Image via Wikipedia

I think that overstates the case. I don’t get the impression that the average theist “hates” science, just that they’re too dismissive of it without an interest in actually learning anything about it. I call it “willful ignorance”. “Ignorance” as in not being aware of something and “willful” because this attitude is intentional and encouraged by religious leaders. Christianity and Islam alike show a preference for believing what their leaders say over what science actually teaches. It’s not as if they’ve come to understand what science says about the natural universe and are able to argue against scientific conclusions with an informed rebuttal. They don’t want to make that effort since to do so is not considered a religious virtue. Listening to your leaders and book(s) and disdaining the false and devilish “worldly wisdom” are virtues and is a point of pride for the true believer.

“Hate” is too extreme an emotion to apply to how I see a majority of the religious I encounter every day. It’s more like they just don’t care.

One of my favorite Sagan quotes is: “I don’t want to believe; I want to know“. Any realist understands that we’ll never individually “know” everything. But some of us prefer to always seek to know, to not stop at some point along the journey and declare “I now know all I need to know”. That’s way too presumptuous and intellectually lazy.

Theists will pick and choose what science they will accept and somehow figure out a way to justify it in their own mind. They perceive themselves as having more to lose by actually studying science with an open and honest, skeptical and curious mind than they do by rejecting what openly conflicts with their core beliefs all the while blithely accepting the benefits of science on a daily basis without giving it much of a thought.

Related articles by Zemanta

• PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, and atheistic skeptic organizations (randi.org)
• Science, religion and Templeton: A defense (beliefnet.com)
• Atheism and Skepticism (atheistexperience.blogspot.com)

The United States has backed a new UN resolution on free expression which would be considered unconstitutional under its First Amendment — which protects freedom of expression and bans sanctioning of religions.

The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.

While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.

“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”

France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.

On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.

“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship)

As Jonathan Turley comments at USAToday,

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

While I respect the right of any person to believe as they wish, I also believe that the right to speak our minds freely and without fear of reprisal, intimidation or sanction is a hallmark of Western democracy. We should not surrender our rights in order to provide uncertain security in the face of violent opposition to contrary opinions. Ben Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

There is no reason to provide special protection to religious beliefs. The fear that religious believers will suffer “incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them” is nonsensical. The majority of people on the planet are religious. Religious believers hold most of the positions of power in both the East and West. They have no reason to fear the opinions of the minority. The most immediate danger to any believer in a particular god are those who believe in another god.

Criticism is not necessarily an act of hatred. Quite often criticism is an act of love. If a family member has become enslaved to drug addiction, is it an act of discrimination or hatred to criticize their addiction? If I firmly believe my country, a country I willingly served to defend, is headed in a dangerous and unconstitutional direction, should I remain mute?

Religious belief in a generic sense is predominant among humans around the globe. But there is little agreement as to the nature of the god the religious believe in. What anti-blasphemy resolutions seek to achieve will result in the inability of Baptists to speak out against the Catholic Church or reasonable people to object to the foolishness of Scientology. We will have to remain silent when Iran decides to execute those who oppose their theocracy or happen to be homosexual. Any theocratic government will be exempt from criticism by anyone for any reason.

The philosophical and legal quagmire with such legislation centers around the definition of “blasphemy.” Practically every religion, sect and cult possesses concepts that are blasphemous to another. As an important example, while Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Muslims consider him a mere prophet, albeit an important one. Calling Christ the “Son of God,” however, is viewed as “blasphemous” within Islam, as is not believing in Mohammed as Allah’s final and most important prophet. Under such anti-blasphemy legislation, therefore, all Christian literature could be confiscated and Christians arrested, because at its very core, Christianity would represent “blasphemous material” that could cause—and has caused—outrage many times in the Muslim world, explaining in part why the Bible is banned in such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the punishment for blasphemy according to the Koran includes death and maiming, as stated at Surah 5:33:

“Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land.”

Obviously, many people would object strenuously that there is any relationship between God and all this bigotry, cruelty and gore—to suggest otherwise would be extremely offensive to them and cause them outrage. This notion of a violent, cruel and enslaving God who approves of such behavior would offend their religious sensibilities, leaving its purveyors themselves open to charges of “blasphemy.” (Source-jdstone.org)

The lack of religious belief is just as valid a philosophical position as any religious belief. The only reason theists of any stripe think they can outlaw blasphemy is their majority status. It’s not an issue of rights or responsibility, it’s a matter of “might makes right”.

Related articles by Zemanta

• JONATHAN TURLEY: Obama Administration Accepts “Blasphemy” Exception to Free Speech. “Around the wo… (pajamasmedia.com)
• Blasphemy Day (tuibguy.com)
• International blasphemy day: from Danish cartoons to Jerry Springer The Opera (telegraph.co.uk)
• Man framed with Koran desecration dies in police custody (catholicnewsagency.com)
• Who wants Ireland’s blasphemy law? (guardian.co.uk)
• African Children Denounced As “Witches” By Christian Pastors (huffingtonpost.com)
• The right to offend (guardian.co.uk)
• UN rights body approves US-Egypt free speech text (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Archbishop Chaput: “God Will Demand an Accounting” for Our Moral Indifference (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• US refuses entry to radical German publisher (guardian.co.uk)
• Academia Goes Silent on Free Speech (online.wsj.com)

Why didn’t I vote in the latest elections for the president of the country of my birth, Iran? Because no matter who is the president of Iran, they would stone me!

As an Iranian woman, I require big changes in order to convince myself that a change in president would mean an improvement of my basic rights as human being inside Iran.

I was among many Iranians who decided not to vote in the recent [s]election. We boycotted the sham election in my motherland and have not been surprised by the results publicized by the mainstream media, both in Iran and elsewhere. This puppet regime has never considered the people’s wishes and has always acted in the interests of the few who are in charge of the prison called Iran. Cheating, lying and hypocrisy are the specialties of the religious demagogues that maintain the farce that Iran is a democratic state.

A quick look at Mousavi’s political biography reveals him to be a fanatic Khomeini supporter and a fanatic hard-liner similar to Ahmadinejad and others in control of the Islamic regime. His reign as Prime Minister was one of the darkest times in the history of Iran’s Islamic regime in terms of censorship and human rights violations. He is also backed up by the Rafsanjani mafia family, who have stolen oil money for their own family interests while 70% of the population lives in poverty. So ingrained as he is in a system of corruption and exploitation, that how could anyone believe that Mousavi genuinely wants reform?

Please click over and read the full article. Lila makes a compelling argument that Iran will remain unchanged no matter who prevails in the elections.

Lila Ghobady is an exiled Iranian writer-journalist and filmmaker living in Canada since 2002. She has been involved with human rights since working as a journalis in Iran and has continued her work in Canada when she arrived as a refugee. She has worked as a Producer and associate Director of internationally-praised underground films along fellow exiled filmmaker Moslem Mansouri before leaving Iran. Her recent film Forbidden Sun Dance has been well-received in several countries. As a journalist, she received the title of BlogHer of the Week for her Review piece on Slumdog Millionaire in March 2009. Lila has received her Master’s degree in Canadian/women studies from Carleton University in Ottawa.

The heartrending reality of bigotry and Islamophobia in today’s American environment is overwhelming.

The Islamophobes use the media as a propaganda tool to poison the minds of the American people under the disguise of “freedom of speech.” This was evident when Mr. Glen Sheller, editor of The Columbus Dispatch newspaper’s editorial page, defended the Dispatch’s distribution of the fear mongering DVD “Obsession,” which was intended to instill fear in the hearts and minds of the unsuspecting American people.

While we should relish and strive to benefit from our freedom of expression without fear or favor, we should also be mindful that the way we use our “freedom of speech” speaks volumes about us.

The gate keepers of public forums should remain neutral moderators and not compromise their ability to objectively protect the principles of this American value. Once reason is overshadowed, and objectivity diluted with hate, positive public discourse becomes more elusive.

There is a fine line between the healthy use of freedom of speech, and employing such “freedom” to advance bigotry and Islamophobia. The Media has become an effective tool for prolonging the psychological terrorization of the American people. American citizens must be vigilant in not allowing hate mongering interest groups, such as the producers of this DVD, to subvert such values as liberty, peace, and justice for all.

I am strongly opposed to newspaper editors, like Mr. Sheller, allowing themselves to be used to advance the agenda of hate mongering Islamophobes. As a mother who must carefully shelter her child from dangers lurking in the dark, I also feel the need to protect our cherished Constitutional principles, and the hard earned image of the better of the “two Americas.”

I fully understand the pain and anxiety caused by these hate mongering, Islamophobic groups who try to cloak their agendas under the umbrella of “freedom of speech”. They are far more detrimental to the health and welfare of America than meets the eye.

The promulgation of hatred and bigotry does not lead to positive public discourse.

In such an atmosphere that fosters so much pain and fear, a more healthy journalism – one that is balanced and fair – must be exerted. I support freedom of speech, but not at the expense of truth and justice!

Truth and justice. Foreign concepts to a discussion of religion. Truth is actually opinion and belief unsubstantiated by any form of evidence, as a proper proof would be. Justice is the new codeword for not allowing criticism and skepticism of anyone’s particular faith.

Islam is perhaps the least tolerant, next to Scientology, of any public challenge to its beliefs. They are seeking to have blasphemy made illegal in international courts. This is nothing less than an attempt to undermine the very essence of free speech. Religious belief must be very fragile if it cannot stand up against skepticism and doubt.

Harold Stone, in his reply to the Columbus Dispatch editorial mentioned by Aden, says exactly what I think when I read comments like Aden’s.

I respond to the Sept. 19 Faith & Values article “Distribution of DVD disturbs many Muslims.” I and everyone with whom I have discussed it applaud The Dispatch and other media outlets for the invaluable public service done by distributing the DVD Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.

The defensive comments of Asma Mobin-Uddin, president of the Ohio Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, offer no reasons for viewers to question the film’s validity or grave concerns and fears it generates.

I submit that her “anger and disappointment” at the disparagement of radical Islam are misdirected. As I understood the film, it attacked an estimated 15 percent of Muslims, not all, as Mobin-Uddin stated.

Where is the outrage, shame and guilt that righteous Islamists should espouse toward the abhorrent deeds and preachings of Islamic extremists (whatever their percentage of the faith) who are demanding death for all non-believers and are training a new generation to perpetuate their objectives? Are the other estimated 85 percent of Muslims simply turning a blind eye to the radical movement with hope that it will go away? Or does their seeming acquiescence reflect a degree of unspoken support?

If Mobin-Uddin is aware of falsehoods or misrepresentations presented by Obsession, she is obligated to address them specifically, clearly and objectively, not in an aura of self-indulgence or self-pity. To do otherwise is, I believe, a disservice and self-inflicted humiliation to all Muslims.

If Muslims do not themselves squelch the pervading evil and consuming hatred within the Islamic faith, who then must? And at what cost to civilization?

“If a religion cannot offer human beings free thinking and freedom, there is no benefit in continuing to be part of it, Syrian poet Adonis said yesterday.

What can emanate from a faith where people are made to believe that everything has been said and no more inquisitiveness or reasoning is required. A society that ceases to think freely is an antipode to existence,” he said.

“Islam today is nothing but similar to Christian theology except with a turban. Muslims can either continue the concept of one Umma (Nation) – which has been failing – or they can join the concept of humanism, that liberates them from the rules of fiqh and allows total equality for all citizens,” remarked Adonis.

“Innovations cannot be made in a religion. Only human intellect makes it possible,” he said, and “that can only come when Muslims start to question and reason again. The religion and politics must be separated.”

“Look at the Arab history, intellectual dealing, religious text, upheavals and all the events until the end of the first half of the Hijri century, during which four Rightly-Guided Caliphs were murdered – one supposedly poisoned. Then Baghdad declines and falls in 1228, gets taken over by Ottomans, followed by another takeover by Western civilisation that continues to be the case until today,” he said.

“During this time, while we should have learned from the age of Renaissance – allowing for more vision and adaptations – we went back to traditions and the result is a current Islamic fundamentalism, that people say lays a siege on human culture. Its like allowing the people to ‘look’ but not ‘join’,” he said.
Adonis, also drew great parallels between religious text and poetry, calling the former “a text that was said once and forever”, while the latter “an innovative process, allowing the poet to present new words and relations between man and the universe”.

“Essence of innovation in poetic terms means to reject the preconceived notions, while essence of innovation in religious terms means not to reject the sacred text. The text can be explained and interpreted but not questioned,” he said.

“The truth in poetry is relative and innovation in it changes with time, whereas religion never changes. That makes religion an answer, while poetry a question – thus the incompatibility. One requires submission, dictation and faith, the other requires reasoning and exploring. Two completely different ways of looking at the world,” he added.

(Source)