Afghan women are pelted by rocks at protest

A couple of days ago, I wrote a passionate entry stating my opposition to the Canadian government’s involvement in Afghanistan. It was in response to their new laws that make it impossible for women to refuse sex from their husbands, as well as making women eligible for marriage immediately following menstruation. As far as I’m concerned, these two laws alone make both rape and sexual abuse to children legal.

Yesterday, about 300 Afghan women protested these laws, and for their bravery, they were pelted with stones. Police had to hold back the angry mob that accused the women of being ‘slaves to Christians’ and for not being ‘proper Shia women’.

The law as it’s written is only for the minority Shia community, but it would appear few native Afghans consider the issue important. In a way I can’t blame them; the country is a mess, and there are probably many who feel laws of this nature are not a huge concern.

I’m relieved the violence didn’t escalate any further, but it would be naive to assume this issue resolved. What usually scares me is the people who agitate for equal rights are usually met by people who physically crush all opposition. To say these women are in danger for holding their beliefs is an understatement.

Many Muslims feel attitudes of gender equality is a form of Western oppression, and I have no doubt these opposing world views will continue to be a great source of friction. It would appear we cannot force individuals to take the rights of women seriously, and that’s a very frightening reality.

Harris and Warren debate on Newsweek

No, contrary to what you may believe, this isn’t Sam Harris day, although I will admit the man has been on a bit of a tear lately. Here’s his debate with Rick Warren on Newsweek. Warren does what most religious people do in debates: create an intangible metaphysical entity that defies both explanation and reason, and most notably, scrutiny.

Here’s an interesting back and forth that shows you the level of understanding that Warren has for the term debate:

(when asked if he’s open to the idea that Jesus was real)

WARREN: And what are you doing to study that?

HARRIS: I consider it such a low-probability event that I—

WARREN: A low probability? When there are 96 percent believers in the world? So is everybody else an idiot?

HARRIS: It is quite possible for most people to be wrong—as are most Americans who think that evolution didn’t occur.

WARREN: That’s an arrogant statement.

HARRIS: It’s an honest statement.

I love how some people think telling someone they are wrong is arrogant. If you believe the earth is flat, you are making a statement about the natural world which can be verified. That’s the danger about making claims about the universe; someone will test out your theories, and if they are proven wrong, don’t be surprised if everyone else considers you a fool for your continued belief.

The real meat of the argument is when both men begin discussing slavery. Here, Warren would have benefited from reading a history book or two:

WARREN: You’d much rather have somebody—an atheist—feeding the hungry than a person who believes in God? All of the great movements forward in Western civilization were by believers. It was pastors who led the abolition of slavery. It was pastors who led the woman’s right to vote. It was pastors who led the civil-rights movement. Not atheists.

HARRIS: You bring up slavery—I think it’s quite ironic. Slavery, on balance, is supported by the Bible, not condemned by it. It’s supported with exquisite precision in the Old Testament, as you know, and Paul in First Timothy and Ephesians and Colossians supports it, and Peter—

WARREN: No, he doesn’t. He allows it. He doesn’t support it.

HARRIS: OK, he allows it. I would argue that we got rid of slavery not because we read the Bible more closely. We got rid of slavery despite the profound inadequacies of the Bible. We got rid of slavery because we realized it was manifestly evil to treat human beings as farm equipment. As it is.

Honestly Rick, he allows it but doesn’t support it? What the fuck does that mean?

Does loving dogs make you a genocidal monster?

Ok, that may sound like a stupid question, but let me refer you to the picture above. Hitler loved his dog, and he was responsible for the Holocaust. Surely, according to this logic, I’ve made a powerful case against owning canines.

If you think I’ve gone insane, rest assured I’m only trying to prove a point. There’s an article on Proud Atheist that tries to debunk the claim Christians make about Hitler’s personal religious beliefs, therefore encouraging me to write my thoughts on the matter. I’ve usually avoided this subject in the past, mostly because it’s spurious reasoning. However, it’s one of those old arguments that doesn’t go away, no matter what anyone has to say about it. It deserves to be discussed, and more specifically, to be put to rest.

If you want to know why Christians love telling people Hitler was an atheist, it is because he was one to some degree. I know there are a lot of examples in his book and speeches about him making reference to God, but the reason isn’t that he personally believed in a higher power; merely that he understood the appeal of it. He thought, as Karl Marx did, that religion was the opiate of the people.

Hitler’s beliefs were pragmatic to say the least. He identified more with Islam than Christianity, which he felt was meek and shapeless. In other words, Hitler favored ideologies and belief more suited for his own purpose, or what some would call ‘politically convenient’. It’s why he allied himself with the Catholic church in an attempt to eliminate Jews from society.

The Church likes to think we’ve all forgotten about Christian complacency in the light of the Holocaust simply because Pope John Paul II later apologized for what happened. His hollow words were of little comfort for the millions dead, many of them the direct result of the church’s involvement (or lack thereof).

The Nazis have come to symbolize evil in this world, and it’s not without merit. They were not, however, an atheistic organization in any sense. Hitler took great care to mask his non belief specifically because he knew support for his monstrous initiatives would derive from the largely religious German population. And because antisemitism had such a long history in Europe, it was easy to shape their mistrust of the Jews into outright genocide.

Still, the specter of Hitler haunts the world, and his ghostly image is often distorted to suit the needs of history’s revisionists. Rather than admit to their participation in the Holocaust, Christians want to put all the blame on Hitler, as if he single-handedly killed every Jew. His atheism, they believe, must have been the cause of his evil. Well, Hitler also loved his dog, but you don’t hear a lot of canine lovers being compared to him, do you? Obviously we understand the weakness in trying making a link between loving dogs and being a murderous psycho. Why is atheism any different? How does not believing in God suddenly lead a person to aberrant behavior?

The real problem is Christians haven’t put much effort into understanding our position as atheists. They believe the rejection of a metaphysical god somehow erases all moral impetus from a person. It is this lack of empathy I find frightening, because it is specifically our ability as humans to empathize with others that is our real moral compass, not some ancient manuscript. It’s why the best way to entice a population to act outside of their normal moral framework is to first dehumanize the enemy, thus rendering empathy impossible. If there’s a lesson to be learned from the tragedy of genocide, it’s once a population begins to see other people as less human, less moral, and less righteous than themselves, the consequences are indeed dire.

So next time you hear a Christian tell you Hitler was an atheist, simply tell him/her he was also a dog lover, painter, and budding architect. Surely those must have counted for some of his evil as well, no?

Sunday school teacher accused of murder and rape

Proving once again that religion has no special vanguard against immoral behavior, Melissa Huckaby, whose grandfather is a Baptist minister, was arrested today when the body of Sandra Cantu was found stuffed in a suitcase. The little girl was apparently also raped, which only makes the whole thing even more disturbing.

In typical ‘I know the killer but never really clued in’ fashion, her family describes Huckaby as having a strong religious upbringing, which leads me to believe any potential mental illness was probably disguised as simple religious faith. The criterion for crazy is a little different with religious people, so it never really surprises me anymore when one of them pops and takes a few victims with them. How tragic it had to be an innocent and beautiful little girl.

Christians have a hard time identifying why human beings occasionally do bad things. If you understand that unethical behavior can be heavily influenced by mental disorders, you’re in a better position to help avoid these kinds of tragedies. On the other hand, when you put your fate in ‘God’s Hands’, you can’t be surprised when everything goes terribly wrong.

Rick Warren thinks atheists hate their dads

I’ve always found it amusing how religious folks try to peg atheists. Most of them think we don’t believe in God simply because we were spurned in some way, and in our pettiness, we rejected God. I won’t deny there are definitely more than a few atheists who essentially hold their views more out of spite than reason, but it’s certainly not true for most of us. Pastor Rick Warren would disagree with me. He’s got a rather strange idea of why certain prominent individuals reject the idea of God:

Paul Vitz, who is an author with New York University, wrote a very fascinating book called Faith Of The Fathers, in which he went and studied the 72 most well-known atheists in history, the Bertrand Russells, the Voltaires, the Freuds, and the only thing he could find in common with every one of them is they all hated their dads. Every one of them. They had distant dad, demeaning dad, a dead dad, they had no relationships with their fathers.

So I apparently hate my dad or something. Paul Vitz is a hack who thinks not believing in God is tantamount to a form of dementia, and Warren is the idiot who trusts his conclusions. Yeah, not believing a bearded anthropomorphic entity created human beings in ‘his’ image apparently means my family relationship was damaged in some way. I’m sure if Vitz bothered to actually spend some time with atheists, he’d realize most of us just come to reject the notion of God simply because it just DOESN’T FUCKING MAKE ANY SENSE! It’s a pretty easy conclusion, honestly.

Canadian government isn’t doing the right thing

I’ve never understood why the Canadian government is so adamant about keeping certain immigrants while simultaneously trying to kick others out, especially when the people we send back to their home countries are in danger. While we harbor ex Nazis, mafia criminals, and other genocidal monsters, we also try to get rid of good people who seek our protection.

Roohi Tabassum is an illegal immigrant who says she will be killed by her estranged husband if she returns to her native Pakistan. She has received numerous threatening letters from him, but even with this evidence, my government seems not to care too much.

“The decision to remove someone from Canada is not taken lightly,” Giolti said by e-mail. “Under our laws, removal orders must be enforced as soon as possible.”

Giolti is a coward who is hiding behind the law; it’s quite clear here Roohi is in danger, and yet, our useless bureaucracy will end up failing her. Roohi is not a drain on society; she works at as a hair dresser, and has managed to make a life for herself in this country. Despite this, we are sending her back to a place where honor killings are common place.

I feel sick to my stomach about this. By sending her back, every Canadian is a silent partner on her eventual death. It isn’t too hard for us to do the right thing in this situation. All we need to do is let her stay and continue to live her life as she sees fit. Does that sound like a big deal to you?

National Secular Society goes after NHS chaplains

I have to admire the tenacity and boldness of Britain’s NSS. These guys are always looking for ways to untangle the church and state, and their battle recently has been to get the National Health Service to stop spending money on chaplain services. According to their report, the state spends close to 32 million pounds on these guys, which is an expense the NSS feels should be absorbed by the church.

Personally, I couldn’t agree more. Already religious organizations benefit from not paying any taxes. With that extra cash, the state could afford to hire 1,300 new nurses. That’s a lot of extra hands to help provide care to people who will actually make a difference in their health service. I’m guessing, of course, that the policy won’t change. If there’s one thing that is predictable in any bureaucracy, it’s that nothing ever gets done.

I’m not implying chaplain services aren’t appreciated by religious people who do get ill, but why the hell can’t the church contribute their services for free? The fact these institutions pay no tax represents a huge loss of tax revenues. Is it too much to ask that they stop suckling at our collective teat and start contributing more to society than their useless chants and dogmatic advice?

What to do when you’re a skeptic

I found this link at James Randi’s Educational Foundation, and thought a number of you might be interested in this free book entitled What to Do Next. It’s for skeptics interested in becoming more active, and it lists just about every skeptical activity you can get involved in. My suggestion to anyone interested in this is to pick a few of the suggestions and try them. What do you have to lose?

More honor killings in Germany

Here’s another tragic honor killing in Germany, this time by the woman’s own brother. According to reports, he lured her to the countryside, where he strangled her unconscious with a clothes line before beating her to death.

Her crime? Well, it turns out the family was trying to set up an arranged marriage and found out that not only wasn’t she a virgin, but she had also undergone at least one abortion. That was all it took for her to die at the hands of her family.

Europe is facing a unique problem these days. Their immigrant population is increasing, and as they do so, they bring with them many customs and rituals we find morally repugnant. It’s a serious issue, and it’s not disappearing anytime soon. My sad prediction is we’re going to continue to read about these tragedies for some time, at least until we stop beating around the bush on this issue and take a hard stance. Right now all we can do is prosecute the murderers. It seems to me that we should be doing more to protect these women when they are still alive.

Focus on the Family narrator gets busted

I’m tired of every Christian I speak to thinking their religion makes them more moral than others. What bugs me the most is this stupid idea that the Bible is an adequate moral compass. It really isn’t. If one passage isn’t telling you to stone your children, it’s telling you not to eat shellfish. If pigging out on shrimp is wrong, then I don’t want to be right, dammit.

Here’s an article about Juan Alberto Ovalle, a Spanish narrator for Focus on the Family who just got busted for solicitation of a minor. Undercover agents posing as young girls caught him trying to seduce what he thought was 15 year old girl into sleeping with him. He’s obviously a pillar of society.

I went to the site to see if they would make a statement, but obviously they are too mortified to comment on the arrest. I did, however, find this quote in their ‘About’ page that I thought I’d share with you on the eve of Juan’s arrest:

Since Focus on the Family’s primary reason for existence is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through a practical outreach to homes, we have firm beliefs about both the Christian faith and the importance of the family. This ministry is therefore based upon six guiding philosophies that are apparent at every level throughout the organization. These ‘pillars’ are drawn from the wisdom of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic, rather than from the humanistic notions of today’s theorists (my quote marks). In short, Focus on the Family is a reflection of what we believe to be the recommendations of the Creator Himself, who ordained the family and gave it His blessing.

Would you like to have a ‘good Christian’ like Juan Ovalle reaching out to your family? I think I’ll stick to people with more humanistic notions…

Playing with fire gets you burned

The attacks of September 11th, 2001 had a profound impact on Beverly Giesebrecht. Unlike most of her Canadian peers, Beverly felt the attacks were more than justified, and she quickly converted to Islam and began work on a website with clear pro-Taliban leanings. She traveled to Egypt for two years to study the Qur’an before finally ending up in Pakistan where she met up with them. The meeting, however, appears to have gone differently from what she hoped for. Rather than take her into their fold, the Taliban kidnapped her and are holding her hostage. She is now pleading for her life, and the Canadian government is trying to rescue her.

Beverly’s problem was she failed to realize what she was getting herself into. Her interpretation of the events, and of the organizations involved, was quite obviously flawed. The Taliban are not ‘freedom fighters’ that combat the oppression of the West; they are a militant religious organization which hold extreme conservative views, and as far as they are concerned, Beverly’s worth to the cause is as a hostage, not a peer.

She is now begging for her life, only a few days away from the deadline. I have to wonder the degree of commitment the Canadian government has to save her. They are, more than likely, unwilling to negotiate with the Taliban, and they may feel that Beverly betrayed her country in favor of Islam. Regardless of what she may have said and done, it’s obvious her comprehension of the issues were flawed. She had hoped to ally with Al Qaeda to fight ‘Western oppression’, but in truth her allies have no need for an educated woman in their ranks. They would rather a 300k paycheck.

I have a feeling this story will end in tragedy. The Canadian government is unlikely to bust their asses saving her, and the Taliban will quickly grow tired of their hostage. If the situation is resolved, I have the feeling that Beverly may look well to lose her pro ‘terrorist’ leanings. I just hope she has that chance.

British Teachers’ Union fight faith schools

Faith schools are a terrible idea. I’m not only referring to the fact kids who go to these schools are taught a great degree of non-sense, or that a significant proportion of the British population disproves of them. The biggest problem with these schools is they segregate the population along religious lines, and in any multicultural society, this is extremely undesirable.

Britain has over 7000 faith based schools, the vast majority of them being primary. There were relatively few before Tony Blair’s government decided they were a good idea, and since then they’ve been springing up like hotcakes. Blair, the neo-con that he was, probably thought it would be a cheap way to educate kids, since the thinking was church money would pay for at least part of the cost. So far, the state pays roughly 90% of the operation costs. Nice one, Tony.

Now teachers are displeased, and realize the education policies of these schools are preventing kids from becoming properly integrated into society, and they are trying to make sweeping changes which would in effect obliterate the way these schools do business. I’m unsure how much pull they have, but I’m glad there are at least a few people out there who are fighting to end the ability for state funded faith schools to operate.

Afghanistan’s government plans to introduce scary laws

I’ve spoken many times about the fact Canada needs to leave this country. Proportionally, we’ve taken the heaviest casualties, and even with the hard work accomplished, the country still seems bent on converting itself into a theocratic hellhole. Here are some of the proposed amendments to their constitution President Karzai is trying to pass:

Article 132 says. “Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.”

Article 133 reintroduces the Taliban restrictions on women’s movements outside their homes, stating: “A wife cannot leave the house without the permission of the husband” unless in a medical or other emergency.

Article 27 endorses child marriage with girls legally able to marry once they begin to menstruate.

The Canadian government has threatened to pull its troops if these amendments aren’t killed, but even if they are, it’s only a matter of time before they eventually become law. It’s inevitable. The religious conservative element is too big and too entrenched to ever leave. All we can do is hold them at bay, but the second we leave they’ll jump in, establish their own religious government, and prove this entire thing was just a gigantic waste of time and human life.

As much as we’d like to believe other countries envy our modern values, the truth is much of the world doesn’t really care about concepts such as human rights, women’s rights, or personal liberties. We believe these values are the building blocks of any free society, and we find it shocking when a country, like Afghanistan, begins to introduce draconian laws which allow marital rape, or child marriages to occur. We feel insulted that anyone would refuse to live by our code of conduct. We are confused because we are under the delusion that the rest of the world wants to be like us. Why wouldn’t they? We rock, don’t we?

Step outside your own world view for a moment and imagine you were born and raised in a culture that sees women as second class citizens. Your neighbor recently killed his daughter because she kissed a boy, and when you hear the details about her stoning, you find yourself agreeing the punishment fit the crime. Now your country is invaded by individuals with a much different set of values attempting to impose them on you. They set up a democracy for you however, and so you do the only thing that seems rational to you: you demand the government change its constitution so the code you live by (and everyone you know lives by as well) is now accepted as law. This isn’t rocket science; you cannot hope to change the opinions of a generation, especially one with already established customs and rituals laden with values, with ideas that drastically conflict with their own.

A democracy in the hands of ethically unenlightened population only brings tyranny back into power. We naively believed the only reason the country was so fucked was due to being ruled by the ‘Iron Fist’ of the Taliban. If a heavily trained army with sophisticated weapons can’t stabilize the place, then why would we assume a shitty poorly armed group would be any different? Afghanistan is so poorly developed many areas are essentially self governing entities much more like ancient tribes than modern cities. The reason is for more than 1000 years, the area has seen nothing but bloody conflict after bloody conflict. The longest recorded political stability in this country was 40 years. That’s it.

I’m not saying everyone in Afghanistan is religiously conservative, or they don’t wish to secularize. In the past, the country’s leaders tried at various times to modernize their own governments. One of these reformers was assassinated. The other was overthrown. In other words, the country is a quagmire.

I wish it wasn’t this way at all. I wish we really could go there, free their population from religious tyranny, and let the population live happily ever after. We are stuck in a no-win situation. We can’t win by staying there, since we only delay the inevitable and continue to send more soldiers to die. If we leave, the country falls into chaos.

UN should protect people, not institutions

Here’s an interesting article from The Economist that deals with the UN’s resolution to make defamation of religion illegal. We’re all aware of how toothless the UN really is, but it doesn’t change the fact this resolution attempts to protect religious institutions instead of individuals.

Think of it this way; when the UN was created shortly after the end of the Second World War, world governments realized powerful institutions were at the root of the problem, so the focus was placed on individual liberties and protections. It was understood that by themselves, institutions can easily become corrupt, evil, and destructive, but so long as individuals were able to pursue their own interests without fear of persecution, it would at least indicate they were indeed free. A resolution that seeks to protect a religious institution from defamation is really trying to protect it from criticism, and nothing more. Imagine the same protection was afforded to fascism, communism, or any other institution for that matter? We wouldn’t stand for it, simply because we recognize the danger in protecting institutions rather than individuals.

Let’s stop beating around the bush and recognize precisely what this resolution is intended to do. Islam is tired of being criticized, and it wants all of us to play nice. Sorry, no can do. The fact of the matter is I consider this religion to be barbaric, cruel, destructive, and dangerous. I recognize individuals within Islam can be kind, loving, and caring; but as a whole, it is a religion that remains incompatible with our modern values. With this resolution, Islamic countries seek to make their position immune to outside criticism. So long as you torture and kill people in the name of God, I will continue to criticize your beliefs, regardless of how many stupid UN resolutions they try to pass.

Canadian parliament member James Lunney is an idiot

I’ve often been accused of being anti-American. It’s true I love to criticize the crazy things that go on down there, but I’m well aware stupidity, ignorance and bigotry are not uniquely American. Here’s a classic example of Canadian idiocy care of James Lunney, Conservative member of Parliament:

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.

See? Canadians are just as stupid as Americans. We’re just less ‘in your face’ about it.