I feared I would not be able to attend a secular conference this year. Money has been too short and time away from the farm has its opportunity costs. In reading the background of women in secularism, I find there is a CFI-sponsored “Women and Secularism 2” conference in DC an easy day-commute for me–no hotel-restaurant bills, though I miss the evening socializing. I don’t even have to borrow money from my daughter to attend.

It has a fantastic lineup of speakers.

Lauren Becker
Ophelia Benson
Jamila Bey
Soraya Chemaly
Greta Christina
R. Elisabeth Cornwell
Vyckie Garrison
Debbie Goddard
Rebecca Goldstein
Jennifer Michael Hecht
Melody Hensley
Susan Jacoby
Teresa MacBain
Amanda Marcotte
Maryam Namazie
Katha Pollitt
Carrie Poppy
Amy Davis Roth
Desiree Schell
Shelley Segal
Rebecca Watson
Stephanie Zvan

There have been a number of stories about the atheist bloggers arrested in Bangladesh. I was happy to see a mainstream magazine, Psychology Today, published an article on it. It’s not safe to insult religion.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) via an action alert and other measures, is trying to raise public awareness of troubling anti-atheist developments in Bangladesh and elsewhere. Around the world, enforcement of blasphemy laws, sometimes described as “defamation of religion,” is threatening fundamental freedoms of conscience and expression, thereby making religious dissent, especially in the form of open atheist activism, very dangerous. (Some blasphemy laws call for the death penalty.) American secular groups are working with the IHEU, and plan to take steps, including possible protests and demonstrations, to call more attention to the issue. (Follow my Twitter feed for updates on these activities.)

You may remember the banning of Taslima Nasreen back in 2006.

Under Section 295A of the Bangladeshi Penal code, 1860, any person who has a ‘deliberate’ or ‘malicious’ intention of hurting religious sentiments is liable to face imprisonment. This article of the penal code was recently, and prominently, enforced against controversial and now exiled feminist and writer Taslima Nasreen. Nasreen wrote a series of newspaper columns in which she was critical of the treatment of women under Islam; many of her books are now banned in Bangladesh.

Tarek Fatah wrote against this persecution, as well as the cartoon issue, again back in 2006

Keep to forgiveness (O Mohammed),
and enjoin kindness,
and turn away from the ignorant.
- The Quran, Chapter 7, Verse 199

During his lifetime, Prophet Mohammed endured insults and ridicule on a daily basis. His opponents mocked his message and used physical violence to stop him from challenging the status quo.

At no stage during this ordeal did the Prophet lose his temper or react to these provocations. Tradition has it that he would, instead, offer a prayer of forgiveness to those who showed contempt for him.

Today, however, many followers of Prophet Mohammed are acting the exact opposite. Reacting to the provocative Danish cartoons about the Prophet, they are burning newspapers, threatening journalists, issuing bomb threats, yet claiming they are standing up for the Prophet himself.

Basic Islamic sources don’t condemn blasphemy though Sharia does. It’s important to remember Sharia supersedes the Koran; Sharia is revealed by god and criminals answer to Sharia as if were Judgement Day itself, crime is a sin.

The Quran and the hadith do not mention blasphemy.^[23] Despite this, Islam also holds the bible holy, making its condemnation for blasphemy equally logical. Though according to Pakistani religious scholar, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, nothing in Islam supports blasphemy law.^[24] Rather, Muslim jurists made the offense part of Sharia; the penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading.^[25] However, not only do the the vast majority of Islamic countries strongly discourage, if not legislate against, blasphemy, but many nations prescribe and carry out the death penalty for apostasy, a similarly motivated action. Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwa (legal ruling).

A few days ago Bangladeshi Fundamentalist Islamists instigated a riot  as they wish to make blasphemy punishable by death as well as other protectionist law.

The group Hefazat-e Islam has become increasingly vocal in pressing its demands to prime minister Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League-led government. Among the group’s demands are the reinsertion of the phrase “Absolute trust and faith in Allah” into the constitution of Bangladesh and the introduction of a blasphemy law…

On Sunday, members of Hefazat-e Islam, which draws its support from the thousands of madrassas in Bangladesh repeated their demand for “death to atheist bloggers” and “exemplary” punishment for them. The coalition also wants the government to declare that the minority Ahmadi Muslim sect, which have long been persecuted in Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere, are not genuine Muslims.

Nothing like an election to bring out the best in people.

The demands of the coalition are a major challenge for Ms Hasina, as the Muslim majority nation prepares for an election later this year.

The government has insisted that the country of 160 million people should be run according to secular laws but the Islamists have received support from the main opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), headed by former prime minster Khaleda Zia.

“Enough is enough, the government will not tolerate this mayhem,” Syed Ashraful Islam, a cabinet minister, said in televised comments on Sunday, according to Bloomberg news. “The government will deal with any further violence aggressively.”

Biswajit Chanda, a professor at the University of Rajshahi, said he believed the government had seen off its biggest challenge from the group – namely making them return to the Chittagong.

It will be interesting to see whether the PM can hold against the religious usurpers.

“The prime minister has made clear in an interview with the BBC that it has no plans to introduce a new law relating to blasphemy but that the current laws are already sufficient,” he said. “The demands of Hefazat-e-Islam are not the demands of the common people.”

David Niose writes true words in his PT article.

You can tell much about a society by how it treats atheists. And Americans should not pat themselves on the back when considering that statement, for our treatment of nonbelievers hardly reflects a fully mature society. Openly atheist and agnostic candidates are often elected to office around much of the world, but not so in America. Instead, Americans face a steady stream of official governmental God-talk, from the national motto of “In God We Trust” adopted in 1956, to the revised version of the Pledge of Allegiance with its assertion that the nation is “under God” (added in 1954), to the annual National Day of Prayer (legislated in 1952, then in 1988 permanently set as the first Thursday in May). Amidst all of this, politicians are viewed as suspect if they do not routinely end speeches with the obligatory, “God Bless America!”

Compared to getting arrested for atheist views, this governmental religiosity might seem like a small price for atheists to pay considering they otherwise enjoy most fundamental freedoms. But all Americans – religious and nonreligious – might want to consider why their society finds it necessary to classify atheists as second-class, and the cost of doing so. Why would we want to marginalize certain productive citizens and exalt others? (After all, it’s not like a faction of the atheists denies basic scientific facts such as evolution, or routinely endorses other anti-intellectualism.)

Nonbelievers are valuable contributors to society and deserve no inferiority complex or stigmatization, yet their government encourages it. “Theistic supremacy” is too often the official governmental line, only because politicians find it easy to pander to religious voters by exalting religious belief. It may not be akin to throwing atheists in jail, but it still isn’t right.

You gotta wonder. What is more wrong? Cutting the hand off of 20 people or killing one of them. Insurance companies know all too well as their actuaries calculate. The rest of us react more against greater violence to an individual than milder calamity to more.

The last time a Christian was killed for blasphemy was 1697, Thomas Aikenhead.

That … the prisoner had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old Testament Ezra’s fables, in profane allusion to Esop’s Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he saidMoses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Muhammad to Christ: That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them: That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ.

Consider the following christian sentiments.

Mark3:29,where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable—the eternal sin.

Thomas Aquinas says that “[if] we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one’s neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one’s neighbor, than blasphemy does to God.”

The protestant splintering of sects created doctrines uniform in their antipathy to blasphemy best stated in the Heidelberg Catechism as:

 “no sin is greater or provokes God’s wrath more than the blaspheming of His Name”

God gets pissed, jealous, and vengeful. What a great guy.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.frontiersofreason.com

A coalition of nontheistic organizations wrote an open letter to the secular community with a position statement. It’s long so I won’t repost it, click the link above. The letter is primarily in response to what I would call misplaced secular infighting–how can anyone call obvious sexism a debate?  Further it is an appeal to polite, courteous, and reasonable conversation between secularists–let’s all be calm-male about it. It is a response to the issue of women in nontheist movements–the participation of women within various organizations and the sexism they have encountered.

I first heard of this two years ago when Skepchick on POI said she had been sexually harassed immediately after giving a talk on sexism in the secular movement

It all started when Watson made a relatively casual remark in a video to her followers. She was discussing her travels and a talk she’d given in Ireland about sexism in the atheist/skeptic community. Overall, Watson said, the response to her remarks had been great—but then she added something else. After the talk, she said, she’d received an advance from a man in an elevator—a man who apparently didn’t get the message.

“Guys, don’t do that,” said Watson. “I was a single woman in a foreign country at 4 am in a hotel elevator with you. Just you. Don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.”

The response has been ferocious with women saying “duh, of course there is sexism” and men saying “what do you mean, we value reason, be reasonable.”  Some secular meetings have become battle grounds for discussing the issue of sexism. Women, rightly so, have said “WTF, of course you’re being misogynist pigs when you do this–I don’t even want to talk about it if you don’t get it.” The response then is “secularism is about using reason, you’re being emotional and refusing to discuss the issue. That’s not a secular value.” Then everyone starts cussing at each other except for a few quiet ones lording reason as trump card, waiting for a pause.

When I read the letter I slowed at the header. “The Debate Over Sexism and Feminism.” Hmm, what debate? How can there be a debate over sexism in the World, the West, America, a state, or a nontheist organization? Sexism is so endemic in humankind it is incomprehensible to say that sexism is nonexistent in any organization even if all women. The only question has been how much, how to stop it, and how personally involved in the solution do I want to get.

Reminiscent of early labor, anarchy, farm-labor, feminist, democrat, ethnic, libertarian, and even religious movements, independent-minded people herd together about as well as cats. They love to talk and gather but are loath to commit and agree to cohesive manifestos. I had the same reaction to the letter. Who the f–k are they to state what my position is? Was I included in the process?

Atheism isn’t a world-view, philosophy, morality, or political position. As such nontheists throughout the world will have differences on all levels but theism. What they would have in common is the rejection of any conclusions based on the existence of god(s), and usually other nonmaterial sources.

Secularism is more fine-grained in that it promotes a secular world with all of its implications–no religion paid for by government, no religion in public sphere, no religious tests in governance, and so forth. But it could include belief-in-belief and could accommodate religious benefits.

Many take this further to promote some sort of  humanism. They are seeking to replace the theistic moral, social, and value aspects of religion with nontheistic systems–much as Durkheim expressed as necessary for human well being.

All fine and good. But this letter, though signed by many of my loved organizations, is really about cleaning house and not forming a universal manifesto. Frankly, I would be against it anyway. It creates competition to the United Nation’s Constitution of Universal Rights. That should be the world’s governing document whether theist or non theist–for all people regardless of the rock under which they live. (Which is why I am so pissed at the antiblasphemy addition to it.)

To respond to the silencing vitriol encountered in these discussions on sexism. Jefferson said it proper to ridicule incomprehensible propositions. Anyone claiming slavery is a good for humankind now merits no discussion whatsoever. Anyone who says women cause their own rape merits ridicule. Dawkins has said to  mock the barbaric practices within religion such as the Eucharist.

As far as fairness, truth, and justice goes there are no grounds whatsoever to say sexism doesn’t exist. It is so endemic in our societies we must do everything possible to encourage its abandonment. Anyone who says this is not true is an idiot, a misogynist pig. I am totally sympathetic with women here. As Hitchens said the only and best solution to ending world poverty is to support women–and he has made some pretty damned misogynist statements. That’s how bad it is. We think we’re being fair and then we diss them in some other way. Just by writing this post I could be seen as a male jerk standing up for women rather than letting them speak for themselves. Am I the knight in shining armor, the male protector, or just a voice of many chiming concord as equal? I truly do not know but do it anyway because my passion pushes me to do so. There is no good reasonable response. I am putting this message in a bottle, an economy of ideas, and whether it is reason or emotion is impossible and unfair to say.

As such, I detest using reason as a bludgeon. Be reasonable. Don’t be emotional. Your’e too creative, artistic, intuitive. WTF. Am I supposed to be dead other than performing logical calculations? The brain is not divided into emotion and logical centers purely. Logic, reason, and empiricism are used in all aspects of thinking. It is a false dichotomy to divide reason and emotion. It furthers the false mind-body bullshit.

Further it is a male-centered hegemony to say men are reasonable and women are emotional. It’s the same old sexist crap. And it pisses me off. I already had to live through Father Knows Best with his quiet reasoning quelling the righteously emotive wife. As if the quiet, strong, logical male was superior. If we don’t get it just follow his authority.

This quiet, reasoned oppression is nothing more than an extension of the monkish, religious separation of the mind and body where the mind is reason and the body is passion. Love the mind, hate the body. Like so many scientists that clung to reason as life raft in shedding their religious views they hope to make another god from the division.

Cursing has also been castigated. As if the cursing were more serious than the oppression discussed. I have been censored for cursing–and I’m a guy. How often were women told not to curse when men could. It was unbecoming, unladylike, and wantonly uncivilized. Where’s the laudanum, my secret garden?

It might be true that rhetoric and oral argumentation evolved to avoid physical fighting but some things are worth physical pain. Passion does not belong in the DSM. Art is not the absence of reason.

Cursing relieves pain. Cursing delineates the class distinction. Cursing shows my reasoning is not slight but runs to the bone.

Break some windows, burn some tires, kick some knees. It takes unreasonable responses to deal with unreasonable logic. (don’t do anything illegal)

I’m too pissed to continue. Let’s talk later. I might not be a woman but sometimes I wish I weren’t male.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.frontiersofreason.com

This Atheist Doesn’t Agree With Anti-Theism

A week ago, Atheist Neil Carter of www.GodlessinDixie.com was interviewed during National Interview an Atheist in Church Day.  I’m not sure if that really exists, but if so – I WANT IN NEXT YEAR.  He spoke to the congregation and fielded a very selective group of questions administered by the pastor.

I enjoyed his calm, non-confrontational demeanor but felt his sugary pacifism was too much.  He came off a bit like the new student at school who wants to fit in so badly he will concede on some to insure accommodations.

Too Nice

I like you and I want so badly for you to like me too.  This is the overall message I garnered from the interview.  He goes on to separate himself from those evil Anti-Theists and carefully crafts his responses so as to not ruffle any feathers.

I understand he has been given an awesome opportunity and I agree that he should be kind and respectful, both of which he did, I just think to such great links it appeared fake.

Our Conversation

I did voice my contempt with his the Anti-Theism bit.  He answered stating he believed there are Christian sects that “do no harm”.  Really, what are those?

He answers that those like Thomas Jefferson’s.  I’m unfamiliar, as far as I know, Jefferson was a Deist and not a Christian.  I gave him some examples of the harms of religion – even those most “benign” types.

1. Religions are exempt from taxes and thus directly cause the rest of us to pay more.
2. Religions require faith, if not demand it.  They teach their youth to rely on faith instead of answers, they encourage an ideology that is inconsistent with reality and overall this does harm.  It ensures a future of more of the same.  More religious zealots fighting over who’s god has the bigger dick.

I could go on and on, but any well read Atheist knows the harms religion does on our society.  I would have enjoyed a more Hitchen’s type of approach and could argue that a more direct approach would entice the congregation to think, instead they will likely walk away with the thought that, here is a nice guy, he even said he’d hang out with our Jesus – too bad he’s going to hell.

What do you think?

Well it’s an anecdote but amusing. Especially, after religious people touted some research saying the religious donate more to charities, proving how loving they are and how debased democrats are–the study also showed a red state, blue state difference. It helps that churches are charities. The highest-giving state was Utah at just over 10%. Yes, where accountants will visit your home to help with budgeting your 10% tithing to the church–I know I lived there. They visited my house, surprised that a nonmormon was living in West Granger.

Most secularists assume financial generosity is supplied by grants supported by their taxes–we pay taxes for a reason and it’s not just for highways but art galleries, museums, and public works. Remove tax-free status from churches and we’ll see who spends money where.

In the picture, which has since gone viral on Reddit and Imgur, the man, who appears to be homeless or transient, is sitting on a sidewalk and holding a sign that reads, “Which religion cares the most about the homeless?” Arranged in front of him are eight small, plastic bowls and a hat, each labeled with different religions and filled with varying amounts of change. Although we can’t say for sure how much money is shown in the photo, the bowls labeled “atheist” and “agnostic” seem to be the fullest.

According to Reddit user Ventachinkway, who posted the picture Monday to the r/atheism subreddit, the man in the photo claimed the “atheists are winning” when the picture was taken. Ventachinkway also said the man was sitting in downtown Austin, Texas.

I’m a little concerned he called atheism a religion. He should have labelled the bowl secularist.

Austin is such a nice city. It really is an island in Texas where conservative Texans think if Texas weren’t there the US would fall off the edge of the world.

Molly Ivins was from Texas–a fantastic political journalist (she was born in California). I miss her brilliant style, still pertinent today.

Let me start this discussion by pointing out that I am not anti-gun. I’m pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives. As a civil libertarian, I of course support the Second Amendment. And I believe it means exactly what it says: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state. I am intrigued by the arguments of those who claim to follow the judicial doctrine of original intent. How do they know it was the dearest wish of Thomas Jefferson’s heart that teen-age drug dealers should cruise the cities of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles? Channelling?

Sorry, couldn’t help thinking about Ivins. Charity and religion:

While this experiment is an amusing one, the question of whether or not to give money to homeless people is a complicated one that transcends religious affiliations.

The question became a national discussion, however, when Officer Larry DePrimo of the New York City Police Department was photographed buying a pair of boots for a barefoot man in New York City last winter. The picture went viral, but reporters later discovered the barefoot man was neither homeless nor particularly gracious about the publicity.

Religious experts were themselves unable to come to a consensus on the homeless question when asked by The Huffington Post’s own Senior Religion Editor Paul Raushenbush. Eric Gregory, a religion professor at Princeton University, noted that the Bible’s parable of the “The Good Samaritan” doesn’t account for a person who is poor but not necessarily deserving of charity.

“The Good Samaritan didn’t stop and ask the man on the side of the road ‘how did this happen,’” Gregory told HuffPost at the time. “He responded to an immediate need.”

Do you see his funky beard, his disdain for authority, his creeper look–look at his hand, he’s probably gay. That’s why atheists donated most. Yeah, I like to quiz the beggars on the streets before giving them money. Are you gonna look for a job, are you gonna buy liquor, are you a professional bum earning a high income, are you really, really depressed or just faking it? Cuz you know how being a beggar is a really popular job with a high income potential. I remember reading a ridiculous article in OUI magazine years (decades) ago about how panhandling was a hot and rising profession leading to huge incomes with no work involved but being on the street a few hours a day and asking for money.

Hell, if liquor makes them feel better, have one on me! Somedays I’d rather have a drink than a sandwich, why should I be a snob! I guess that’s my “immoral” take on it.

As to shoes. If someone gave me jazzy shoes and I could sell them and I could survive without shoes, I’d sell them in a heart beat. If I were an outcast from society, (number of jobs less number of people looking over time minus sociability–J-P/T – S) I am not sure I would feel any inclination or loyalty to return, especially once I were accustomed to it and especially if I were so damned depressed and I couldn’t afford mental services because an idiot president named Reagan decided the government shouldn’t support mental health–he started the three-decade trend away from helping others.

Speaking of channeling, there must have been a mistransmission as conservatives killed accessible mental health in the first place and now bitch at liberals to bring it back, but you gotta pay for it, even when you can’t. Besides it’s about responsibility and free will. Buck up and deal, or die.

I found it refreshing to read that psychotherapy is so popular in Argentina.

Going to a therapist just for a space to work through a certain issue might seem frivolous in some cultures, but it’s normal in Buenos Aires, said Daniela Frankenberg, a bilingual psychologist practicing there.

“In the expat community here, I see more and more people coming to my office who perhaps in their home country would have never done therapy,” Frankenberg said. “Here, feeling that it’s something that people do, (they) give themselves room to do that.”

Psychotherapy is a tool, “not only to cure emotional and psychological illnesses, but also tools to develop oneself as a person, with a greater quality of life,” says psychologist Modesto Alonso.

Here, let’s drink to cheap and available psychotherapy! Cheers!

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.frontiersofreason.com