Posts Tagged ‘secularist’
Apostasy Project
I hope that you will consider supporting the Apostasy Project that has recently started in the UK. The idea is providing a resource for those looking to leave their faith but needing help, advice and support to do so.
As part of that Alom Shaha (author Young Person’s Guide to Atheism) encouraged me to submit my story of leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a child, and Casper Melville (Rationalist Association) edited my story from two parts to a manageable one.
Thanks to both and the Rational Association for bringing that account to a wider audience and making the Apostasy Project a reality.
You can read my apostasy story here.
If you have come here from reading my story, the blog here covers atheism, secularism and religion – and occasionally other things that provoke my interest, fury and sometimes both. Have a look round and if you like what you see do subscribe.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
A Response to terror
How to respond is the question to a brutal murder on the streets of London by killers shouting “Allahu Akbar” demanding we have British troops returned from Afghanistan, and EDL taking to the streets as football hooligans looking for confrontation.
Regarding pulling troops out of Afghanistan, before the murder in Woolwich YouGov reported:
YouGov’s Public Opinion polling in April of this year found that a strong majority of the British public (77%, split between leaving immediately and leaving gradually) were in favour of bringing British troops home from Afghanistan, while 14% were not in favour, and 9% said they didn’t know.
Regarding getting rid of our government, voting intentions just before the murder had Labour on 38%, Conservative 27%, UKIP 16%, Liberal Democrat 10% (Source)
Not only is there a democratic process to be used by aggrieved citizens, but a swell of public opinion to be tapped into on these issues. The young men turned their back on using these means to create their own outrage. Violence can never be legitimised in a society that allows dissent. Anyone that suggests their savagery was justified lacks credibility on the issues and is not just an enemy of reason but of humanity.
In Spain the Madrid bombings of 2004 nearly 200 were killed and over 2000 injured, and the hundreds of thousands that protested against terror was dignified and moving as Spanish people showed solidarity with each other and mourned the victims.
We can contrast that moving spectacle of solidarity, protest and movement with the English Defence League when they descended on Woolwich the night of the murder.
So how should we in the secular, humanist and atheist community show solidarity with the Muslim community? The answer I would hope would be straightforward but it is has proven on social media not to be. The statement of the obvious needs repeating unless we are prepared for others to make up for our silence.
In no particular order as all important:
1. Do not treat Muslims as a homogenous group – everyone is an individual
2. Do not dehumanise Muslims – we are all human beings
3. Calmly note our difficulties and problems with Islam – and how that impacts on Muslims too
4. Speak out against outrages to religious freedom and human rights taking place
5. Talk to each other and find out how we can stop people being radicalised by others
This will not be easy, you will lose people who think this is the time to be quiet about criticising Islam, or think you should be abandoning secular liberal principles to respond harshly to the Muslim community.
We need to speak up even more so that our voices can be heard. In a civil society commitment and enthusiasm can make a difference where will power and not brute force triumphs. These values are what bring us together in a pluralistic state.
Now is the time to stand for human rights, secularism and the democratic process.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
David Silverman – Golden man for Secularism and Feminism
I met David Silverman as he was walking towards the hotel where the Atheist Alliance 2007 conference was being hosted, while I caught some air. I had no idea who he was, or that he would become the President of American Atheists. What I did know was that rather than having his towel on him, he was wearing a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy T-Shirt. As regular readers know Hitchhikers was the catalyst to my leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a child.
I introduced myself by saying “Anyone who is a fan of Douglas Adams is a friend of mine”. We both were getting things ready for the conference. He mentioned the article he wrote, which I had read, where he interviewed Douglas.
A few reasons mentioning this. One, it is towel day this Saturday May 25 2013 where fans of Douglas will have their towels on them, and possibly a laundered dressing gown to impress people, as Trillion tells Arthur in Hitchhikers.
The other is that today on twitter, he has shown an ability as President to show genuine leadership for secularism and feminism. Better than a certain President Zaphod Beeblebrox I could mention.
The timeline for the conversation can be read here, as it stands now.
He has shown exactly what we all wanted Ronald Lindsay to have done unequivocally at Women in Secularism 2. Show backbone, and upfront leadership standing with women as allies at the trolls out there who intimidate, ridicule, and harass women in the feminist movement. Clearly he welcomes critical measured responses. Victimisation of others is unacceptable.
PZ Myers from this has decided on lifelong membership of American Atheists as a result. I am so impressed I urge my American readers to support David as best they can. He has shown himself to be, whether on Twitter or writing a dignified piece on the 9/11 cross as worthy of the position he holds.
I hope our paths cross again someday.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Tornados in Oklahoma, hot air and calm
There is with natural disasters a tendency by some to flippantly blame others for somehow having the ability to influence the supernatural’s fury on us via weather events.
Fred Phelps Jr, the son of Westboro’s 83-year-old leader, tweeted: “OK Thunder’s Durant flips God by praising fag Collins. God smashed OK [Oklahoma]. You do the math. #GodH8sFags #FagsDoomNations #FearGod #GodH8sU” Pink News
I only draw your attention to the ramblings of an imbecile whose compassion is absent presumed missing, replaced by a burning righteous indignation that would allow the fires of hell to be carbon neutral – as a sharp contrast to this very short video clip kindly shared by @Wondiebee of a survivor of the Oklahoma tornados.
She was grace and tolerance personified.
Unfortunately tolerance, let alone acceptance, is not something Phelps Junior understands. My hope is he lives to one day realise that his homophobia made him the biggest asshole out there and that the Lord’s light really does not shine out of it.
All the best to those affected by the tornados in Oklahoma.
Please give what you can.
Atheists Giving Aid – Oklahoma Tornado Relief
Follow on Blog: Rebecca is an atheist during and after disaster
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Video: Panorama “Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Councils”
The BBC flagship current affairs documentary Panorama revealed in April 2013 what the secularist community had long feared. That access to legal address from marriage, child custody and even domestic violence was being undermined by the Sharia Councils. That it encouraged the flouting of court judgements in place to protect victims.
A memory stirred today that these fears were first mentioned on this blog in 2008 when criticising the Archbishop of Canterbury’s public support for Sharia Law to exist alongside secular law.
That blog examining the collusion of the Church of England with Sharia Law can be read here.
One quote to see in light of the above documentary:
[Archbishop Williams]: “The problem here is that recognising the authority of a communal religious court to decide finally and authoritatively about such a question would in effect not merely allow an additional layer of legal routes for resolving conflicts and ordering behaviour but would actually deprive members of the minority community of rights and liberties that they were entitled to enjoy as citizens; and while a legal system might properly admit structures or protocols that embody the diversity of moral reasoning in a plural society by allowing scope for a minority group to administer its affairs according to its own convictions, it can hardly admit or ‘license’ protocols that effectively take away the rights it acknowledges as generally valid.”
The answer is simple my Lord Bishop – do not give religious law legal force. There is a reason why the law book of England is not the Bible. The law has developed based on tradition, culture, legal practise and Parliamentary Democracy within a liberal pluralist political system. Because a sub group feel passionate in their way of living does not make them a special case when it comes to temporal matters.His answer however is that the believer would have the right of appeal based on secular rights – that the jurisdiction of British law would trump Sharia law. The question then becomes why give legal weight to Sharia Law which under certain circumstances could be superseded? It becomes not only a recipe for conflict and legal wrangling but is ceding the rule of law to a religious body. It is a step back to the dark ages.
Rather than helping believers and none to live together in harmony this is something that would if enacted like Williams suggests tear the nation apart. The rule of law would not apply equally. Under what circumstances would someone accept less than their full rights that secular law gives them? Do we imagine such circumstances are done out of respect for the law of Allah, or fear of the community that they live in? What Williams promotes for harden the lines that already separate towns and cities across this nation. Many Muslims are in this country because their descendants were secularists fleeing the cruel imposition of religious law. He may not be advocating it, but the principle is the same – the law of the land applies to one and all, and is not based on supposed divine text and bodies with authority to interpret the mind of God.
Please support the One Law for All Campaign
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Sam Harris – mistackles critics
Having seen Sam Harris misrepresented at an atheist conference, though fortunately in a Q and A so he could quickly correct and explain that no he did not believe in a soul nor that we should not be atheists (just do not use in public policy debate) it was about time he responded to current critics. The articles in question should you want more background are:
Glenn Greenwald: Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus
Sam Harris: Response to Controversy
PZ Myers: Head and Heart Atheists
All quotes from articles come from above sources.
My contention is Sam does well in parts, but does shoot himself in the foot on some key issues as PZ Myers mentioned. It’s an impressive looking tackle in flight till you realise the critics are still going to score. Largely because of how Harris wrote his thoughts on an unsuspecting public his clarifications really do not recover the ground well enough.
Say what you think
In debates with people on twitter I have been called a colonialist by some Muslims for suggesting that a secular state allows people to have their faith without anyone imposing religion or atheism by law on others. I have been told that being critical of an Islamic belief is islamophobia. This is nonsense. Discrimination and hatred based on someone’s faith, and treating people as a group not an individual would be. Criticising a belief or practise is not the same as oppressing a people. Sam observes:
The truth is, we have already lost our First Amendment rights with respect to Islam—and because they brand any observation of this fact a symptom of Islamophobia, Muslim apologists like Greenwald are largely to blame.
Remember we face this sort of view as tweeted by the Muslim Brotherhood:
Suggesting faith is a private belief not enforceable by the state on it’s citizens is enough to have insults thrown at you – at all times in public you must adhere to the faith. As bloggers in Bangladesh are sadly finding out.
Think how you say it
It does however become harder when you say things as Sam does on torture, far right on immigration making more sense, killing people for a belief. When you need paragraphs to put in context, even then Harris’ observations still stick out as uncomfortable reading. Take how he dismisses qualms about water boarding:
Again, which is worse: water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him? Which is worse, water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him? There are journalists who have volunteered to be water-boarded. Where are the journalists who have volunteered to have a 5000-pound bomb dropped on their homes with their families inside?
I suppose it is too much to suggest that those journalists water boarded once like Christopher Hitchens suggest a very different view point on using such torture for example in a ticking time bomb situation (link to Hitchens’ Vanity Fair piece on). Speaking of Hitchens his remark on Sam saying the far right only ones making sense on immigration “not while I’m alive they’re not” sums up a horrible line by Harris. With Hitchens’ passing others are making the positive case for immigration.
The military command hopefully aim to reduce civilian casualties – torturing a person is about applying the level of torture necessary to get information on purpose. That suffering is potentially limitless, deliberately intended and doubtful whether reliable or not once extracted.
Killed for a reason
Did that point a few paragraphs back where I mention Harris saying people can be killed for their belief sink in? It is a bold claim for one so quick to say their own first amendment rights are restricted by the behaviour of others. To quote Sam:
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.
His following response to critics misses that we would still target a terrorist leader for reasons beyond their belief. They intend to organise further terrorist attacks unless hindered, arrested or killed. We would not ask what is their theological motivation when considering such action against them:
This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. To someone reading the passage in context, it should be clear that I am discussing the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.
When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, the answer cannot be, “Because he killed so many people in the past.” To my knowledge, the man hasn’t killed anyone personally. However, he is likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what he and his followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. A willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in many cases this is either impossible or too risky. Would it have been better if we had captured Osama bin Laden? In my view, yes. Do I think the members of Seal Team Six should have assumed any added risk to bring him back him alive? Absolutely not.
He is dangerous because he is a terrorist, and the leading terrorist at that. Otherwise, what Harris is implying is reading and believing the Koran could make you a terrorist – save for cherry picking, being less devout and secular. So belief is enough for suspicion and the use of state power against you (McCarthy suggested that on the left and Sam also uses such thinking for profiling too). In reality, religion is a powerful idea for hegemony and legitimising unthinkable suffering in the name of the old ideas of territorial conquest. Notice Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq calling for them to become one nation as part of a growing one empire – an Islamist one naturally allied and run by Al Qaeda.
Foreign Policy
Greenwald is right to be concerned that Harris believes Arab international relations is based mainly on devout Muslim literal understanding of the Koran and Hadith. Glenn mentions a particular quote of Sam’s:
“The outrage that Muslims feel over US and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands — no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior.”
Polls suggest what we may expect; the majority of people are political animals and the Arab world is no exception, with a long history of the world being involved in it’s affairs. So before we say its down mainly to an ancient manuscript it may be useful to take account of history, sociology, economics, culture, and politics not just religion.
Sam while not saying whether Iraq was a good or bad thing mentions my concern that it was a distraction from other things (dealing with Afghanistan, nuclear non proliferation eg North Korea, Iran).
End of Suffering
Perhaps the real issue is Harris trying to rationalise what are on the face of it horrendous propositions: legitimate use of torture, being targeted for elimination based on your belief let alone extra security measures at an airport, the far right being more spot on about immigrants than everyone else.
PZ Myers makes a good point that new atheism should be empathising traditional humanist principles – key ones being an abhorrence for war and the suffering of others:
No excuse can justify nuking or torturing my people, so no excuse can justify nuking or torturing anyone else…especially considering that the United States has more blood on its hands than any other nation.
This is not the time to invent elaborate philosophical justifications for abhorrent actions — it is time to unhesitatingly reject them, to express our grief and shame and horror at these options. It is not enough to bloodlessly pretend it’s a philospher’s penchant. We need to consider the human cost, and weight that most heavily.
I wish Sam well as he studies further the wisdom of Buddhist philosophy on this point. It sounds like he has further to go for enlightenment.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Solidarity For Bloggers in Bangladesh
Today I have been using twitter to encourage the humanist community and all who support free speech and freedom of religion to show solidarity for bloggers and their supporters in Bangladesh (see previous blog).
Please feel free to use this meme in social media, placards and blogs to show your support.
On twitter spoke to Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association asking if an organised solidarity/protest event would happen outside Bangladesh Embassies.
He has said he will contact IHEU (International Humanist European Union) to help coordinate such an action. UPDATE 9/4/13: IHEU campaign page
In the meantime please encourage your own national humanist, atheist and free thinker groups to speak out. Write to the Bangladesh Ambassador – a bulging mailbag gets reported back.
Write to your Foreign Secretary demanding he conveys in the strongest possible terms disapproval for the imprisonment of these bloggers.
FOLLOW UP BLOG: Time for us all to stand together
UPDATE: Letter to High Commission and Foreign Office
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Happy Humanist T-Shirt
At last the British Humanist Association has jumped on the fashion bandwagon. The slogans on this particular t-shirt caught my eye:
Check out the full range here.
As an ex student of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, this for me is the one.
Just some FSM cuff links and I’m ready for a godless night out – Italian naturally.
No plans week Thursday.
Call me …
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Obsessed with God? Not as an atheist
This charge will usually rear it’s head at some point as you think about God all the time in not believing him. That sadly ignores the reality of what belief means when in a cult.
Imagine that you had to prepare each week for four meetings learning and worshipping about God and a field trip over the weekend to tell people about it at their front door. That every conversation anywhere was to reflect glory upon God, and reflect well for the faith you stand for. To analyse every social interaction as whether a potential convert to be saved, or person avoided to save yourself. Sitting in front of the TV and thinking if Jesus walked into the lounge how would he feel about what you were watching. To monitor your thoughts in case demons tried to enter to cause doubts. To be trained to have a reflex, so if told you were brainwashed you would reply “we have to be the world tries to pollute our minds in so many ways doesn’t it?”
Such was life with the Jehovah’s Witnesses – and that is only by way of an introduction, for more do read the tabs on Jehovah’s Witnesses and the pages of the blog. To suggest that atheism is a religion or just as obsessive is nonsensical. As a freethinker, I am not tied to an ideology or to honour at all times a society or people. I can be critical of Richard Dawkins when the occasion arises (for example the claim that Obama was a secret atheist), without being disfellowshipped and considered a heretic. Try that in the Jehovah’s Witnesses about the Society and see what happens.
Debate, reasoning and learning with honest critical inquiry aid human reflective thought.
I have mentioned in the past how the debate between Vroomfondle and MagicThighs on the existence or none of God must end. Largely because we need to work on such things as religious freedom, pluralism and multicultural society working harmoniously, protecting human rights from religious privileges, and public policy that has the welfare of people at its core. Leave to people their conscience about God or no God, and work out how we actually can live beyond surviving.
That is not going to be easy. Some believe the way is to get everyone to covert to their way of thinking – then it will be. No, that will be counter productive. Rather, being free to talk, exchange ideas, and work on ways forward in resolving conflicts with justice and fairness are the best way to a better future.
History has shown that conflict is either resolved by dialogue or violence. Having once thought that genocide by Armageddon was the only way this would happen with God’s grace on the few to be saved, I am more optimistic that we will decide there is another way, but only if we are prepared to stand up for the enlightenment and not give in to a cynicism that has no basis in fact but only in attitude.
I am obsessed with the human, and how we can make this a better place for us all to live, without making us all part of some means to fulfil a paradigm set out by others. Let us be free, and use that freedom to help ourselves and others live. How we think matters, which is why the accusation about being obsessed with God is one myth to be put to rest.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Merry christmas
Going to enjoy the festivities – so no blogs till the New Year.
Thanks for reading – do check out links to top ten read blogs, and the tags and categories for articles you may have missed. Plus the search box if you really want to be specific.
Will still be tweeting so feel free to follow!
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
