The three brave members of the Russian punk band Pussy Riot were today jailed for two years, following a political protest in the form of an unscheduled musical addition to a religious service. Passing sentence, the judge remarked that the defendants had 'offended the feelings of orthodox believers'.
Some years ago, former UK MP Ann Widdecombe defended British blasphemy law, justifying her stance by claiming that 'anything goes' unless there is a law to control what may or may not be said about anything to do with religion.
So, no-one may voice an opinion in the presence of religious believers, if that opinion might question the veracity of their beliefs. Why do such people support such a law?
The answer is quite simple. If dissenting voices are silenced, believers need never face their questions. They can simply shelter within the anechoic chambers of their churches, safe in the knowledge that they will never be called upon to think for themselves. Perish the thought that believers might have to substantiate the assertions of their holy books against searching, sceptical inquiry.
Does the reverse apply? Is there a law against offensive statements BY the church? If there were, then the Pope would have been brought to book for the comments of his clergy that have contibuted directly to the spread of HIV in Africa. Practically every Christian cleric would have been called to account for offending all thinking people with the suggestion that we each bear personal responsibility for the actions of a fictitious lady who allowed herself to be persuaded by a talking snake. Teachers and others who have terrified children with the insane and sadistic notion of hell fire would similarly have cause to view every passing police car with apprehension.
Ye gods, the civilised world must surely do all it can to protect religious believers from ever having to think independently. They deserve to have their beliefs safeguarded by seal of law, exempt from question. This must be so, for if it were not so, those beliefs might be shown as the vile farrago of lies, deceit and self-interested wish-thinking that they are.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
In defence of Sam Harris
Sam Harris has come in for a great deal of unwarranted vilification lately, following an article he wrote on airline security screening procedures. He has been accused, quite unfairly, of advocating racial discrimination in risk assessment.
Harris is more than capable of defending himself, and has been kind enough to restate his position with customary polite clarity against a baying tirade of knee-jerking net trolls whose main concern seems to be to show one another how superbly liberal and human they are. I certainly can't add anything to what Harris has already said. His consummate skill is to crystallize hours of careful, profound thought into a few blazingly clear paragraphs of rational argument. His writings deserve to be read properly and considered in depth before we rush to blast inane, bleating responses to all corners of the web.
My understanding of Harris's stance on airport security is as follows. If I've read him right, then there is surely no need for the overloaded bandwagon of furore onto which the PC brigade continues to clamber in droves.
1. The ideology of Islam is self-avowedly wedded to terrorism in pursuit of jihad. Muslim suicide bombers destroy themselves and others literally every day. The last two sentences are plain facts and are open to neither debate nor politically correct misinterpretation.
2. Followers of Islam adopt overt demonstrations of their allegiance, in costume, style of hair and beard, and in their routine daily conduct. Thus many who follow Islam are easily identifiable as such. They opt to associate themselves, visibly, with their ideology (see 1 above).
3. Random screening of air travellers equates to an asinine pretence that there is no link between Islam and the threat of terrorism.
As long as Islam fails to break its links to suicide terrorism, it remains irrelevant to argue that most Muslims are not terrorists. The master stroke of Islam - and of all currently popular religions - is to appear to be all about good, while actually perpetrating a great deal of evil. I would have a lot more respect for the non-terrorist majority of Muslims if they would publicly distance themselves from the pernicious ideology that is Islam, until such time as its violent pretensions to world domination are expunged. When that day comes, and no-one wears, carries or performs active, overt advertisements of an ideology committed to destruction, then truly random screening at airports will be the way to go.
Harris is more than capable of defending himself, and has been kind enough to restate his position with customary polite clarity against a baying tirade of knee-jerking net trolls whose main concern seems to be to show one another how superbly liberal and human they are. I certainly can't add anything to what Harris has already said. His consummate skill is to crystallize hours of careful, profound thought into a few blazingly clear paragraphs of rational argument. His writings deserve to be read properly and considered in depth before we rush to blast inane, bleating responses to all corners of the web.
My understanding of Harris's stance on airport security is as follows. If I've read him right, then there is surely no need for the overloaded bandwagon of furore onto which the PC brigade continues to clamber in droves.
1. The ideology of Islam is self-avowedly wedded to terrorism in pursuit of jihad. Muslim suicide bombers destroy themselves and others literally every day. The last two sentences are plain facts and are open to neither debate nor politically correct misinterpretation.
2. Followers of Islam adopt overt demonstrations of their allegiance, in costume, style of hair and beard, and in their routine daily conduct. Thus many who follow Islam are easily identifiable as such. They opt to associate themselves, visibly, with their ideology (see 1 above).
3. Random screening of air travellers equates to an asinine pretence that there is no link between Islam and the threat of terrorism.
As long as Islam fails to break its links to suicide terrorism, it remains irrelevant to argue that most Muslims are not terrorists. The master stroke of Islam - and of all currently popular religions - is to appear to be all about good, while actually perpetrating a great deal of evil. I would have a lot more respect for the non-terrorist majority of Muslims if they would publicly distance themselves from the pernicious ideology that is Islam, until such time as its violent pretensions to world domination are expunged. When that day comes, and no-one wears, carries or performs active, overt advertisements of an ideology committed to destruction, then truly random screening at airports will be the way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)