Childhood

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in 1969 in Somalia.  During her childhood and young adult life her family would move from Somalia to Saudi Arabia, to Ethiopia, and then to Kenya.  Although her father was a rather liberal political activist (by Somalian standards) she was raised under strict Sharia law, which led to a tormenting youth.  Her genitals were mutilated by female circumcision, she was not allowed outside of the house without a male, her sexuality belonged to the head of her family, she went through an unwanted arranged marriage, and she suffered the humiliation of losing her virginity on marriage night – the penis of a man was violently forced into her sewn-shut vagina.  She had no freedom and was subject to do all of the cleaning and cooking that her brother did not have to do, simply because he was male.  If she refused chores, or spoke out of line, she was beaten.  On one such occasion she disobeyed her Ma’alim- whom her mother had hired to teach her more about the Quran – by locking herself in her room.  The Ma’alim came back later and whipped her with a sharp stick, ending the assault with the smashing of her head into a wall, cracking her skull.  The next morning she was in too much pain to do chores so her mother beat her.  Several days later, in much pain, her head had swollen.  When taken to the hospital for immediate surgery the doctors said that if she had not received surgery that day then she would have surely died.  At school she learned only Islam, math, the Quran, and “all the evil things Jews have done and plan to do against the Muslims” (47 Hirsi Ali).  One of her teachers even beat her.  Suffice to say, her childhood was violent and lacked freedom, most of which was due to strict Sharia law.   Childhoods like hers were common among most other children she knew.

Religious Control of Knowledge

In her childhood Ali was taught nothing outside of Islam; everything she knew was viewed through a fundamentalist Muslim mindset.  It is clear that the clerics and Imams had control over what she read. This type of religious control of knowledge has been around since the start of religion.  It is no wonder that the development of the printing press brought about the banning of books by religious institutions. The first example of religious censorship of the printed word came in 1517 when Pope Leo X condemned Martin Luther’s Ninety Five Theses (15 Foerstel).  Then, in 1564 the Papacy set into motion its Index Librorum Prohibitorum, defining books which Catholics were not allowed to read nor print (15 Foerstel).  It has progressed into 1989 when Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding for publishing The Satanic Verses because Ayatolla Khomeini of Iran put a one million dollar bounty out to anyone who killed him.  Most recently, Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion was nearly banned in Turkey after Harun Yahya filed a complaint that it was insulting to Islam and Sherry Jones’ novel The Jewel of Medina was dropped by publishers Random House – the same company that published the Satanic Verses – for fear of violent Muslim reactions.

The banning of books in developing countries is an effective means of controlling knowledge because these countries lack a robust information society full of newspapers, magazines, television, and the internet.  How could a young girl like a Ayaan Hirsi Ali gain any new knowledge if she had no way of obtaining it?  The reading of books leads to new insights, ideas, and opinions.  It expands the mind to think outside of narrow mindsets.  That is, of course, if one is reading books with a view that is not within their dominant meaning structure.  The knowledge gained through reading leads to freedom, both philosophically and in real life situations.  Daniel Dennet describes this acquisition of freedom by getting his readers to imagine a straight line traveling across a page.  This line represents time.  If you have no new knowledge your line will continue straight, but as you gain knowledge new lines branch off of the main line.  It is now your choice which line you want to take.  As more knowledge is attained more branches emerge, thus leading to more choices, until your world of freedom looks like an immense tree with intertwining branches of possibility.

Escape to Freedom

In her young teens Hirsi Ali would finally be presented with new branches of knowledge when she attended a school in Kenya that had a library full of books written in English.
“Once I had learned to read English I discovered the school library.  If we were good, we were allowed to take books home…  We began with Nancy Drew adventures, stories of pluck and independence.  There was Enid Blighton, the Secret Seven, The Famous Five: tales of freedom, adventure, of equality between boys and girls, trust, and friendship” (64 Hirsi Ali).
This started a new path in her life – “An entire world of Western ideas began to take shape” (69 Hirsi Ali).  She started to become interested in experiencing the same romance, equality, and adventure she found embedded in her ragged paperbacks.
“All of these books, even the trashy ones, carried with them ideas – races were equal, women were equal to men – and concepts of freedom, struggle, and adventure that were new to me” (69 Hirsi Ali).

As she progressed into early adulthood Hirsi Ali would start to rebel and disobey her mom.  She went to cinemas and experienced new food.  She even secretly married a man she liked.  Her marriage was short lived as her father soon after arranged a marriage with a man he had met only for several minutes.  He was a Somali from Canada who she was set to marry in a weeks time.  She was utterly disgusted by her new husband to be.   After a short while he moved back to Canada and left her money for her flight to join him there.  Instead of a direct flight she stayed a few nights in Frankfurt, Germany with relatives.  She went out alone and roamed the streets – something she was never allowed to do back home.  She walked without a man at her side, without other males calling her names, and without the fear of being called a bad Muslim.  And she could go anywhere she wanted without restraint…she was free.

“I felt as though I had been thrown into another world, calm and orderly, as in the novels I’d read and certain films, but somehow I’d never really believed them before” (185 Hirsi Ali).

People had always told her that the rest of the world was dirty and filled with violence because it was not under Muslim rule.  She was amazed that they were not just wrong, they were completely wrong.  In fact, it was the opposite.  From her young teen years reading trashy romance and adventure novels that spoke of a beautiful world of passion, freedom, equality, and romance to these few days in Germany, Hirsi Ali had reached a climactic decision about her future.

“I could disappear here. I could escape it all, hide, and somehow make my own way, like someone in a book” (187 Hirsi Ali).

And so she did.  She packed her bags and boarded a train to Amsterdam to find Asylum in the Netherlands.

Death of Van Gogh

After a short stay in a refugee camp she received full Dutch citizenship in 1992 and stayed in municipal housing where she worked several menial labour jobs to save up for schooling.  After Hirsi Ali finished University she found interest in Dutch politics and won a position in 2003 in the Peoples’ Party for Freedom and Democracy. This same year she co-wrote and produced a short film with Theo Van Gogh (a descendent of Vincent Van Gogh) entitled Submission, which focused on the poor state of woman’s rights in Islam.  After the film aired on Dutch national television both Hirsi Ali and Van Gogh received death threats, which they both ignored.  In November of 2004, Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim radical in broad daylight.  After the murderer had shot Van Gogh in the back 8 times, then slit his throat, he stabbed a knife with a letter attached into his chest.  In this letter was a call for Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be murdered next.  She has been in hiding ever since.

Knowledge secures power.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s acquisition of freedom came from knowledge of that freedom.  She understood the importance of knowledge and attended university as soon as she could, where she solidified her view that the reading of ideas leads to empowerment.  She then used this knowledge – this kernel of information so important to the flourishing of a free and democratic society – and wrote an  autobiography entitled Infidel.  Like the condemned serpent and the heroic Prometheus, Hirsi Ali has stolen knowledge from her oppressors, empowered herself with this knowledge, and used it to teach others the value of knowledge.  I highly suggest you read Infidel.  It is a beautiful book that puts a voice to the values of freedom and knowledge.

We understand her.

But its her actual decision which is philosophically interesting. Her decision is to literally severe the umbilical ties which unite Jason to her. That is, she decides to murder her sons to allow their hot blood to raise the heat of outrage within their uncaring, ossified father.

Stoics, Epicureans and sceptics have gazed upon this dilemma till their eyes were sore with wonder. Professor Julia Annas, in her broad outline of the various responses to Medea’s dilemma, states that the Stoics would have disagreed with Medea herself who thought that anger was dominating her reason. There are no “two parts” to Medea – she was a unified whole. Plato perhaps – we don’t know his actual position on most things since he spoke through characters and not from an official standpoint, like Aurelius – would have said there is a conflict, relating to different parts in Medea. Namely her passion and her reason really are in conflict. Someone like Galen, a late Platonist, would have thought that reason and anger were battling in the “soul” of Medea and eventually anger won.

Medea of course eventually kills her children.

What has this story or this investigation got to do with anything? As I stated in the beginning, it rests mainly in the need to be understood. Medea has an urgent need for Jason to understand her – post hoc, of course, but it seems that if he had understood what she had been through and (more importantly) appreciated it, he would not have left her so suddenly. The need to be understood is perhaps the central problem of philosophy, or at least an echo of the whole human enterprise, often called the “human condition”.

I don’t rightly kno what if anything is the human condition but I imagine it is this: What we consider internally often finds no harmony with what occurs externally and our need to reconcile these two incoherent and disharmonious constitutions leads to all manner of problems, with ourselves, others and the world as a whole. This we might consider a possible definition of the “human condition” (though I will be the first to say it is not a resolute or final one).

For example: We consider ourselves to be central to our lives, since the events and people we affect and focus orbit our sphere of knowledge. Yet to the universe at large and the earth as a whole, we are merely infinitesimal, insignificant bundles of perception, moulded by the fingers of nature and given a spark of consciousness as a cruel joke. We die and rot and amount to dust, which the closing fist of the universe will drive home into meaninglessness. We create meaning and yet we are largely meaningless, to the large expanse of time that has come before and will arise after. Meaning is meaning made in the face of meaninglessness.

For further illustration: We struggle and fight for things we believe in. We find certain books, careers, people important. Yet to most people, these important people (to us) are to most others unimportant because they do not know them.

These are illustrations of the incoherent nature of considerations between what occurs within our minds and what exists independently of our thoughts of them (I here take it for granted that, like GE Moore, I have two hands). This is labelled “absurdity” by many philosophers, like Mark Rowlands, and is thus central to all interesting and “important” dilemmas.

Absurd is of course another reason for the problem of lying; lying is thought to be bad for the simple reason that it is an echo of insanity. You are presenting reality as it is only to you, but reality does not actually exist like that. You lie and tell your parents that there is no girl in your bedroom, but there is one. Or perhaps you lie to your friends and say you were with a girl, when you were not. Both, if believed seriously by the speaker, would constitute madness since the girl is either there or not – independently of whether you assert it or not. Thus it only takes your parents checking in to confirm your statement. This makes lying, according to some philosophers, a resemblance to insanity, which is not a good thing if one is trying to formulate a coherent picture of reality. The only difference is that one is aware that the world is not as one says when one is lying; insanity, one does not know – or, rather, one believes the uttered falsehood.

Medea and her choices are “absurd” only to the extent that her inner feelings needed to find a balance or expression externally. This might be a reason for the need for humans to create art; our consciousness – which might be defined as the awareness of the incoherence of our external and internal spheres – allows us to take a full-throated cry of internal silence to a melodious utterance in the outer sphere of reality. (Reality, Nabokov once said, is the only word that was permitted to always be written in between quotation marks).

This is why we struggle to understand one another. We are already struggling to understand our significance in our immediate spheres and their ripples into the wider sphere of the world. Our creation of meaning is forever the building of sand-castles upon a stormy beach; we are fighting against a strong tide of reality, bashing against the rocks which themselves we hope will bleed. Reality will have none of it.

If we take this thought further into the sphere of the social world there are worse problems. Consider: the sphere which you represent, as a lawyer, academic or liberal fighter (for example) is part of a larger group. When you speak, you speak as “we”, which is nothing but a pluralised first-person viewpoint. Thus when you (plural) are fighting against, for example, the oppression of women, you are taking your internalised, important and, according to you, sensible beliefs into another wider sphere. It does not chime, it finds no harmony. Thus we have conflict, we have a forced view of reality thrust upon another sphere. We have the liberal secularist spheres attempting to free those who live under the conservative, Islamic one. For both, the absurdity does not rest with reason or logic or mutual understanding. It rests primarily with each sphere running down the rocks of reality and being pulled in by the tide of the external world.

One way we can begin to change does rest however in the use of reason to justify our beliefs and our ideas. This is why we need to begin to shift our own positions on many things we take for granted, which I will speak about next time. These might be thought of as the target areas of applied ethics, though one is often ignored by many: namely, the creation of new people. But with these thoughts in hand, I hope the reader will be able to follow me as I target key issues next time: things like science, drugs, creating new people and abortion, and animal ethics.

The influenza viruses are known for their ability to mutate. Any virus is highly capable of doing this at a fast rate, but the flu is infamous for its high rate of mutation, meaning your shot will be pretty much useless ten months from the day you got it. This is due to a virus’ ability to cut, copy, and paste their host’s and their own DNA practically anyway and anywhere they want it. They can swap genes with their host or even other viruses vacationing in the same organism. This means your immunities for last year’s virus is now out of style, and won’t protect you against the new strain.  If you are a rich masochist, this is wonderful news. However, if you are like many others who fear pain and/or needles, getting the flu doesn’t sound like such a bad thing after all.

How is this related to evolution? It is the fundamentals of the process. Evolution occurs when one or more mutations change an organism. Over time, these mutations allow the animal to adapt. Some mutations are useful to finches in gathering certain types of food; other mutations help viruses spread faster. The influenza viruses are constantly evolving. Every year the common strain will mutate, leaving the previous vaccine moot and ineffective. Although it has a mutation that can drastically effect the way it works, it is still an influenza virus. This is known as microevolution. A mutation will change the organism’s appearance or function, but it will still be of the same species. Many skeptics of evolution typically have a hard time believing in giant leaps in the process, also known as macro evolution. What many fail to understand is that macroevolution is simply many micro evolutions over time in a population to evolve into a new species.  In animals, the process of mutation takes much longer than a virus. It can take hundreds or thousands of years before enough micro evolutions occur and separate a group into its own species.

Viruses are constantly mutating and going through tiny microevolutions, but people hardly ever think of it that way. They just think their vaccine wears off and needs renewed. Remember the next time you go to the doctor to get your shot that it’s well worth the old lady musk and “bee sting” injection, because with every new strain your body has a lower chance of keeping the virus from running its full course.

Yes, we have people debating about the nature of a being whose nature is by definition unknowable; who discuss whether Jesus lived or died or was resurrected or flew to the land of the unicorns on a blue starfish called Zimbo; or perhaps to debate the merits of “both sides” of “science”, portioning out “equal time” to both astrology and astronomy – uh, I mean creationism and evolution. And yes, perhaps debating bishops is as impressive as debating crystal-gazers, astrologers or aromatherapists – but I would point out that critical thinking is still the undertone to the entire instigation in itself.

It seems that perhaps we can hammer this final nail in the coffin of bad ideas that debating and defining bad ideas is itself the cure of them.

Engaging the art of rhetoric does not lead to evidence or the culmination of evidential claims, but certainly viewing them with the eye of articulation, eloquence and subtle imagery will help convey, even to those who do not believe, what our position is.

For example, CS Lewis attempts to answer how his god is one but three. In Mere Christianity, he says that the same way a single cube is drawn as three squares hints at how we should conceive of his deity, as being one (cube) but three (squares). It is quite lovely imagery but one I believe to be pointless, inane and thus derivative of most of Lewis’ enterprise. It does not however repudiate that claim that I understand his point. The art of articulating (notice the first three letters of said word) rests primarily in displaying your idea as fully fleshed – or at least partially clothed – as possible. Thus, whilst the idea or opinion may grab at its skirts like a Monroe-esque bimbo upon an airvent, it retains its attire long enough for you to see some hint of flesh.

When writing or expressing, it is important to focus on ones idea to the greatest extent possible. Not to the point of refusing to bow down when it is shown to be wanting, but to the point where, even if its proved wrong, one can show what it is that has been shown wrong. (I do not give this advice as an expert and I offer mea culpa if it has been conveyed as such. I do so only in the spirit of engaging with those who at the moment are coming to terms with complex ideas, opinions and defending them against those who are louder, articulate and boistreous.)

Thus I do not believe in a deity but I certainly understand Aquinas’ articulation of her. We can for example understand the First Cause argument – but it doesn’t mean we have to believe it. Understanding and believing, I am attempting to stress, are two different things. And we should not let our lack of belief undermine our attempts to understand. We must, of course, be sparing with how our knowledge is parcelled. Thus I do not think I would gain much in terms of knowledge – or applicable knowledge – by learning and reading 1000 theology books. Similarly, I would gain nothing by reading about Tarot cards – except maybe I can gaze at some gorgeous artwork. But, of course, how can I know unless I’ve tried? This is the Courtier’s Reply in new clothes, which is often offered as a response to atheist writers and commentators who do not believe but who are not interested in theology. The usual reply, as I believe, is does one have to read all of faerology to disbelieve in fairies?

I think not. Since it is not that we are completely unaware of the implications of things like fairies, hobgoblins and gods. Indeed, it is not books that will change whether we believe in them. Many people will say that someone like Bertrand Russell, Salman Rushdie or lately Richard Dawkins changed their views on god. But it is not just these great men. Ones own mind finds experience through all manner of incremental knowledge: conversations, television ads, dialogue between real and fictional characters, columns, and so on. Through years and years of interaction, we come to form our views on the world and opinions cement into a monument we call our reason. This means that we have dealt with fairies and gods enough to dismiss them, since there is nothing in the deep myriad of complexities which are involved in the subject matter of fairy-tomes or god-scripts which could alter that by themselves. I doubt that reading every theological piece of writing would change an atheist’s mind (I suspect he would be driven mad by pretty, but meaningless, sentences). The world is not blind to our experiences and it is not enfolded by our past exploits. We live and breathe and experience every day. This is part of our knowledge and our reasoning and thus we are able to engage with fairies and gods and ghosts.

Thus, when someone takes time to explain to us their position which would be the polarised opposite of our own, we are still able to understand them. What? You believe in ghosts – sure, I can imagine what that means. No I do not believe in them myself – but by nature of being human I can identify with you. It will rest however in ideas being shrouded in lucidity and tossed out of mouths with clarity and precision. Opinions must not be guards at the fences of our minds, but gate-keepers who allow brief passages to welcome visitors able to identify themselves. As soon as we all learn to be more articulate, more coherent, lucid and eloquent – one can never be too articulate, coherent, lucid or eloquent, it is a journey rather than destination – we might solve most of our insolvable problems. Most of them rest in the lack of understanding from two opposing parties. If they are each able to create the bridge from both sides, instead of tossing their ropes randomly to the other side blindly, we should be able to at least meet in the middle and gaze at the other side we so vehemently oppose.

The only way we can become more articulate is to cotemplate articulately. Why do you think what you think you think? What do you believe and why? It is no fault that most of philosophy is well-written, since by its (one of many) definition(s) it is a constant attempt to articulate, define, clarify and reify opinions and ideas. This is the mighty weapon against bad ideas. I think that bad ideas are bad not because they are (only) silly or illogical, but because if one was to articulate them, one would find them severely lacking as opposed to their opposites. Thus, for example, creationism is not at all beautiful but it is simple, whereas evolution is not only beautiful but simple. This does not make it true, but it begins to highlight the faults and faultlines of bad ideas. It is but a small point and perhaps one I am wrong on, but at present I do think there is a corollary between articulate and clear ideas being ‘good’ or worthwhile, and those which are bad being blurry, transient and incoherent.

However, it appears that the BSG finale – with Baltar proclaiming that some things are meant never to be explained and that the Colonials and non-Cavil Cylons were basically following the word of God – seemed highly contrived and basically thrust upon the audience as more or less of a cop out. That and they gave up the frakking spaceships and reverted back to being cavemen…

Then again, English class in high school was never my forte and I pretty much sucked at identifying metaphors and that kind of stuff. Your thoughts?

Their success has not gone unnoticed. Host Cenk Uygur has been an invited guest on a number of major news broadcasts (e.g., CNN), contributes to the Huffington Post, and has received a flurry of endorsements and support in his self-declared candidacy for a spot on CNBC primetime.

Of particular interest to the freethought community is Uygur’s advocacy for reason and secularism. He will flat out say on news media that the religious right is out of its collective mind. He has stated flat out that our religions are not reasonable belief systems. And most recently, he reported on the size of the nonreligious segment of American society (15% according to the just-released study out of Trinity College in in Hartford, Conneticut), and how the nonreligious are the third largest and the fastest growing religious/nonreligious group in the country. He also acknowledged the nonreligious minority’s history of being marginalized, distrusted and denigrated and the imperative that this block of society mobilize. After stating his membership in this community, he reached out to his co-non-religionists and declared

“Lets stand up and be heard. ‘Cause they’ve run over us for too long. We’re the logical ones. So lets be heard.”

On the other side of the page, he exclaimed that those members of the religious right who are so far gone as to be wishing for the end of the world are the ones that we need to be marginalizing.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkqeLuWsSrA

I encourage everyone to check out TYT’s YouTube channel.

When a segment of society has been unjustifiable tarred, it often takes dedicated activism to raise people’s consciousness to the injustice and perniciousness of such discrimination. My consciousness was recently raised by blogger Justin Trottier with regard to a branch of discrimination that does not seem to receive much public acknowledgement: discrimination against men.

Discrimination against men. It happens. Like in education, where simply being male apparently constitutes Strike 1 with regard to pedophilia. The fear of male teachers engaging in sexual contact with young students has become a major source of anxiety in education systems around the world. Below is the story of my brush with this phobia.

I’m a 26 year old male from Canada teaching English to children in Seoul, South Korea. Less than two weeks ago I had been teaching for my second last day at a school I had been at for 9.5 months. Everyday during my time at this school, I spent 1.5 hours with a class of four/five year olds. I really like kids, and I try my best to be sensitive and responsive to their concerns. I want them to feel comfortable, loved, accepted, taken care of, and so on.

I’ve always been affectionate with my students. However, for the first few months, the affection was displayed via high-fives, pats on the back and small hugs which were more often than not initiated by the students. I myself was resistent to becoming too affectionate with them because of concerns of it “looking suspicious”. Sometimes one of my 4 year old girl students would want to give me a kiss on the cheek and I would not allow it.

But as time went on and my students and I bonded, I started giving each of them hugs regularly, would let them give me a kiss on the cheek if they wanted and would sometimes give them a kiss on the cheek. I tempered my affection for kids based on such things as how long they’ve been at the school, whether or not they’ve initiated a hug with me in the past, their current state (e.g., are they crying?), and so on. I also take into account such considerations as not wanting some kids to feel like I like other kids more than them, so one way or another, I try to make sure each student – new or not, affectionate or not – knows that I care about them. And I always offer to give hugs to scared and tearful new students who are leaving their home for the first time; but it’s their choice whether or not they walk into it.

So, the incident. On my second last day at the school, a fellow male teacher – slightly older than I and who had been at the school a few months longer – said to me in private, very earnestly, that he had seen me kiss one of my students. I responded by saying “Yeah.. On the cheek…”. He responded saying that it was very inappropriate. I dead-panned “they’re five”. I could have also added that this was the last time I would ever see them (they didn’t have class on my last day), but I did not as this was not the first time I had ever kissed one of the four/five year olds on the cheek. He responded that it’s very inappropriate. They’re not your kids.

It’s really hard to receive this sort of communication and not feel personally insulted and not-so-implicitly accused of being some sort of weirdo or deviant. In all honesty, my day was ruined. Being connected with pedophilia can have that effect.

It appears that there is a broad distrust of male teachers. Yes, some male teachers have sexually assaulted students. But look what our fear of this presumably statistically infrequent event is doing. Just about any professional who deals with children or education will tell you, I imagine, that many children are affectionate, that many adults are inclined to be affectionate back, and that the relationship between teacher and pupil is a very important part of education. And now, because of a small collection of undesirable conduct, we are handcuffing all teachers – though with far greater suspicion directed at males – and undermining relationships, freedom to consensually express affection, and education. I have friends in teachers’ college in Ontario who have told me about how they’ve been specifically taught how to successfully avert a student-initiated hug by tactfully turning it into a socially-awkward handshake.

I’m not denying the reality of the need to protect children from sexual advances from teachers. But what a crude way of going about it. This is a case of fear about one of the things that could go wrong greatly interfering with educators’ ability to see that things go right. And, really, it’s just plain disturbing in my opinion. Does anyone else not find it disturbingly dehumanizing that we are constructing a culture in which teachers and students aren’t allowed to develop and enact warm and supportive relationships with one another? And that we’re teaching distrust and social distance? This is not a reasonable, helpful or proportional response. Wouldn’t it be better to simply make students, teachers and everyone aware of the simple reality of the situation – that sexual abuse does sometimes happen – and to teach students what sexual abuse is, what their rights are, how to go about addressing concerning situations, and simply creating a culture where actually inappropriate appropriate behaviour – e.g., sexual advances and unwanted nonsexual acts of affection (e.g., hugs) – can safely be reported?

Pedophilia in the classroom is a legitimate cause for concern. But so is preserving the humanity of the student-teacher relationship. And so is not sexually profiling male teachers.

“Freedom of thought,” says the philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville, “is the only good more important than peace. Without it, peace would be another word for servility.” This is the basis for the first amendment in the American constitution; itself formulated from the thoughts from the man who perhaps coined the term “United States of America”, namely the great Thomas Paine.

As Paine wrote in Common Sense:

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

Those last words are resounding and might be the distant echo to the so-called Rushdie Affair. The “defense of custom” seems to have become the staple diet for the majority. We have fought so long and so hard for tolerance that we tolerate the intolerant; We defend their customs and their ideas which themselves are based on bullying strategies that renders a cloud of protection on “men of faith”. When someone who is not of the cloth utters that the 2007 floods in Northern Yorkshire are a deity’s judgments on homosexuality, as the then Archbishop of Carlyle, Graham Dow, did, we would think them insane. But because he has archbishop next to his name we are meant to “respect” such barbaric, backward and unhelpful thoughts.

Recently, my friend the great Johann Hari has faced a horrible string of threats, underpinned by death, fear and Islam. He alerted his faithful readership to the horrid poison, weaving a noose within the veins of equality in the UN. Islamic countries are demanding that we respect their hideous misogynist notions of shari’ah, to steer clear of criticising an illiterate pedophile who flew on horses to heaven, and to never raise reason as an ecumenical notion for everyone.

They are demanding this because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stresses the right to free-speech, free-thought. This logically means the ability to criticise openly any and all ideas. The only thing that the UDHR even alludes to being “sacred”, in the normative sense of the word, is the unified human spirit to unite without superstitious, overzealous boundaries. Muslims fear this, as Hari correctly highlight, because it would mean that young people would do the one thing all religions fear: THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

“Sapere Aude (Dare to know)!” says Kant in his essay on the Enlightenment. ” ‘Have courage to use your own understanding’ – that is the motto for the Enlightenment.” Islam – and all religions – would quiver under such scrutiny. The use of intellect is hardly encouraged unless it is in accordance with Allah’s will. Everything is supposed to be through Allah; but everything includes good and bad, right and wrong, evil and misconceptions. So wouldn’t this religion, which is mistakenly called a “religion of peace” by many world leaders, cherish such open-mindedness? Why then the fear of Enlightenment values?

Because then the foundations would fail, it would flounder and like a hydra dying and frothing red beneath the sea, it would sink into the bottom depths of our history. Muslims realise this. They realise their grips would falter on the minds of their flock; so much so that they are willing to arrest the Indian editors of Hari’s article.

How could Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha be arrested for publishing Hari’s article? Because hurting religious feelings is part of the Indian penal code. Under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code it forbids “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings”. The irony rests in the double-standards. And what religions are included in section 295A? Why some religions, Islam, but not others, Norse or Roman? And, of course, what about those who are outraged but are not religious? Why do we never get any “special treatment” for our “feelings”?

Boo-hoo, my childish Islamic friends. Your feelings were hurt? Shame. I can tell you exactly why those of us without religion neither have any law against offending us, in India (and most places), and more importantly, why we usually don’t fight for one: Because we believe in the freedom of open criticism. We believe in the right to express any ideas, in a rational, open way.

This means I do not care whether you worship Zeus, Allah, or Yahweh: If it makes you happy, go ahead. If it consoles, by all means do it. But you can not demand me to respect such ideas and to not criticise them. I am open to you criticising my ideas, any of them. I will not be privy to respecting any ideas just to make the faithful happy. To quote Hari:

[A] free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.

Whilst we writers against religion limit ourselves to words, our antagonists would find vent in bullets. Whilst we would change and let the plateau of equality be the ground on which we all walk, Muslims would have the high-ground to censure equal human rights. They would rather we shut up and step away from hurting their poor feelings.

I support Hari in his criticisms, as is apparent. Hari had every right to write what he liked, as did people in my country’s past. Consider that Steve Biko’s book is entitled I Write What I Like. I even support the freedom to write tripe like creationist or Holocaust-denial literature. Because scientists and historians can then openly criticise and point out the flaws in the creationist and “revisionist” literature. I don’t believe in banning books or writers or the stultification – in fact, my life is dedicated to fighting for anyone to say anything, in an open minded, discursive way.

Not so for the religious, as this reaction to Hari’s article displays. If that is not a sign of backward thinking, pointing away from the path of reason into the dark woods of dogma, then I am not sure what is. Perhaps the Quran and its horrible statements of death to infidels (”Kill them where ye find them!”)? Perhaps the terror Muslims invoke, when we draw cartoons of their Prophet, or the death-threats when a Teddy-bear is named after him?

I want us all to be amenable to change, criticism and open to ideas. This is a grownup way to look at the world. But the neotony inherent in our species finds vent in that which is itself a product of our mind’s infancy. Consider this bounder, called Abdus Subhan, who “[was] prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet [against Hari]” and Hari should be sent “to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol … He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech.”

But why not? We need to all grow up and face the fact that many things will “offend” us. We are diverse and diversity inculcates a sense of realisation of many different things.  So, using “that offends me” as a reason and argument to cease that which causes offence, is no grounds at all for it to cease. Before you think me venturing into the territory of cultural relativism, I mean it simply according with what we understand to be human rights, personal autonomy, the right to liberty, freedom of thought, and so on.

I stand by what I write here as I stand by Johann Hari. Muslims should be more horrified at me, someone who was once Muslim, now admonishing them; I deserve their scorn and outrage more than someone who won the Amnesty International Newspaper Journalist of the Year (2007). Please let us all grow up, face the beauty of the world and time we have. Muslims must realise that we are fighting for them and their freedom as much as anyone else. The ones who suffer the most from the dogmatic assertions of clerical bullying are other Muslims.

We want everyone to be free, we want everyone to have the right to liberty and freedom. Let the ashes of dogma settle to allow some growth of a newfound liberation and reasoned tolerance. If we hurt each others feelings so be it. But that does not mean we are allowed to kill, arrest or maim each other. Growing up and opening our eyes means we see and experience more, which means more opportunity for pain. But it also means more opportunity for growth. Like trees entwined at the roots, our growth rests in each other. The faster we all severe our ties from celestial propitiation, the faster our own lives can be rendered to soar with freedom and openness

I know this will do nothing to stop or cease Muslim’s anger. It might incite more. But, I will quote Paine again to finish. Immediately after the first line I quoted above, he says:

But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

Let it be so.

But, the Pope has lifted the dissolution of communion earlier this week, opening a floodgate of reporting on the fact that at least one of the Order’s members, British-born Richard Williamson, is an avowed Holocaust denier, and that the Society at large has a pretty severe reputation for anti-Semitism. (Another of the Order’s members is also a suspected Holocaust denier based on his writings, but the evidence is not as firm for him.)

While the Vatican has distanced itself from the Order’s Holocaust revisionism, calls for explanation have come in from around the world. Fifty members of the United States Congress (all Democrats and all Catholics) wrote an open letter to the Pope expressing “concern” over the rehabilitation of the order and asking that he clarify his views on the Holocaust. German leader Angela Merkel has also chimed in, hoping that the Pope will clear up his exact views on people who deny the mass slaughter of Jews by Nazis in the mid-20th century. It should be noted that Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany.

Apologists for the Pope, such as Bill ‘Secular Jews who hate Christianity control Hollywood‘ Donohue, president of the American Catholic League, have offered their own defenses, mostly complaining that not everyone understands the precise nuance of Church hierarchy.

The Pope could not be reached by this Edger contributor for comment.

Granted, Battlestar Galactica is based heavily upon creator Ronald Moore’s own Mormon faith… and Orson Scott Card is a right-wing conservative Mormon, but other than that, science fiction appears to be within the realm of secularism and really bad SciFi Channel Original Movies. And even if there are a few religious themes in some books or TV shows, until I found this episode of Space: Above and Beyond*. Let’s go through the checklist -

Grumpy, Stereotypical Atheist – CHECK

Conversion Through a Miracle (or Series of) – CHECK

What? Christmas Isn’t About Secular Rampant Consumerism!? – CHECK

Some Stupid Discussion About “Faith” – CHECK

Anyways, enjoy -

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v505582YYEAqz8k

*It’s actually a pretty good show in general in my opinion that deals with serious issues that could arise in the future, but this episode was definitely a miss.