Alan Henning and Violence In The Name of God

Alan Henning was moved to try and make a difference. He gave up Christmas with his family that he might take supplies to help people suffering in Syria. Yesterday it was reported that ISIS carried out their threat to execute him.

On Eid Mubarak they sacrificed a man that had dedicated himself to humanitarianism. He is not the first, nor it seems will he be the last. Militarily this is a tactic to reduce aid to besieged people. ISIS make great play that they can provide for people in their terroritry. How much easier to make cities fall to them, because aid agencies dare not operate?

That we are being taunted, manipulated and terrorised by ISIS is unmistakable. Their desire to have the international community turn on them to rally people to their cause is not the only thing. They want Muslims and non Muslims to turn on each other. The reason for a caliphate to be made stronger by us turning on the wrong people.

I will not let such evil people treat me like a puppet on a string. Yet when discussing such matters on twitter it was clear people wanted to say Islam was bad. Unlike Christianity. The Koran promoted violence against infidels. The bible does not.

Well …

@mehdirhasan yet no concern for the bible calling on unbelievers and gay people to be killed. Its not the book it's the readers … #ISIS

— John Sargeant (@JPSargeant78) October 3, 2014

“@jatak2: @JPSargeant78 Bible doesn't call for killing of infidels … @ChrisDStedman @mehdirhasan” Oh really? pic.twitter.com/8pJNrP3QPq

— John Sargeant (@JPSargeant78) October 3, 2014

@BaconButties @mehdirhasan Lord Resistance Army – impose Ten Commandments and genocide God's Will. Oh, and beheadings http://t.co/XDmJ6gerOW

— John Sargeant (@JPSargeant78) October 3, 2014

We then have such articles like the review of Karen Armstrong’s new book “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence by Karen Armstrong, book review: Neo-cons, prepare to get angry”

The review in The Telegraph had this quote I mentioned in a tweet, which missed what Jesus is supposed to have said:

"difference between Christianity & Islam is that Jesus was an out-&-out pacifist" http://t.co/aohQR2iHQi @rezaaslan pic.twitter.com/B0t2MgfWZ8

— John Sargeant (@JPSargeant78) October 4, 2014

Related article: The Truth About Religion and Extremism

The problem is the reader taking from “their Book” the permission to do violence, slavery, and rape. While these verses remain, evil people will use them as stated, out of context or not in relation to other commandments and commentary, to carry out religious zealotry.

The Spanish Inquisition was religious. The belief that they were saving souls by consuming the flesh with fire, or purifying via torture was not a cover for psychopaths and sadists. They believed it. For the sufferings on earth were nothing compared to the eternal torment of everlasting hellfire. (I have not read Aaronovitch’s review but suspect he makes a similar point from his tweet).

Just as Karen Armstrong makes light of the religious aspect then, she and others are doing so with ISIS now. Some will be doing this to prevent the hatred and persecution they fear Muslims would suffer in the UK. Others that religion is always peaceful, and violence when committed has nothing to do with it. That it is a smokescreen for other motives.

A nuanced position recognises that the chicken or the egg debate to the scripture/violence link misses that both feed into each other in their own ways. Breaking the cycle matters more than blame games, apologetics, and false statements as I debunked above.

ISIS really do believe they are fulfilling a religious edict to create a caliphate and that their means are sanctioned by defensive Jihad. A counter narrative is useful, but do not for one second think they are insincere about this. They are in deadly earnest.

What helps is seeing the bigger picture. Religious extremism is on the rise. Together we have to tackle it. Let us start by being accurate about the problem.

Do not give in to terror. In memory of Alan Henning remember that compassion can also move humanity.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

GOP candidate: Stoning Homosexuals, No Problem It’s In The Bible

Tea Party state House candidate Scott Esk clarified his thinking recently when asked why he felt homosexuality was worthy of capital punishment:

That was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God and in that time there it was totally just. It came directly from God. I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins.

His original posts on a Facebook last year were:

That [stoning gay people to death] goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.

At the time stating:

I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it.

 

On his campaign website he states:

I am running for HD91 because I believe in the principles that made our state and nation great and unique in history – and I want to protect those principles. I believe that rights come from God – not from government – and that it should be limited, its taxes and spending should be low, its regulations few, and its protection of our liberties constant.

Our rights are not dependent on the writings, whether holy or constitutional, of people long since dead. They depend on the thinking of the living.

Dear Oklahoma please do not vote for a brain dead candidate.

Source of Facebook quotes Slate

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Albert Einstein on Scientists Praying and Belief

Einstein was sent a letter by a school girl about prayer. His answer was honest and captured the magic of reality.

January 19, 1936

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis’s class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

Einstein replied promptly:

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

Einstein was no theist as his reply above shows. He made clear:

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” [Source]

He rejected calling himself an atheist, considering that lacked humility and appreciation of the sheer beauty that radiated from the cosmos. He was opposed to vocal atheism for seeming to reject that emotional awed response, as he was against the espousing of a personal God. Perhaps he would say seeing the new atheist debate that the

“struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope” and cultivate the “Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.” [ibid]

The “God Letter” shows he rejected the God of the Bible as to do with the infancy of our species and trying to represent his position as deist where he said:

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” [Source]

Misses that he saw in his time the human race as still quite childlike in appreciating how the universe is. Which I suspect is why he wrote so quickly back to the little girl. Einstein knew we needed to move beyond a religiosity that was theistic, pantheist and yes deist too. His concern with atheism was that it rejected the wonder of everything for harsh calculations, and cold realities. By lacking such spirit we would lack warmth as human beings.

I would hope he would see in the current debate that it was religion, and not a lack of appreciation for the sublime nature of the universe, which was the target for atheists. Our understanding of the natural world through science, and using our knowledge of the world to better how we all live, is something humanity can get together on. A humanism that transcends faith and non faith with improving and valuing.

Regardless of how it all may have all began.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Jesus Jukes – An Atheists Response

The concept of a Jesus Juke will be familiar. It is how someone casually slips into the conversation that they are at that moment more au fait with Christ than you. Obnoxious enough done to another Christian, down right insult to an atheist.

7 Obnoxious Jesus Jukes goes into this from a Christian counter perspective. Thought I would answer them from my own heathen non turning the either cheek, you have the dirt of the earth if you like, perspective.

1) “Why do you make things so complicated? The answer is Jesus.”

Nothing like turning a situation anyone can find themselves in and saying consolation and acceptance is faith. Yet that never ends the question. Children being born with bone cancer does not strike me as the answer being Jesus.

Life is very complicated, and simplistic solutions can be much worse than recognising the complexity of a problem.

A sense of proportion to the problems in the world is invaluable to lend some perspective.

2) “You seem to be interested in what people want, but what about what God wants?”

Anyone who claims to know what God wants, and to give you a list from, is not only arrogant but possibly delusional. Treat with extreme caution and skepticism.

3) “You worry too much. God will take care of it.”

Parents who prayed rather than called for an ambulance for their children literally took this advice. If you can do something about it than do it. If you cannot than take the time to accept and move on. Use worry as an alarm call to act and think – not to procrastinate or ignore.

4) “You know, I used to talk the way you do back when I was a fundamentalist/liberal/etc.”

You really have no idea about me … Apostate and loving it. Never again.

5) “When I had your problem, I read [insert Bible verse] and everything made sense after that.”

Funnily enough that also helped me realise screwed up people like myself were writing the bible. Other books are available.

6) “I guess I just believe that Jesus meant what he said about hell/poor people/other topic.”

You haven’t read “Zealot” by Reza Aslan have you? Or the other books on historic and Christ version of Jesus. Go for it. Get the man, not the Son of God.

7) [A long, non-sequitur string of scripture references without commentary that generally involve some kind of prophetic “warning” of apocalyptic destruction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.]

Gently head towards the exit, and do not look back … remain calm.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou: For Feminism Religious Should Start Again

Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou interviewed about “Are atheists ‘truer’ feminists?” states on the bible:

The biblical texts are the products of ancient societies in which the notion of gender equality was unknown. Despite claims at various points in the Bible that women, men and children are all valued by God, men and women are consistently portrayed differently – and unequally – in their perceived value as religious and social beings.

Regarding Islam:

Islam has inherited the male-centredness of the ancient religions and cultures from which it emerged …

… a pervasive religious preference not only to treat men and women differently, but to distance and segregate women from men: they are (usually) to pray separately, and they are to dress differently …

Women’s bodies:

Women’s bodies were deemed problematically different – too different – from those of men. And in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, they continue to be: whether the issue is veiling, male circumcision, segregated worship or women bishops, all three religions attest to the on-going problematizing of women’s bodies.

Conclusion on religion and feminism:

For the religiously-inclined, it would be better to rip up the old blueprints and start again.

I hope these quotes (deliberately cut short in post for copyright reasons) wet your appetite to read the full article here.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog