The danger of superstitions

1 comment

Posted on 8th January 2010 by Jack in human rights

, , , ,

Witchcraft Crash Course Day One

Image by Carolina Gonzalez via Flickr

Atheists are often challenged on their lack of belief. Christians in the U.S. seem to think that atheists are only opposed to their god, ignoring the fact that disbelieving in gods includes all the gods invented by mankind throughout history. Atheists are accused of being mad at god or resentful of god’s laws. Some say we simply want to live a life full of sin and disobedience without having to submit to the authority of a divine rule-giver.

What our challengers fail to appreciate is that atheism is the disbelief in a broader range of fantastic thinking than just their particular faith. Atheists reject for lack of evidence belief in any concept that can be reasonably categorized as supernatural or superstitious. To atheists the belief in a personal god is as nonsensical and unfounded as the belief that a black cat crossing your path brings bad luck. Many theists dismiss the idea that walking under a ladder creates bad luck but fail to notice the obvious correlation between that belief and their own belief in gods.

Many atheists consider supernatural and superstitious beliefs to be fairly benign; believe what you will as long as it doesn’t interfere with another person’s privilege to believe what they wish. Yet this degree of tolerance allows the more harmful consequences of supernatural and superstitious belief to be practiced without criticism. Tolerance of the differences between individuals is commendable; tolerance of belief systems that are used to subjugate, enslave and kill those who don’t share those beliefs is not commendable at all. By not opposing fantastic thinking, especially when it is used as an excuse to cause harm to our fellow humans, we atheists become complicit in that harm. We need to champion realistic and clear thinking and not shy away from criticizing belief systems that cause wars and death to innocent humans.

Here is a prime example of how superstitious thinking can cause real harm to the innocent.

Human sacrifice is on the increase in Uganda according to a government spokesman. This barbaric crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly. Witch doctors claim they have clients who regularly capture children and bring their blood and body parts to be consumed by spirits. One witch doctor confessed for the first time to having murdered about 70 people, including his own son.

According to media reports, the witch doctors revealed that some of their clients capture other people’s children and bring the heart and the blood directly to them to take to the spirits. They are brought in small tins and are placed under a tree from which the voices of the spirits are coming. Clients come on average three times a week, with all that the spirits asks them to bring. The witch-doctors deny any direct involvement in murder or incitement to murder. They claim that spirits speak directly to their clients.

Witch doctors are paid about 500,000 Ugandan shillings, equivalent of about $260 for a consultation. The head of the Anti-Human Sacrifice and Trafficking Task Force in Uganda, assistant commissioner Moses Binoga of the Ugandan police, said that witch doctors operate in a network and have bosses who give instructions and receive the bulk of payment made by clients. The bosses involve in one of five or six witch-doctor protection rackets operating in the country.

The Assistant commissioner went on to say that the senior ones extort money from lower people because they deal in illegal things. He said that police had opened 26 murder cases in 2009, in which the victim appeared to have been ritually sacrificed, compared with just three cases in 2007. He also said that they have about 120 children and adults reported missing whose fate they have been unable to trace. They cannot rule out that they may be victims of human sacrifice, he said. (Source-Newstime Africa) (Hat-tip to @SkeptInquiry on Twitter for the link)

We can see a pattern here that is common to many religions. A persuasive and charismatic charlatan realizes they can get rich by getting the gullible to believe their conveniently unprovable premise that misfortune and eternal punishment will be visited on anyone who doesn’t join their cult and surrender their money, possessions and their good sense to the leader. It’s nothing more than a scam, sadly protected from criticism and exposure by claiming to be a religion. Even the most progressive societies are reluctant to challenge any belief system that hides behind the label of “religious belief”.

If you are a passive atheist who doesn’t think it’s worthwhile to openly criticize supernatural and superstitious thinking, I would ask that you consider the possibility that your reticence is what allows witch doctors to sacrifice children to ward off evil spirits free of condemnation. By thinking that it’s their right to believe in witchcraft if they want, the tolerant fail to protest the effect of their superstitious thinking on innocent children.

We have thousands of examples of the harm done to humanity in the name of a god or spirit. Atheists owe it to their fellow humans to oppose and speak out against such nonsense, especially when it subjugates and kills.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Blasphemy or the Truth

1 comment

Posted on 27th October 2009 by Jack in human rights | video

, , , , , , , ,

In an effort to rebuild our relationship with the United Nations, an effort that is being questioned by many Americans, the Obama administration has chosen to support an agenda that contradicts our own Constitution.

The United States has backed a new UN resolution on free expression which would be considered unconstitutional under its First Amendment — which protects freedom of expression and bans sanctioning of religions.

The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.

While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.

“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”

France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.

On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.

“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship)

As Jonathan Turley comments at USAToday,

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

While I respect the right of any person to believe as they wish, I also believe that the right to speak our minds freely and without fear of reprisal, intimidation or sanction is a hallmark of Western democracy. We should not surrender our rights in order to provide uncertain security in the face of violent opposition to contrary opinions. Ben Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

There is no reason to provide special protection to religious beliefs. The fear that religious believers will suffer “incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them” is nonsensical. The majority of people on the planet are religious. Religious believers hold most of the positions of power in both the East and West. They have no reason to fear the opinions of the minority. The most immediate danger to any believer in a particular god are those who believe in another god.

Criticism is not necessarily an act of hatred. Quite often criticism is an act of love. If a family member has become enslaved to drug addiction, is it an act of discrimination or hatred to criticize their addiction? If I firmly believe my country, a country I willingly served to defend, is headed in a dangerous and unconstitutional direction, should I remain mute?

Religious belief in a generic sense is predominant among humans around the globe. But there is little agreement as to the nature of the god the religious believe in. What anti-blasphemy resolutions seek to achieve will result in the inability of Baptists to speak out against the Catholic Church or reasonable people to object to the foolishness of Scientology. We will have to remain silent when Iran decides to execute those who oppose their theocracy or happen to be homosexual. Any theocratic government will be exempt from criticism by anyone for any reason.

The philosophical and legal quagmire with such legislation centers around the definition of “blasphemy.” Practically every religion, sect and cult possesses concepts that are blasphemous to another. As an important example, while Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Muslims consider him a mere prophet, albeit an important one. Calling Christ the “Son of God,” however, is viewed as “blasphemous” within Islam, as is not believing in Mohammed as Allah’s final and most important prophet. Under such anti-blasphemy legislation, therefore, all Christian literature could be confiscated and Christians arrested, because at its very core, Christianity would represent “blasphemous material” that could cause—and has caused—outrage many times in the Muslim world, explaining in part why the Bible is banned in such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia.

Beware Of “Defamation Of Religion” Censorship!

This subject both fascinates me and fills me with dread. It’s fairly obvious that Christians in the West are growing just as intolerant of criticism and challenge as the Muslims in the East. When our government bows to pressure from the theists and supports blasphemy laws that directly contradict our Constitution the groundwork is being laid for the further erosion of our freedom of speech. I worry for the future of our secular and pluralistic republic.

Pat Condell says it better than I can, as usual.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Do as I say, not as I do

0 comments

Posted on 15th February 2009 by Jack in human rights | in the news | society

, , ,

From the massive irony file:whichisthewife

A prominent Buffalo area businessman who founded the BridgesTV network to improve the image of Muslims in the U.S. has been arrested and charged with murdering his estranged wife – by beheading her at his company’s office in Orchard Park, N.Y., on Thursday.

Police have charged the husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder in the death of Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37.

In its logo, BridgesTV boasts of “connecting people through understanding” via its dish network available in several states. Its Web site quotes comments about the company by Jay Leno, Brian Williams and others, plus a screen shot of a CNBC interview with Hassan conducted by Maria Bartiromo.

Programs include kids shows, “American Muslim Teen Talk,” Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” and an interview show with James Zogby. Its news program “brings you balanced coverage from around the world. News you can trust.”

Police say the wife had an order of protection from the man. A murder weapon has not yet been recovered. The couple had two children, ages 4 and 6.

Khalid J. Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said, “There is no place for domestic violence in our religion — none. Islam would 100 percent condemn it.” (Source-Editor & Publisher)

“Islam would 100 percent condemn it”? How about “Islam does 100 percent condemn it”? Why the timid response?

Islam, like Christianity, is an ancient religion that has no place in modern societies. It’s rules of conduct and moral code are suited for 1st century goat-herders, not people living in the 21st century. In the civilized world, women are not property.

If Hassan wanted to change the Western concept of Islamic barbarism, he certainly went about it the wrong way. At least he committed this atrocity in the U.S. where he’ll be held accountable for his behavior and not in the Middle East where his actions would have been excused and accepted.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

US refuses to sign UN condemnation of anti-gay law

0 comments

Posted on 18th December 2008 by Jack in human rights | in the news | politics

, ,

Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.’s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to some of the declaration’s backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.rainbowflag

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States — despite its unwillingness to sign — condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.

More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians. The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to “the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts” such as pedophilia and incest.

The declaration also has been opposed by the Vatican, a stance which prompted a protest in Rome earlier this month.

The European nations backing the declaration waged their campaign in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Dutch foreign affairs minister, Maxime Verhagen, said countries which endorsed that 1948 document had no right to carve out exceptions based on religion or culture that allowed discrimination against gays.

“Human rights apply to all people in all places at all times,” he said. “I will not accept any excuse.”

(Source-Chicago Tribune)

<sarcasm>Now that we’ve found common ground with Muslims, our common intolerance and bigotry, perhaps relations between us will improve.</sarcasm>

Actions like this only serve to further remove us from our former role as the sole world superpower representing freedom and democracy. Our government seems determined to undermine our image in the world and put us in league with those whom we denounce as totalitarian and theocratic.

By refusing to sign non-binding resolutions like this, we put ourselves on the wrong side of this issue. We are siding with hatred and injustice. Is this what we want our country to stand for?

UA-661665-3