made his speech in Regensburg, Germany where he mentioned that Islam spread across the Arab world not so much by winning hearts and minds but through the sword.

This brings me to the question of whether it is worth having such inter faith dialogues, and in particular when humanists become involved. I have attended Christian atheist ones – I have to say that for some of the Christians that attended it was the first time not only that they had really examined what they personally believed, but had their faith scrutinized.

The issue for me is what the purpose of the meeting is meant to be. If it is just a public relations exercise then it seems pointless. If on the other hand real concerns are being debated, for example where religious hatred is manifesting itself in society and people are stirring up violence, such dialogue may help people to appreciate what is happening in their community.

The thing is in a pluralistic democracy, such meetings of civic groups can be a good thing. Citizens talking about differences, common accord and areas where they can work together for the benefit of society is one that can be endorsed.

However in a truly pluralistic society this is not about a cartel of groups making decisions – all interested citizens and groups have a level playing field inputting into the decision making process. That is where of course you get the issue of the political process acting as gate keepers to the policy making process. But the idea is a bedrock of democracy that you can make representations and the policy process is accountable.

Because the concept of what actually entails the public good does differ.

The joint statement promised that the Pope would be talking about critical issues facing humankind:

It said the Pope would address the meeting on the themes of “Love of God, Love of Neighbour”, “Theological and Spiritual Foundation” and “Human Dignity and Mutual Respect”.

Public relations and theological fencing exercises seem to be the order of the day. Will they talk about such issues as:

• human rights for women
• freedom of expression
• freedom of choice
• the right to disagree
• stewardship of the planet (physical rather than spiritual)

Perhaps they could proclaim that those who use violence and intimidation, rather than try to win hearts and minds by rational argument, are the enemies of reason. Perhaps they could even condemn those that use faith as a means to condone such activity that brings rent-a-mob to the streets. Instead of indulgences for fragile sensibilities to excuse such behaviour.

I am sure they could find time for that. When we see the worst humanitarian crisis in Gaza since 1967, the need to understand that we need peace rather than division in the world, dialogue rather than discord is one that all those leaders – self proclaimed or otherwise – need to embrace if we are to wake up to the fact that it is not the planet that needs rescuing.

We need to save humanity from itself. Reason and science are there waiting to be heard and acted on. Are we going to heed the call or believe only what we want to believe?

Quote taken from BBC News report here.

In the USA there is I think something that may unite the Religious Right and the Secularist community – a fear that Europe is being swallowed up by Islam. The Archbishop’s comments that Sharia Law should have an accommodation in UK law, and other examples do seem to add to that perception – and it is one played on in Europe by anti immigration parties.

One such Dutch politician is Wilders who has spoken about making a film that will depict him decimating the Koran. Which if he did it would be nothing new – youtube has plenty of films of people doing that. How analytical such a film about the Koran will be I am not sure, but the background of course is that four years ago the Dutch film “Submission” was shown on Dutch TV and the director of the film Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death with a letter between his dead body and blade stating that the screenplay writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be next.

Now I am concerned with how some people want to accommodate Islam. That women are given less human rights due to their cultural tradition (a German court ruled that a woman was correctly beaten according to cultural custom but thankfully that decision was overturned). If this is multiculturalism, then it needs to be defeated because it allows people to be treated differently, against the notion of justice as fairness, and leads to the treatment of people that would not be allowed by law on other citizens.

However there is a fight back – witness the condemnation that met the very surprised Bishop of Canterbury (as parts of the Anglican community may refer to him when the schism is complete). Then there is Ayaan herself who though her life is under threat while she lives in the USA, speaks out but with authority because she has has lived it. Sam Harris in “End of Faith” in a chapter talks about the concerns of a literalistic interpretation of Islam.

Tolerance is a wonderful thing, but it does not cover everything. Some things will be beyond a society to accept, the question is only if there is a moral basis. Ethical consideration would be to do with harm and suffering, and the welfare of people. As such, for example, decisions based on divorce and financial arrangements which did not consider genders to be equal parties would be a cause for concern.

However, the xenophobia that exists is out of proportion to the threat posed, which is more within their own community then to wider society. That of genital mutilation, less likely for women to be educated or fluent in the native tongue, and customs such as honour killings which do not deserve the adjective. 7/7 happened, but much of that is ignoring what was happening within a community until it was too late.

In a global communication network, it will be difficult to censor the message of hate that Islamic fundamentalists use. Yet we can perhaps counter their message of hate, with rational passionate discourse about the benefits of human rights and liberal democracy. Hate crimes that encourage harm and the breaking of the law require zero tolerance.

Because it seems the key opponents in politics of Islam are the xenophobic politicians. The other politicians in power seem keen to move public policy to an accommodation with “moderate” faith groups in an attempt to take the sting out of the tail of extremist belief – based on fear. Few of political standing seem able to create a vision of an open country that will stand up for liberal values with a veer and vigour. They seem prepared to sacrifice these values for a better nights sleep after an election, reducing liberties and allowing values out of step with a modern state.

If I am wrong, by all means link them here in the comments – I would like to hear such politicians who will stand up for such values. I doubt that it will be popular with the electorate though it may be correct. But the case has yet to be made in the manner like below:

We live but a brief existence on this earth. We want the best for ourselves and our children. It is part of the human identity to better ourselves. By education. By hard work. The will to sacrifice today for a better tomorrow. Much do we owe to those that came before us and may we strive that the future generation will say the same of us.

When people overcome obstacles and hardship to come here to make such a better life for themselves, to become a productive member of society that they become as one with us – this is a cause of celebration that the liberty and opportunity that we have created attracts such people that add to both commercial wealth and spirit in the land.

This does not mean that the light of liberty, freedom and opportunity that attracts so many to our shores should be dimmed on the say so of those that would replace our ancestors hard won rights with customs and beliefs that go against enlightenment values. Nor should we let mistrust and hatred allow us equally to do away those same values that allow us the freedoms to be who we are. Let us not sleep walk into thinking these rights are everlasting; may we ever be watchful of the demagogue that will promise us something with one hand while taking away the rights that gave us everything we love and appreciate. Rights that make our country great.

All equal before the law, the right to be tried by your peers, the right to a fair trial, the freedom to religious belief and none, that your private life is yours, the freedom to speak your mind and be challenged in that opinion, that all have the liberty to make their own way in this life and that by doing so shall the greater good be best served within such laws that are in accordance to the common good.

In a blog, with reference to Rowan Williams’ lecture, I analyzed the significance of what the Archbishop said about Islam and British Law. I mention that he wanted an accommodation of religious law with British law, and if not joint jurisprudence, at least the law to support religious sensibility in a way it may not apply equally to someone that did not profess that faith.

His predecessor Lord Carey summed it up rather well:

The archbishop is said to be shocked by the reaction to his comments and said on his website he “certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law”.

But the criticism mounted as Lord Carey warned in an article for the News of the World: “He has in my opinion overstated the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes.

Lord Carey says there should be “no exceptions” to British law.

“His conclusion that Britain will eventually have to concede some place in law for aspects of Sharia is a view I cannot share.

“There can be no exceptions to the laws of our land which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights. (From BBC News site)

There have been some calls for him to resign as Archbishop. To be honest my concerns have been met that he has been roundly criticised the length and breadth of the country and if he wishes to clarify that he did not mean what his words seem to impart than I would be even more happy.

There is something familiar about the Archbishop talking about another faith. Prince Charles, one day to be  anointed due to conception to the throne of these Isles, once said he wanted to be “Defender of Faith”. Which misses the historical the which placed emphasis on there being really only one particular one to subscribe too. In past history subscription was a matter of life and death in the temporal world. British Law thankfully threw out that religious sensibility.

Yet when examining the religious claims that are made by various faiths the application of logic dictates that they cannot all be right. Their lack of anything substantive to make good why they know who God is, let alone that there is a God, suggests that all religious claims towards the supernatural have to be taken with so much salt that the diet would be hazardous to one’s health in this lifetime. It is healthier for the mind not to practise gullibility in swallowing codswallop.

Now as to whether we are better off living by some of the tenets of faith, that is a different question. Though I reject that I need to believe in the supernatural to make these things good. They are either good for me to live by or at least the common good by which it benefits me. The morality of such tenets will be the ethical consideration they give in causing suffering, or joy to others and the equal consideration of others it gives when assessing this.

The Golden Rule seems brilliant, and one worth keeping. Show pity to orphans and widows, yes it sounds fine to me. Disown my mother and father if they do not share my faith, no that sounds heartless and cruel. To kill someone that rejects my faith, an anathema to any free thinker. Yet I do not need religion in order to apply the Golden Rule or to derive it. I cannot think of a good deed that only a religious believer would do that a non believer could not do. But I can imagine plenty of things a religious believer would do that a non believer would not.

My concern with religion is that it seems to allow people to legitimise actions which no decent empathetic creature with an ounce of compassion would do or even dream of considering. The idea that on seeing a new born baby that genital mutilation is what is called for could only happen because religion made it so. That a child needs life saving treatment but is denied because either it shows a lack of faith or an ancient text somehow implies that a modern treatment should not be used.

Not everyone uses religion thus. Thank goodness, because faith seems to have the scope to support the unequal treatment of believers, the subordination of human rights on the basis of religious conviction, and even murder of apostates.

I would happily make this deal with those that follow a religion – by all means follow it and be happy, aim to do no harm. Please do not try to make me happy by inviting me to your faith. It does not appeal to me. Further, do not on the basis of your sensibilities try to take away my rights, my partners rights, my children’s rights, my parents rights, because you claim to know the mind of god and that what this being you know so well wants must ipso facto be good for us.

You cannot get away with that argument anymore. It has no part in a rational discourse about morality or any conception of the common good. More then ever it looks like the Archbishop may be feeling the fight back on this, because we can see that in the name of religious sensibility and conscience will much harm be done.

Enough has been done in the name of religion for the supposed common good. We need more than the interpretation of ancient texts for that. We need to embrace the common humanity that inspires the best out of us, the empathy that allows us to consider one another, the rational discourse to frame laws that lead to the common good. What the Archbishop proposed went against this, perhaps in ways he can not understand – I hope with the criticism he may begin to appreciate how come.

I know that for some people being of a religion is less significant than their star sign. But all I am asking is that people really question the super naturalism under pinning their faith, the ancient superstition that strikes fear to obedience, and the apparent absurdity that because I reject the blood of Christ I must by definition be a bad person, rightly destined to an after life of misery and hell. Thankfully I know that is not true, but those wishing it to be true and wanting it to be so – if only you showed such conviction for this in the here and now that the blackness of your heart may be shown. Yet has not history already shown that blackness, and has religion been the fierce horse it has ridden on more often in use then the bolt on the stable door to such feeling?

The only thing that seems to guard against such feelings causing harm is the secular state in a liberal democracy that values universal human rights. If you disagree Archbishop, then be prepared for much more criticism to come.

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.