A word of warning - owing to the Weekly Glance's attempted topicality some of the links below may be even more ephemeral than usual. (Tip - a search for cached versions of missing sites is often productive using either Google or The Internet Archive Way Back Machine.)
January 7th 2006 Cry Baby Bunting
January 14th 2006 Prancing Mahmoud Hidden Imam
January 19th 2006 China Syndrome
February 1st 2006 Home Thoughts
February 4th 2006 Cartoon Capers
February 6th 2006 If It Quacks Like a Duck
February 8th 2006 Questions
February 14th 2006 SPECTRE of Dick
February 15th 2006 Rant
February 17th 2006 Money For Murder
February 23rd 2006 Homeland Pork
February 28th 2006 Holy Hoaxes
March 3rd 2006 No Carrot, No Stick
March 7th 2006 Baby Bunting's Back
March 14th 2006 Cherchez La Femme
Did He or
Didn't he?
- an interesting court
case is
under way in Italy right now over whether Jesus actually existed. Luigi
Cascioli has written a book, The Fable of Christ, which attracted the ire of
Catholic priest Father Enrico Righi, who denounced the work. Cascioli's reaction
was to take the priest to court with the result that the judge, Gaetano Mautone,
has challenged Righi to prove that Jesus existed. Righi's case does not look
good, particularly when he claims that "there was overwhelming testimony to
Christ’s existence in religious and secular texts. Millions had in any case
believed in Christ as both man and Son of God for 2,000 years." The religious
texts nearest to the supposed lifetime of Jesus, the letters of St Paul, appear
to refer to a savior-god little different from
others around at
the time. Even when Paul's case could be bolstered by quoting sayings of Jesus
or by reference to events in his earthly life Paul singularly fails to do so. In
fact he seems ignorant of the character whose life is described in the much
later gospels. Even these are hopelessly inconsistent on the order and location
of events and the names of the disciples. As for secular mentions of Jesus these
fall into two kinds - firstly material written many years after the supposed
lifetime of Jesus and postdating the gospels, leading to very serious doubts of
their use as independent witness and secondly deliberate interpolations made by
the pious into older works, interpolations that do not fit the context of the
work into which they have been introduced and jar with the narrative. The most
detailed and thorough argument for a mythical Jesus has been made by Earl
Doherty in his book and web site,
The Jesus Puzzle (also
see this essay by
Rev. Madison Shockley in Truthdig) Righi's statement that "millions believed in
Christ" is hardly admissable as evidence either. Personal faith is not proof of
existence. Cascioli has said he will drop his case against the priest if Righi
can come "up with irrefutable proof of Christ’s existence by the end of the
month." The Daily Telegraph dryly notes "The Vatican has so far declined to
comment". And why should they? As Pope Leo X, in office 1513-21, is reported to
have said "It has served us well, this myth of Christ." (Also see
Passover Plot and The God Who Wasn't
There)
A Sinister Embrace
- concerns over the historicity of Jesus are far from the minds of the creators
of Israel's latest tourist trap. Plans have been announced for a Holy Land theme
park on the shores of the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias) to be built by a
consortium of American evangelists, including the charmless Pat Robertson (see
Voice of Unreason), and called Galilee World Heritage Park, according to
this
Guardian article. While many in Israel (the Ministry of Tourism for one)
have welcomed the $48 (£28) million project project, others are not so happy.
They are wary of fundagelical Christians' apocalyptic belief that the entire
"Holy Land" must be under Jewish control before all Jews are converted to
Christianity and Armageddon can happen. Yossi Sarid, a former government
minister told the Guardian "I am not enthusiastic about this cooperation because
I have no desire to be cannon fodder for the evangelists. As a Jew, they believe
I have to vanish before Jesus can make his second appearance. As I have no plans
to convert, as an Israeli and a Jew, I find this a provocation. There is
something sinister about their embrace." But for the Minister of Tourism,
Avraham Hirschson, the lure of the dollar beats any other considerations, "I'm
not a theologian, I'm the minister of tourism, and I'm not interested in the
politics of our tourists as long as they come here. They come here as tourists,
and they're friends of Israel." (For more on the evangelicals' new found
"philo-semitism" see
this from the Washington Post. Incidentally, the article contains 80's
current hot favorite for oxymoron of the month - "evangelical intelligentsia".)
Root of All Evil?
- is the name of Richard Dawkins' 2 part TV show (although the name is not his
idea) to be aired on Channel 4 in the UK in January. The first part, The God
Delusion, goes out at 8:00pm Monday, 9th January and the second, The Virus of
Faith, at 8:00pm Monday, 16th January. Here is the blurb from Channel 4's web
site. "Professor Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist,
whose atheism has earned him the nickname of 'Darwin’s Rottweiler', takes a
personal journey through the world’s three great monotheistic religions:
Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Dawkins thinks it is time for science to stop
sitting on the fence. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence that, he
believes, shows a supreme being cannot exist, and in a world in which religious
conflict and bigotry are increasingly centre stage, Dawkins argues that for the
good of humanity, religion needs to be challenged and disproved. Never one to
shy away from a debate, Dawkins meets leaders from the Christian, Jewish and
Muslim religions to find out how their beliefs fit with modern science's
extraordinary knowledge of our world and the wider universe. In The Root of All
Evil Dawkins accuses the religious establishment of preying on people’s desire
to believe in a greater being; abusing reason and humanity in the process.
Ultimately he asks how they can defend what religion has done, and is doing to
us?" Definitely not something to miss. (also see Cry Baby
Bunting)
It is deeply ironic that the platform from which Ahmadinejad speaks has been largely created for him by the actions of the Bush administration. The refusal to even consider decreasing the US appetite for oil and the ill-thought out, destabilizing invasion of Iraq have created a world stage for Ahmadinejad on which to prance and posture. Attempts to rein in Iran's nuclear research/weapons program by the US and Europe are heading towards the UN security council but whether China or Russia will support a call for sanctions is, as yet, unknown. Also unknown is whether Israel, a country that Ahmadinejad said should be wiped from the map, will repeat the kind of preemptive strike it made on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor site in 1981. The removal of Ariel Sharon from the Israeli political scene has bolstered the cause of the ultra-hawkish Binyamin Netanyahu, who has said Israel should take "bold and courageous action". Reuters report him as saying "It must be understood that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear threat against Israel. I will pursue the legacy of (Prime Minister) Menachem Begin, who through a bold and courageous move did not allow a neighbour of Iran, Iraq, to develop such a threat. I believe that this is what Israel should do." The explosive mixture of nuclear weapons, oil and fundamentalist religion in the Middle East is going to require much more than mere military action - something which 80 hopes the Bush camp (or at least Condoleezza Rice) has managed to grasp. One ray of hope is that even the mullahs of Iran will find Ahmadinejad too much of a loose (not to say loony) cannon and remove him from power. To appreciate the scale of the danger imagine say, the US with Pat Robertson as president - are you scared enough now?
Parkless Pat - Following the offensive clown Pat Robertson's less than Christian display of compassion over Israeli premier Sharon's medical predicament it seems that his plans for a Christian theme park near the Sea of Galilee (see A Sinister Embrace) will come to nothing. 80 would have thought rejection was inevitable purely on the grounds of taste but it was Robertson's big mouth that did the trick. The previously enthusiastic Israeli tourism minister, Avi Hartuv, has now changed his tune, saying "We will not do business with him - only with other evangelicals who don't back these comments. We will do business with other evangelical leaders, friends of Israel, but not with him." Robertson had said of Sharon, still critically ill and hospitalized following a stroke, "He was dividing God's land, and I would say: 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course', God says: 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone'." This is the latest in a long line of offensive pronouncements by Robertson and sadly will not be the last. For more on his idiot mouthings see Voice of Unreason.
With God on My Side - "He [God] has been walking me through an incredible journey, and it all comes down to worldview. He is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is working with me." Tom Delay, ex-majority leader of the House of Representatives, quoted in a Salon article, Let us prey, by Joe Conason. Here is the intro to the piece "Jack Abramoff and his deeply religious right-wing cronies express their "biblical worldview" by swindling Indian tribes and bribing legislators. Verily, mysterious are the ways of the Lord." Note that to read the article an ad has to be viewed first.
The Science Blacklist - is an archived online radio show with Justin Webb, BBC Washington correspondent. Webb investigates "the growing number of US science scandals - from editing climate change research to repressing the sale of contraceptives." A fascinating and deeply worrying look at the political and religious manipulation of inconvenient scientific findings, including the odd story of the FDA and Plan B. Not to be missed.
Browney, You're Doing a Heck of a Job - no, you haven't fallen into a timewarp, this is not George Bush's nepotistical nitwit Michael Brown, but an altogether larger individual, crap psychic and bullshitter par excellence Sylvia Browne. That's right, the one that accepted Randi's challenge on TV way back in March 6, 2001. (Talking of her acceptance, you can see a video of Browne doing just that at the James Randi Educational Foundation site - and while you are there, why not sign up for Swift, Randi's excellent weekly newsletter?) Anyway, back to Browne who dropped the latest and biggest clanger in her ghoulish career over the West Virginia miners tragedy when she told the Coast-to-Coast radio show that they were still alive, only to be proved tragically and devastatingly wrong moments later. Even 80 cringed reading her pathetic attempt to regain some sort of initiative. But will this teach the bulky queen of bunkum to button her fat lip? Don't hold your breath.
Nursing, a Grievance - the next time you see a nurse at your local clinic or hospital don't be surprised if, among all the regular questions about health, she asks for your star sign. Tony Youens' Commentary has the details and he's not impressed..
Bigfoot No Show - cryptozoologists surely dream of having the resources to track down the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti and other fabled beasties and yet now this has actually happened the result is disappointing. The fact that these resources were deployed at all was down to a fortunate coincidence. The ivory-billed woodpecker, thought extinct since 1944, was seen in Arkansas in 2004. In an attempt to verify this sighting in 2005 an operation, involving "knowledgeable researchers with sophisticated equipment in the field for extended periods of time", was launched to scour the sixteen-square-miles of forest. This article by Benjamin Radford tells us that this same area is claimed by Bigfoot aficionados as one of the hangouts of this large, ape-like biped. Consequently one would assume that such a comprehensive search for a small bird would have to turn up at least some evidence for these "hairy bipedal giants". Particularly as massive resources were used, including "Global Positioning System equipment, binoculars, digital video cameras, and cell phones. Tree-mounted digital cameras capable of taking time lapses, motion detection, infrared, and high-definition..... High-tech, multidirectional audio units able to record sounds up to 200 meters away..." And yet no such beasties were found, no footprints, no hairs, no droppings, nothing. For the more fanatical of the cryptozoologists it must seem that what you wish for may not give the result you want. Funnily enough, this is how science in the real world works. Will this dampen the Bigfoot fans enthusiasm for this astoundingly, impossibly elusive creature? Of course not, but it will be interesting to see what excuses/explanations are offered for this null result. As is evident from the field of religion a belief held devoutly enough is undamaged by any awkward facts.
Home Thoughts
- after 3 weeks of infrequent updates (courtesy of BTYahoo, thanks a bunch), 80 has returned to some rare good news. The absurd and poorly
drafted religious hatred bill was
passed (a word which, in this case, seems aptly excretory) by the House of Commons in a much amended form.
This was the work,
ironically enough, of that unelected body the House of Lords. Even more
joyous was the news that Labour lost the vital second ballot by a single vote -
the vote of one Tony Blair, MP for Sedgefield and outgoing Prime Minister,
(lame duck is so hackneyed) who did not deign to attend. The changes
made by the Lords crucially altered the wording of the bill meaning that
one can only be charged with an offence for using "threatening" language
rather than the "threatening, insulting and abusive" language which
(rightly) applies in cases of racial hatred. 80 for one would never use
threatening language toward religionists - that would be trespassing on
their territory. As for insults and abuse, as far as 80 is concerned it is
business as usual. I make no apology for yet again quoting the words of
Mark Twain, which although aimed at Christians, sums up 80's attitude to
anyone who tells me how to live my life based upon their supernatural, childish nonsense. "You believe in a book that has talking animals,
wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food
falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical,
absurd and primitive stories, and you say that WE are the ones that need
help?" Beliefs that are based upon no evidence whatsoever may be fine for
individuals, but placing them on a pedestal, beyond criticism and mockery
is in itself a complete nonsense.
The same goes for
respect
for such irrational beliefs. Tolerance is enough, and believe me I find
even that difficult enough to achieve when I hear some
idiot on the radio condemning, say, homosexuality, as evil. Why should
I stay quiet when some
silly sod
from Christian Voice threatens people with fire and brimstone (and
harassment) for staging a musical? One aid worker in the third world is
worth a million such ignorant bigots. In the Guardian report on the
hatred law junior minister Paul Goggins was asked whether the
Danish
Mohammed cartoons which have caused such a
ridiculous fuss could attract prosecution under the new law - he
answered in the affirmative, so obviously things are far from perfect but
could have been much worse. (Let's hope no one tells Goggins about
Jesus and Mo.) On the
subject of the
Danish cartoons, in the face of widespread anger and
threats of violence from Muslims two German and one French newspaper (Die
Welt, Berliner Zeitung and France-Soir) have
reprinted the offending images in a gesture of solidarity that
emphasizes the right to free speech (Will any UK newspaper join them?
Don't wait up. Update - it seems the
BBC has taken the
plunge.). The overreaction from various states,
including the boycott of Danish goods and the recall of ambassadors (by
those bastions of fair play Saudi Arabia, Libya and Syria) show the
increasing touchiness of all religionists to anything that they perceive
as offensive (It also involves the popular pursuit of bandwagon-jumping by
repressive regimes, the better to curry favor with the downtrodden but not
actually do anything to better their lot. Why do you think Hamas supplies
social services? It cleverly spotted an opening in the market). What is so objectionable about a few lines on a page
compared to such outrages as the judicial murder of gays or the stoning of young women, as
practised in some Islamic countries? Or the deaths of young soldiers
fighting an unjust war? Or the murder of innocent families in a missile
strike dismissed as "collateral damage"? If someone's deity, Christian,
Jewish or Muslim, is as all powerful as he is claimed to be, why does he need his
outraged acolytes to threaten those who do not share their
beliefs with violence? Surely this is true religious hatred, not the criticism and
mockery that Blair's government has tried so hard to criminalize? Where
the hell is their sense of proportion?
Those Cartoons Again
- The MCB's affiliate, the Muslim Association of Britain, (such grand names but just how representative are these organizations?) has weighed in on the Mohammed cartoons row with this statement "Printing or republishing these images is not advisable, knowing that they are going to offend. It will only infuriate the British members of the Muslim community and Muslims around the world. It will be insult to injury. You can't reproduce these images in a sensitive manner." How do they know how infuriated the "British members of the Muslim community" will be - have they asked them all? If so it was a remarkably quick poll. One religious group, be it Christian, Muslim or Pastafarian cannot dictate what is or is not permissable in a democratic secular society - something these people seem incapable of grasping. If things weren't bad enough already a Danish tabloid, reported here, claims "...that Danish Muslim leaders and imams, on a tour of the Islamic world are handing out to their contacts to “explain” how offensive the cartoons are. The report contains 15 pictures instead of 12. The first of the three additional pictures, which are of dismal quality, shows Muhammad as a pedophile deamon, the second shows the prophet with a pigsnout and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog. Apparently, the 12 original pictures were not deemed bad enough to convince other Muslims that Muslims in Denmark are the victims of a campaign of religious hatred." If true, there is much more going on here than just freedom of speech versus religious sensitivity. This page, brought to 80's notice by the NSS Newsline, features portrayals of Mohammed through the ages - many originating from Islamic countries.)Quote
- "Communicating with the public seems to be essential, because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic." James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies who claims the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out on global climate change. Given that Vice President Dick Cheney is in bed with big oil such stifling of debate would hardly be surprising.President Jonah
- is the name of an essay by Gore Vidal in the latest issue of online magazine Truthdig. It more than demonstrates that the grand old man has lost none of his insight or his biting wit, in this instance directed at the the current White House incumbent and his cronies. Also of note in the comments section below Vidal's piece is a fine rant by Susan Block. Rarely has such well-justified anger been expressed so eloquently and vehemently. 80 has recommended Truthdig before and the quality of these contributions only serves to reinforce that sentiment.Cartoon Capers
- here are a couple of comments posted to a BBC "Have Your Say" page on the Mohammed cartoon row that bear closer attention. This first one is from someone in Norway and makes a very valid point "To you in favor of banning the drawings: The "Have your say" page is based on freedom of expression. If you are against this right, why do you use it here? Is freedom of expression only OK only if you agree with the expressions, and should those in conflict with your views be banned. No person has the right to impose their religious belief and rules to people not following the latter religion. It you are in favour of censoring views other than your own, is it OK if your opinions are censored?" This puts 80 in mind Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who seems to think that freedom of speech should not include comments deemed offensive by those with supernatural beliefs. According to this BBC report Straw thinks that "freedom of speech did not mean an "open season" on religious taboos". So religion, in his opinion, should be beyond certain kinds of criticism - or maybe it only applies to those religions whose followers threaten violence, such as the London protesters described in the Guardian as "carrying banners calling on Muslims to "massacre" those who insult Islam and chanting: "Britain, you will pay, 7/7 on its way." Such disgusting threats are a massive overreaction to any perceived offence over some, let's face it, not very good cartoons. (But see here for a moderate Muslim view of these idiot protesters) As 80 asked recently in another context, where is the sense of proportion? Are these cartoons any more offensive than the president of Iran hosting a conference that questions the reality of the Holocaust? Far worse cartoons depicting Jews, fully the equal of anything produced by the Nazis, are commonplace in many newspapers in the Middle East but the editors do not, as far as 80 can ascertain, receive death threats.State of the Union
- by Gore Vidal. This address is, as you might well imagine, made from a very different viewpoint to that of President George W Bush. Vidal is unsparing in his critcism of, and contempt for, the current occupant of the Oval Office "Now, we’ve had idiots as presidents before. He's not unique. But he's certainly the most active idiot that we have ever had. And now here we are planning new wars, ongoing wars in the Middle East. And so as he comes with his State of the Union, which he is going to justify eavesdropping without judicial warrants on anybody in the United States that he wants to listen in on. This is what we call dictatorship. Dictatorship. Dictatorship. And it is time that we objected." A transcript is available here, where you can also download an mp3 file (podcast). (For an interesting perspective on the official State of the Union address see a Tale of Two Presidents.) Dirty Secrets - sometimes there really is no pleasure in having one's suspicions confirmed. It seems Bush and Blair's duplicity in the run up to the attack on Iraq was complete. This from the Guardian "Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today. A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme." The whole illegal process is described in Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Will this lead to the impeachment and prosecution of either of these callous liars? Of course not, and even if it did it wouldn't help the thousands of human beings, civilian and military, that are dead and maimed, or wipe out the recruiting boost the invasion handed al Qaeda and similar religious extremists.Darwin Day
- celebrates one of the greatest scientists in history, whose "..200th Birthday will occur on February 12, 2009; it will also be the 150th Anniversary of the publication of his famous book On The Origin of Species. So, together we have time to evolve a truly International Celebration to show our appreciation for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity." The preceding paragraph is a quote from the official web site where you can find information on events all around the globe.The Now Show
- is a topical comedy show on BBC Radio 4 which this week, among much other good stuff, features a hilarious rant by Robin Ince on the subject of so-called complementary/alternative medicine (sCAM). Either listen to the whole show or fast forward to 21 mins 29seconds. This item is archived until Saturday. To listen you need the basic Realplayer or 80's preferred player, Real Alternative, which you can download here.
Now 80 has experienced some transcendent musical moments at, say, a Grateful Dead concert but this sound healing is way beyond that - certainly beyond any kind of evidence. It seems with this Finding My Religion series Miller has now entered the twilight realm where religion and so-called complementary/alternative therapies meet. This presents a problem, for it is not considered polite in many circles to question a person's religious convictions. But if a religious belief embraces unproven "medical" treatments, does it place such treatments beyond question as well? Regular readers will know that 80 considers both areas should be given equal critical scrutiny but many reporters, and it seems Miller is one of them, don't. The result, in this particular instance, is that a column ostensibly about personal religious beliefs becomes little more than free publicity for an unproven therapy. Perhaps Miller sees no problem with this, but, if he is any kind of journalist at all, he should.
Unsound Astrology
- 80 decided to look for more on sound healing and came up with the web site of Acutonics, which is full of more gibberish than a whole cathedral full of charismatics. To take just one paragraph, referring to the trans-Neptunian minor planet, Sedna, on which a course is offered, "Taught by Acutonics co-founder, Donna Carey and our Director of Astological (sic) Studies, MichelAngelo." The question is asked "Why has Sedna appeared at this time, our newest planet with deep ties to indigenous cultures, Hopi and Mayan prophecy, and the Inuit? In this new elective* students explored the many faces, and healing attributes of this powerful newly discovered planet..." Where to begin? Sedna did not "appear" but was initially discovered by astronomers using the Mount Palomar telescope. The timing of the discovery is down to an ongoing survey of the outer solar system - Sedna is just one of many Kuiper Belt Objects (KBO) now being revealed by the combination of astronomy and technology. The name Sedna has no mystical significance but was bestowed (unofficially) by the discoverers (it is officially 2003 VB12) Sedna is the name of an Inuit ocean goddess and was chosen for two possible reasons. One would be the desire to include mythological names from a culture other than that of ancient Rome or Greece, and the second is more practical - we are simply running out of names from classical mythology. Any attempt to ascribe some deep significance to the name by the folk at Acutonics is, not to put too fine a point on it, bollocks. 80 can't wait to hear their musings on the significance of the unofficial names of two of the latest discoveries - Xena and Buffy. (New Scientist has a selection of suggested names for the "tenth planet".) It is noteworthy that none of these KBOs have ever been predicted by astrologers - they also failed to do the same for Pluto, but are more than happy to include that frozen ball of rock revealed by science in their gobbledegook. (And no, prediction does not include the kind of crap espoused by such as pseudohistorian Zechariah Sitchin either, but that is part of a whole other story, one you can learn from Bad Astronomy.) *"Look for this exciting new class to be offered again in the Spring of 2006. The Sedna Set includes a mid, high and low frequency tuning fork." The mind boggles........Pots and Kettles
- Here is a response to a question about those damn' cartoons and Europe's liberties from a successful Hamas candidate in the recent Palestinian elections, Aziz Duwaik, of the Najah University of Nablus. "Press freedom is a great ideal. However, could one argue that Hitler and the Nazis were practising their freedom prior to the Holocaust? We know the Holocaust started with cartoons like this against Jews, and with books like Mein Kampf, and then came Kristallnacht ... and then we know what happened." The professor wants to try opening his eyes to see the same kind of cartoons as published by the Nazis appearing everyday in the Arab press. At least he does not appear to deny the reality of the Holocaust, so perhaps we should be thankful for small mercies. Update - it is reported that an Iranian right-wing newspaper " announced it would retaliate by running images satirising the Holocaust." The editor is quoted in the Guardian as saying "The western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons." So let's get this right, this clod thinks that the publication of some not particularly good cartoons of the founder of his religion justifies his paper publishing cartoons mocking a real life instance of mass murder. Meanwhile the Times' says The centre must hold, Moderates of the world: unite in a plea for sanity. - 80 is puzzled by the wide availability of Danish flags for burning in mid-eastern countries such as Syria and Lebanon. Has someone spotted a lucrative, if hopefully shortlived, gap in the market? Perhaps a secret cabal of flag manufacturers planted the Mohammed cartoons in Jyllands-Posten as they were running low on stocks of the Stars and Stripes, the flag-burners regular choice. Update - at least one Palestinian entrepreneur is doing good business, and not just in Danish flags, Reuters tells us that "he buys Israeli flags from a merchant in Israel, even though he sells them to be burnt at anti-Israeli rallies."Relativity
- Pope Ratzinger's first encyclical "Deus Caritas Est" ("God Is Love") is discussed in a New York Times op-ed piece, Believing in Doubt, (reg rqd) by Austin Dacey of the Center for Inquiry. Dacey looks at the old autocrat's views on relativism, something that the pontiff treats with disapprobation. Dacey tells us "The pope has used the term "relativism" to describe not only non-absolute standards, but also uncertain ones. The alternative to certainty, however, is not nihilism but the recognition of fallibility, the idea that even a very reasonable belief is not beyond question. If that's all relativism means, then it is hardly the enemy of truth or morality. Accepting that we are fallible doesn't keep us from thinking that we're right. It just keeps us from thinking that we couldn't possibly be wrong." But he also describes another, damaging kind of relativism in a paragraph that needs quoting in full, especially in light of the Mohammed cartoons row that has travelled around the globe like a (deliberately fanned) wildfire and the "clash of civilizations" it is claimed to represent. "Perhaps a future encyclical will concentrate on the truly harmful kind of relativism. This is the misguided multiculturalism that keeps Western liberals from criticizing the oppression of women, religious minorities and apostates in Islamic societies for fear of being accused of Islamophobia. In such cases we should not shrink from the ideals of autonomy and equality but affirm them openly for what they are: objectively defensible principles of conscience." Also read this piece by Ibn Warraq, author and senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, which is an impassioned plea for solidarity (are you listening Jack Straw?) in the face of threats from Islamic extremists over, yes, those bloody cartoons again. "Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values." Also read Warraq's Islam and Intellectual Terrorism and this 2001 interview from Radio National's The Religion Report.Fooled Again?
- meet the new boss, same as the old boss is the message in this piece in The Nation by John Nichols, called A Boehner in the Henhouse. Apparently instead of the squeaky-clean, fresh-faced, reformist shine given to DeLay replacement John Boehner by much of the press, the unvarnished truth is darker and dirtier. Nichols pulls no punches in describing the new House Majority Leader "Boehner is an old-fashioned shakedown artist whose promise of "change" amounts to little more than a pledge that he won't get caught like DeLay did. The Ohioan may be smoother than the Texan, but only a fool, or a Washington pundit looking to cozy up to the new boss, would mistake a better haircut and the absence of the stench of bug spray as evidence of ethics." Plus ça change.........
Questions
- Firstly, in Islam aren't depictions of all living things supposed to be forbidden, if not in the Quran itself then at least in the Hadith, not just images of Mohammed? Yet there are, in fact, many instances of images of living creatures, animal and human, including Mohammed from Islamic culture, so is such a prohibition a matter of interpretation and therefore fallible? Secondly, if someone is not a Muslim, why should they be bound by the rules of Islam? Thirdly, it is often said that the ban on images of Mohammed is in order to avoid the sin of idolatry. Surely to hold a person in such high regard that you are prepared to kill another human being for depicting him is itself a form of idolatry? (For more on the Quran see here, here and here.) Update - these religious prohibitions on imagery don't seem to have bothered an Egyptian newspaper, al Fagr, overmuch - they published some of those infamous cartoons back in October without one murmur of offence, outrage or death threat. If any proof is needed that things were stirred up and exaggerated by Danish imams this is surely it. 80 wonders if they feel any regret at the deaths, destruction and cultural harm they have caused? Thanks, Sandmonkey. Meanwhile, in Denmark, some morons have aided those that cry Islamophobia at every opportunity by desecrating Muslim graves. What did they hope to achieve with such a disgusting act? Lastly, what do cartoonists think about the whole bloody mess? Read this fine and thoughtful piece by Daryl Cagle on Cartoon Jihads.Thin Skins
- do take a moment to read Matthew Parris' eminently sane opinion piece on the cartoon row and the increased tendency for various groups to take offence - and not just religionists - although they do tend to hog the limelight. As Parris puts it "People of faith and people of none cannot escape attaching themselves to claims that are inherently offensive — and at the deepest level — to other people." He concludes "Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic, but mockery. Structures of oppression that may not be susceptible to rational debate may in the end yield to derision. When people see that a priest, rabbi, imam or uniformed official may be giggled at without lightning striking the impertinent, arguments may be won on a deeper level than logic. We should never, therefore, relinquish, nor lightly value, our right not to argue in the face of other people’s gods — but to fart." Also please find the time for Muriel Gray, writing in the Sunday Herald, who asks "How can we have respect for Islam when we are too fearful to criticise it?"Cartoon Anger - - here is an interesting roundup of stories and comment by Cinnamon Stillwell at SFGate.com about the ongoing and idiotic row over the Mohammed cartoons and the assault on free speech. Stillwell makes a valiant attempt to place the whole sorry affair in some kind of perspective. Much more challenging is this essay from Sam Harris, published in the excellent Truthdig, which not only takes on the cartoon row, but uses it to illustrate his own attitude to militant Islam, an attitude shared by many and one that is bound to become more widespread, given the totally disproportionate and violent reaction to a handful of drawings. Both pieces are well worth a moment of your time, whether you agree with the views expressed or not. As with many deplorable events in the world, what we are seeing here is a failure of education. In 80's view the obsessive, blinkered study and interpretation of a single book, be it Quran or Bible, in the belief it is divinely inspired and contains unbreakable rules governing all the minutiae of everyday life is not education. Indoctrination maybe, but not education. The former narrows the mind, the latter widens it. As Arisotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." 80 is admittedly far from fully educated, at least by Robert Frost's definition. "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper." The news that people have now lost their lives over this insane business is surely grounds enough for rage, and sadness - how can people be so bloody stupid? The answer to that question is Richard Dawkins' famous elephant in the room. Until we humans are rid of our childish religious fantasies, from whatever source, we are never even going to grow up, let alone be properly educated.
...And Furthermore - For more commentary see Cartoon Debate The case for mocking religion, by Christopher Hitchens, who, true to form, comes out swinging and this piece Depicting Mohammed subtitled Why I'm offended by the Danish cartoons of the prophet. The author, Reza Aslan, is of the "I am all for freedom of speech but it must be limited" persuasion. He then proceeds to undermine his own argument by completely ignoring the far more scurrilous and cruelly racist cartoons of Jews in the Arab press and elsewhere, (his Chicago Tribune reference is an obvious red herring). To be fair, Aslan does make one very important point, "Of course, the sad irony is that the Muslims who have resorted to violence in response to this offense are merely reaffirming the stereotypes advanced by the cartoons." but then he spoils things by saying that the "Europeans" that have made that very same observation "...reaffirmed the stereotype of Europeans as aggressively anti-Islamic." So it is OK for Aslan to say this but not "Europeans"? Which particular Europeans does he have in mind? Certainly not Jack Straw. When 80 last checked the European Union had 25 member countries - does Aslan's remark cover the inhabitants of all of them? This is as daft as referring to Shiites and Sunnis as one, homogenous group - the Europeans have at least managed to stop killing each other. An editorial from the National Secular Society points out a dangerous and possibly unbridgeable gulf in understanding, "The Arab world finds it incomprehensible that a culture can tolerate such disrespect for their supernatural ideals. The Danish Prime Minister explained on Arabic television this week that he does not have the power to control the press. The Islamic regimes that he was speaking to were completely uncomprehending of such an idea." In common with, it often seems, the Bush administration. Finally here is a story from the Washington Post on how technology, particularly email and phone text messaging, have helped fan the flames worldwide by spreading misinformation and rumors. The fundamentalists may hate the decadent and sinful west, but oh boy, how they love the gadgetry.
SPECTRE of Dick - for the definitive report on the Deadeye Dick quail shooting faux pas take a look at this clip (courtesy Crooks and Liars) from The Daily Show featuring Jon Stewart, Ed Helms and Rob Corddry. Hilarious doesn't cover it. What is far less amusing (apart from the shooting of an old man) is the way the whole affair of the hunting accident has been handled by Cheney and his team. It only serves to reinforce the negative image that the vice-president has in many eyes - particularly those of the White House press pack whose collective noses were put out of joint that the story was revealed by the owner of the quail-hunting ranch, lobbyist Katharine Armstrong, to a local paper (some are asking whether she was coached - some smell a Rove). A lack of comment (or apology) so far from Cheney (update - He has now spoken exclusively to Fox news - "Cheney, whose last press conference was in 2002, apparently hasn't scheduled any other interviews". ) has been interpreted as yet more evidence of his disdain for the press and public opinion. The man dubbed Vice-President Strangelove by the New York Times' Maureen Dowd has done nothing to dispel the feeling of many observers that he is a shadowy and unaccountable presence in the Bush administration. A man obsessed with secrecy, a man who could trash a CIA agent's career with a casual word to his minions, a man prepared to lie repeatedly over WMD and the non-existent Saddam/al Qaeda connection, a man who convenes a secret industry cabal to write energy policy. There has been much talk about the actor cast as the new James Bond, but 80 would like to make a suggestion for the role of arch-villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Dick might be needing to fill his time with something. Even Blofeld's organization SPECTRE, standing for Special Executive for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, Extortion, seems appropriate somehow. The only one missing is Torture.......(As a public service 80 offers a picture of a quail and a picture of a 78-year old lawyer - there, that should help avoid any further confusion)
Megalomaniac? - if further proof is required that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is deranged, read about his latest Napoleon and Jesus remarks. He has certainly handed his opponents in the upcoming elections some useful ammo. Hopefully this will go some way in balancing his leverage in the polls - he owns Italy's three main TV stations and has also been making full use of his post of prime minister. The Guardian tells us " For the past fortnight the billionaire tycoon, who owns Italy's three main private television stations, has been on a broadcasting blitz. He has given in-depth political interviews, appeared on lightweight chat shows and, on a football programme, talked about his electoral chances as well as about football." For background on Berlusconi's business interests see An Italian story and Dear Mr Berlusconi... from The Economist. The phrase "nasty piece of work" springs to mind.
Lost His Religion - David Ian Miller, he of the Finding My Religion feature on SFGate.com, has partly redeemed himself this week after the uncritical plug he gave to Sound Healing (see If It Quacks Like a Duck). Today's subject is Brian Flemming, maker of the movie The God Who Wasn't There. (In 80's view a flawed but very worthwhile attempt that questions the historicity of Jesus). With the current climate of burgeoning religiosity in the US making such a film requires guts and commitment, and Flemming is to be commended. After reading this interview 80 certainly had a better sense of what Flemming's intentions are than were conveyed by the movie. He comes across as more thoughtful and perhaps less strident, as in this exchange, when asked "Have you ever had any spiritual feelings?" Flemming replied "I think "spiritual" is a word with so many definitions that it's almost useless. I don't really know what people mean by it. If they mean, "Do I believe in supernatural forces that are affecting our world?" -- then the answer is that I haven't seen any evidence for it yet. But if they mean, "Do you believe that humanity can create its own set of morals and can lift itself up to a better state than it's in right now?" The answer is yes! I do believe in that. I believe in humanity, not in some sort of magical book that's going to tell us how to do that." If you want a copy of the movie the US web site is here and for those of you in the UK click on the image of The God Who Wasn't There in the sidebar of this page - your purchase will aid the National Secular Society. As for the definitive work on the ahistoricity of Jesus, take a look at The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty. Highly recommended.
Rant
- 80 has had more than a few people complain that too much attention on these pages is now being focussed on religion and not enough on quackery and pseudoscience. This is a matter of priorities, the need to concentrate on the greatest threat to a free and rational society, and that threat comes not from quacks and the peddlers of pseudoscience but from the upsurge in religiosity that has occured over the last few years. The three fields are not unrelated, as the irrationality that accepts miracles and gods is just as likely to accept quackery and pseudoscience. The connecting strand is the rejection of evidence and the emphasis on blind belief, on faith. The point about religion is that it places far more people in jeopardy than the other two, despite, say, the idiotic rejection of childhood vaccines by quacks or the current state of denial over global warming by some governments, an example of pseudoscience if ever there was one, but even here the evidence is becoming so overwhelming that scientists cannot be successfully cowed or gagged for much longer.Money for Murder - but not for children. Read this quote from Pakistani cleric Muhammad Yousef Qureshi on his offer of a bounty of £600,000/$1,000,000 (and a Toyota car) to whoever kills the impious Danish Mohammed cartoonist. "This is a unanimous decision by all imams of Islam that whoever insults the prophet deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize. This killing will enhance respect for Islam and for Muslims. Next time nobody will dare to commit blasphemy against our prophet." Four points here - one, killing anyone will never "enhance respect" for a religion or its followers. It will enhance fear, contempt and hatred maybe, but not respect. Two, this preacher has not been paying attention, there were twelve cartoonists, so perhaps he had better find some more cars and bounty money. Three, has he actually asked "all imams of Islam" for their opinions or is this bluster to bolster his murderous offer? I think we can safely say bluster. Four, has it not occurred to this devout man that his money would be better spent helping those in dire need, such as the Kashmir earthquake victims? Or is "respect" more important to him than the deaths of children?
Contrast and Compare - this opinion piece by Martin Jacques in the Guardian accuses Europe of contempt for other cultures. It is too wrong and tedious to bother with except that 80 found it particularly irritating having just read a report from Amnesty International on the Iranian authorities' intention to execute a girl who killed one of three men who were attempting to rape her. Cultural relativism? You can shove it. Much happier was the news from Canada concerning the use of religious tribunals in dealing with family law disputes. A while back there was pressure for Ontario to allow the use of sharia courts in family matters. Muslims said this would only be fair as Jews were already accorded a similar privilege. (see What a Revoltin' Development). At the time 80 suggested that rather than extend this to yet another religion why not remove the Jewish right to these courts so that every citizen is on a level playing field? And this is exactly what has happened. Meanwhile in "In Britain, a poll of Muslims last night found evidence of growing alienation, with four in 10 calling for religious sharia law to be imposed in parts of the UK with a mainly Muslim population. The law specifies stonings and amputations as punishments, and involves religious police bringing suspects before courts." according to this report. Broadcaster and legal journalist Marcel Berlins makes his case for rejecting sharia but seems oddly unaware of the Ontario decision. Weapon for Sale - for those of us who have read the Christian New Testament and puzzled over the Prince of Peace saying "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) at least we now know what this sword may look like - in fact you can buy one of your very own! Pastor Rod Parsley, who incidentally has a somewhat unnerving grin/rictus, will, for a paltry 40 bucks send you a magnificent sword. It has " Intricate detail throughout the handle and blade. Two-tone antique copper- and gold-colored metal handle. Polished stainless steel blade detailed with the cross of Christ. Beautiful display board with wood grain finish and two gold-colored studs to hang the sword from. A length of 37 inches." What an offer - after all who could resist a length of 37 inches? Parsley does spoil things a little by telling us "This sword is a replica of the sword of the legendary King Arthur" and not Jesus but hey, what's a mythical figure amongst friends? (A sword, it should be noted, is good for only one thing - stabbing people - it is not a *dual-purpose weapon like say, a shotgun (hi Dick!) that can be used for hunting tiny farm-reared birds as well as peppering lawyers.) Parsley is to be congratulated - his site is one of the best examples 80 has seen (and he has seen a few) of how to prosper by peddling religion. Praise Mammon! Update - 80 found this interesting page about the life and career of Rod Parsley - it makes fascinating reading and is far from complimentary. (* although it could be said to be duel-purpose - sorry)
Justified Intolerance - here is an excellent and heartfelt reaction from Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy to the interference with the announcement scientific findings by minions of the Bush administration. Read this quote from the now-disgraced George Deutsch, a politically appointed NASA public affairs officer, asking for corrections in a press release. The Big Bang is "...not proven fact; it is opinion. It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator. This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most." As Plait says, we must not tolerate this sadly all too common interference. (It was with unalloyed pleasure that 80 read of Deutsch's departure from NASA hastened by the revelation the little creep had lied on his resume.)
Homeland Pork - for those following (and possibly even enjoying) the row between the Bush administration and many members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, with regard to the proposed management of six US ports by an Arab-owned company - remember that the responsibility for security stays with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This port thing is a storm in a teacup, (actually one of Bush's own making) which distracts attention from what the DHS itself is doing with all the tax dollars thrown at it. A piece in the San Francisco Chronicle furnishes some surprising information "Rest easy, America. As a response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the Princeton, N.J., Fire Department now owns Nautilus exercise equipment, free weights and a Bowflex machine. The police dogs of Columbus, Ohio, are protected by Kevlar vests, thank God. Mason County, Wash., is the proud owner of a half-dozen state-of-the-art emergency radios (never mind that they are incompatible with existing county radios)." Can we say pork? Yes, I think we can. And strangely distributed pork too. "The U.S. Virgin Islands receives more per capita in homeland security spending ($104.35) than does Washington, D.C. ($34.16). So do Guam ($90.36), the Northern Mariana Islands ($54), Wyoming ($37.74) and American Samoa ($37.54)" If you find that outrageous read the rest of The War on Hype - America's fleecing in the name of security by Veronique de Rugy and Nick Gillespie.
Questions - ask moderate religionists of your acquaintance to look in their holy book and find any passages in which god tells them to kill those of whom he disapproves. (They shouldn't find that too hard a task, at least in the Bible or the Quran.) Then ask them the following questions 1. Do you really want to be associated with this stuff? 2. Why can't your god do it for himself? 3. Who wrote this stuff anyway?
Quote - from Donald Rumsfeld writing in the LA Times on War in the Information Age. "Our nation is engaged in what promises to be a long struggle in the global war on terror." Excuse me, Mr Rumsfeld but shouldn't that be "threatens" not "promises"? Promises tends to sound, what shall we say, a little too enthusiastic? (More on the "long war" here.)
Quote - "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken 1880 - 1956 (Sometimes this strategy can backfire)
If Dirt Were Dollars
We got the bully pulpit
And the poisoned pen
We got a press no better
Than the public men
This brave new world
Gone bad again
God's finest little creatures
Looking brave and strong
Whistling past the graveyard
Nothing can go wrong
Quoting from the scriptures
With patriotic tears
We got the same old men
With the same old fears
Standing at attention
Wrapped in stars and stripes
They hear the phantom drummers
And the nonexistent pipes
These days the buck stops nowhere
No one takes the blame
But evil is still evil
In anybody's name
If dirt were dollars
If dirt were dollars
If dirt were dollars
We'd all be in the black
Don Henley, Danny Kortchmar and J. D. Souther If Dirt Were Dollars from The End of the Innocence (1989) - My, how far we have come in 17 years.
Re Those Cartoons - "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras, or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony?" The words of Jihad Momani, Jordanian journalist, now facing prosecution for publishing some of the Mohammed caricatures. He is one of "11 journalists in five countries facing prosecution for printing some of the cartoons" according to a New York Times (reg rqd) article on the varied reactions to the row within Islam. Many newspaper stories refer to the views of the "Islamic world" without acknowledging how varied the inhabitants of that world are in their attitude to religion and free speech. (See here, here and here, for good examples) The flag and embassy burning mobs are not representative of all Muslims, as anyone whose IQ exceeds their shoe size already knows. (Note - registration to the New York Times is free and the minimal effort involved is more than repaid by articles such as that referenced above)
Quote - "If he'd been in the military, he would have learned gun safety." Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam war veteran, commenting on Dick Cheney's quail hunting mishap. In other news Cheney's victim at least had the good grace to apologize for being shot.
OINK! - does Yahoo deserve an OINK award? It is reported in The Register that email names that contain "allah" have been banned. It seems that someone named Callahan fell foul of this prohibition when trying to set up an email account with Yahoo partner Verizon. Whether this is cock-up or conspiracy is not known, but it certainly looks like yet another case of craven oversensitivity in the face of those who go out of their way to find something to offend their religious sensibilities. We are told "Nor will Yahoo! accept yahoo, osama or binladen. But it will accep
