The View from Number 80

Prospering Preachers - talking of John McCain (see below) 80 found another instance of his new-found enthusiasm for the Christian Right when he addressed a meeting of Christians United for Israel. We are told that this outfit was founded by Reverend John Hagee. As CEO of the nonprofit Global Evangelism Television, Hagee makes roughly $1 million a year. Now that may sound like a lot of money to most of us but it is small change to those who run the megachurches. If you thought the Pope swanning around in outrageous finery was obscene (and it is) here some other individuals who, although from a different Christian sect, also cannot/will not see the mismatch between their lifestyles and that of most of their flock (what an apt description). Senator's Inquiry Into Megachurch Money Hypocrisy Sparks Church-State Showdown is the somewhat unwieldy title of an article by Rob Boston on the rich hypocrites who masquerade as humble servants of God - although when one of them, Bishop Eddie Long has "...a salary approaching $1 million a year and a nine-bathroom mansion situated on 20 acres....(and) drives a $350,000 Bentley." the masquerade is wearing pretty thin. Long obviously hasn't read the rich man and the eye of the needle parable attributed to the supernatural being he worships (no, not Mammon - leastways not openly) Here is his rationalisation of his position, "I pastor a multimillion dollar congregation. You've got to put me on a different scale than the little black preacher sitting over there that's supposed to be just getting by because the people are suffering." Humble he ain't - it is also interesting he characterizes his congregation not as devout or faithful but as "multimillion dollar". Depressingly, Long is far from alone in his hypocritical lifestyle and he and other detritus such as Benny Hinn, who lives in a $10 million "parsonage" have attracted some unwelcome inquiries concerning their expenditure from Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) who is looking into six organizations that preach "prosperity gospel".

Grassley says "The six ministries that received letters from me were chosen based upon reported allegations of wrongdoing reported by investigative journalists and brought to my attention by interested third parties, sometimes acting as whistleblowers. Some of the accounts were disturbing because of the lack of transparency regarding how these ministries spend millions of dollars, and as an industry, billions of dollars that have been exempt from federal tax." It didn't take long for Long (sorry) to squeal like a stuck pig, calling Grassley's perfectly legitimate request for information "..an attack on our religious freedom and privacy rights." Most of his fellow hypocrites have referred the request to their doubtlessly very expensive lawyers to finagle over. The Rev. Creflo Dollar of World Changers Church International in College Park, Georgia, who drives a Rolls Royce and has large homes in Georgia and New York, was the only one to refuse to cooperate. He has placed a message on his website detailing the procedure for seeing a statement of his expenditure "Members of World Changers Church International can request to review the church's audited financial statements by contacting the ministry at 770-210-5700. Please be ready to give your name, member number, and phone number. Once your information has been verified you will be contacted to schedule an appointment to meet with a member of our accounting staff. Once the appointment is made, be prepared to present your photo I.D. for verification when you come." Surely it would be easier to pass through the eye of a needle...

It is easy to imagine other megachurch hypocrites are watching developments with trepidation, fully aware that they could be next to explain why they are worth millions - millions extracted from the devout and gullible, millions that are tax exempt - at least so far. As one observer, Ole Anthony, head of the Texas-based Trinity Foundation, has pointed out, it would be far better for other churches to speak out against the televangelical "prosperity gospel" that has enriched these creeps but as that has obviously not happened the dirty work has fallen to Grassley and Congress. Given how much money talks in Washington one wonders whether Grassley's mission will founder, tied up in the courts by the best lawyers (the flock's) money can buy. Now you know where the expression "being fleeced" comes from........ (Also see God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the GOP Crusade for Values Voters which looks at Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church. 80 has written of Parsley before see Weapon For Sale and Shredded Parsley)

Big Lie - 80 wrote recently about Charles Gadda and his article on peddling religious sensationalism in America (see Faith-Based Reality?) in which he takes issue with an attempt by Dinesh D'Souza to rewrite history from a partisan Christian perspective. Actually perspective is too mild a word - partisan Christian lies would be more accurate. This kind of deception concerning the founding fathers is nothing new - but what is new is an attempt to give such revisionism official status. Chris Hedges draws our attention to House Resolution 888 and something called American Religious History Week, which he says "...is an insidious attempt by the radical Christian right to rewrite American history, to turn the founding fathers from deists into Christian fundamentalists, to proclaim us officially to be a Christian nation." As 80 has mentioned before even a cursory examination of the beliefs of the founders shows they were in the main deists who deliberately did not enshrine any organized religion in the Constitution. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is a model of clarity so what is going on?

Resolution 888 (PDF file) is an attempt by U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes to make an official Religious History Week each May “..for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.” We are told here that "The measure has 31 sponsors and is before a House committee." Forbes' other claim to fame was the foundation of "Congressional Prayer Caucus in 2005 to lobby against what it saw as the erosion of religion from American public life and history."  So he is at least consistent. Looking at the revised history offered in support of the resolution it would appear he has adopted a tactic known as the Big Lie. The idea is that if the lie is big enough and brazen enough and repeated often enough it can overwhelm the truth. The problem for Forbes is that abundant evidence exists to refute his revisionism although of course that evidence needs to be proclaimed as loudly or louder than his lie.

Michael "Mikey" Weinstein, head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and a former White House counsel for President Reagan who is quoted by Hedges has no doubts about the duplicity of the resolution, "House Resolution 888 is perhaps the most disgraceful, shocking and tragic example yet of the pernicious and pervasive pattern and practice of the unconstitutional rape of our bedrock American citizens' religious freedoms by the fundamentalist Christian right" Many may think this is a storm in a teacup and Hedges himself ackowledges the resolution may never leave the committee stage - and even if it did, is unlikely to be passed - but he finds it indicative of a certain mind-set, particularly that of presidential wannabe Huckabee, who wears his fundamentalist Christian faith on both sleeves. This is the man who told a Baptist Covention in 1998 "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ," Huckabee told a Baptist convention in 1998. He assured the crowd that he had not entered politics "..because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

Has Huckabee read the First Amendment? If he has, he either does not understand it or has chosen to ignore it. Does he know anything about the founding fathers' beliefs? No, but he is certainly prepared to lie about them. The current White House incumbent appears to have little regard for the Constitution or the rule of law but Huckabee is, if anything, worse. 80 expressed disgust in February last year (see True Colors) at John McCain's backtracking on his views of fundagelical preachers but right now he is, in 80's view, preferable to Huckabee. (Let your Congressperson know how you feel about Resolution 888 - see this sample letter from the Council for Secular Humanism. For a good refutation of some of the Resolution's assertions see this piece by Chris Rodda.)

 Bleary Plan -  of the more fatuous suggestions 80 has seen recently floated by government this one has to be near the top of the list. UK Communities and Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears' big idea is that "Muslim women are to be invited on government-funded assertiveness training courses in a bid to counter Islamist radicalism." Does Blears live in the real world? What does she think is likely to happen to Muslim women displaying "assertiveness"? Read this quote from a paragraph in a piece on universal human rights* from the International Humanist and Ethical Union, "Under Shari’ah law a woman has no personal autonomy. A women’s word or the word of a non-Muslim counts as half that of a Muslim man; and they are valued as half that of a Muslim man. No woman is considered an autonomous individual but needs a guardian: her father, husband, son or another male relative, and may not make autonomous decisions." For any woman to be "assertive" is to go against the dictates of Islam - women who do this do not tend to do so for very long. Even relatively trivial transgressions can result in assault or even familial murder, otherwise called honor killing. Such murders, while by no means exclusively ocurring in Muslim families (see here) happen often enough and are no doubt more likely to be committed by radical Islamists - the very group against which Blear wants Muslim women to assert themselves. Unsurprisingly the assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Inayat Bunglawala chooses not to see the danger to women of Blear's idiot idea but focuses his paranoia elsewhere, "The Government at first wanted our imams to act as spies on young British Muslims and now they seem to want Muslim women to do the same."  (Here is one view of how Muslim women should be treated, and no, sadly, it is not a parody, There must be violence against women.)

*Which is worth reading in its entirety - Universal Human Rights are just that, not Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Pastafarian but UNIVERSAL HUMAN rights - a point that needs making again and again, especially when the concept is under concerted attack from the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Read the Cairo Declaration to see what a travesty is made of human rights by this bunch. "Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization." Blah, blah, blah.

Channeling Goebbels - Tom Cruise is now further cementing his reputation as Scientology's worst ambassador by making unproven assertions about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its role in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist atrocity. That's sure to win hearts and minds particularly following his most recent leaked video (see Tom Crackpot). Meanwhile in Germany, one country with no illusions about Cruise's cult, an historian, Guido Knop told newspaper Bild am Sonntag "Tom Cruise's manner calls to mind Goebbels." Knop bases this on the Tiny One's weird performance promoting the benefts of L Ron Hubbard's pulp sci-fi scam/cult/religion in a video that has now disappeared from the web. This is because of action by the Church of Scientology over the fact that the material is copyrighted and certainly nothing at all whatsoever to do with the cringemaking spectacle of a not very bright but tremendously rich actor parrotting a load of acronyms and catchphrases with the intensity of a loony evangelist and thoroughly creeping everyone out. Knop's actual words, according to the Guardian, were "It may be the case that Cruise's delivery style is not uncommon in certain religious movements in the US, but for Germans with an interest in history, that scene where he asks whether the Scientologists should clean up the world and everyone shouts 'yes' is inevitably reminiscent of Goebbels' notorious speech." C'mon Tom, let's have some more please - every time you open your mouth you are damaging your "church" and making it, and you, objects of ridicule. Also see Scientology at Ground Zero for the "church's" unsavory role in the days after 9/11 and this piece by Mark Morford.

Nature's Knight - "Every society that's ever existed has felt it necessary to have creation myths. Why should I believe one? People write to me and say: 'You show us birds and orchids and wonderful, beautiful things - don't you feel you should give credit to He who created those things?' My reply says: what about a parasitic worm that's boring through the eye of a four-year-old child on the bank of an African river? It confuses me that I should believe in a god who cares individually for each and every one of us and could allow that to happen."  Sir David Attenborough talking to the Observer. His latest series, Life in Cold Blood, airs in the UK on BBC1 February 4th at 21:00. Also see David Attenborough: a wild life in the Daily Telegraph for a look back at his 50 years with the BBC. His next project will be about Charles Darwin. (Find out about Darwin Day, a worldwide celebration of the man and his work, on or around February 12th.)

Quote - "At some stage we're going to have to control the size of the population. Human beings are demanding more and more of the natural world for their own particular purposes, and the world is finite. If we don't fix it, then the natural world will fix it for us in a devastating way. It's already doing it with famines. Human beings will cut their numbers without the need for draconian measures - the evidence, happily, is that if you provide female education and the technical facilities, that's the way people choose." David Attenborough in the Observer. (Also see Can Women Save The Planet?)

The Rise of the New Secularism and the New Atheism - is the title of the 2007 report from the Center for Inquiry (CIF) in which chairman Paul Kurtz looks at the center's activities in the past year. The CIF web site is home to a number of interesting videos including an interview with Victor Stenger, and the Secular Islam Summit panel talks. CIF is also home to the excellent Point of Inquiry podcasts featuring, among many others, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen (Quackwatch) Barrett, Richard Wiseman, Daniel Dennett, Ophelia Benson (of Butterfies and Wheels) and Intelligent Design advocate, Michael Behe. (There is a permanent link to Point of Inquiry in the sidebar of this page)

The Woman vs. The Black Guy - is the title of a piece by the inimitable Mark Morford on the Democratic front-runners but it is his summation of the opposition that caught 80's eye. "After all, the right has its own heaping bucket of problems right now, not the least of which is the weakest and craziest and least palatable field of GOP contenders in 50 years. There's the chipper creationist nutball who loves him some Chuck Norris, the stupefied Mormon mannequin who simply cannot believe the world is so icky and complicated, the doddering Iraq-loving war vet who seems to be getting more unstable by the minute, and the cross-dressing former New York mayor who has "9/11" tattooed on his ego in fake blood. And oh yes, a zany old anti-choice libertarian who somehow keeps raising piles of cash and sending fascinating postcards from the edge of political reason. Cool!"  Thanks, Mark, for making 80 choke on his porridge.

Quote - "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." Mike Huckabee, potential Republican presidential nominee talking in Michigan, Monday. Statements like this make him a surprising first choice in the primaries for those who are far outside his regular constituency - such as this newly-won supporter...

Nothing Works As Well -  as Fair Deal Homeopathy. The corollary of which is....

Tom Crackpot - elfin megastar and poster child for Scientology, Tom Cruise is featured in an extraordinary video rant (This page now says "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International" - what took them so long? But see here - videos galore, including Tiny Tom Update - no, they've gone too) If any confirmation was needed of the Cruise's delusional state this statement about being a Scientologist is more than sufficient, "It's something that you have to earn because a Scientologist has the ability to create new and better realities.". The actual technical term for this is called "talking bollocks" and the video is full of the ignorant little actor doing just that. Perhaps those who run this sinister cult thought a popular film star would make a good spokesman and help Scientology gain wider acceptance. Well, any benefit Cruise brought because of his celebrity is quickly undone the moment he shoots his mouth off. If you can stomach more than a few moments of the video do watch it for the sight and sound of Cruise shooting himself (and his cult) in the foot. (here is an article on Cruise's rant from UK tabloid, the Mirror and here is a clue as to what Cruise is babbling about in the form of a helpful glossary) Update - here is Jesus and Mo's take on Cruise and belief.

Scientology in a nutshell - courtesy of Wired "Hubbard's secret scriptures teach that 75 million years ago, an evil galactic overlord named Xenu solved the galaxy's overpopulation problem by freezing excess people and transporting the bodies to Teegeeack, now called Earth. After the hapless travelers were defrosted, they were chained to volcanoes that were blown up by hydrogen bombs -- and their disembodied spirits continue to haunt mankind today." If this sounds funny rather than sinister you are right - but then read about the late Lisa McPherson's experience with this bunch. For more on Scientology (certainly more than they would like you to know) check out Operation Clambake.

New Humanist - see the latest online content from New Humanist for an interview with David Attenborough by Laurie Taylor, a report by David Belden on Mikey Weinstein (also see here) of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation combatting widespread and creeping Christian fundamentalism in the US armed forces. UK readers will feel more than a little discomfited by Weinstein pointing out  "...that Saddam Hussein had no WMD but the US Department of Defence, which he says has become a “crypto fascist faith-based initiative,” does have WMD, and on British soil." There is a guardedly optimistic examination of the British government's policy on dealing with extremism in Muslim communities, helped by the belated recognition that the Muslim Council of Britain sounds grand but is hardly representative by Dave Rich and much more, free to read online. Update - here is another Attenborough piece from the Observer.

Blinded By Pennypinchers - astronomy has the capacity to answer some of the deepest questions about our Universe, from its very beginning, to the birth of stars, galaxies and planets. For a country that hitherto has had a place at astronomy's top table and made substantial contributions to humankind's knowledge to turn its back on an important science project because of what is a comparatively small sum of money shows an incredible lack of forethought and is bureaucratic penny-pinching. Yet this is what the UK is doing. The Science and Technology Facilities Council have decided the country will pull out of the Gemini Telescope program in order to save a trifling £80 million (approx $159 million) although the STFC gives it a different spin. Many may not agree with such a sum being called trifling but just compare it to the projected cost of hosting the Olympic Games in 2012 - £9.3 billion (approx $18.5 billion) and rising. This preposterous sum for what is, after all, a bloated sports festival is positively obscene when its only real legacy when all the pageantry is over and the athletes leave will be some sports facilities - assuming they are ever built on time - and a huge debt. That the Olympics takes priority over ground-breaking science (and so many other deserving causes) shows what short-sighted fools are running the country.

It is not just the Gemini program that is suffering - the UK is a world leader in solar-terrestrial physics (STP) according to this BBC report, but not for much longer. The same saving that killed participation in Gemini will also do for STP. MIST group (Magnetosphere, Ionosphere and Solar-Terrestrial) which represents the UK in STP says the cuts "will prove catastrophic to this area of research." This research has immediate practical applications in the field of protecting satellites and aircraft from the damaging effects of "space weather".  In straitened times it is obvious that money is tight but to stifle research in this way is idiotic - especially when vast sums can be spent not only on sport but also on bailing out a badly-managed bank. To use a crude but apt expression the politicians in Westminster and their overpaid parasitic consultants couldn't manage a piss-up in a brewery. Update - "The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) appear to have given UK astronomers a temporary reprieve over their access to the Gemini Observatories in Chile and Hawaii."  See Universe Today for more.

Big Foot On Mars? - this image should send Richard "Face On Mars" Hoagland into raptures. Talking of Hoagland, here is a review of his latest book by a real space expert, James Oberg. The book, Dark Mission, co-authored with Michael Bara, is more of Hoagland's usual evil NASA conspiracy drivel about how the agency trashed their own spacecraft to stop the world from learning about the pyramids, the face and all the other stuff these fantasists like to think is littering the Martian landscape. Given that the European Space Agency's Mars Express is taking the most wonderfully detailed pictures from orbit (here's one of the "Face") we have to ask just where is all this Martian crap that Hoagland tells us NASA has concealed from us all all these years? (80 wrote about these Martian fantasies back in 2000, see Aliens About Face and also read The Face Behind the "Face" on Mars: A Skeptical Look at Richard C. Hoagland by Gary P. Posner. If you want more see Bad Astronomy's article called Richard Hoagland's Nonsense.)

Offer NOT Accepted - "Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society. This is why in Saudi Arabia, for example, where these measures are implemented, the crime rate is very, very, low." "If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal. Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all. We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons." These are two quotes from a Daily Telegraph article about Dr Suhaib Hasan, who amazingly is described in the article as "a modern British Muslim"  and who wants to "offer" Britain sharia law. This offer is actually a poisoned chalice. The Telegraph article has him stressing he only wants to introduce sharia for domestic disputes but these quotes are chilling evidence of his true intentions. We have all seen recently what a wonderful justice system they have in that "haven of peace" Saudi Arabia, -  if Suhaib Hasan thinks it is so great has he considered emigrating?

The Telegraph also quotes the weasel words of Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain "Sharia encompasses all aspects of Muslim life including personal law. In tolerant, inclusive societies all faith groups enjoy some acceptance of their religious rules in matters of their personal life. I am sure some day our society here will also be more at ease with its Muslim community and see the benefit of allowing such rights to those who prefer this." It is not allowing rights at all - it would effectively be taking away rights that Muslim women already have under UK law. This type of "multiculturalism" is all one way - the wrong way - a way that leads to barbarism. This is not Islamophobia - a nonsense term if ever there was one - this is defending human rights, universal human rights. 80 has written about Muhammad Abdul Bari before (see A Minor Rant) and finds his views as contemptible as those of Suhaib Hasan or anyone else that thinks living in the 7th century is such a good idea. For an idea  of what life can be like for some women living in the UK who happen to be Muslim read this 4-part interview with Gina Khan. Hers is a voice these men would no doubt like silenced. Her tale is fascinating, moving and deeply worrying and will have you clenching your fists in fury that such behavior toward girls and women exists in modern Britain. This one brave articulate woman is worth a barrow load of self-righteous, devout men such as Suhaib Hasan or Muhammad Abdul Bari - although not, of course, in the eyes of a sharia court. (read this piece by Ophelia Benson in Butterfies and Wheels on Dr Hasan's offer. Also see No To Sharia Superstition for what happened in Canada))

Quote - "My objections are twofold. Even accepting that some sharia laws are benevolent, there is so much that is fundamentally unacceptable - especially regarding the status of women - and cannot easily be divorced from the good bits. Second, I do not believe that the country ought to be split up into areas where different laws may operate, depending on the density of minority groups within it. There is no law allowing the smoking of pot in Brixton, or open-air funeral pyres in Leicester. There must be no sharia law in Bradford." Marcel Berlins, in a piece called Sharia law? Don't even think about it written in 2006 after an ICM poll claimed "Forty percent of British Muslims are in favour of applying sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of the country."  One wonders how many women were truly represented in that poll - not many would be a fair bet.

Holy Hokum - let's take a quick trip round the wild and wacky world of religion. The UK government has taken the unusual step of denouncing an email going the rounds that claims that the Holocaust was being dropped from the school curriculum in order to avoid offending Muslims. While this is a nonsense, one has to look at the sort of climate that allows such an email to gain credence. One way or another Islam frequently crops up unfavorably in the press and as far as 80 can determine these news items aren't hoaxes. We hear that "Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion." The rules on hygiene for theater staff now insist that hands and bare arms be scrubbed up to the elbow to help combat the clostridium difficile so-called superbug. Some female Muslim staff members are objecting to this on the grounds that exposing their forearms is immodest. We are told that "..the lslamic Medical Association insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam." This is incorrect as the Quran only insists upon modesty - what form such modesty takes is more cultural than religious. These people are being trained at the taxpayer's expense and if they will not comply in what could be a lifesaving measure perhaps they should seek employment elsewhere.

Further feeding poor perceptions of Muslims is the gobsmacking news from the Telegraph that "Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review.." Given that polygamy is illegal in Britain how come the practise is being rewarded by the benefits system, even if the marriages were conducted abroad? The report notes "The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law." Islamic law does not have any jurisdiction in the UK so why is the government handing over taxpayers' money to those who are bigamists? This government is often accused of chasing the "Muslim vote" (whatever that is) but as "Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain.." it seems a poor return for the investment.

More bad press for Muslims (Note the blanket term for what is really a varied population. Such shorthand is convenient and lazy and gives the appearance of a monolithic group and yes, even 80 uses it.) came with another item  concerning the Muslim call to prayer, a 5 times a day howling (at least to 80's untutored ears) emitted from mosques all over Middle and Far East. A friend who worked for a while in Cairo described the calls, boosted by powerful amplifiers and loudspeakers, resulting in a near-painful cacophony as the muezzin competed with each other to reach the faithful. Now we are told (again by the Telegraph, is there an agenda here? Not as far as 80 can tell.) "Senior members of the Oxford Central Mosque are seeking permission to broadcast a two-minute Adhan, the traditional Muslim call to prayer, through loud speakers in the minaret three (sic) times a day." The usual opposing sides cropped up with "Muslims" saying that to refuse such a request would infringe their religious freedoms and besides Christians have their church bells, while other locals object on cultural grounds, even saying that to permit the call would make people leave the neighborhood, resulting in "ghettoisation". This whole thing is an idiotic storm in a teacup. The call to prayer is not comparable to church bells which are not rung five (or is it three?) times a day - if they were you can bet there would be plenty of objections on the noise pollution front. The call may have been necessary in medieval times but these days we have clocks and watches - the muezzin could even send mobile/cellphone text messages to let the faithful know when to pray. If prayer times (and the direction of prayer) can be worked out for Islamic astronauts whirling around the planet every 90 minutes (see Which Way to Mecca?) it is surely not too difficult to find a (silent) technological fix for prayer calls. Given these kinds of stories in the press is it any wonder many people have a poor perception of Muslims? And this is without even breathing the word terrorism, which is linked to Islam in so many minds.

The government in the UK is even trying to alter its vocabulary to avoid unfairly tarring all Muslims with the "t" word but there is one problem with this. The attacks in London on 7/7 and the botched attempt to repeat it on the 21st July 2005 and the later (again) botched London car bombs and the attack on Glasgow airport were all committed by Muslims. It is a very big stumbling block for those wishing to avoid stigmatizing the ordinary British men and women who happen to be Muslim. It is a difficult course to treat these people fairly when, as in the polygamy benefits story above, the government is seen bending over backwards to give taxpayer's money to polygamist Muslim men. Multiculturalism is increasingly being seen as dead duck creating divisions and misconceptions leading to various groups such the Muslim Council of Britain claiming to speak for all Muslims - when they certainly do not. The complication with Islam is extricating what is religious from what is cultural - Islam claims total jurisdiction over every aspect of a believer's life so the two are thoroughly mixed. A secular state, even one still nominally linked to Christianity as the UK is, has an impossible task accommodating those whose who wish their religion to dominate in all aspects of life. Conflict of one kind or another seems sadly inevitable but the complete dumping of the failed policy of multiculturalism would be a step in the right direction.

And now for the Christians - The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has an undeserved reputation as an intellectual when he is in fact a dissembling waffler who uses his convoluted verbiage to promote views that are anti-democratic and down right sinister. But don't take 80's word for it, read this dissection of the Archbish's comments on the repeal of the blashphemy law and his wish that it be replaced by - a blasphemy law. Ophelia Benson, of the excellent Butterflies and Wheels, wades through the waffle to find a chilling message from the bearded cleric. In an open society it is vital that no one's beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, should be beyond question - or even ridicule. The fact that someone claims their beliefs are sincerely and deeply held should be no barrier to criticism. See what that odd couple Jesus and Mo have to say on the subject in their ongoing debate with the barmaid. (What do you mean you've not seen J and M? Do yourself a favor and check out the archive for a course of philosophy, leavened with wonderfully sharp humor, all delivered in cartoon format)

Of course compared to Pope Ratzinger Williams is a pussycat - if you want Christian, authoritarian and cruel the Pope's your man. This article from Scientific American informs us "Pope Benedict said on Thursday that embryonic stem cell research, artificial insemination and the prospect of human cloning had "shattered" human dignity." Quite how someone who denies his followers the use of condoms to avoid contracting HIV AIDS on the grounds that it is a contraceptive as well can talk about shattering human dignity is a puzzle. Not only is he responsible for increasing the number of those infected he has increased the number of AIDS orphans as well by his obduracy. The fact that it is human overpopulation that lies behind global climate change and global pollution makes it intolerable that this celibate old man's answer is to preach abstinence - as if in many cultures women are even given the choice.

It is not often that 80 finds anything good to say about Cherie Blair, whose husband has converted to Ratzinger's sect, but she said this recently on BBC World, "I am lucky enough to come from a country where access to contraception is freely available and it's an important thing in allowing women the proper right to develop as full human beings. The church isn't just about the Vatican. It's about all of us." If you asked Ratzinger about this he would say it is very definitely all about the Vatican and particularly his own person, as he believes he is the latest of an unbroken line of Vicars of Christ, right from St Peter who was appointed by none other than Jesus himself. (Not that such claims stand a moment's scrutiny) The old geezer is also in the news over reports that he will "..will modify the Good Friday prayers used in the Tridentine Mass that generated protests from Jewish leaders who found the prayers offensive..." This piece from the Catholic News Agency tells us "This missal included Latin prayers for Good Friday that asked Catholics to "pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ," asking God not to "refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness." It is sad there is no mention of any rewriting of the Gospel of Matthew's blood curse, not mentioned in the other gospels but used as an excuse for antisemitic pogroms and cruelty for the last 2000 years or so. No, that would be a step too far.

Bush's BS - in what is heralded as a welcome change in the Dumb One's attitude to global climate change comes the news that Bush "..on Monday proposed more than a $1 billion increase over the next five years for launching more and better Earth-observing satellites." While this is certainly overdue it doesn't mention the perfectly good monitoring satellite that for political reasons has been languishing in a warehouse for years. Triana, as the spacecraft was originally called was a brainchild at least in part of then vice president Al Gore. It had a twofold purpose of providing continuous whole Earth coverage from its position at a stable gravitational perch called a Lagrange Point (in this case L1) 1.5 million kilometers away but also was perfectly placed to audit the planet's energy budget by making the "first direct measurements of how much sunlight is reflected and emitted from the whole Earth." This would prove of great value in studying climate change - so why was it never launched and is now languishing in a storage facility at a cost of $1 million a year? Because the incoming administration considered it tainted by the association of Al Gore, derisively dubbing it Goresat and saying all it would produce would be an "overpriced screen saver". This was despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences dubbed the project "strong and vital". So Bush's about face is welcome but how much data would we have now if Triana, or to give it the current name, Deep Space Climate Observatory, had been launched as planned?

Is Google God? - see the evidence for yourself. It is at least as convincing as the evidence offered by the various religions - in fact rather more so. (80 vaguely remembers a short story in which scientists create an omniscient computer and ask it the question "Is there a God?" The answer comes back, "There is now". If anyone remembers the name and author please email the info via the link at the bottom of this page. Update - the story was Answer (full text here) by Fredric Brown according to 80's trusty Encyclopedia of Science Fiction)

No Justice At All - it seems like the Taliban never went away. Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, an Afghani journalism student has been sentenced to death by an Islamic court. His crime? According to this report in the Independent "..he downloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed." He then compounded this heinous offence by distributing "... the tract to fellow students and teachers at Balkh University with the aim, he said, of provoking a debate on the matter." Someone reported him to the authorities and he was tried and sentenced by religious judges, apparently without the benefit of any legal representation. There are now NATO troops (mainly US and UK) fighting and dying to bring democratic freedoms to the country after the barbaric, faith-based Taliban era. Yet what has changed when a young man can be given a death sentence on religious grounds? If ever there was an oxymoron it is "Islamic justice". This is yet another example of the arbitrary nature of religious courts under Sharia law following those from Iran and Saudi. (Also see Offer Not Accepted) It is worth bearing in mind this is not just a decision made by some little backwater court run by religious nutters for the sentence has actually been confirmed by the Afghan Senate - part of the very government propped up with the West's blood and treasure.

But there is another agenda here, apart from the imposition of Islamic justice. Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has a brother, who has been a thorn in the side for the authorities in that he "..is also a journalist and has written articles for IWPR  (Institute for War and Peace Reportinging) which he accused senior public figures, including an MP, of atrocities, including murders." The death sentence for one brother looks very much like an effort to muzzle the other. The Independent has launched a petition to save Sayed Pervez Kambaksh but there is a very real danger that it will make the Afghan authorities even more determined to dispense their mockery of justice. President Hamid Karzai is keen to demonstrate he is no Western puppet and the price could well be the judicial murder of this young man. See this from the Institute for War and Peace Reporting on the political dimension to this sorry business. Update - according to this report in the Independent "In a dramatic volte-face, the Afghan Senate has withdrawn its confirmation of a death sentence on Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the student convicted of blasphemy for downloading a report on women's rights from the internet." In what looks like a face-saving measure following international condemnation the original senate confirmation is being described as a "technical mistake". This now opens the way for Kambaksh to appeal his conviction.

Quote - "The idea that any individual in any country should face execution for downloading information from the internet is as abhorrent as it is incomprehensible. That this should be happening in a nation whose government benefits from the military and financial support of western countries, Britain included, should give us great pause for thought." From an editorial in the Independent on the plight of student Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, see item above

Bearded Cleric Sharia Shock - where does Rowan Williams stand on the equality of the sexes? Does he think it is right for women to be deemed of lesser status than men in a legal system, even one that would only rule on marriage and property matters? It would appear that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a closet misogynist. Not even the most woolly-minded nitwit can pretend that within sharia law women are treated as  equal to men and yet Williams says the introduction of sharia in Britain is "unavoidable". If he was trying to promote debate on the subject that use of the word unavoidable rather negates that aim - it sounds like his mind at least is made up. Astoundingly he appears to think such a system could be put in place without harming the rights women already enjoy under the existing law - this is nonsense. Who, one wonders would administer and preside in sharia courts? The elders and clerics of the local Muslim community - all male.

It has been said that the use of a sharia court would be an option for divorce cases and domestic disputes, the very sort of cases that inevitably involve disputes between the sexes. But how easy would it be for a woman to opt out of the sharia system? Given the already tremendous social pressure to conform within Muslim communities anyone opting out is liable to be ostracised or worse. Has Williams given any real thought to these questions? For any women who have come to live in Britain and are happy to have escaped the inequalities of sharia in the countries of their birth Williams' foolish remarks must surely fill them with dread. On a personal note one wonders what his wife, Jane Williams, a writer and lecturer in theology, thinks of her husband's view that the introduction of a misogynist legal system is unavoidable. They must have some fascinating conversations.

If ever there was a good reason for the disestablishment of the Church of England it is this ridiculous sharia statement by the Archbishop. The best safeguard for any and all religions is a truly secular state with no faith given special status. Anything else leads to "me-tooism" by those who perceive themselves as being treated unfairly. It has been pointed out that British Jews have their own religious courts, the Beth Din, and this been given as a reason for the adoption of sharia for Muslims. But surely it is fairer for no faith to have special courts and for everyone, of whatever faith or none, to be dealt with on an equal basis? Anything else will soon have groups such as Sikhs, Pagans, Hindus and even Pastafarians insisting that they too should have their own religious legal system. This is a point 80 has made before with reference to Canada's flirtation with sharia in Ontario. Here it was decided by Premier Dalton McGuinty that Ontario would reject the use of sharia law and would move to prohibit all religious-based tribunals to settle family disputes such as divorce.

Considering the British government has done nothing about the anachronism of 26 unelected Christian bishops sitting in the upper chamber of parliament it is unlikely it would have the guts to end the Jewish courts. Instead of being hailed for giving everyone a level playing field it would no doubt be accused of anti-semitism in the same way some affronted Muslims cry Islamophobia at the drop of a bacon sandwich. The British government's reaction to the archbishop has been less than enthusiastic with a spokesman saying that the prime minister "...believes that British laws should be based on British values". The introduction of sharia was also condemned by both opposition parties but until the Jewish courts are ceased government is wide open to cries of favoritism and special treatment. Sharia law for the UK, even in the truncated form of "sharia-lite" which seems to be what Williams is talking about, is not "unavoidable" but it is unacceptable, as is any other parallel religious justice system. (Read here the reaction from the National Secular Society)

Oxymoronic Religious Justice - In the light of Rowan Williams' sharia comments see How multiculturalism is betraying women by Johann Hari in which he "describes a recent ruling by Judge Christa Datz-Winter involving a Muslim woman who asked for an early divorce because of the severe beatings meted out by her brutal husband. The judge declined to grant an early divorce because, despite police evidence of extreme violence, there was no "unreasonable hardship". Why? Because Muslim women should have "expected" to be beaten. The judge went on to cite passages from the Koran granting Muslim husbands the "right to use corporal punishment", including Sura 4, verse 34." This case, which happened in Germany, is also reported here.

Comment on Sharia in Britain - "Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another." Nick Clegg, leader Liberal Democrats

"Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other. That is unacceptable." Baroness Warsi, Tory shadow cohesion minister.

“The archbishop's) implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous. It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example to children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings. There is a fundamental principle that when you appear before a court in Britain you appear as a citizen, equal to any other and you should be treated equally to any other. There can be no opt outs." Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission

“This is the sort of woolly thinking that gets people into trouble. This sort of talk makes people think Muslims want to separate themselves from the rest of the community and be treated differently. The truth is most Muslims do not want Sharia law.”  Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP

Comment on Ontario Sharia (September 2005) - "Once the parties have agreed …they will be committed to it by their prior consent. As a consequence, on religious grounds, a Muslim who would choose to opt out at this stage, for reasons of convenience would be guilty of a far greater crime than a mere breach of contract--and this could be tantamount to blasphemy-apostasy." Mumtaz Ali, sharia supporter. If that comment doesn't give you the shivers check out the penalties for blasphemy-apostasy which are often unofficially carried out by co-religionists. See this report (pdf format) from the Centre for Social Cohesion.

Darwin Day Celebration February 12th - "Darwin Day is an international celebration of science and humanity held on or around February 12, the day that Charles Darwin was born on in 1809. Specifically, it celebrates the discoveries and life of Charles Darwin -- the man who first described biological evolution via natural selection with scientific rigor. More generally, Darwin Day expresses gratitude for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity." See here for details. Also see this from the free weekly email Humanist Network News.

Quote - "The wrath of God is the only way I can describe it. I'm used to seeing roofs off houses, houses blown over. These houses were down to their foundations, stripped clean." - Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee quoted (reg rqd) in the New York Times, after surveying tornado damage there. Perhaps He was having a bad day - the death toll is now over 50 - one wonders what these poor sods did to piss Him off.

Cartoons and Cat Butts - Danish police have arrested three men accused of plotting to kill Kurt Westergaard, one of the cartoonists involved in the Mohammad cartoons row. The men will no doubt be livid to see an unintended outcome of their arrest - the newspaper that originally published the cartoons, Jyllands Posten, published right next to their story Westergaard's original cartoon of Mohammad sporting a turban from which protrudes a lighted fuse. In a further gesture of solidarity according to this report "leading (Danish) newspapers yesterday reprinted a caricature of the prophet Muhammad that sparked deadly rioting in Muslim countries two years ago." Newspapers in Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain followed suit. Sensibly, it appears that Muslims in Denmark are taking no action - the first time the pictures were published there was orchestrated rioting all over the Muslim world which resulted in 50 deaths. (Here is that odd couple, Jesus and Mo's take on things) Update - reaction in Denmark is somewhat less muted than original reports suggested. (On a related note online encyclopedia Wikipedia is under pressure to remove Mohammad pictures from its page on the so-called prophet)

Meanwhile moderate Muslims everwhere must surely be cringing at Saudi Arabia's latest implementation of their capricious and cruel system of sharia. The BBC reports that the authorities in that deeply unpleasant country intend to execute a woman convicted of witchcraft. Human Rights Watch have written to the Saudi king protesting the punishment. The woman, who is illiterate, was beaten severely and made to put her thumbprint on a confession, a confession she obviously could not read. That these religious courts are out of control is in no doubt, for we are further told "When an appeal court decided she should not be executed, the law courts imposed the death sentence again, arguing that it would be in the public interest." Barbaric, misogynist, murdering scum are some of the kinder (and printable) epithets that spring to 80's mind when contemplating these so-called judges and their sick joke of a "legal system".

On lighter matters Christians in Singapore are offended. This is not really news - religionists seem to spend a lot of their time being offended by one thing or another. But the cause in this instance is a range of cosmetics that this report tells us were considered "disrespectful" to Jesus. As we cannot be sure sure that he ever existed and if he did he's been dead for nearly 2000 years this is really a nonsense. "Disrespectful to Christians' conception of their magical God/man" would be more accurate. Here is the home page for BlueQ's  offending range of goods called Lookin' Good For Jesus where we are encouraged to "Get tight with Christ". The products on offer include bubble bath, lip balm and something called sparkle cream. The accompanying slogan says "Look your Sunday best! Guaranteed to help you be worthy and get noticed by the King of Kings". 80 now awaits stories of complaints from offended cat lovers everywhere at one of BlueQ's other tasteful offerings, a range of gum and air fresheners called Cat Butts. (If Christians really want to be offended they should cut along to the wonderful Landover Baptist Church. This site has recently had a makeover and, at least in 80's blasphemous eyes, is one of the funniest things on the web. Be sure to visit Betty Bower's (America's best Christian™) No Sin Zone for her latest news and views on the presidential wannabes)

The Final Word - for now, on Rowan Williams' idiotic suggestion some elements of sharia could be introduced in Britain comes from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who, 80 would submit, knows far more about the place of women in sharia than any woolly-minded Christian theologian. "What Rowan Williams wishes upon us is an abomination and I write here as a modern Muslim woman. He lectures the nation on the benefits of sharia law – made by bearded men, for men – and wants the alternative legal system to be accommodated within our democracy in the spirit of inclusion and cohesion." Read the rest here. Also see British Muslims for a Secular Democracy Also see Delusions in Canterbury by Mona Eltahawy for another Muslim woman's perspective.

Quote - "Some element of family law or social and economic law will not work. It has to be adopted wholesale. It will not happen tomorrow but it is inevitable because sharia is superior and better for mankind." But not, obviously, womankind. Anjem Choudary, a solicitor and former senior figure in the banned organisation Al-Muhajiroun quoted in the Telegraph. Also see  Where is the justice in sharia?

God the Psycho and O dhimmi Canada are the two latest pieces to camera by the excellent Pat Condell, a man who talks more sense in five minutes than all the priests, imams, mullahs, popes, vicars, rabbis and the rest with their holy books have spoken in five thousand years. Surely you think, 80 exaggerates? No. (Condell's pieces can now be downloaded as mp3s and for those whose hearing is impaired there are subtitled versions of his videos here.)

Truth In Jest - "Mormons were chased out of the Midwest in the 1840s, and ever since then they've been looking to America for approval," says Bengt Washburn, a Mormon who is also a full-time comedian. (There aren't a lot of those, by the way. In case you were wondering.) Washburn says Mormons he knows will constantly list examples of mainstream Mormons to outsiders. Gladys Knight is a Mormon! Steve Young is a Mormon! Donny! Marie! It's as if to say, "'See? Mormons aren't weird,'" Washburn says. "Well, yeah, we're weird." But here's the thing, the comedian adds: "All theology standing next to logic is weird." From an article in the Washington Post (reg rqd) asking if Mitt Romney's now terminated presidential campaign was good for Mormons.

Break the Science Barrier - "Science is useful but that is not all it is. Science can be uplifting, thrilling, life-enhancing. Originally broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 in 1996, Break the Science Barrier follows the Oxford Biologist Richard Dawkins as he meets with people who have experienced the wonders of science first-hand. We meet the astronomer who first discovered pulsars, the geneticist who invented DNA fingerprinting, a scientist who discovered a protein that causes cancer, and others. Dawkins interviews famous admirers of science such as Douglas Adams and David Attenborough, and asks them why science means so much to them. We also see how dangerous ignorance of science can be in classrooms, courts, and beyond. With so many expressing paranormal beliefs and ignorance of science, Dawkins encourages viewers to contrast these ancient superstitions with the power and beauty of our scientific achievements and understanding." Available to buy as a DVD, on Google video (pt1 pt2 pt3) and as a free download in Quicktime format (pt1  pt2 pt3)

Respect - we hear this word a lot recently, particularly with regard to people's supernatural beliefs. A recent example is that of the UN secretary general who has said ".. free speech should respect religious sensitivities."  Why should that be? How then would it be "free"? One can be tolerant of other's irrational beliefs without respecting them - but then even merely to describe religious faith as an irrational belief upsets some believers. It is hard to even pretend to respect say, a Christian's beliefs when those beliefs condemn those who do not share them to eternal torment. (It is not enough just to put up with their silliness these buggers want you to suffer for your dissent even after you die.) There is an interesting article on the Butterfies and Wheels site by Robert Nola called Religion is Owed no Respect in which he looks at various categories of respect and comes to a conclusion 80 reached some time ago - "Tolerance is quite consistent with according religion no respect". You can respect someone's right to hold beliefs but there is no good reason to respect those beliefs if they are unsupported by any evidence.  (Note to certain doorstep bible-bashers - quoting your holy book is not evidence. It is merely irritating and shows the gulf between those who hold supernatural beliefs and those who do quite nicely without them. To quote the book as evidence presupposes that the book is special in a particular way - not as work of literature or (shaky) historical record but as something magical, something divine. To an atheist it isn't.) 

We come back to something noted by Richard Dawkins and others - why should religion be ringfenced from the sort of scrutiny, criticism and even mockery that any other human cultural activity attracts? I find religionists smugly telling me I am going to suffer eternal torment annoying (but not offensive - it is far too silly for that) but they are within their rights to say it - as I am within my rights to call their non-existent god a malevolent sky fairy. What is driving all these demands for respect, certainly in the last few years, is militant Islam and the propensity for fundamentalist Muslims to revenge perceived slights by visiting violence on those seen as the perpetrators. This has led to an atmosphere of self-censorship whereby what is dressed-up as respect for the beliefs of others is in fact really fear of retribution. Needless to say this hardly engenders respect. If you really believe that your god is lord and creator of the universe, omiscient, omnipresent and omnipotent why would you think he (it is always a "he") needs you to threaten or harm cartoonists, filmmakers and writers - surely such a marvellous being is capable of looking after himself? He hardly needs a street full of zealots shouting threats and burning flags - it would be a rather sad and inadequate deity that needed a mob for protection from mockery or criticism. This reaction says nothing about god - but it says a lot about the frustrations and insecurities of his devotees. As the old line goes, respect has to be earned - and claiming special privileges or stifling free speech is not the way to go about it. Intimidation of writers and filmmakers or the claiming of a divine right to misogyny and homophobia will not earn respect - but it will assuredly earn contempt. (See what Ophelia Benson has to say about U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Oh grow up and click to read the comments)

Quote - "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." H L Mencken

And Now the Happy News - a recent correspondent asked 80 "Why So Angry?" In order to redress the balance some Happy News will be featured. This week it is the news that "Freedom from religion in Britain is becoming as important as freedom of religion, according to a United Nations investigation. A 23-page report by Asma Jahangir, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, says that the 2001 census findings that nearly 72 per cent of the population is Christian can no longer be regarded as accurate. The report claims that two thirds of British people do not admit to any religious affiliation." There, enough to warm the cockle's of 80's angry heart......(On a less happy note the report says that "80 per cent of Muslims in Britain feel that they have been discriminated against, the report singles out the Terrorism Act 2000 for particular criticism." Here we run into an intractable problem - while all Muslims are definitely not terrorists, most terrorists (in the UK) are Muslim. At one time it was the Irish republicans. How can policing be effective and yet not appear discriminatory?)

Quote - "We are not the ones to apologise. If anyone needs to apologise for freedom of speech, human rights, imprisonments, executions and lack of democracy, it is the Iranians." Villy Soevndal, the leader of Denmark's Socialist People's Party on the cancellation of a trip to Teheran by Danish MPs. The Iranians had demanded an apology for the recent republication of the Mohammad cartoons (see below) in the Danish press. (Here is a page full of pictures of Muhammad including some particularly fine ones made in 15th century Persia/Iran and also some from Afghanistan. No doubt these days they are considered haraam as well, even though they are works of art. Fashions change in religion as in many other human cultural activities. As ever Jesus and Mo' have something to say on the matter)

Number 80 Home Page   80's Recommended Reading  Links from Number 80

©Copyright 2001- 2008 Ross W Sargent All rights reserved  
  (all images are copyright of the respective owners)