I respect your nonsense

Something that caught my attention the other day was the commonly used phrase “I respect your religion”, which is sometimes wheeled out as “I respect your faith”. It is a near universal expectation of those who believe in a deity or deities and it so ingrained in our culture that it can sometimes even trump the most basic human rights. There are even proposed international laws against defaming religion. But why should we respect religion? What do people mean when they say this? Is it dangerous to shelter religion from abuse, ridicule, even questioning?

Respect for property? ^†

I feel the need to explore what this statement actually means. At one end of the spectrum, it can mean acknowledging the rights of an individual to think what they please, which is innocuous enough, while on the other end it can mean submitting to the (god given) authority of an institution.

Respecting the individual is something that makes very good sense. We are social animals and rely upon those around us, we do not function well in solitude and with few exceptions we live together in communities. By the same reasoning, we can extend this concept of respect to the plant and animal kingdom with which we share this planet, even the bricks and mortar of our communities and the services they provide. But what is it that justifies giving respect to religion?

One argument is that our morals come from god and that without adherence to religious doctrine our societies would collapse in an orgy of sin, because we would not know right from wrong. If that were the case, a healthy respect would most certainly be in order and we should be compelled to listen to the teachings of the church. The whole idea is preposterous, of course. If it were so, we would live in fear that our non-religious neighbours might slaughter our families in the night and take possession of our homes. It is also highly insulting to those good people who do not subscribe to any form of religion and do not believe in the higher power of some unseen god.

As social animals we have an innate understanding of what is right and what is wrong and are quite capable of altruistic behaviours, because we appreciate the fact that cooperation benefits and strengthens our societies. Recent research shows us that we are born with the urge to help others, which suggests that the behaviour has evolved because it provides an advantage. Religious proponents might argue that god planted that seed within us, but why put yourself through the mental contortions necessary to believe this, when science offers the more obvious answer. Those arguing for god would also have to accept that he also chose to plant the same behaviours in other primate species, who have no more need for a holy book to tell them about moral behaviour, than do we.

Religious advocates will emphasise the important charitable role of churches when arguing for its purpose. The charity work of religious people may be something to be admired and appreciated, but it is the individual who deserves the respect. Religion is not an essential part of charity; it can be performed just as admirably by non believers who are not looking for a heavenly reward. In fact religion, in some cases, can attach conditions to their charity work, using it as a subtle – and in some cases not so subtle – recruiting tool. The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington also shows us that human rights – in this case those of gays and lesbians – take second place to religious dogma when it comes to providing for the poor and the needy.

Should religious authorities command respect because they are truth seekers trying to make sense of the world? Theologians will make words do somersaults in order to provoke the mental gymnastics which are necessary to hold a belief in a god or gods, but when scrutinised in the context of the real world, there is no substance to their claims. They will claim to seek the truth, but the fact is that they are already committed to what they believe is the truth and therefore have no interest in doing any such thing. Word play is the only tool they have left with which to support their version of the truth. And with so many faiths out there in the world, there are a lot of incompatible “truths” to which we may subscribe. This fact alone should give a clue that there is more nonsense to religion than there is sense. Why should any one of them command any respect?

How about the suggestion that religion gives meaning to peoples’ lives. After exhausting all other attempts to ascribe a useful purpose to religion and justify the demand for it to be given respect, this is often the last gasp to wrestle the argument back. And I cannot deny that religion does indeed give meaning in some peoples’ lives. I don’t personally think it is a meaning rooted in reality, but it is a personal choice and the individual – not the religion – should be given the respect to believe whatsoever they please, on the condition that it does not adversely affect the lives of others.

The problem is that nonsensical beliefs can spill over into the lives of others, to their detriment. It is at this point that we no longer need to exercise tolerance, let alone give our respect. Religion uses preaching to self perpetuate and commands its adherents to obey certain rules, something which can be used to great advantage in exercising control over a population. Throughout history we have seen how church and state have become intertwined for exactly this purpose. Some modern religions use the threat of eternal damnation in the fires of hell to keep their members from straying from the flock. Most disturbingly they preach this message to fearful, innocent children; that is how far they will sink. These are methods that belong in the dark ages and are nothing more than an embarrassment in the 21st century.

Not all religions operate using threats of violence, either in this life or the next. Jews do not believe in hell like the Christians do, but their faith demands that they obey its rules, some of which are frankly absurd. On the Jewish holy day of Shabbat, for example, followers may use some interesting workarounds to the demands of the faith. Elevators may take an age getting to you on that particular day, because it may be programmed to stop and open on every single floor, just so that devout believers can get around without breaking god’s rules. Apparently she gets very upset when you call for an elevator, but it’s okay if it just happens to pass by and let you on. This is just one example where someone else’s beliefs can adversely affect the everyday lives of the non-believers who want nothing more than to get on with their lives, and unfortunately there will always be those who will protest if you do not live your life according to their beliefs.

Giving respect to this sort of nonsense is the thin end of the wedge that leads to giving religions undue authority or turning a blind eye to their destructive power. Religion has been used to justify heinous acts of violence and cruelty throughout human history, it continues today and will unfortunately continue into the future. And I don’t just refer to wars and terrorism; take faith based medical neglect for example. Undue respect for religion can give perpetrators of these crimes a free pass, or at least some leniency, thereby shrugging off the neglect and abuse of countless numbers of children worldwide, because passing judgement might tread on the sensitive toes of religion.

Nonsense borne out of religious belief should wield no authority. Faith and religion has no right telling people how to live their lives, nor how to end them. The recent sentencing of convicted killer Khristian Oliver stirred up controversy because, in deciding his fate, the jury consulted their holy book: the Bible. A few verses later, they concluded that the man should himself be put to death for his crimes. They had consulted a two thousand year old text that is full of inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies and god sanctioned acts of barbarism that would turn the stomach of any sane jury member. Khristian Oliver was executed on the 6th of November.

No belief system should be sacred and no institution with a vested in interest in keeping it alive should be protected from challengers. If you are a Muslim, which is the default label given to people who are born of parents who consider themselves followers of this particular faith, they have no choice in the matter and are obliged to believe in the one god of their religion. Not conforming carries a risk. Currently the fate of three Iranian men demonstrates the severity of the penalty for dissent: they have been sentenced to death for “enmity against God”. These mens’ lives are in the balance, not for something they did, not even for something they thought, but for something they failed to believe. Where are their human rights? Where is the respect for the one fundamental thing that we all deserve: life?

References:
† Image by caffeina (Creative Commons licence).

Controversial: Science to be taught in schools

Teaching kids about the way the world works, insofar as it can be ascertained using the tools of science, is something we’ve come to expect. Should it therefore be a subject of controversy? The British House of Commons has recently passed legislation that will require primary schools to teach evolution to kids and I have no doubt it will ruffle a few feathers.

Science class ^†

Why this should be a big deal in the 21st century, is hard to comprehend. Do these same schools not teach their students that fire requires oxygen to burn, demonstrating that a flame in a sealed space will be extinguished when the element has been consumed, or teach them why a bulb lights up when a switch is closed and current flows through a circuit? These are all examples of classroom science and the teaching of evolution should be no more remarkable.

This legislation will almost certainly be met with misgivings and protest from some quarters, most notably from groups with faith-based agendas. Such groups are very powerful in the United States where such laws would be near impossible to enact in most states, and unfortunately their influence extends across the pond to the United Kingdom.

Concerns over teaching evolution in primary schools would probably not have been raised even one or two decades ago, other than that the subject is perhaps better left until the later school years, which is a valid argument. Some faith groups, however, would have you believe that the subject should not be taught because it is wrong, and their voices are getting louder as they gather more and more support for their anti-scientific ideas.

Dismissing the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution, built up in the 150 years since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, they would have you believe that the entire world was created by a supernatural being or some other intelligent designer. Many Biblical creationists would endorse the teaching of their belief that the Earth and everything upon it was magically brought into existence a mere 6000 years ago!

Excessive government control over what is taught in schools is neither practical nor desirable, but this new step is necessary for the sake of our children and the generations that follow them. By properly educating our children and giving them the tools to reason for themselves, we can thwart those who would have us living in the dark ages, ignorant of the truth of the world, slaves to religious doctrine.

† Image by bowbrick (Creative Commons attribution)

Can we have our planet back?

This rant comes from Marcus Brigstocke on the BBC Radio 4 Now Show and was animated by alien8ted. He’s slightly offensive but the message is clear: religion is screwing it up for the rest of us and we’d like it to stop.

Debating the merits of the Catholic church

A recent, televised debate for the Intelligence Squared series is now available to watch online and I highly recommend it (see 5 part video below). It features an archbishop and a British politician debating in favour of the motion that “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world”, while two well known personalities argue against it. For those who have no particularly strong feelings on organised religion, these highly erudite disputants may change all that.

Religious goalposts like water into wine

Terry Eagleton has just given an interview on a Canadian radio show called The Current, to promote his book Reason, Faith and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. The book was written in defence of religion, which has supposedly been much maligned by the “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. You can listen to the interview here (scroll to the player at the bottom of the page):

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200906/20090619.html

Some good arguments against the new atheists are welcome and keenly anticipated. Religion makes such a big deal about some ethereal being or concept they call god, so where is it and what is it? Unfortunately Eagleton’s arguments were unsatisfactory, disappointing and lacked any real substance. Apparently atheists are not asking the right questions and are looking in all the wrong places.

The pure waffling and nonsense from Eagleton accounted to little more than moving the goal posts to sidestep the critics’ questions and evade their lines of reasoning. In fact he took it one step further by redefining the goal posts altogether, so that he could mock them for scoring a touchdown while he stands off to the side and points to a waiting basketball hoop. Well, if religion can turn water into wine, why not?

We’ve heard it all before: We no longer believe in Zuess and the other ancient Greek gods because that’s all silly and belongs to a less educated past, and don’t even think about worshipping like a Pagan these days. Apparently the caricatured version of a Christian god is now also unacceptable and you have to go to Theology school to learn the truth, which is all about love and probably doesn’t involve praying to voices in your head any more. So don’t worry, there is a god and religion is not the awful thing those nasty New Atheists portray it as.

He finally touches on some of his own fears for a world without religion, but his ad hominen attack pointing out that Hitchens, as an atheist, supported the war in Iraq, is an ill-advised one. Does he fail to recall the Christian who started that war, or is that just another goalpost in need of refurbishment?

Proposed Afghan marriage law

Where to start? No, I am not referring to the fact that this is the first post here, I am instead referring to my open jaw, behind which are crowded a thousand exasperated and angry thoughts, too bloated to elbow past one another and escape into words. The issue: human rights in Afghanistan. More specifically: the rights of women under a proposed new law for Shiites.

Newspaper photographs and television pictures of women demonstrating on the streets of Kabul transform me into a virtual spectator, standing there on the sidelines in awe and admiration of  their bravery. Theirs is a world dominated by religious dogma and their opposing gender, who, over the centuries, have been endowed with all the power and control over their society.

They are demonstrating against a proposed law that will effectively give a man the right to rape and imprison his wife (Shiite men can have up to four wives).  The present laws are already heavily biased to favour the rights of men, but this one really is the icing on the cake and has elicited swift condemnation from around the world.

Dogs and whores they call them. The men rush in to protest the demonstration, wielding primitive weapons and threatening violence. The women, their targets of abuse, are prepared for this and readily flee. They’ve come to expect this kind of a response, having suffered this familiar male aggression for far too long.

All Afghan men cannot be tarred with the same brush, but if that group of men is anything to go by, it is a clear indication of the low regard with which many of them see the female sex. Perhaps surprising are the women that sided with those men. Many women in Afghanistan accept the status quo and think the rest of the world should stop meddling in their affairs. Supporters of this law view it as the proper implementation of Islamic justice.

Let us be clear, this is not simply another women’s rights and equality issue; this is a human rights issue. A society so wrapped up in uncivilised and anachronistic ways of thinking is doomed never to progress. Boys and girls will learn that their fathers and other men folk are the masters and that women raise children, keep home and do as they are told. They will grow up, adopt those roles and perpetuate the cycle. And until the shackles are removed, women will not be able to choose other meaningful careers and pursuits, which is a sad loss for their communities and their country.

This is a human rights issue. The rest of the world cannot turn a blind eye. Concern for the welfare of your fellow humans does not stop at national borders or at the barriers constructed to shield religion from criticism. These people need the security to exercise free speech and to afford themselves an education. Loosening the chains of backwards thinking is the start of that human endeavor and the activists deserve all the support in the world.