I don’t usually allow emotions to run rampant in my writings, but it is a necessary recourse toward an important end. The emotions will dampen as we proceed. As many know, I try not to let emotions have any impact on my writings whatsoever. I even state I will not deal with emotions as a legitimate defense, because ideas must stand on their own merit not one what feels good or right. That simply misses the point. Nonetheless, when it comes to those I love, emotions are a big factor. As Russell highlighted, those we love can safely be left up to intuition; it is those we hate that must “fall under the domain of reason”. And not just people but ideas, too.
Thus I allow leeway because this involves the people I love.
I live in Cape Town, but my mother’s family lives in Pietermaritzburg (most readers will not care but it means I had to take a flight to see them). I arrived to warmth and happiness which is the stable diet of my maternal family. It is unlike any other reception one can have. Thus I cherish it. My cousin, 24, had found the woman who he was ready to “spend the rest of his life with” (as they say).
Now, personally, I find marriage, romance and romantic love quite silly, crass and shallow. It is not fulfilling for the most part and simply bizarre for the rest. I did not tell my family or cousin this – I do not tell most people. It simply is not appropriate. They do not even know about my views on god, religion and so on. And, as with most nonbelievers I’ve met, I have spent more time than they have on the topics of gods, faith and the afterlife. It is using thinking and self-reflection that results in the abandonment of faith after all (if you ever had it in the first place).
We attended the wedding ceremony today, in a beautiful church. The wedding began with the pastor speaking. What I noticed was this: 90% of his subject was his god, 5% had to do with how marriage is eternal and will be hard, and 5% had to do with my cousin and his bride. I was appalled by this brazen display of dismissal. I could stand all that, but I got protective when he uttered following statement: “You may be able to live without god, as many millions of successful people do…” this was followed by silence, then… “but you can not die without god!”
That sounds like a threat to me, with an undertone of Pascal’s Wager. Correct me if I’m wrong but did he not just say – ignore the smile and warm face, many pedophiles and sociopaths were better looking and more eloquent before making smiles in people’s necks – “You better believe in god or else you will die and burn in hell.” I can find little else he could be speaking about. He is obviously referring to the afterlife; and given that the notion that you will be tortured and decapitated and other torrid examples of dehumanisation only occurs in the New Testament (not the Old, as far as I know), this must be the case.
This proved to me quite finally that when it comes to weddings, funerals and so on, the faithful often have a disgusting appraisal of normal human sensibility. The argument that one needs religion for human binding and self-expression is as patronising as saying all religious people are stupid; or, all atheists are immoral. None of those latter statements are true. However, the religious have no argument when it comes to ceremonies except that their establishments have the two major advantages that will conquer everything: time and money.
When it comes to secular events, it will usually have the undertone of being personalised to the nth degree. Readings from their favourite writers, poets or songwriters. Or their favourite artist. Something that can be researched and have the flavour of the persons involved. Afterall, it should be the couple’s day not god’s. Naturally, I would like to see my fellow man remove the shackles and cull the living flower, to paraphrase Marx, but I do not see that happening. Instead, it should at least raise our hackles that god is mentioned more than those we love during ceremonies made for them. Notice how much the focus is refracted toward their god and consider if you think this is a good thing. If you do, why is the focus on a god more important than the focus on the couple in a wedding? If you want to add god, fine, but why more than the couple? (Ignoring for the moment the argument that marriage is a religious duty; to people I know it their expression of love and that is what I’m focusing on).
The major point is this: Religious festivities only appear to have the power of rituals and expression from groups. But secularists and nonbelievers have as much, if not better ones. The reason: It is focused on the individual people, thus meaning more work and personalisation. Once again, religion has outlived its purpose and needs to go the way of alchemy and the belief that Elvis is alive. It can hold no water against the nature of one’s fellow man, his self-expression, compassion, art, and individualism. It is truly more beautiful than the constant reference to the deity, whilst the couple fades into the background. This is their time to shine.
I will leave you with one last thought: Think of any ceremony that is traditionally performed by religions, (funerals, weddings, etc.) and think of one example where adding the notion of a god would make it better than one which does not mention gods, but simply focuses on the person or couple. This does not make it atheist or anti-theist, but keeps gods simply out the picture to cater for everyone. This to me seems reasonable. But I write this for interesting responses and bitter critiques.
In Defence of Johann Hari
Sunday, February 15th, 2009Reposted from my blog.
“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:
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:
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:
Let it be so.
Tags: atheism, dogma, freedom of speech, islam, Johann Hari, nonbelief, religion, Thomas Paine, universal declaration of human rights
Posted in Commentary | 1 Comment »