Salient: Islam

Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

Increasingly Intolerable Islam

Islam gets more obnoxious. On one hand, I do understand their sensitivies, particularly since they personally identify with Islam, rather than merely accepting the better parts of the Quran. On the other hand, I think that this sort of proposal will backlash into increased resentment of fundamentalist Islam, or, by association, of Islam.

I do not for one second believe that Islamic nations will enact laws that prevent militant muslims from uttering hate-speech and threats against other religions and nations.

Religion is a menace! Theocracies are a bigger menace.

Always a Dangerous Thing

I've been thinking . . . always a dangerous thing.

More from The Great God Divide: European Secularism and American Religiosity: the following comments were excited by the speaker's impressions of the Great Arch of La Defense, President Mitterrand’s monument to the bicentennial of 1789.

"And that put a question in my head . . . which culture could give a better account of its commitments to the rights of men, which was being memorialized here, the culture that produced this rational, striking, but essentially featureless cube, or the more complicated culture that had produced gargoyles and flying buttresses and crosses and the holy unsameness, if you will, of Notre Dame.

It’s a question of what a society loses when it completely and self-consciously cuts itself off from those civilizing and civilizational roots, represented in this case by the cathedral, and attempts something that I think is quite unprecedented in human history; namely, the creation of democratic political community on an essentially religiously featureless social and cultural terrain."

This remark is yet another example of a romantic apology for religion. Certainly, the flying buttresses of Notre Dame (at top), for example, are much more visually interesting than even the most interesting view of the Great Arch (below). However, few rational people would argue that 13th century Paris gave a better "account of its committment to the rights of man" than 21st century Paris, its frustrations with Muslims notwithstanding.

I think that the speaker was ignoring the fact that the cost of stone masons and the time required to construct a cathedral such as Notre Dame, and not secularist politics, preclude the construction of another such cathedral. Construction on the cathedral began in 1163 CE. Does anyone wish to guess when the cathedral was completed? [answer]

All of which brings me to thinking about the so-called New Atheism. Atheism as nonbelief about the existence of deities (or belief of nonexistence if you recognize what disbelief actually means) is scarcely new. The new element lies in the refusal to be polite about the content of religious delusions and emphasis on the dangers posed by religionist elements (not by religious moderates, but by religious fundamentalists).

I don't think that there is any paucity of empirical historical evidence that links religious extremism to harm. Nor do we lack evidence that links dictator-exploited ideological extremisms such as communism or, its mirror, fascism to harm.

I think that the key element of any harmful -ism lies in extremism in its application – perhaps I should say misapplication. Obviously, this is also true of the harmful misapplication of scientific advances, particularly those in military technologies, that have caused damage and distress. Alfred Nobel invented gunpowder in the hope that such a dangerous weapon would prove to be a deterrent from warfare. Clearly he did not succeed, and nor has the 'atomic' bomb succeeded, except insofar as gunpowder conflicts have so far stopped short of nuclear holocaust.

Sam Harris' Islamophobia smacks of paranoiac visions of annihilation such as followed 1945. Ironically, and nontheless tragically, the greatest recent Islam-related deathtoll is of innocent Iraqi civilians brought about as a result of the stupid decisions of a president not-elected largely as a result of the politicking of the Conservative Religious Wrong.

The Middle East has presented a political problem ever since Zionists decided that Jewish problems could be solved by turning Palestine from a Jewish symbol of exile into a homeland. This is not to dismiss the influence of earlier capitalist exploitation of the Middle East nor to ignore the long-standing perceived threats of imposed secularization within Islam. In other words, it is not only religion that causes harm. The problem is that religion perpetuates ancient divisions that exacerbate political schisms.

answer: The towers were completed around 1245 CE, and the cathedral was completed around 1345 CE – a mere 182 years, or about 6 generations.

atheism, religion,

Fly Away Home

First the good news: A British schoolteacher sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear Mohammed has been released hours after receiving a pardon from Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir. Gillian Gibbons' release follows the intervention of two Muslim peers, Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi who traveled to Khartoum to negotiate with the Sudanese authorities.

And maybe the not-so-good news: "Modern Britain is multicultural, multi-religious. We have two million Muslims. We have 1,400 mosques and we have ten Muslim parliamentarians. All religions are respected."

I have always been fairly liberal, but the behavior of fundamentalist religionists of any mysterical ilk, really does not warrant respect. Still, most of the Muslims in Britain are probably fine people.

And the definitely bad news: Darfur, scene of recent human rights violations, is within the Sudan. Many of the atrocities are perpetrated by Muslims. These unfortunate people can't fly away home – they are home.

Lash the Kids?

So, what about the kids who chose the controversial name for the teddy bear? They chose the name, they voted on the name. Should they get lashes and time in jail? Obviously, I am being facetious. Of course children should not be lashed for naming a bear for a popular classmate, or even for a prophet.

Should the parents of the popular boy be lashed for naming their son after the prophet? After all, if they'd named their son Ishmael, then the civilized world would not be in an uproar over a teddy bear named Ishmael.

"Isam Abu Hasabu, chairman of Unity High School’s parent teacher association, said: “The whole thing boiled down to a cultural misunderstanding. In our culture we don’t know the bear as a cuddly symbol of mercy.”"

Ah, that explains it. These people riot in the streets because they grew up surrounded by hatred and religious blame and not with cuddly teddy bears. Have they never heard of Harlow's experiments in the Sudan? Apparently not.

Harlow's experiments would thankfully not get past an ethics committee nowadays, but they did demonstrate something tremendously important – given a choice between food and love, primates chose love most of the time.

Given a choice between religion and love, I'd choose love every time. Unfortunately, all too often that is the choice – religion or love, religion or tolerance, religion or humanism, religion or just plain getting along with our fellow man.

bigotry, religion, teacher, Gillian Gibbons, Islam, Mohammed, Sudan,

The Immorality of Absolute Morality

Until Stevie Blunder weaseled his way into being elected Canada's PM, I was proud of Canadians, who are polite and quite tolerant.

This post is not about our slimy PM, though. Well, not directly. The Regressive Conservatives partly attained their minority government by fusing the slightly right Conservatives with the far right Reform-Alliance party that relies upon Canada's Bible Belt for power. Part of the Regressive platform relied on pandering to religious bigots who are upset about the fact that several Canadian provinces have OK'd gay marriage.

An earlier, far superior PM, Pierre Elliott Trudeau famously said in 1967, "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." The statement caused a tidal wave of controversy that rippled across Canada. "Trudeau’s Omnibus Bill brought issues like abortion, homosexuality and divorce law to the forefront for the first time, changing the political and social landscape in Canada forever."

Forty years later, most Canadians are quite accepting of gays and gay marriage–we have had popular openly gay politicians for years, and two prominent politicians have recently married their long-term partners, with a mostly positive public reception. Most Canadians believe that gay marriage does not affect them personally or Canadian society negatively.

Any damage to the fabric of society that results from 'moral' questions such as gay marriage seems to stem from the negative attitudes of bigots who make a stink about tolerance and progress. I think that the chief point behind any moral guidelines concerns the question of doing harm. Because religious bigotry intends or actually does harm to others, then religious bigotry is immoral.

Some religious bigots are quite open about their hatreds–many of Canada's imported Muslims and Sikhs, for example, openly attempt to drag our nation backwards to fit their rigid beliefs. The Regressive Conservatives woo their votes because both groups prefer narrow, regressive moralities that ignore sociological realities. Canadian Christian bigots mostly try to hide their prejudices and hatreds behind platitudes, scriptural quotes, and fallacies of logic such as slippery slope arguments. American Christian Bigots write books decrying any socially contracted morality that does not adhere to their Absolute Moral Interpretations of the Bible, labeling all non-absolute moral systems as selfish, laissez faire immorality, and warning of supposed danger to society in inviting moral mayhem.

Here's a typical rant from a religious bigot:

"With all due love and respect and with the risk of being hailed as a religious bigot, I fail to understand why gays should be allowed “to act according to the proclivities with which [they] are born.” It is the nature of fallen sinful man, when he gives into his natural proclivities to try to get whatever he wants in life, not caring who he hurts and treating people like objects. One sick comment that makes my skin crawl is when some sexist jerk says “women are just a like support system for a pu–y.” Another insensitive one would be the bumper sticker that says “No fat chicks.” This is usually on beat up pick-ups with gun-racks driven by inbred people name cyrus or homer whose teeth are green from chewing tobbacco. The point is, we humans often tend to be egoistically self sentered. BUT not everyone gives in to their baser desires. True a bunch of Los Angeles cops were disciplined for having sex with 14 year old girls a while back. True the perverts of NAMBLA feel its okay to have sex with little boys while spouting “sex before eight before its too late.” True that hate mongers like the KKK and the Black Panthers feel free to vent their venomous hatred. Yet it, even though it may result from following their natural proclivities, isn’t right. We have a responsibility to control our behavior. Women are NOT the property of man and Moses, the leader of the Jews who got the law from YHWH married a black woman. Divorce should be using sparingly as a last result. It can hurt children who often blame themselvs for their parents splitting up. Homosexuality has been a negative force, one that nihilistically erodes society. biblically it is wrong and from an evolutionary viewpoint it is not good for the survival of the fittest. I believe in treating gays with dignity and love but I will NEVER say its okay to be gay. Normal heterosexual men don’t freely give into their urges when attracted to young teenage girls. You don’t just steal things when you want them just because you might not get caught. We need moral standards." ¬ comment #2.

"With all due love and respect" is a typical religious-bigot opening that translates as, "with prejudice and lack of respect for the rights of others, but I just don't want to admit to such unchristian sentiments." The problem, of course, is that most Christians are not particularly christian; instead they attempt to try to cloak their prejudices in the disguise of scriptural morality.

We do need moral standards, but whose moral standards? Those of this bigot? The narrow prejudices of ancient tribesmen? The narrow standards of religions based on the supposed existence of supernatural deities?

How to define morality? How about primum non nocere? First do no harm.

Puffing on about not subjugating women or listing harm-to-others acts does not convince me that he is not a religious bigot. Acts such as pedophilia and racist violence have no bearing on the activity of the gay couple down the street who are committed to a loving relationship, or even to those gays who have casual, protected sex. He claims that he "believe[s] in treating gays with dignity and love", but I don't for one moment believe that he would actually do so in view of his vitriolic rant that lumps gays together with the pedophiles and the KKK.

He displays the type of hysteria that seems to be lamentably typical of religious bigots–these people don't think matters through logically, they merely emote out of their desire to control others. I'd sooner live down the street from a gay couple than the likes of this nasty, bigoted man.

sociology

With thanks to qtr for the cartoon.

A Fundy is a Fundy is a Fundy

"What's in a name? That which is fundamentalist
By any other name would stink as badly."

¬ with apologies to William Shakespeare*

Following the ignomy that was the 'Scopes Monkey Trial', American Fundamentalists took to calling themselves 'Evangelical Christians', as though this ameliorated their regressive, literalist, politically conservative, dogmatism.

I refer to these creationist bigots as fundamentalists and I think that others should act likewise. In dropping the term Fundamentalist Christian, these literalists hoped that people would forget their ignominious history of prejudice. Fundamentalism, whether applied to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, shares regressive, power-mongering elements of bigotry and dogmatism.

* "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Dutch Treat?

Sam Harris has just posted Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics on his website.

Hirsi Ali knows first hand the horrors perpetrated against Muslim women and has written two books about her ordeals. She escaped Somalia to the Netherlands in 1992, but relocated to the US in 2002 after Dutch Muslims made death threats. The Dutch Parliament lured Hirsi Ali back from the US to the Netherlands to run (successfully) for parliament. Having offered to pay for Hirsi Ali's protection from the violence threatened by fundamentalist (read 'psychotic') Muslims, the Dutch government reneged on its promise when Hirsi Ali returned to the US. The Dutch Parliament will be debating Hirsi Ali’s case this week. (Help Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Historically, the Dutch have been noted for their liberal attitudes and generosity. When they make their decision, they need to bear in mind both the practice of Muslim leaders of inciting religious frenzy and the fact that giving in to bullies merely promotes an escalation of bullying.

If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk. If you extend citizenship and the protection of civil rights to people who are not sufficiently emotionally mature to honor, rather than manipulate, those principals, then you risk civil strife when the tolerance levels of honorable citizens are exceeded.

Related : Ayaan Hishi Ali at the AAIC :

fundamentalism Dutch Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Exposé

For this exposé of Islamic maltreatment of women, a man was murdered and a woman forced to pay for physical protection, proving that Islam is even worse than depicted here. The murdered man was Theo Van Gogh, the woman Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the movie is entitled Submission.