Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Things you think are in the Bible, but aren't, & what early Christian practice was really like

I'm very fond of Cracked.com. I know - it's a total clickbait site, and it can be quite dickish. But often, the writers really nail an insight or story in a no-nonsense, fact-based way.

Two pieces on the site are particularly awesome to me. One is called "5 Stories Everyone Assumes Are in Bible but Arent." I already knew that these five stories aren't in the Bible, but Cracked does such a good job of breaking it down simply and directly. In summary:
    #5. Sodom And Gomorrah Getting Destroyed For Homosexuality (they weren’t, at least not according to scripture)
    #4. The Seven Deadly Sins
    #3. Purgatory
    #2. The Prostitute Mary Magdalene
    #1. Satan, The Lone Enemy Of God
It's so much fun correcting a Christian I'm arguing with on these points. "Show me in the Bible where it says that." And they begin to scramble... hilarious. I do the same thing with Muslim friends that say the Koran says dogs are filthy. In fact, it doesn't say that - Sura 18 is a story about a dog that honors canines for their protection and loyalty, and recognizes them as members of the family.

Another Cracked article I like very much: "5 Secret Things You Won't Believe About Early Christianity." And it's true: most of the Christians I know refuse to believe this about early Christian practices, those that took place in the first 300 years after Jesus supposedly was on Earth. In summary:
    #5. Women Played A Huge Part In Church History (and were entirely written out)
    #4. Early Christians Spent An Unhealthy Amount Of Time Fighting About Dicks
    #3. The First Church Services Were More Like Lavish Parties
    #2. The New Testament Was Conceived By A Heretic (Marcion of Sinope) Who Thought God Was Also The Devil
    #1. Jesus Was A Shapeshifter?
They forgot one of my favorites to bring up to Christian friends: the Nicean Council's prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during Pentecost. Standing was the normative posture for prayer at the time of the First Council of Nicea, and it still is among Eastern Orthodox Christians. Kneeling was considered most appropriate to penitential prayer, as distinct from the festive nature of Eastertide and its remembrance every Sunday. So, next time you're in church and everyone kneels, start shouting, "Heretics! Apostates!" Good times...

I blame the First Council of Nicaea in 325 BC for solidifying non-Biblical anti-women views as official Christian doctrine, leading to the horrific religion-sanctioned oppression of women that permeates most Christian sects to this day.

Would Cracked dare articles such as "5 Things You've Been Told are in the Koran, But Aren't"? or "Things About Early Islamic Practices That Would Get Them Called Heretics Today"? I wish they would.

The more you know...

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

An atheist's thoughts on Donald Trump

I could write a scathing critique of Islam, based on my reading of the Koran, my reading of Hadith, my studies of the history of Islam, my readings of articles and speeches by Muslims, my experiences in countries with large populations of Muslims and the activities of people that say they are Muslims - and not just extremists, like members of Daesh or Al-Queda or the Taliban. Scathing. In all sincerity.

I could write a scathing critique of Christianity, based on my own experiences in various churches and with thousands of Christians whilst growing up in the Bible Belt of the USA, my reading of different translations of the Bible, the history of how the Bible was compiled and edited and mistranslated over the centuries, my readings of articles and speeches by Christians, and the activities of people that say they are Christians - and not just extremists, like members of the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church or Jerry Falwell or Franklin Graham or Rick Warren. Scathing. In all sincerity.

I could write a scathing critique of other religions, based on similar criteria.

I'm an atheist. I see all of the ways religion creates misunderstanding, fuels fears, discourages thought, divides people, inspires people to hate and to act on that hate and to feel justified in acts of hate. It's my hope that humans eventually reject religion, all religion, in favor of universal moralities based on humanism, value of our environment, value of knowledge, and love of the arts and sports.

So please know where I am coming from when I say that Donald Trump is disgusting. His call for a ban on all Muslims coming to the USA is fascist, it's Hitleresque, it's un-American, and it must be condemned by anyone with any shred of sensibility - particularly Republicans and Christians in the USA - with no qualifications whatsoever.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Atheist Morality

One of the charges atheists sometimes get is that without the theist framework, there is no morality... (but) if God is the determinant of right and wrong, then that moral framework seems hardly inseparable from subjectivity. For could not God decide tomorrow that murder is acceptable?

This is quote from an essay by Brett Milam, and it's why I have such a hard time with people that say, "If you don't believe in God, then you don't have a moral compass. Anything goes!"

Christianity, Islam, and other religions, as they are practised by millions right now, today, justify rape, the subjugation of women, the oppression of non-believers or different believers, the denial of full rights and services to certain groups, and slavery. I am an atheist, and I am opposed to all of those practices - yet Christians and Muslims will say that I'm the one that lacks a moral compass because I'm an atheist?

I believe that morality is rooted in humanity, in our humanness - not in religion. Religion is a reflection of that morality, filtered through a belief in a super powerful all-knowing magical invisible being who is in control of the universe. Morality actually comes from our human capacity for empathy and from reality. I have no desire to kill a person, but if someone did have that desire, they have a choice before them, if they think about the act: kill that person, cause suffering to the remaining family, and, perhaps, go into incarceration for the act if it is deemed by society to be unlawful, OR, don't kill. It's not only the legal consequences that keep people from killing another human; it's also the moral and ethical consequences. People who have a desire to kill and then do it believe they are justified in doing so, for whatever reason, often despite what the law or their religious leaders say.

All of the religions that adhere to the Old Testament - Jews, Christians and Muslims - have no religious prohibitions against incest. The Old Testament does not prohibit incest; Lot had sex with his daughters, and had children by them, and neither he nor they are ever condemned for such. Based on their religion's teachings, based on what they believe God has said and done, incest should not be immoral for Jews, Christians and Muslims. Yet, it is - at least for most believers. Why? Mechanisms to avoid incest are widespread both in nature and across human societies - as Psychology Today points out, "the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get." Humans must have seen rather early on that having sex close with relatives creates an astonishingly high chance that offspring will be born with a serious birth defect. In addition, certain sexless relationships have proven fundamental to our positive development in life, as humans; a trusting, supportive relationship with a mother, a father, a sibling, a step-father, a step-mother, a grandparent, etc. would be absolutely destroyed by sex. Even certain friendships and professional relationships can be destroyed by sexual relations, which is why most people aren't out trying to have sex with everyone in their lives, and many professional settings prohibit teachers, executives, coaches and others from having sex with subordinates. In short, societies' abhorrence to incest comes not from religion, but from our humanity and reality.

So morality for atheists is so much more than "whatever feels right." Our morality is often rooted in a sense of compassion that most humans are born with (the exception being sociopaths). So many of my atheists friends study philosophy, formally and informally - and through such, have developed strong critical thinking skills, and have a strong sense of social responsibility, and a strong concern for global and humanitarian issues - qualities that I just don't find among people who approach work and life from a particular religion. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, philosopher, novelist and author of Plato at the Googleplex, recently told The Atlantic that studying philosophy helps make a student "a citizen in this world." She also says "It makes life so much more interesting. It’s us at our most human. And it helps us increase our humanity. No matter what you do, that’s an asset."

Morals are fluid, to a degree - what you believed as a child, or even in your 20s, may not be what you believe now. Maybe you thought divorce was unethical and should be prohibited by law when you were younger, following the teachings of Jesus, but now, years later, you yourself are divorced - still reading the Bible, still a Christian, but you have committed a sin in the eyes of Jesus. You altered your moral compass, however, based on reality, and probably based on what was best for you and your family. I sometimes change my mind about the ethics of something for similar reasons - or because of reading about different perspectives.

When I was trying to be a Christian, I was bothered by how all emphasis was on accepting Jesus as God in order to be saved in the afterlife, but there was little said about this life, the here and now, and the importance of compassion, of empathy and of love. I was told again and again how this life on Earth just didn't matter at all - I should be concerned with the afterlife. Sad about people going hungry? Don't worry - Jesus said the poor would always be with us, it's in his hands, just focus on Jesus as your savior so you can make it to Heaven some day.

When I stopped trying to be a Christian, I felt so much more free - to pursue friendships, to act on my sense of social responsibility, to fight against injustice, to explore different ideas, to offer help to others, even to love. I like the Biblical stories of the Good Samaritan (my favorite Bible story, in fact), and the Sermon on the Mount. I like the story of the "Companions in the Cave" in the Quran - also known as the Sleepers of Ephesus, who hid inside a cave to escape a persecution, and took in a dog with them - it seems to me the point is not only their faithfulness, but also that we should treat dogs kindly, as members of our family. I like that one of the Pillars of Islam is Zakāt, the believe that it is the personal responsibility of each Muslim to ease the economic hardship of others and to strive towards eliminating inequality. I love that the Jewish term mitzvah has also come to express an act of human kindness, not just a duty to a god. But I don't believe these ideas come from the magical invisible friend - the one that also says you can kill and rape others. These particular ideas I've named from these three religions make sense. Kindness makes sense. The benefits of kindness, in the long run, are worth the work of being kind. Kindess is universally good - without God.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Freedom of Speech Protects Even Vile Humans Like Pam Geller

Pamela Geller has the right to have a mouth and brain full of shit, and invite people to come and listen and watch her spill that shit out of her mouth. She has a right to form an organization that celebrates that shit that comes out of her mouth. She has the right to insult any idea, any religion and any group of people, using the most vile language she can think of. She has a right to say things that make her look like a rabid, insane, hate-fueled harpy, so long as they are not threats of violence against people. And she exercises that right regularly.

You do NOT have the right to commit violence against the racist, hate-filled people that support her and attend her events, nor against her.

Pamela Geller is no more a free-speech advocate than a group of Klans members who wear sheets, wave confederate flags, and use the "N" word on a march through Ferguson, Missouri, or a group of people that hate the USA and piss on an American Flag outside an American Legion Hall, or a group of men who stand outside a gathering of women at a civic center and call every woman who enters a slut, a whore, fat, ugly, unfuckable or stupid.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I couldn't count how many times comments about atheists from Muslims and Christians have insulted me... yet, I'm still not calling for the death or punishment of anyone for offending me.

Freedom of speech - including the freedom to insult - is a human right. And that means no one should die for blasphemy. No one should die for insulting anything or anyone. No one. Not even people with a mouth and brain full of shit like Pamela Geller and her followers.

And for a counter to the narrative of the two killers in Garland, Texas and other extremist, murderous men who claim to follow Islam, follow Quranalyze It on Facebook - it reflects the kind of thinking I've experienced from many of my Muslim friends (oh yes, I do have such).

Also see the blog I get insulted. But I don't murder; it includes how the Qu'ran actually defends freedom of speech, and a story about the Prophet Mohammed that murderous Muslims that kill in the name of defending Islam either forget, don't know or ignore.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

No, You’re Not Taking Those Verses ‘Out of Context’

Ali A. Rizvi is a Pakistani-Canadian writer, physician, and musician who resides in Toronto, Canada. He has written an excellent blog, "No, You’re Not Taking Those Verses ‘Out of Context’," and it's a must read. Here's an excerpt:
    ...herein lies the problem: if there were a book that talked about Muslims the way the Quran talks about disbelievers, heads would roll. Literally.

    The primary argument we hear against critics and satirists of religion like the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists—who satirized all religions, not just Islam—is that their speech “offends billions of people.”

    But what about the religions they’re targeting? The Abrahamic holy books—respected and revered by billions worldwide—prescribe the killing of disbelievers (Quran 8:12-1347:4; Leviticus 24:16); order their adherents to fight and enslave those with differing beliefs, a la ISIS (Quran 9:29-30, Deuteronomy 20:10-18); endorse wife-beating (Quran 4:34) and the stoning to death of non-virginal brides (Deuteronomy 22:20-21); order women to quietly submit to the authority of men (1 Timothy 2:11-12); and mandate the public lashing of fornicators (Quran24:2) and the killing of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13).

    Who should really be offended here? If hate speech were really the issue, these books would be the first to go.
Here's the full blog.

I couldn't count how many times comments about atheists from Muslims and Christians have insulted me... yet, I'm still not calling for the death or punishment of anyone for offending me.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Do religions know what "peace" means? or "irony"?

A cartoon says your religion is violent. You are offended, and your response is to shoot someone or bomb something.

You say you are "pro-life" because of your religion. You blow up clinics and shoot doctors in the name of this belief.

And you wonder why I smirk when you say yours is a "religion of peace," or that you follow the "prince of peace."

I'm not fond of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church, because of what they say about women and their funding of the proposition in California to ban marriage equality, also known as proposition hate. But I was so impressed when I walked out of the musical The Book of Mormon, there were Mormons standing amid the crowd - not protesting, not shouting, but, instead, handing out the actual Book of Mormon and saying, "You've seen the musical, now read the book!"

I high-fived one of those Mormons and said, "That's awesome."

You have every right to counter a message with your own peaceful message. You have every right to be outraged by anything. You have every right to demonstrate that outrage, so long as it is not violent, nor oppressive. You have no right to violence against other humans. None.

Freedom of expression is not only a basic, universal human right - if you are responding to a criticism that says you are violent with violence, you're an idiot.

This attack in Paris today on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo does far more to paint Islam as violent than any cartoon ever has.

I do not blame all Muslims for this. But I do believe that any Muslim who supports blasphemy laws, or who doesn't not believe in freedom of expression, even when he or she does not support what is being expressed, shares some of the blame for what has happened today in Paris.

My best wishes for safety to the staff of The Onion, to the guys at South Park, to James Franco and Seth Rogan, and to anyone else who has been threatened for their satire.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

#JesuisCharlie
#CharlieHebdo
#vivalafrance
#imagine

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Beware of Islamic Turkeys

As an Atheist, why should I care that a friend on Facebook just posted this as her status?

Butterball Turkeys are 'Halal Certified". This means that during the killing of the turkey a Muslim religious official (or a recording of a Muslim religious official) offers the turkey 'in the name of Allah'. I have personally called Butterball and USDA to confirm and this is true. If you would like to do the same, call Butterball Corporate at 1-919-255-7900. I spoke to Linda Compton, Director of Consumer Relations. They will try to pass the buck to USDA (1-888-674-6854), but USDA only requires a religious official as part of their halal certification. They do not dictate what they say.

Why should I care? The Christian is scared her Butterball Turkey is Islamic. And observant Muslims can't eat the Butterball Turkey unless it's Halal. BOTH are nonsense to me, what do I care?

And yet I do care.

Which bothers me more - the Christian friend and her ilk who think Jesus would never want them to eat a Halal Turkey (despite Matthew 15:11: It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.) or the Muslim (or Jew, for that matter), who thinks his food has to be extra-specially-blessed in order to eat it?

I'm going to have to go with the Christian in this case. I'm sure this same Christian friend would eat food prepared and prayed over by a neighbor who was Catholic. Or Mormon. Or Jewish. It's only certain religions that are unacceptable.

The arguments I've heard from Christians against the evils of Halal are that it requires a cruel way of killing animals - never mind that the same method is required of kosher meat - and that Halal requires a spoken prayer to God (and the Arabic word for God is Allah - for some reason, people have HUGE problems that Arabs use an Arabic word for the God of Abraham - but no problem that the French call him Dieu - how come that isn't a problem?), while kosher killing doesn't require any spoken word (just a series of very specific rituals that are each and altogether meant to praise their God - but apparently, specific, deliberate movements done as a praise to a God is okay with the Christians; its just spoken words that are ENTIRELY unacceptable).

What does preventing observant Muslims from getting to eat a Butterball Turkey on Thanksgiving accomplish, I wonder? If we eat a Butterball Turkey, do the terrorists win?

Another day to celebrate being an Atheist! And more Butterball Turkey for me!

Monday, August 1, 2011

UN criticizes anti-blasphemy laws

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has issued a commentary on freedom of expression that says anti-blasphemy laws and restrictions on criticism of governments are incompatible with existing norms and that free expression is essential for the protection of human rights.

The committee’s report, entitled General Comment, said, in part, “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the covenant,” except in specific circumstances, and States “should not prohibit criticism of institutions, such as the army or the administration.”

More info here.

This is VERY good news. This kind of thinking is why I support Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I am very glad to see the UN getting something RIGHT!