The View from Number 80

Oily Quagmire or Going To Plan? - the Washington Post (reg rqd) quotes retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez on the situation in Iraq accusing "...the Bush administration yesterday of going to war with a "catastrophically flawed" plan and said the United States is "living a nightmare with no end in sight."" But what if a quagmire is exactly what was planned in the first place? Paranoid conspiracy theory perhaps, but here in a piece called "It's the Oil" Jim Holt makes the case that an extended "Korea model" of occupation was always on the cards. He notes the huge US bases being built in Iraq, "five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’" no less, or to use the current Washington jargon, "enduring bases". He sees these as part of a strategy to tie up Iraq's oil, a strategy he believes that may have been decided as long ago as Cheney's 2001 energy task force whose deliberations have been kept under wraps. Perhaps much of his piece is purely speculative but one question to go away - why is a country that is supposed to be keen to leave Iraq to the Iragi's (when they are deemed ready to take over security) still building these huge bases? Joseph Gerson thinks he knows "Whether the U.S. retains five or 15 “enduring bases,” its goal is clear: to keep its military hand on the “jugular vein” of global capitalism – as former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Maxwell Taylor described Middle East oil. This requires an intimidating infrastructure of deadly high-tech fortresses and the warriors that go with them."

Scrolls of Dishonor - in an open society dialogue and debate are vital and so when they are stifled a great disservice is done to society as a whole. This is what has been happening at the San Diego Natural History Museum exhibit on the Dead Sea Scrolls. (see Scrolling Along and Scrolls Scandal) where a group that espouses an outdated, inaccurate and partisan view of the scrolls and their origins is busy stifling any mention of the latest research. Why? Because, it would appear, recent evidence based upon palaeographical, textual and archaeological grounds shows the interpretation peddled by the exhibition's organizers to be, at the very least, deeply flawed. Charles Gadda has been investigating the affiliations of those who are promoting the exhibition and finds the principals all have one thing thing in common - a connection with various Christian foundations. Now there is obviously nothing at all wrong with this unless these principals are confusing their own no doubt sincerely held personal beliefs with scientific inquiry and are allowing said beliefs, rather than evidence, to dictate the tone and content of the exhibition. There is little doubt that this is the case. Gadda's latest piece (thanks again, Sarah) looks at the individuals directly involved (and others on the periphery) in using the exhibition to promote a theory of the scrolls and their origin informed by religiously-inspired wishful thinking rather than the findings of science. As he eloquently states after surveying and summarizing the situation, "In sum, we appear to be dealing, at the very least, with an exhibition tainted by intellectual antisemitism, with an obscurantist, seemingly irrational fear of debate, and with biased conduct that is abhorrent to our basic social sentiments and to the principle of freedom of inquiry which lies at the core of our system of values."

Gadda also links to a piece by one of the foremost experts on the scrolls, an academic denigrated by the exhibition group, Norman Golb, Ludwig Rosenberger Professor in Jewish History and Civilization at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Golb represents the view that the scrolls were produced by various groups, most likely in Jerusalem, and were hidden in the caves near Qumran during the Jewish war with Rome. This does not sit at all well with the exhibitors' view that the scrolls were produced by a proto-monastic group (the Essenes) at Qumran where, with the eye of faith, a "scriptorium" complete with inkwells was found. To retroactively insert an anachronistic "monastery" into first century Judaea in the face of the evidence is not science. Neither is the refusal to acknowledge theories that are based upon the evidence. To quote Golb, "The complex history of the Palestinian Jews on the eve of the First Revolt is being pushed aside in favor of a bizarre, Christologically colored thesis". It is interesting to note that Gadda tells us "..it appears that the San Diego chapter of the University of Chicago alumni association, no doubt curious to hear an alternative point of view, has invited Dr. Golb, one of the chief proponents (along with Rachel Elior, Yitzhak Magen, Yuval Peleg, Yizhar Hirschfeld and others) of the "Jewish" theory, to give a lecture on the scrolls." Don't hold your breath waiting for a response from the museum exhibitors - it is not their policy to recognize that others, reputable scholars, do not share their fantasies. That much is quite obvious. If a belief, no matter how sincerely held, is found not to be in accord with the evidence it should be discarded. That is how science works. To stifle comment with accusations of "bigotry" and "playing the religion card" (remarks made about Gadda) or ignoring the theories of those eminently qualified to comment is not scientific - it is, not to put too fine a point on it, dishonest and deceitful. UPDATE -See this important update to the story of "Charles Gadda" and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Founding Fables - Sen. John McCain has found himself in hot water with some religious groups after characterizing America as a "... Christian nation and that he prefers a Christian president to lead the country." In doing so he revealed his less than solid grasp of the county's history, saying "...in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles … personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith.” Along with the numbskull he hopes to replace he apparently has never actually read the Constitution. As this article makes clear the"...nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent." (see McCain's True Colors)

Compare the views of the mainly deist Founding Fathers to the personal savior myth favored by most Christians and you will find little, if any, correspondence, as demonstrated in this piece by Farrel Till. "The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible." Not that McCain, in common with most politicians, is going to let facts muddy the water - he was one of three republican would-be nominees who publicly acknowledged they they did not hold with the theory of evolution, preferring Iron Age myths to evidence-based science. (also see A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation (reg rqd) and So what does the Constitution say about religion?)

Going By The Book - two recent news items set off a train of thought about Islam and science and whether the two can be compatible. Firstly there's the announcement of the Nobel Prizes (reg rqd) and secondly, Malaysia has its first cosmonaut orbiting in the International Space Station. On a whim 80 wondered how many Nobels have been won by Muslims and found the answer here - which is not very many at all. Now is this because Islam is inherently anti-science or is it prejudice on behalf of the Nobel committee? The former because of its adherence to the literal word of the Quran which is an early medieval document with a worldview to match or the latter group, all Norwegians, selected by that country's parliament and possibly biased in favor of "western" scientists. There is little to support the prejudiced committee angle, but Islam as anti-science can perhaps be demonstrated. In this essay by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy in Physics Today he shows science in the Islamic world has had a strange history, with moments of brilliance eclipsed by the resurgence of literal belief in the Quran. This can be represented by, to quote the Bad Archaeology site, ".. two different types of human beings: those who seek answers through questions and those who seek answers through authorities. It’s also the difference between science and religion, and between leading and following." To accept an ancient book as divinely authorized and immutable is at the same time to reject rational inquiry. Yet such a book can only be a product of its time and of the culture/s that produced it.

One effect of such literal belief is dead hand, holding back thought and invention, preventing any "new" discoveries - for to be new is to depart from the god-decreed natural order. Societies that are throughly permeated with such an attitude already have the answer to everything - god did it. Once this point is reached science becomes impossible. If it is the will of god that a certain number will die of, say, malaria why try and stop the disease? Such fatalism is also fatal not only to the infected but also fatal to the spirit of rational inquiry that leads to medical advances. In 19th century Europe there arose something that is still largely missing in the Islamic world - the desire to subject holy writ to textual (and higher) criticism. Under such scrutiny it became fairly clear that the books of the Christian bible are a collection that grew over time and not a miraculous document dictated by the almighty. The narratives being a product of their times are written to meet the needs of those times. Despite cries of blasphemy 80 is not aware of these European bible scholars being threatened with murder unless they cease their impious prying. This was because such scholarship took place in a society where the process of rational inquiry had become accepted.

The same process could not happen for the Quran - not yet at any rate. Any study of this collection of verses and commentaries can only be done on the understanding that the text is not to be questioned, only commented upon. This is not scholarship, or if it is, it is not the kind of scholarship that is going to better anybody's life in the way medical science has done. So here is a book that is not to be questioned (sometimes on pain of death) for it is the incontrovertible word of god, it can neither be added to subtracted from. It defines a world view prevalent in the part of the world in which it was written and at the time it was written - it has an early medieval outlook. It is not possible to have science in a culture permeated by belief in the divine origins of such a book. To quote the Physics Today piece "Scholars of the 19th century, such as the pioneering sociologist Max Weber, claimed that Islam lacks an "idea system" critical for sustaining a scientific culture based on innovation, new experiences, quantification, and empirical verification. Fatalism and an orientation toward the past, they said, makes progress difficult and even undesirable." In the current state of antagonism between the west and the Islamic world many Muslims feel slighted by such an observation but little seems to have changed

Hoodbhoy looks at the state of science in modern Islam using a somewhat more sophisticated method than counting Nobel Prizes. He states "A useful, if imperfect, indicator of scientific output is the number of published scientific research papers, together with the citations to them." Here the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), 56 countries in all, put up a poor showing. And even this method of judging performance does not take into account the actual quality of individual papers. He also points up the lack of investment in science by OIC members saying, "On average, the  OIC states spend an estimated 0.3% of their gross national product on research and development, which is far below the global average of 2.4%" but does note that spending is on the rise in some of the richer countries. But increased funding for science is useless without a system of higher education producing would-be scientists in the first place. Sadly he finds "Most universities in Islamic countries have a starkly inferior quality of teaching and learning, a tenuous connection to job skills, and research that is low in both quality and quantity. Poor teaching owes more to inappropriate attitudes than to material resources. Generally, obedience and rote learning are stressed, and the authority of the teacher is rarely challenged. Debate, analysis, and class discussions are infrequent."

The obedience, rote learning and the authority of the teacher are certainly factors inherited from attitudes inculcated by Islam's devotion to the Quran. The fact that "Debate, analysis, and class discussions are infrequent." is an obvious corollary of this. Until the Quran can be studied for what it is, a medieval document with uncertain origins, without those doing such studies receiving death threats, the situation is unlikely to change. This situation leaves many in the Islamic world with, to quote Pat Condell, a chip on their shoulders the size of a mosque. The sort of changes that would improve this situation must come from within to be effective, but an Islamic Enlightenment doesn't look like happening any time soon, despite the optimism shown by some. Meanwhile in the west various groups are trying to drag the education system back to the middle ages,  wanting unscientific nonsense such as creationism/Intelligent Design (c/ID) to be introduced to the science curriculum. As there is no reason to include these fairy tales on scientific grounds proponents push the idea of "fairness" and of "examining both sides of the question". Science does not progress on the basis of "fairness" - some things are supported by the evidence and some are not. The proponents of c/ID no doubt are happy to take advantage of modern medicine and communication devices such the ubiquitous cellphone but do not seem to realize if their campaign met with success it would a first step back to the same stifling medieval world view that has blighted the development of science and technology in Islam. When the main worry of a cosmonaut is how to pray according to medieval flat earth rules whilst orbiting the planet experiencing sunrise and sunset every 90 minutes or so it is surely a sign that something is very wrong. (see Criticism of the Qur'an and The relation between Islam and science Definitely well worth a read is What Is the Quran? (pdf) by Toby Lester, published originally by Atlantic Monthly)

Quote - "Muslims do not accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth, because they say it was written by dictation from God," Tauran said. "With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith." Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, in an interview on Friday with the French Catholic daily La Croix.

Quote - “What politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I have found in short supply.” Nobel laureate Al Gore (reg rqd)

Sense About Science - instead of accepting the outrageous claims often made for products by the manufacturers, claims often reeking of pseudoscience, a group of young scientists (part of the Voice of Young Science network, VoYS) is challenging firms to back up the advertizing copy with real evidence. A pdf document, There Goes the Science Bit, detailing their findings can be downloaded here and it makes for fascinating reading, covering products as varied as a treatment for "parasites", a yogurt that is "proven to optimise the release of energy", a program for your computer that "modulates the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation, strengthens the immune system and brings the body back to health" and detox patches that remove “harmful toxins including fatty acids, cholesterol".

Suffice it to say that the claims for these marvellous products cannot survive proper scrutiny. In fact the daft explanations offered by the manufacturers would be hilarious if they weren't so mendacious. On reflection that is unfair to some of them perhaps who aren't lying, merely pig ignorant. And we are not talking of fly-by-night dodgy internet outfits, some of these firms are household names. The scientists involved are to be commended for some excellent work, work that will continue. Here is their statement of intent "We are fed up with the way pseudoscientific claims play on the public's fears and spread science myths that deceive and misinform. We think it is wrong that members of the public are misled about products and practices based on unproven and pseudoscientific claims. Why, when our scientific research is held accountable through peer review, are these claims not tested with similar rigour? By demanding answers for questions that typically go unasked, we aim to encourage more scrutiny of pseudoscience, expose misinformation and bring those responsible to account." For more see Sense About Science including this press reaction to the campaign.

Objective: Obfuscate - for those of you who have been following the scandal surrounding the exhibition at the San Diego Natural History Museum of the Dead Sea Scrolls (see Scrolls of Dishonor) here is an example (scroll down to comments) of the quality of the opposition to Charles Gadda's well researched charges of poor scholarship and bias. Or to be more accurate it is an example of how to avoid answering the charges, and a poor example at that. Such obfuscation is a transparently obvious and rather stupid ploy, ignoring the main elements in a debate and concentrating on irrelevant items and then banging on about them ad nauseam. It is certainly the way in which a B Ralph is trying, rather clumsily, to change the subject. Ralph's somewhat frenzied accusations of some kind of collusion between Gadda and prominent scrolls scholar Norman Golb sound like a little paranoia is creeping into the debate - Jewish conspiracy anyone? The contrast with Gadda's measured responses is highly suggestive that Ralph has lost the plot and so has invented a new one - a plot to blacken the reputation of the "scholars" behind the exhibition.

If these people are so certain of the nature of the scrolls and their provenance surely they can only gain by inviting experts from outside their little tent to air their findings - which they can then refute. The fact that they have not done this is tacit acknowledgement of their inability to do so. B Ralph's increasingly irrelevant diatribes only serve to confirm that view. To refer to Gadda's meticulously researched articles as a "deceitful and vicious campaign" and calling the man himself a lying bully shows that Ralph has little of substance to add to the discussion but plenty of spluttering venom. A reasoned refutation of the points that Gadda has made is still missing from this discussion - all we have seen so far is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
 

Quote - "I don’t want to live in a society where I get stoned for committing adultery. I want to live in a society where I get stoned. And then commit adultery." Ibn Warraq speaking in a recent debate. Also see Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim.
 

Can Women Save the Planet? - after the horrific events of 9/11 Richard Dawkins wrote a memorable piece calling attention to the "elephant in the room" - the elephant being religion and the malign power it can wield over gullible people, such as suicidal hijackers. 80 has devoted a good deal of time to discussing, criticizing and mocking this elephant in its myriad forms, all the while practically unaware of an even bigger, but related elephant. This problematic pachyderm is human overpopulation. A case can be made that the origin of nearly all major conflicts in the world can be traced to the simple fact that there is far too many of us. As the Earth's resources become depleted there will be more wars as competition heats up for what is left, be it oil, coal or water. 80's bête noire, religion, is very definitely part of the problem, in particular the attitude (see here) of the major "abrahamic" religions toward half of the human population, women. This is particularly notable in Islam but Roman Catholicism can be little better.

This planet's resources are running out or becoming uneconomical or impossible to extract, the biosphere is damaged by pollution and the concomitant global warming, by deforestation and by hunting - this article tells us that we are close to wiping out our nearest relatives the primates, let alone many other, less photogenic and appealing species. All of these problems can be laid at the door of overpopulation and as developing countries aspire to western standards of living things can only get worse. A recent study suggests that to raise the world's living standards to say, that of the UK would need the resources of 2 to 3 planet Earths. While the current excess of greenhouse gases must be addressed immediately in the long term a reduction in the sheer number of human beings is the only answer. This is where the role of religion and the place of women is crucial. At the moment hurtling around the planet every 90 minutes the International Space Station and the space shuttle are both commanded by women - the fact that this is considered remarkable is a poor reflection on even the liberal west's attitude to females and shows how far there is to go. It is far worse for women in the third world living under systems such as sharia that automatically assume they are of less worth than men. The same misogynist attitude is evident in the actions of the cruel old men in the Vatican who use the power of superstition to deny women birth control and abortion, even when necessary to save a women's life, as in Nicaragua. One cannot ignore the evidence that  Islam, Roman Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity see women's god-given role as ignorant, submissive baby machines. The effect of such a callous attitude on the quality of women's lives and overpopulation is obvious.

It has been found that as living standards and education rise in a population so the birthrate falls. Those who, in order to deal with infant mortality and lack of social care have a large number of children as an insurance policy, no longer feel the need. Also better education can lead to less slavish adherence to the teachings of those who fulminate against birth control. It is doubly despicable that those who oppose contraception also oppose abortion. If the former was made more widely available it is obvious there would be less need of the latter. Such simple logic is apparently beyond the comprehension of dogmatic clerics. The fact that many evangelical Christians promote the unworkable idea of abstinence rather than contraception shows how little real empathy exists for ordinary vulnerable people, particularly teenagers experiencing the first rush of hormones through their developing bodies. Pope Ratzinger (was he ever a teenager?) recently made a speech decrying religious violence but the old hypocrite failed to address the mental violence perpetrated by his organization every day. To tell those living in poverty that they must not practice birth control is not only damaging to these people but also to the whole planet, crushed by the weight of human beings as it is. To make family planning universally available is in the circumstances the only moral thing to do. Religionists may say their god forbids birth control - but how does their god feel about driving animals to extinction by loss of habitat and hunting? Surely if they believe their deity created the biosphere what right do we have to trash it? (Some are indeed asking that question.)

Climate change mitigation, pollution control and conservation are all vital but will be ineffective unless the elephant of overpopulation is acknowledged and confronted. What is needed is the education of women, particularly in the Islamic world, and their full emancipation. This has yet to happen properly in the so-called liberal democracies with their glass ceilings and body image propaganda, but even this situation is preferable to the state of affairs for most women across the planet. The fact that religious cultures exist that will kill anyone who educates girls is horrific and shows how religious fundamentalists will keep women subdued, ignorant and oppressed if they can get away with it - and scum like the Taliban are getting away with it right now. In Iraq Bush's pre-emptive invasion has in fact set back the cause of women in that country by centuries. The post invasion chaos that has unleashed the religious loonies has also resulted in Iraqi women being dragged back into the dark ages once more. Such missteps cannot be allowed to happen. The future of human existence, and that of much of the biosphere is tied to the empowerment of women all over the planet. The more women are in control of their lives the more population levels will drop - eventually it is to be hoped this could lead to a sustainable human presence on this planet. Right now the signs are far from good.

Secularist of the Year - the National Secular Society (NSS) has announced the winner is Mina Ahadi, an Iranian dissident and founder of the Committee of Ex-Muslims and also the Committee Against Stoning. In presenting the award Richard Dawkins called attention to how important was the empowerment of women in the Islamic world. Here is an extract from his speech, "I have long felt that the key to solving the worldwide menace of Islamic terrorism and oppression would eventually be the awakening of women, and Mina Ahadi is a charismatic leader working to that end. The brutal suppression of the rights of women in many countries throughout the Islamic world is an obvious outrage. Slightly less obvious, but just as outrageous, is the supine willingness of western liberals to go along with it. It is worse than supine, it is patronising and condescending: "Wife-beating is part of 'their' culture. Who are we to condemn their traditions?" A religion so insecure as to mandate the death penalty for apostasy is not to be trifled with, and ex-Muslims who stand up and fight deserve our huge admiration and gratitude for their courage. Right out in front of this honourable band is Mina Ahadi. I salute her and congratulate her on this well-deserved award as Secularist of the Year." Terry Sanderson, president of the NSS, said, "We are proud to have been able to give Mina this honour – she is a woman of incredible courage and tenacity. The suffering she has endured has not dimmed her determination to improve the lot of women oppressed by Islam and other religious traditions." Also see this piece from Johann Hari on the dangers faced by women such as Mina Ahadi. Next time you hear some vapid celebrity's soap opera problems endlessly recycled in the media (hello Britney) compare such empty-headed pop tarts to the courageous women who face degradation,torture and murder for merely wanting what many in liberal countries take for granted.

Quote - "Theology is nonsense on stilts and yet grown men of high intelligence spend their entire lives running in circles pursuing answers to questions that aren’t even questions. They seek to make excuses for the inexcusable and apologies for the unforgivable." Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society (NSS) commenting in the latest Newsline on the controversy surrounding Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. Also see Turnbull's Bull (Newsline is a free weekly email newsletter from the NSS)

Quote - "Every family has a black sheep." a spokesman for Barack Obama on being told his boss and Dick Cheney are eighth cousins.

Archaeology Abused - those of you that have had the misfortune to see "psychic" Derek Acorah going through his spiel on TV will be delighted to learn that his antics have come under the keen gaze of Bad Archaeology. Archaeology? Why yes, the multi-talented Acorah not only talks to the dead through his spirit guardian (see Tony Youens on this) but also indulges in a little "psychic archaeology". LivingTV, the bunch that are partly to blame for inflicting Acorah on the public gush on about his latest show thus "Psychic medium Derek Acorah returns to LIVING with historian Tessa Dunlop in to explore Paranormal Egypt as they attempt to solve some of the World's oldest mysteries. Join Derek and his team of investigators as they investigate some of Egypt's most famous locations, in a bid to contact the spirits of Tutankhamen and Nefertiti to uncover the truth behind the country's darkest secrets.” Such utter nonsense is more than fair game for the Angry Archaeologists and they do not disappoint. Acorah is an outstanding example of a mediocrity doing well by insulting his audience's intelligence - which is quite a trick when you consider the quality of his performance and material. Many will watch him claiming they do so just for a laugh - but his pathetic trivialisation of history and archaeology is itself offensive to anyone that values real knowledge of the past won by careful research, hard work and intellectual effort. Three things that appear to be utterly missing from Acorah's output.

Con or Cock-Up? - for those who have, like 80, been following the scandal of the San Diego Natural History Museum's Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit (see Objective Obfuscate) here is a fascinating document. It is detailed look (in PDF format) at the catalogue of the exhibit by Norman Golb of the University of Chicago,  an expert on the scrolls and the latest research. He is scathing not only of the quality of the scholarship displayed but also of the actual production standards of the catalogue itself. On the obviously partisan nature of the exhibit as presented by the museum he has this to say, "While "many scholars" do still believe in the original Qumran-Essene theory, many others do not, and it behooves the responsible parties and, all the more, the appropriate officials of the sponsoring museum and its academic partner, to explain why such a dogmatically one-sided position has been taken in the catalogue presented by them." While reading Golb's criticisms 80 was led to ponder whether this exhibit is the result of conspiracy or cock-up - it would appear to be a both. The number of elementary mistakes in translation revealed by Golb, and the errors in copying even those translations that have been taken from existing works smacks of ineptitude but the consistent plugging of a far from certain interpretation of the scrolls and their provenance seems to be entirely intentional.

The whole catalogue takes the unjustified assumption of the existence of a 1st century BCE mystical "monastic" style community churning out scrolls in their "scriptorium" on the shore of the Dead Sea and treats it as fact.  Having read Charles Gadd's investigative pieces on the exhibition 80 was pretty certain that some sort of academic "con" was being perpetrated. In 80's view the catalogue appears to be an attempt to ape the appearance of scholarship but with  with no real understanding of its methods in order to legitimize an unsupported partisan view of the origin of these artifacts. Golb's piece would seem to confirm this.

Qualified to Comment - it is a common and tedious reaction of senior churchmen to the likes of Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett to assert that these writers cannot criticize religion without learning about its theological subtleties. They claim the picture of religious faith shown by the "new atheists" is a caricature and does not portray their faith, err, faithfully. 80 has pointed out before that this is bunkum but Edmund Standing does a far better job. In a piece in the excellent Butterflies and Wheels he takes the position espoused by such as Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and shows it to be, to put it mildly, untenable. The fact that Standing has a "BA in Theology & Religious Studies with First Class Honours" ought to satisfy Williams and chums as to his qualifications - which means they shall now have to find another way of attempting to defend their particular brand of claptrap. Mere accusations of theological ignorance are hardly sufficient. (Further to 80's musings on the Quran do read this piece by Adrian Reddy also from Butterfies and Wheels. In fact why not subscribe to the free weekly B and W email update?)

Fascist Fashion - here is a piece by Christopher Hitchens defending the use of the term Islamofascism. 80 doesn't want to seem facetious in the face of Hitchen's erudite and persuasive arguments but picture if you will the Taliban, Osama bin Laden or those guys calling for beheadings in a London street protest. They are all indeed deeply unpleasant, violent people whose views are to be despised, and whose actions opposed at every opportunity - but they are not fascists. Say what you like about fascists but they always have a very good line in immaculate uniforms and shiny boots, buckles and buttons. Sartorial elegance is the last thing that springs to mind when confronted by the turbans and whispy beards of the Islamists. To be a proper fascist you must at least have a smart uniform. These people are indeed like fascists in that they are despicable, but they can only earn the name if they get a grip on their wardrobe. Perhaps they should take a tip from the Burmese generals - at least these revolting little throwbacks look like proper fascists...

Wheels Coming Off the Wagon? - here is a fascinating (and hefty, at 10 pages) article by David D. Kirkpatrick, writing in the New York Times, called The Evangelical Crackup (reg rqd). This is a detailed look at how a younger generation of evangelicals has grown tired of the strident conservative politicking on the same old subjects of abortion and gay marriage. Not that they are in favor of these things you understand but they realize there are more pressing things in this world to worry about - unsurprisingly global warming and the war in Iraq are two issues that are frequently mentioned. If the views expressed in Kirkpatrick's piece translate into action (or inaction) at the ballot box then any of the current ragbag of Republican candidates that assume automatic support from Christian conservatives will be making a big mistake. Quite one of the most optimistic articles 80 has read in a while. Not that the Democratic contenders will have an easy time of it, going by the attitude of a "values voter" quoted in the Times piece, “Obama sounds too much like Osama. When he says his name, I am like, ‘I am not voting for a Muslim!’ ”  Dumber than dirt doesn't really cover it. (Susie Bright takes issue with Kirkpatrick's analysis here - believing any change is only superficial)

Quote - "The first day or so we all pointed to our countries. The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day, we were aware of only one Earth." Saudi astronaut Sultan bin Salman Al-Saud.

Quote - “The birth rate is about six per second, and the death rate three per second. United Nations figures foresee numbers levelling out when we have between 8 and 10 billion humans by 2050 – roughly a 50% increase on today’s figure.” Chris Rapley, Director of the British Antarctic Survey. For more see here.

What's In A Name? - this item reports that "Research into the views of 1,000 adults in the UK has shown 42% said they pray to God with about one in six praying every day and one in four praying at least once a week". Apparently "After praying, 38% reported feeling "peaceful and content", 30% said they were strengthened, 22% said they felt close to God, 21% said they felt reassured and safe and 19% said they felt happy and joyful." More amazingly "A total of 57% of those who pray said they believed that prayer changed what happened in their life and 32% said they had seen the effect of prayer on their lives." As you can well imagine this survey has been welcomed in certain quarters - well in one anyway - Tearfund, the Christian aid charity that commissioned the survey. We are told "Top prayer topics in order of popularity were family and friends, thanking God, guidance, healing and worldwide problems such as poverty, wars and disaster." Looking around at the sorry state of things on planet Earth 80 doubts the efficacy of all this pleading to the almighty.

Calling it prayer somehow makes the whole exercise seem more deserving of respect than if it was given a more accurate description, such as wishful thinking, which is all it really is. The wishful thinking tag certainly makes more sense of this bizarre finding, "Prayer was so popular that even those with no religion were participating - with one in eight, or 12%, of this group praying sometimes". Let's try that one again, "Wishful thinking was so popular that even those with no religion were participating - with one in eight, or 12%, of this group thinking wishfully sometimes." Even if we do allow that prayer has some kind of magic power why should it even be necessary? Why would an omniscient deity have to be asked for things - if there is a real need wouldn't he/she/it know already? Another problem with prayer is that for every person who prays for all things bright and beautiful there is another one praying that the first one burns forever in hell. Whose prayers are best, Dubya's or bin Laden's? Perhaps because of this god gave up listening to our incessant whining a long time ago and that is why we have war, famine, torture (including waterboarding), disease and all the rest. Update - Theo Hobson writing in the Guardian on the subject of prayer vitiates any point (or points) he is trying to make by claiming to know what atheists think. Poor Theo has only a very limited number of toys in his playbox and today he is, yet again, playing with his straw man, who is beginning to look a bit tatty. (80 has looked at Hobson's output before and was less than impressed. See Hobson's Cult, Hobson's Hissy Fit and Hobson's Horrors.)

Quote - Lady Claire Gurney: "How do you know you're God?"
Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney, 14th Earl of Gurney: "Simple. When I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself."  from the excellent movie The Ruling Class (1972)

Grab Randi's Dough - here is a good piece from Wired on how to win James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge by following ten simple tips. The writer, Rob Beschizza, has obviously been following the various claimants that have surfaced over the years, especially those who accept the challenge and then come up with cockamamie reasons for chickening out, just like that ghoulish harridan Sylvia Browne. The only one of the tips that appears to present any real difficulty for the would-be claimant is number 10, "Do have paranormal powers". Mmm, tricky... (As is often the case, it is well worth scrolling down to the comments below)

Good Riddance - but not quite yet. BBC news has the welcome report that Gilbert "Miracle Babies" Deya is to be deported to Kenya to face "five counts of child stealing between 1999 and 2004." But don't expect this alleged child trafficker to go straight away - there is an appeals process which "could continue in British courts for months". For the whole story see About Time below.

Today's Sermon - is called President Jonah, Meet Oliver Cromwell! and is delivered by Gore Vidal in fine pulpit-pounding fashion. Read it or better still, listen to the man himself. "Today, as I sit, like so many Californians, at the heart of what seems to be a vast burning bush, I realize that Jehovah’s jinx of the weirdest American president is as operative in this lowering pre-Halloween season as it was last February when, guided by Scripture, I posted here on the Internet the bad news that our nominal president was seriously jinxed by an unrelenting deity who, from his throne of fire, now blows fiercely upon the west coast of the United States, spreading from San Diego to Malibu to Lake Arrowhead."

About Time - finally extradition proceedings have started in the case of "archbishop", wonderworker and author Gilbert "Miracle Babies" Deya. The Kenyan authorities are keen to talk to him regarding charges of baby-trafficking over a number of years. He claimed to make barren and post-menopausal women pregnant by prayer - obviously much more believable than baby-trafficking. 80 has been watching the slow process of returning Deya to Kenya since August 2004 and quite a show it has been. Here is what 80 wrote last year - follow the link for the history of this extraordinary case. "...click here for the ongoing story of self-styled archbishop Gilbert Deya, his millionaire lifestyle and miracle babies, police investigations, arrest warrants, extraordinary rants and curses, and more. Latest from Gideon Kibunja of Nairobi CID "Gilbert Deya has shamed all Kenyans and we wish the UK would kick him out." Mr Kibunja, there are plenty in the UK that share your sentiment." Update - "A woman desperate to have a child was "assaulted" in order to make her believe she had conceived a "miracle baby", a court heard" See the rest of the story here. A judgement on Deya's extradition is due November 8th.

Theology Defined - by that bastion of rationality and commonsense, Jesus and Mo's barmaid.

What's Good About Religion? - click here and the estimable Pat Condell will tell you. Amazingly he finds enough to fill 6 minutes and 22 seconds. And, to commemorate the state visit to Britain of the man Peter Tatchell calls the "killer king", here is Pat's earlier video Why are we friends with Saudi Arabia?

November 13th 2007

Scientologists Anonymous - households in the south of England are currently finding leaflets on the doormat from an outfit called Narconon, asking the question, "Do you have a loved one on drugs?" and telling the reader that "There is hope!" and offering a toll-free (0800) phone number and a web site, www.drugrehab.co.uk. That is all there is - no other information at all - not even the useful tip that Narconon is a Scientologist front organization steeped in pseudoscience. This is the same Narconon that fell foul of the San Francisco's school system back in 2005. "State Superintendent Jack O'Connell urged all California schools to drop the Narconon antidrug education program after a new state evaluation concluded that its curriculum offers inaccurate and unscientific information. "We'll get a letter out to every school district today, saying this program is filled with inaccuracies and does not reflect widespread medical and factual evidence," O'Connell said of Narconon Drug Prevention & Education, a free program with ties to the Church of Scientology. If you do have a loved one on drugs do you really want a vulnerable person to fall under the sway of this clownish yet sinister cult? For more information about Narconon see Narconon Exposed and The Narconon Scam. 80 has looked at Narconon before, see Hubbard's Minions and Narconon is Scientology. For more about the cult itself than they would ever like you to know check out Operation Clambake. Should you ever have the misfortune to meet any Scientologists be sure to ask them about Lisa McPherson. Oh, for those that really want to know, here is L Ron Hubbard's "religion" accurately and briefly summarized.

Godless Wrath - It seems not a day goes by without the media reporting on religionists who are offended this or angered by that, sensitive souls that they are. Now, it is hardly possible for an atheist to redress the balance by reason of numbers alone, but Greta Christina, writing in her blog has had a damn' good go. You will need a moment as the list is long, but as far as 80 can see, completely justified. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? 80 has been known to indulge in a cathartic rant himself now and again but Greta Christina's offering is far more comprehensive. Highly Recommended.

It Is Not A Question To Be Asked - in a BBC news article concerning the row over plans to drive a ship canal through a "bridge", between India and Sri Lanka, we are given an insight into the blinkered and repressed world view of the religiously devout which should give anyone interested in free speech cause for concern. The "bridge" is actually a series of shoals and islands, although those protesting at the plan claim the features were actually built by the Hindu god Ram and his monkey army and therefore any canal across it would be sacrilegious. There are objections to the project on environmental grounds but it was a comment from part of the religious lobby that caught 80's eye, especially at a time when religious groups around the world are trying to put rational examination of their beliefs beyond question by legislation, such as the various "religious hatred" laws being proposed. Murli Manohar Joshi, a senior member of the Hindu nationalist party, made these chilling comments, "Just like one cannot ask whether Christ was born to a virgin, it is a matter of faith. So you cannot ask whether this Sethu (bridge) was built by Ram. It is not a question to be asked." Those last eight words show just what could happen to free inquiry if religionists have their way and is totally against the kind of free rational inquiry essential for an enlightened society.

The placing of religious claims beyond question would be very welcome not just to Hindus but also to their Christian and Muslim counterparts for it would do away with them having to answer criticism. All they would have to do when faced with difficult questions would be to say, "It is not a question to be asked". In fact suppression of information over the "bridge" row has already ocurred. In September the Beeb reported "The Indian government has withdrawn a controversial report submitted in court earlier this week which questioned the existence of the Hindu god Ram." In the report the Archaeological Survey of India pointed out grounds for believing the bridge was not a natural feature were "..solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana.They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real." This attack on Lord Ram (and his horde of simian contractors - did he pay them in peanuts?) so incensed the faithful that the craven government withdrew the report. Querying the veracity of a supernatural fairy tale is obviously "not a question to be asked". (For a good overview of the unhealthy entwining of politics, religion and archaeology in the Ram's bridge contoversy see  Bad Archaeology.) Update - by happy coincidence that odd couple, Jesus and Mo' have something to say on those questions that are not to be asked.

Homeopathy Exchange - earlier this week Jeanette Winterson wrote In defence of homeopathy. The article, published in the Guardian was little more than a rehash of the same old pseudoscience and anecdotery, and deserved a strong response. For some years now it has been obvious that homeopathy is nonsense with no scientific rationale behind the gobbledegook - any properly designed study shows this - for example here. The requisite response came from Ben Goldacre in his latest Bad Science column (also in the Guardian). As the subheading accurately indicates "Ben Goldacre follows a trail of fudged statistics, bogus surveys and widespread self-deception." Will this change any minds in the homeopathic camp? No, because insisting on the efficacy of this 19th century quackery is purely a faith position and has nothing to do with the standards of evidence required for scientific validation. In fact the adherents of Hahnemann's hocus-pocus are less inclined to respond rationally to criticism than to throw a hissy fit. As Goldacre puts it, and he should know having been on the sharp end of the homeopaths' wrath, "When I'm feeling generous, I think: homeopathy could have value as placebo, on the NHS even, although there are ethical considerations, and these serious cultural side-effects to be addressed. But when they're suing people instead of arguing with them, telling people not to take their medical treatments, killing patients, running conferences on HIV fantasies, undermining the public's understanding of evidence and, crucially, showing absolutely no sign of ever being able to engage in a sensible conversation about the perfectly simple ethical and cultural problems that their practice faces, I think: these people are just morons." (also see Faith-Based Medicine)

Update - to the above. In answer to the old "where's the harm?" comeback from homeopathists read this "Once we laughed at primitive superstitions. Now we teach them in TAFE colleges. You’d laugh, if children like nine-month-old Gloria Thomas weren’t paying for our retreat from reason in this Ylang-Ylang Age. A coroner in Sydney this month held an inquest into Gloria’s agonising death from severe bacterial infections. The child had been so riddled with eczema that her skin was paper dry and split in many places. The court was told Gloria’s parents, of Indian background, had preferred to treat her not with drugs tested under the Western scientific method that has made us so healthy and long-lived, but with homeopathic cures." Taken from an op-ed piece by Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun.

Wahabism - is a particularly austere form of Islam practised and promoted by the Saudi royal family. Well, maybe not all of them. How's this for a shopping list? "...two top-of-the-range Chevrolet 4x4s, a thermal night vision kit for his Hummer H2, dozens of designer watches and jewels, a selection of handguns and two Arab karaoke machines. One takeaway meal came to almost $800 (£391). And then there is the $2,500 item on a trip to a hotel in Casablanca that reads: "Girls: party night 5". And that's only part of it, the Guardian reveals in a story about Prince Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdul Aziz, a nephew of King Abdullah, who has been told by a London court to settle his bills, bills in the region of £3m. This is obviously some obscure meaning of austere that hitherto had escaped 80's attention. One wonders if the prince is held up as an example to students in the many Saudi-funded madrassas around the world? One rule for the rich and one rule for the poor - 'twas ever thus.

Jihad and the Petrodollar - listen out for Middle East analyst Roger Hardy on the BBC World Service on Friday November 16th. Hardy has spent the last two months investigating Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia's austere brand of Islam and in a"two part program he looks at the fierce debate over whether Wahhabism and Saudi petrodollars have fomented extremism." (Debate? What debate, doesn't everyone know already? And have done for years? And no, nothing much has been done about addressing the problem.)

Quote - "What they are saying is that religion has far too large a slice of the public pie, and far too great an influence (especially in proportion to the numbers of their active votaries) on public policy (churches are self-constituted civil society organisations like trades unions, and are entitled to have their say, but no more than any other such institution); that people can believe what they like, but please do it in private; that they should pay for their own schools and are not entitled to our public tax money for them; and, in general, that they can think and do what they like so long as they do not insist on stuffing it into other peoples' faces - or in the extreme, killing them for believing or behaving differently." A C Grayling, writing in the Guardian on what the "new atheists" are saying as opposed to what affronted religionists think they are saying.

One Man's UFO - a while back some people were bemoaning the fact that UFO sightings don't seem to be as frequent as they were and this may well be the case but it doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of true believers out there. At a recent meeting in Washington of former pilots who had seen UFOs was a retired US Air Force flier, one James Penniston, who reminisced about an incident in the UK near Woodbridge when he was stationed there in the 1980s. We are told "Nothing in my training prepared me for what we were witnessing. He said he saw an inexplicable triangular craft in a clearing in the woods with "blue and yellow lights swirling around the exterior." The UFO was "warm to the touch and felt like metal," Penniston said. One side of the craft had pictorial symbols and "the largest symbol was a triangle, which was centered in the middle of the others," he said. Then after 45 minutes the light from the object "began to intensify" and it then "shot off at an unbelievable speed" before 80 Air Force personnel, he said. "In my logbook, I wrote 'speed: impossible.'" Impossible would seem to be the right word - perhaps Penniston would like to read of the incident from another point of view. One man's UFO is another man's something else entirely. As with most UFO incidents given proper scrutiny this one does not hold up at all well. Ian Ridpath is a British science writer and broadcaster who has written a comprehensive debunking of what became known as the Rendlesham Incident - read his account and see if you can find find any points of congruence with Penniston's story.

It would appear that not only distance but also the passage of years can lend enchantment to the view. As for the testimony of other participants at the Washington meeting one word covers the lot - anecdotal. These folk may be former pilots but that does not make their testimony any more reliable. See this quote from Ridpath's UFO skeptic pages, "A cornerstone of the UFO believers’ case is that UFOs are reported by trained observers such as pilots whose eye witness testimony would readily be accepted in a court of law. However, J. Allen Hynek, the pro-UFO astronomer who coined the famous term Close Encounters of the Third Kind, wrote in his book The Hynek UFO Report (p.271 of the paperback edition) that “commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses”. As it turned out, Hynek found that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects, just as they are for other UFO witnesses." And that presumably includes would-be presidential candidates.....

Princely Pedophile Protector - defends fatherhood. The head of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor has condemned plans that, among other things, will make it easier for lesbian couples to have access to IVF treatments. It is great to see him so upset over the chance that such couples can have a family, claiming it will undermine "fatherhood" - it is a crying bloody shame that he didn't show as much concern for the victims of the pedophile priest, Michael Hill, who  he protected back in 1985. Protected him and effectively enabled him to molest more children. How can O'Connor sleep at night? The idea that such a hypocrite can make pronouncements on "morality" is enough to turn 80's stomach.

Read this from The Scotsman dated December 2002, "Pressure was last night growing on this side of the Atlantic for the resignation of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales. The Archbishop of Westminster was - like his fellow "Prince of the Church", Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston - revealed to have covered up for pervert priests who abused children while under his authority. Reports have emerged in the last week that there could have been as many as 12 priests involved in the English scandal, but public outrage was focused on the case of one cleric. When the allegations against Father Michael Hill emerged in 1985, while the cardinal was Bishop of Arundel, he was transferred to another parish. And the situation was exacerbated two weeks ago when Fr Hill was jailed for five years after pleading guilty to another string of offences against boys after he had been moved by the then Bishop Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. In the wake of the case, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was contrite and admitted he had been "naive" on the issue, failing to show "compassion" for the abused."

Law resigned as archbishop of Boston on Dec. 13, 2002 and yet here we are 5 years later and this other contemptible "Prince of the Church" is still in public life and still telling others how to behave. Doesn't he remember the old saying* about motes and beams? Obviously not. He should have been packed off to Craggy Island a long time ago.

*"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye" (Matt. 7:3-5).

A Very Long Shot - "I can't confirm that it wasn't Bigfoot. That's one possibility. It's just not a possibility I'm exploring." So says fish and wildlife investigator Ken Holmes, who is investigating reports of a mysterious creature roaming Northern Florida stealing jelly doughnuts. It has been speculated that the beast may be an orangutan or a spider monkey, but a Bigfoot "research" group, apparently clutching at straws, called Holmes for information. It is not known whether jelly doughnuts form part of this elusive anthropoid cryptid's diet.

Living Lawfully - what if someone really tried to live exactly as dictated by the Christian bible? No, not like most fundamentalist or evangelical Christians who cherrypick what rules are to be followed, such as taking Leviticus seriously when it condemns homosexuality but ignoring, for instance the prohibition on eating shellfish. No, author A J Jacobs describes his experience trying to follow over 600 ancient laws in his book The Year of Living Biblically, and found it an impossible task. The whole thing was not undertaken for a lark (no one is that crazy) but because Jacobs is worried by the dangers of literal belief in the bible as outlined here, "A literal interpretation of the Bible -- both Jewish and Christian -- shapes American policies on the Middle East, homosexuality, stem cell research, education, abortion -- right down to rules about buying beer on Sunday." The dead hand of ancient Hebrew misogyny and homophobia still lies heavy on those that take the biblical stories literally but at least it does handily remove the need for independent thought - why bother to really think things through when you have a divine book of rules to go by, with no need of all that difficult introspection? Never mind that doubt is one of the engines of human progress - better the moronic certainties of a holy book.

The problem is that rules that may have made some kind of sense in the primitive and superstitious world of the Bronze and Iron age Middle East do not sit happily within modern western culture - hence the aforementioned cherry picking. It is when you really try and follow all the precepts of these ancient myths that you can become seriously unstuck. These days stoning someone for moral turpitude of one sort or another is rare unless you are unlucky enough to live somewhere like Iran. Jacobs takes a humorous approach to what are some very serious concerns, "The Hebrew scriptures prescribe a tremendous amount of capital punishment. ...Think Saudi Arabia, multiply by Texas, then triple that. It wasn't just for murder. You could also be executed for adultery, blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, perjury, incest, bestiality, and witchcraft, among others. A rebellious son could be sentenced to death. As could a son who is a persistent drunkard and glutton. The most commonly mentioned punishment method in the Hebrew Bible is stoning. So I figure, at the very least, I should try to stone. But how?" This review tells us "The more rules he discovered, the more alarmed he became that millions of Americans today claim to adhere literally to the Bible's word". They may claim it, but it certainly isn't true. To most modern Americans, even the Biblical literalists, someone who rigorously followed all the rules in the "good book" would seem little different from today's Taliban, and would not be allowed to walk the streets for very long. (see here for Bible Precepts: Questionable Guidelines by Donald Morgan)

A Minor Rant - a short while back 80 commented on Christopher Hitchens' defence of the term "Islamofascism". 80 disagreed, but only on sartorial grounds. Then Timothy Garton Ash, writing in the Guardian, asked the question "What should we call the people who want to kill us? Islamofascists? Islamists? Jihadists? Or just plain murderers?" After looking at the various options he rejects, among other tags, Islamofascist. Pat Condell, in one of his fiercest You Tube pieces to date, is happy to go with Islamofascist - although happy is hardly the right word. Click here to to listen to Pat put that bunch of Islamist apologists, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) in its place. Pat's pieces to camera are always leavened with humor, although in this latest offering his anger and sense of outrage are, justifiably, well to the fore.

He has obviously read the offensive drivel offered by the MCB's leader, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari - especially his ideas of integrating Muslim and British "cultures" which consists of Brits adopting such "Islamic" ideas as "family, marriage, raising children with boundaries, giving to the poor, not being too greedy." What condescending claptrap, what patronizing prattle. He believes abortion should be made more difficult - but only because "By the time a foetus is 12 weeks old our religion says that the child has got a spirit." Superstition should never play a part in legislation. Homosexuality is "unacceptable from the religious point of view". More superstition. And what about that good old Islamic practice of killing miscreants by bludgeoning them to death with rocks? What does the good Doctor say about that? Is it ever justified? "It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances." What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is there such a thing a "stoning lite" for non-capital offences? This integrating of culture seems to be a one-way street. If Bari wants to live in a culture that is misogynistic, homophobic and obsessed with religion then there are some elsewhere in the world that would suit him. Britain is not one of them - and never will be.

Contrast and Compare - "He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped." Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, leader of the Muslim Council of Britain commenting on Salman Rushdie's knighthood.

"The bookshops are independent businesses. We can't just go in and tell them what to sell …" Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, leader of the Muslim Council of Britain commenting on the bookshop at the east London Mosque, which Dr Bari chairs, and which stocks extremist literature.

Down The Rabbit Hole - keep up with the world of the irrational (that's this world by the way) and check out Faith-Based News. Religion, UFOs, Alternative Medicine and  much more, harvested online so that you don't have to bother. News items, op-eds, blogs and longer articles and journals are all included. Recent items cover Donald Duck and Noah's Ark, abusive priests, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, "Islamic" cars and "free" energy.

Quote - "Our world is facing problems - poverty, HIV and Aids - a devastating pandemic, and conflict. God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another. In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality." Archbishop Desmond Tutu in an interview with the BBC.

When Dick Made Sense - "But we made a very conscious decision not to proceed for several reasons, in part because as soon as you go to Baghdad to get Saddam Hussein, you have to recognize that you’re undertaking a fairly complex operation. It’s not the kind of situation where we could have pulled up in front of the presidential palace in Baghdad and said, “Come on, Saddam. You’re going to the slammer.” We would have had to run him to ground. A lot of places he could have gone to hide out or to resist. It would have required extensive military forces to achieve that. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? You want a Sunni government or a Shia government, or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Baath Party, or maybe some combination of all of those."

"How long is that government likely to survive without US military forces there to keep it propped up? If you get into the business of committing US forces on the ground in Iraq to occupy the place, my guess is I’d probably still have people there today, instead of having been able to bring them home."

"We would have been in a situation, once we went into Baghdad, where we would have engaged in the kind of street-by-street, house-to-house fighting in an urban setting that would have been dramatically different from what we were able to do in the Gulf, in Kuwait in the desert, where our precision-guided munitions and our long-range artillery and tanks were so devastating against those Iraqi forces. You would have been fighting in a built-up urban area, large civilian population, and much heavier prospects for casualties."

"The bottom-line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: Not very damn many. I think the President got it right both times, both when he decided to use military force to defeat Saddam Hussein’s aggression, but also when he made what I think was a very wise decision to stop military operations when we did."

The above quotes are taken from a reply that Cheney, then Bush Snr's Secretary of Defense, gave in September of 1992 to a question as to why the US didn't flatten Saddam's regime in the first Gulf War that liberated Kuwait. What has changed Dick's mind so radically since? Was there a lack of oxygen flow to the brain during his pacemaker operation? How could he get it so right then and so wrong after 2001? Was he, perish the thought, lying through his teeth? Did 9/11 unhinge him? Was the boy George unable to control Cheney's burgeoning bellicosity whereas his daddy could? Read a transcript of this fascinating interview by Amy Goodman with investigative journalist Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud,  discussing Unger's new book The Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War, and Still Imperils America's Future. (Now there's a title that doesn't give much away) Talking of new books former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has one coming out in April, called What Happened - Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington. The publishers have posted an appetizer on the web - see quote below. (The original Goodman/Unger interview can be seen and heard at Democracy Now!)

Quote - "The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself." Scott McClellan in his forthcoming book, What Happened.  Perhaps a better title would be Now He Tells Us? Also see this BBC report. Update - impeachment enthusiasts note that the publisher of McClellan's tome has backtracked (reg rqd) somewhat.

Adieu, Crackpot Clerics - here is an interesting piece in New Humanist by Stephen Bates, who has stepped down as religious affairs correspondent for the Guardian. Most of the piece is dedicated to the sheer vindictive nastiness that prevails between various factions of the Anglican church but more amusingly we are shown just how absolutely cracked senior prelates can be, in this case Graham Dow, the Bishop of Carlisle. This man of god Bates notes "....has come to public notice for suggesting that the recent floods were God’s judgement on a sinful nation, but not only is he not alone – perhaps just naive to speak so openly about it to a friendly journalist from the Sunday Telegraph – but they are not his weirdest views. An earlier book he wrote on demonic possession shows he believes devils enter up the anus (something Freudian here perhaps) and the signs of possession include wearing black, inappropriate laughter, inexplicable knowledge, Scottish ancestry or relatives who have been miners. You may laugh – inappropriately – but Dow used to be an Oxford college chaplain, indeed once prepared Tony Blair for confirmation, and has risen to be a diocesan bishop." You will stop laughing, inappropriately or not, when you learn that this nutcase, along with 25 of his brethren, has an unelected seat in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the British parliament.

Bates' departure is also covered here, with a telling quote from him following his coverage of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops meeting with Archbishop of Canterbury in New Orleans. “Writing this story has been too corrosive of what faith I had left: indeed watching the way the gay row has played out in the Anglican Communion has cost me my belief in the essential benignity of too many Christians. For the good of my soul, I need to do something else.”

Holy Writ - here are a couple items that 80 found interesting over the last few days. First up is a piece by Carrie A. Moore on that chimerical beast, biblical archaeology, a pursuit that all too often is reduced to investigators looking for and finding (at least to their own satisfaction) evidence supporting their religious conviction that the bible is a reliable historical document. Basically Moore's piece is an interview with Aren Maeir, chairman of the department of archaeology and Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv who quite sensibly allows that biblical texts can be informative but cautions excavators not to go beyond the physical evidence and make unsubstantiated claims. As the piece puts it "Rather than trying to "verify beliefs according to archaeological remains," Maeir said archaeologists driven by science are leaving those kinds of discussions to theologians." Not yet all of them sadly, as is demonstrated by the scandalously partisan presentation of the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego, but then he did say "driven by science" and not religious fervor. (For an informative look at biblical archaeology click on over to Bad Archaeology)

Next from Ruth Wishart writing in The Herald is a piece explaining Why religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morality. The inspiration for the piece is a remark by Archbishop John Sentamu, an unelected member of the British upper chamber, the House of Lords, offering his inexpert opinion on the latest incarnation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. What the gap-toothed god botherer said was "Now the law is regarded purely as an instrument of regulating our personal affairs completely separate from morality and religion." That he thinks his personal fantasies should influence legislation is unbelievably arrogant , but maybe such an attitude comes with the crozier, mitre and the other fancy dress. Wishart, who inexplicably says that in some ways Sentamu is "..a welcome breath of unstuffy air blowing through the church establishment." (more like the fetid breath of dogmatism) goes on to provide recent examples of clerical interference. As she so rightly puts it "In fact, we live in a society where many church leaders constantly attempt to subvert the democratic will of the majority." The absurd result of letting religion set the standards should be all too obvious to anyone reading about the grotesque farce taking place right now in Sudan over the naming of a child's toy, and in Saudi Arabia where a young woman who has been gang-raped is being treated in an unbelievably barbaric fashion on the authority of a holy book. It is such instances that come to mind when some nitwit suggests 80 should have "respect" for religious beliefs. Why? 80 ran out of what little respect he had for superstition a long time ago and even tolerance is proving difficult to maintain.

The Golden Compass - do check out this podcast from Humanist Network News, in which author Philip Pullman is interviewed about the religious protest over The Golden Compass, a new film based on his fantasy novel. Also see this piece by Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society called The Golden Compass Has Lost Its Way. (Pullman is an honorary associate of the society)

Institutional Plagiarism? - one of the articles of faith for creationist/Intelligent Design folks is that the eye is too complex to have evolved gradually. This is of course, cobblers. 80 was reminded of this while reading a report of plagiarism by minions of the Discovery Institute, a hotbed of creationist/ID nitwits. It seems that some of their number perpetrated what at one time would have been called a pious fraud. They downloaded a Harvard/XVIVO animated video on the workings of the cell, stripped off the copyright notice, changed the title and added a dodgy new ID friendly commentary. While reading about this sloppy bit of chicanery the words of the great Tom Lehrer leapt unbidden into 80's brain, from the song Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky. Particularly apposite is this verse

"Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please research"

(see the original story here courtesy of ERV, (nice work) with links to the original video and also the Discovery Institute version. This is just the same sort of crooked dealing as the edited Richard Dawkins' clips and the Dutch creationist editing of a David Attenborough wildlife documentary. These jerks don't have a scientific leg to stand on so they resort to deceit. Do take a look at Mike Stanfill's great flash animation set to Tom Lehrer's song of the Elements. Also check out the other Lehrer links on the page )

The Whining Begins - 80 was determined to avoid the usual whining at this time of year about how Christmas has been hijacked by secular society, and was equally determined not to respond to it. So much for good intentions. A friend (gee thanks, Jeremy) sent 80 a link to this piece in the Daily Telegraph which tells us, wait for it, "The Royal Commonwealth Society is at the centre of an embarrassing row after it barred a well-known Roman Catholic commentator from attacking intolerance towards Christians at its annual carol service."  The last day of November and it has already started. The "Roman Catholic commentator", journalist Cristina Odone, was to be "... one of the "celebrity readers" at the service in St Martin in the Fields church in central London next month, which is attended by diplomats and politicians." She has now flounced out of the event because, as she puts it "I was told that the words I had written were not appropriate because the congregation would include people of little or no faith who presumably would be upset. Even more insultingly, I was asked instead to read a passage from Bertrand Russell, a militant atheist."  Poor dear, how galling for her. Apparently the theme for her talk was to be what the Telegraph calls "secular intolerance" - or what 80 would call perfectly natural irritation at those who wish to shove their absurd superstitions in your face all the bloody time.

As for Christmas, many cultures have some sort of midwinter festival and many of these were being celebrated long before the celebration was appropriated by Christians for their godman's nativity myth. A modicum of research shows that practically no element of the Christmas story is original - and where it is original it is a falsehood, such as the Massacre of the Innocents story which is unattested by contemporary historians like Josephus, who did not otherwise hold back in detailing Herod the Great's many crimes. Although Odone's whining is just more of the same old stuff, a couple of her remarks are worth a passing comment or two. This for instance, "Whether it is the boss at work or the head at school, the local authority or the chattering classes, people of faith know that their worldview is under siege, and their allegiances under suspicion." People of faith, or the gullible to be more accurate, should be concerned their world view is under siege - from science. God as an explanation for anything in the natural world is running out of space - believers are left with that sad little creature, the "god of the gaps", these being gaps in our current knowledge. As the gaps shrink so does God. The analogy has been made before but think of alchemy, replaced by chemistry and astrology replaced by astronomy. As for "allegiances under suspicion" there is good reason. When you vote for say, a Roman Catholic MP, it is necessary to know that they will represent all of their constituents and not be blackmailed by the church hierarchy (yes, you O'Connor) into following an agenda dictated by the Vatican. Any MP who wants their faith to be central to their job should nail their colors to the mast and start a religious political party. Just see how many votes that gets from the British public.

Odone goes on to say "To parade this allegiance by wearing a cross, a cap or a veil is red rag to the secularist bull. What little opportunity believers have to bear witness to their faith is being quashed." Why do these people feel the need to publicize their faith all the time? Have they forgotten the words the evangelist Matthew gives to Jesus? "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." (Matthew 6:5) Not exactly an endorsement of "parading this allegiance" but rather the opposite. Perhaps Odone should pay more attention to her own savior before sounding off. She then whines that "If you are black or gay or female, your plea for equal opportunity is met with respect, and your campaign is applauded by supporters." Believing in a magic being, and more particularly parading that belief in public is a choice - being black, gay or female is not, as far as 80 is aware. And anyway such parading is for hypocrites - Jesus said so.

Odone adds "I think there is a tremendous move to down play this country's Christian heritage, to silence, ridicule and marginalise religious belief." Not "silence religious belief" just keep it in church (or mosque) and out of the legislative chamber. Not "ridicule" belief, the things the faithful believe do that well enough already. Once again 80 has Mark Twain in mind, "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?" As for "marginalise" religious belief, in modern Britain Odone's catholicism is but one of many faiths claiming to be the only true one. They can't all be right. Surely it is fairer to have a secular state that favors no single religion? Therefore they should all be marginalised - marginalised right out of education and right out of government. (Update - Odone continues the whining in the Guardian. As she obviously has no trouble  in banging on about aggressive secularists in both right- and left-wing UK papers one cannot help but wonder what need had she for a mere pulpit in St Martins in the Fields anyway? The Guardian piece is entitled "Why was I banned from speaking about religion in St Martin's?"  Funnily enough the Telegraph the day before says "But she has pulled out of the event, accusing the society of demonstrating exactly the kind of intolerance she had planned to criticise." So, which was it then, banned or pulled out? There is a world of difference)

Jesus loves 'His Dark Materials' - at least that's what Mark Morford says. " It goes like this: If there is some sort of creation, a piece of art, a TV show, a column or a book or a movie or a statue or a blog or a movement, a wine bottle or sexual position or Jesus-shaped dildo that somehow deeply threatens the various ultraconservative sects of Christian-blasted America to the point where their pale, dour representatives demand boycotts and distribute angry pamphlets and try to stop people from experiencing said hunk of culture because of how negatively it portrays their seething, condemnatory God, well, you know it's time to break out the Champagne. Or buy that book. Or get very, very naked. Or all of the above. Depending."  Enjoy.....

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)