A guest blogger wrote of Religious Freedom Day in yesterday’s Washington Post. I’ve taken the liberty of rewriting the opening paragraph to reflect reality.

The original:

Across the globe, religion and belief continue to matter deeply in the lives of people and their cultures. From worship to prayer, births to funerals, weddings to holy days, almsgiving to thanksgiving, religion is a central source of identity, meaning, and purpose for billions of human beings.

The reality:

Across the globe, religion and belief continue to worm themselves dangerously into the lives of people and their cultures. From self-abasement to talking to oneself instead of taking action, physically deforming male and female children without their consent to delusional thoughts of deceased loved ones being in a better place, from fighting to allow only a man and a woman to commit to a life together to strange ceremonies concocted by imaginative goatherds of old, giving huge sums of money to support the very system that seeks to control their lives to giving credit to superstition instead of science, religion is a central source of pain, suffering and misery for billions of human beings.

You’re welcome!

I’m having trouble with this article in Religious Dispatches, by Austin Dacey, representative to the United Nations for the International Humanist and Ethical Union and author of “The Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights.”

In it he uses the plight of one Alexander Aan, imprisoned in Indonesia for the crime of “inciting hatred or enmity of a religious group, and under the country’s blasphemy provision, Article 156a, which criminalizes “hostility, hatred or contempt” and “disgracing” of a religion. Article 156a also prohibits attempts to persuade others to leave their religion and embrace atheism.”

A reminder, Indonesia’s Constitution stipulates that every person believe in a supreme being. Can you imagine being atheist and visiting Indonesia and what would happen should you have a couple of beers and get into a conversation in the wrong bar? Say goodbye to the return portion of your air fare!

For me the cognitive dissonance comes from statements like:

“In the West…The public debate is about how to balance freedom of speech with respect for religious belief.”

Dacey contrasts his view of the Western framing of the issue with that of predominantly Muslim Indonesia this way:

“Here the value at stake is not just freedom of speech, but freedom of conscience. The real contest is not between atheists and believers, but between those who affirm the equality of all persons of conscience and those who deny it.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. On both the West and Indonesia. There is no need to respect religious beliefs! To paraphrase someone, perhaps Hitchens, those with ridiculous ideas should be treated as such. Freedom of conscience is a veiled way of giving the religious the right to slap back at any perceived insult.

Then he puts atheism and religion on the same moral level:

“From a moral perspective, there is an important symmetry between the attitude of the believer who reserves special reverence for a deity, saint, or prophet, and the attitude of the secularist who asserts that every person is equally holy.”

He’s treating atheists and atheism as just equal to a religion, just another dogma lookin’ for respect. Nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism leads to humanism, though I admit one can get there from other vectors, but religion is full of the exact opposite of humanism.

Anywhere religion holds sway over a majority of the citizenry, and especially where religion is baked in to the government is a bad, dangerous place to be, for this is where only those with the facts on their side are persecuted. Respect for religion is the worst answer to the problems of the world and for the ability of every person to think for themselves and express their ideas.

I’m having trouble with this article in Religious Dispatches, by Austin Dacey, representative to the United Nations for the International Humanist and Ethical Union and author of “The Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights.”

In it he uses the plight of one Alexander Aan, imprisoned in Indonesia for the crime of “inciting hatred or enmity of a religious group, and under the country’s blasphemy provision, Article 156a, which criminalizes “hostility, hatred or contempt” and “disgracing” of a religion. Article 156a also prohibits attempts to persuade others to leave their religion and embrace atheism.”

A reminder, Indonesia’s Constitution stipulates that every person believe in a supreme being. Can you imagine being atheist and visiting Indonesia and what would happen should you have a couple of beers and get into a conversation in the wrong bar? Say goodbye to the return portion of your air fare!

For me the cognitive dissonance comes from statements like:

“In the West…The public debate is about how to balance freedom of speech with respect for religious belief.”

Dacey contrasts his view of the Western framing of the issue with that of predominantly Muslim Indonesia this way:

“Here the value at stake is not just freedom of speech, but freedom of conscience. The real contest is not between atheists and believers, but between those who affirm the equality of all persons of conscience and those who deny it.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. On both the West and Indonesia. There is no need to respect religious beliefs! To paraphrase someone, perhaps Hitchens, those with ridiculous ideas should be treated as such. Freedom of conscienceis a veiled way of giving the religious the right to slap back at any perceived insult.

Then he puts atheism and religion on the same moral level:

“From a moral perspective, there is an important symmetry between the attitude of the believer who reserves special reverence for a deity, saint, or prophet, and the attitude of the secularist who asserts that every person is equally holy.”

He’s treating atheists and atheism as just equal to a religion, just another dogma lookin’ for respect. Nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism leads to humanism, though I admit one can get there from other vectors, but religion is full of the exact opposite of humanism.

Anywhere religion holds sway over a majority of the citizenry, and especially where religion is baked in to the government is a bad, dangerous place to be, for this is where only those with the facts on their side are persecuted. Respect for religion is the worst answer to the problems of the world and for the ability of every person to think for themselves and express their ideas.

Variable Views on Religious Strictures Do Not Speak Well to the Infalibility of the Gods

One of the themes of atheistic thought is that among the signs that god is a construct of man, one of the strongest is that there is such an incredible variability between, not just different religions, but within each religion, as to what god demands of man. 

A casual reading of the day’s news points out examples of the varying views. Look at Sunni vs Shiite and Judaism vs Palestinian views for examples of differences leading to violent clashes. Look at the differences between Catholics and Baptists for variations within a religion.

One of the things that led me to atheism was the response from my fundamentalist Christian parents when asked why my Catholic friends used a bible with a different set of books in the Old Testament. Their response boiled down to “they’re wrong.”

That shut me up but didn’t stop me from thinking. A look at the variety; Wikipedia shows how much disagreement there is over who is speaking for god!

So there’s now a series on TLC called “All American Muslim”, which I have no intention of watching, but of which the WashPost review subhead says “An Inalienable Right To Be As Dull As Anybody Else.”

I guess it’s ok to try to put on a show that shows a moderate side of Islam or any other faith. But let’s make no mistake, the platform on which they stand - the idea of god - is not really there and that we need to refer to a moderate version of an idea is telling.

The idea of god, after all these years, is wanting. Wanting for proof. From any of the thousands of ideas of what god is.

A religious moderate in all cases is simply defined as one who engages in cafeteria religion. They pick and choose which of that particular god’s edicts to follow. Beyond the fact that no one has yet proven a god or gods exist, if it were so, why in the hell would a rational human want to follow, bow down to or in any way subjugate themselves to a being so petty, so mean and cruel?

There is no proof of god and plenty of evidence that god is a construct of man.

rAmen

Hand Touch Freaks Out Indonesian Information Minister

Note: Moved from a different blog site. Original Post Date 11/09/2010

According to a report in the AP, Indonesian Minister of Information Tifatul Sembiring is crying ‘she forced me to do it’ in response to a video showing him shaking hands with First Lady Michelle Obama.

The problem for him is that he touts his conservative Muslim values, which prevent him from casual touching of females not of his family.

This is just another example of the twisted, bizarre values promulgated by Islam and a fine example of ancient thinking. This is also a fine example of why the world should not only not accommodate Muslims, we should actively point out as publicly and unceasingly as possible all of their dignity damaging dogma.