101. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221812 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 6:58 am

I thought this article was interesting, not so much for the stuff about British Muslims, but for what it says about the status of religion in Britain today. I look at the holdovers from the past (establishment of the Church of England, bishops in the House of Lords, taxpayer-funded faith schools, "acts of worship" in state schools) and wonder, "Why on Earth don't you just institute separation of church and state? I know tradition is hard to break, but I think something like what the author suggests would be a good thing! (Then again, you guys still have the Act of Settlement stating that anybody in the line of succession to the throne who marries/becomes a Catholic is excluded from the line to the throne, so...I mean, do you really think the Pope is going to cross the English Channel to "re-take" Britain if somebody in the royal family happens to be Catholic?)

When France emancipated French Jews in the 18th century, part of the "deal" was that Jews would be granted full rights as individual French citizens; however, the Jewish "community" led by the rabbis would have absolutely no standing in law as a group. No special Jewish courts or rules; they were now Frenchmen (and women) who happened to be of the Jewish religion and they would have to follow the same rules as everybody else.

So I wonder...what's all this garbage the British government mouths about "the Muslim (Hindu, Sikh, whatever) community" and its (self-appointed) "leaders" and stuff like that?

102. Breeding for God

Comment #221537 by Layla Nasreddin on July 29, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I'm fascinated by "secularization theory" and its discontents. I suppose it's clear that religion is not just going to "go away" by itself, much as we'd like to see this -- it will take effort. But the subject that really interests me is this:

Second, religious people in the childbearing 18-45 age range are disproportionately female.

Yes, the old "women tend to be more religious than men" pehonomenon (borne out by my own experience, though of course the plural of anecdote is not data!).

Religious lobbyists, couching their claims in the rhetoric of relativism and diversity, will ask why the secular point of view on issues like abortion, blasphemy, pornography and evolution is the only one taught, aired or "respected."

And, of course, the use of the concepts of "multiculturalism" and "diversity" as an "in" for conservative religious (Islamic, Christian, Jewish) norms. There are few things more hypocritical than a conservative imam/priest demanding "respect" for his (it's usually a male) views on grounds of "relativism" and "diversity" and "mutual respect"!

103. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220660 by Layla Nasreddin on July 28, 2008 at 8:16 pm

I'm afraid this seems a fool's errand -- they might as well be petitioning the government of Saudi Arabia to allow non-Muslims into Mecca and Medina. Forget it! Just chuck the whole thing!

On the other hand, sometimes a thousand mile journey starts with a single step and all that other stuff. I'm torn between wanting conservative religions to change and just saying, "Screw them all; just leave already!"

Oh, and the word "propaganda" was originated by the Church, from the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. Fancy the Church denouncing others for "propaganda"!

104. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #220652 by Layla Nasreddin on July 28, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Reading this, I couldn't but help notice how incredibly lucky Dan was to come into contact with so many intelligent, thoughtful teachers and mentors during his education, and how his pursuits were encouraged by his family -- and then think, "What about those bright kids who aren't lucky enough to find mentors or to be born in intellectual households?" Not to mention wincing at the savage decline in US education during the ensuing decades! One weeps at the wasted talent and potential.

Interesting that Dan's father was a scholar of Islamic history. Very interesting...I wonder if that, or his early life in Beirut, affected any of his later work.

105. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #219871 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Goldy wrote:

I am basically thinking in a Chinese concept here ;-) Certainly money is more important that communism. Indeed, CCP membership is sought not for idealogical reasons but for leg-up-ladder reasons. I have met many Muslims, Shia and Sunni, in Syria (also a whole heap of Christians) who were emphatically not Islamic :-) It was just an idea I had - America tests my theory greatly, I must admit. Here I am thinking of Saddam era Iraq - certainly not a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, as I recall.
Difficult, I have to say. As a lab tech, I can only have opinions - many of which are wrong.

To fit in with this, "secularization theory" (or just "secularization") is one of the concepts I find most intriguing. Basically, the theory states that as nations grow more wealthy and make greater progress in education and science, they will "naturally" become less religious. Well, this might work for Europe, or perhaps I should say Western Europe (with Australia and Canada), but the theory runs into a problem when trying to explain America and its rates of religiosity in comparison. I mean, this is not a trivial point -- if it can't explain why the most populous developed country is so religious it's in trouble (and there's also the matter of some developing third world nations which are not necessarily becoming less religious). Some sociologists of religion have gone so far as to declare the "secularization theory" disproven; others say that there are special factors going on in the case of America, still others say that perhaps America is less religious than popularly believed. Needless to say, more work needs to be done on this concept!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularization

And our cultures are too far apart at times for meaningful discussion to occur.

Sometimes, yes, even among groups of all-American-born converts! A completely different mindset; it's hard to talk at all when one side is saying "My religion is the most important part of my life; I am my religion, I represent it to the world," and the other is saying, "Religion must be kept private and not intrude into the public square; keep your beliefs at home"!

106. PZ Myers Desecrates a Eucharist

Comment #219857 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I thought it was cute. Didn't know RD had a thing for S&M -- though I suppose his ongoing debates and "interactions" with religious loonies and wingnuts (a/k/a "banging one's head against a brick wall") should have clued me in that he was a glutton for punishment.

I kid, I kid! ;-)

107. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #219843 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Goldy wrote:

I know we are seeing a rising Islamicisation in the west where poverty is hardly an issue for Muslim women, but I feel that the portrayal of Muslims by the media plays a part in making them feel demonised and marginalised which pushed them to Islam as a cultural security blanket...

Problem is, Islam is so much a part of what most Muslims are that they tend to take even the most benign criticism of Islam as "demonizing Muslims." I've read plenty of messages and listened to plenty of conversations in which the merest suggestion that perhaps Islam, as currently defined, has "issues" with the treatment of women is taken as the rankest "Islamophobia" (cue seething about how the West hates Islam and Muslims). It's very, very hard to separate the two, especially in the honor/shame culture that a lot of Muslims have grown up in and which seemingly has no concept whatever of self-criticism. No, anything suggesting that Islam is not 100% perfect is usually taken as absolute heresy (in my own experience), and it's frustrating. Especially when they are backed up on this by a few well-meaning but clueless liberals, who seem to consider any discussion at all of Islam by non-Muslims (or even Westernized or liberal Muslims) that is not 100% positive to be rank (pick one -- or all) racism, Islamophobia, imperialism, or "Orientalism." It's a bizarre thing to see a white male chastising a feminist Muslim (or ex-Muslim) as being an "inauthentic" or as a "neocon stooge" (!) bent on making Islam look bad.

I suppose this is blatant overgeneralizing, but it's certainly something I've seen a lot of.

Also, I think this "poverty leads to religion, make them less poor and they won't need religion" to be grossly oversimplified to the point of being flat-out wrong. Many of the most devout Muslims I know were/are quite wealthy, and many poor ones aren't nearly as pious as they might like you to think! (Then there's the matter of all the pious Americans who are emphatically NOT poor!)

108. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #219776 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Since we're discussing feminism and Islam -- what do you guys think about the phenomenon of "Islamic feminism," the attempt to establish feminism within an Islamic context and from Islamic sources, and the insistence that Western feminists need to learn how to work with them instead of putting down religion (specifically Islam)?

I used to be really interested in this when I was Muslim because I figured this was the only way that any form of feminism could get into Islam. On the other hand, many of the Islamic feminists' readings of the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad were so anachronistic and out of character ("Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the first feminist, a truly Islamic state would not need feminism because women would already have all their rights") that I just couldn't keep up with the self-delusion and wishful thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism

109. Write to UCF

Comment #219757 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I guess I might as well note that I just read about a dozen Matthew Nisbet posts about how atheists need to be more "respectful" of "moderate" believers and how science needs to be "framed" as not being in conflict with religious beliefs so as not to frighten them away from science, and thought, "What a pusilanimous, puling, petulant, peevish, pussyfooting pushover!" Then I thought, "Aren't I exactly the same way?" Sigh.

I don't want to piss people off by implying or stating that they're idiots (I wouldn't like people to do that to me), especially when they're in positions of power (with predictably negative results) or are people that I respect, admire, or love; on the other hand, these beliefs are, in fact, idiotic, foolish, and quite possibly dangerous. How to reconcile the two?

110. Write to UCF

Comment #219581 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 9:20 am

I put my money where my mouth is (so to speak) and wrote a letter to the president:

Dear President Hitt,

I am writing to express my support for UCF student Webster Cook. Quite frankly, I cannot understand how a student can be disciplined and even impeached by a secular university for his actions in a religious context. Regardless of one's beliefs about the Eucharist, I do not see why UCF should have been involved in any way. Is it the policy of the university to take action on any complaint made by a campus group, religious or not?

I trust that this matter will be resolved amicably and without further injury to Cook and his friend Benjamin Collard, who is also being charged with disruptive conduct.

Sincerely,
(real name here)

I'm really curious about what sort of answer I might receive -- if I get one, of course.

Perhaps I have been mistaken in my objections to Dawkins's letter; I don't know. I suppose we'll find out!

111. Write to UCF

Comment #219436 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 1:31 am

Richard Dawkins wrote:

2. "That is not a sensible way to try to change the mind of a believer." Probably not, but I was writing to the President of a University, and I was paying him the compliment of assuming that the holder of such a position would be intelligent enough to need no convincing that a wafer lacks human rights.

Like Steve Zara, I hope so too, but you just don't know. However...this statement the president made about the incident is not especially encouraging:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2008/07/ucf-communion-w.html

"UCF takes this situation seriously and we are glad to know the student has returned the Eucharist and written a letter to the Orlando Diocese. We encourage students to express their views respectfully, and we expect them to comply with university codes of conduct. Any disciplinary action will be handled through the university's student judicial system, per our published procedure." -- John Hitt, UCF president

Also, an email response PZ linked to said this:

http://vivechristusrex2000.blogspot.com/2008/07/eucharist-desecration-at-ucf.html

Rest assured that the university takes this matter very seriously and is working with the Catholic diocese to assure that university rules of conduct and Florida statutes are upheld. The Catholic campus ministry is a vibrant and respective part of university life.

John C. Hitt
President, UCF

Given such an exquisitely respectful attitude (it is to vomit), I don't know how he might take the first paragraph of your message! That's my main point of concern...perhaps I should stop worrying.

112. Write to UCF

Comment #219338 by Layla Nasreddin on July 26, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

I understand tact, and I am (I think anyway) for the most part, tactful. Though sometimes honesty is the best policy. When something seems utterly ridiculous, sometimes it is important to point this out.

Secular school policy should not even entertain the ridiculous in their deliberations. Strong disaproval is more effective in this case, I think.

Yes, I agree. It's outrageous that Cook is being impeached (!) because of the hissyfit that some Catholic group is making. I think this is the key point to drive home, that a secular school is bowing to pressure by a frigging religious group, in 21st-century America! That's what I plan to concentrate on, anyway, not the "transubstantiation is ridiculous" bit, which I think might detract a bit from the main point.

113. Write to UCF

Comment #219327 by Layla Nasreddin on July 26, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Well, I was just thinking about this specific "Letters to the President" case, NOT about blog posts, editorials, discussions of the event between people, that kind of thing. Formal letters of complaint to some official or president would require a different standard of Not Being Offensive than mouthing off here, to say the least!

Not sure if any of that makes any sense.

114. Write to UCF

Comment #219318 by Layla Nasreddin on July 26, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

This is a whole other issue from allowing them to harbour them, or having get-to-gethers where they discuss them. We have entered into the realm of the public sphere, where punches are not pulled. If you don't want to be called on for your idiocy, then don't expect to try to have it taught in schools, or have it considered with regard to policy towards members of society.

When they try to get kids expelled over something like this, because of their insane beliefs about crackers, they have pushed this into the public sphere, not us. They should then expect the full force of our rhetoric.

It may not be helpful to be honest with your opinion (I in fact think that it very much is) but ignoring it and pretending it's not there is no more helpful at the very least.

In light of what I've read here, I somewhat regret not espousing my true feelings about the core of this issue. Then they would know that there is at least one more than is not willing to pay any public credence to such idiocy.

Well, perhaps. I guess it all depends on circumstances -- of course in the case of a creationist, I would certainly draw attention to the fact that the whole "the earth is only 6000 years old" notion is utter nonsense and rejected by all reputable scientists, and ask that such things not be permitted in science classes. History of mythology or religion, maybe, but not science!

But in this case, since American universities are usually all about "respect for diversity" and "respect for other religions/races/cultures/etc.", I wouldn't try to defend Cook by saying "oh, the doctrine of transubstantiation is such total nonsense!" Such remarks could and would be taken as evidence of "anti-Catholic bigotry" and "intolerance" by certain twits. A load of crap, of course, but some people are always going to take things the wrong way.

I mean, if Cook were in trouble for desecrating a Qur'an, I certainly wouldn't remark, "Isn't it incredible that Muslims believe that a book as ridiculous as the Qur'an was dictated by God?" Or if he were in trouble for doing something to a Torah scroll, "Isn't it ridiculous that a group of people think they were chosen by God?" It just makes the whole situation a lot more explosive and heated than it should be, and then believers think they should defend their religion instead of agreeing with you that these actions taken by the university are outrageous and uncalled for, a total violation of Cook's rights.

However, in the spirit of Freedom of Speech, it's certainly not up to ME what people write to the UCF president, if they think it's helpful!

115. Write to UCF

Comment #219299 by Layla Nasreddin on July 26, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Richard Dawkins wrote:

I have read of the ludicrous campaign by Catholic lobbyists to victimize a young man, Webster Cook, because he walked off with a wafer. Their grasp of reality is so tenuous that they are unable to tell the difference between a wafer and Jesus! Either they really think the wafer becomes Jesus when blessed, in which case they are idiots. Or they don't, in which case they are hysterical hypocrites. Either way, they deserve to be insulted. I don't know whether Webster really did insult them, but I certainly would have done, given the opportunity.

Hmm, I think I may have to agree with Steve Zara on this point, that the tone of this paragraph may not be "helpful." Do we know what religion President John C. Hitt belongs to, if any? I mean, how would it look to have a pious Catholic reading this letter and saying, "Wait a minute, is he saying I'm an idiot for believing in transubstantiation?" If not, what if there's somebody else reading his letters/email who is, and might take it very much the wrong way?

That's why I never made any reference to the religious dimensions of the whole PZ "incident" when writing to the University of Minnesota Morris president; I just kept it to the standard "freedom of speech" issue. If I write a message to the president (I might), I'd, um, think of some other way to approach the issue besides "oh, it's so stupid that people are so upset over a cracker" because that might not prove...helpful.

*shrugs* I don't know, I might be (what do you mean, might be?) being too sensitive about this crap.

116. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215430 by Layla Nasreddin on July 21, 2008 at 10:08 pm

A very fair interview that makes the points in a very simple, easy to understand manner. Though I must say I was kind of hoping that Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens would call up and say something like, "Evolution is FALSE because in the Qur'an it says that Allah instructed the angels to bow down before Adam, alayhi salaam (peace be upon him), and angels would never bow down before a monkey, Allah forbid!" (Believe it or not, this is an actual "argument" against evolution found in Yusuf's children's book A is for Allah, which I have.) On the other hand, that's really about the same as what the caller was saying, Abdul (what's the rest of his name? Abdul just means "slave of the..."!) from Scotland.

117. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213729 by Layla Nasreddin on July 18, 2008 at 8:39 pm

The story about Juliet (also retold in Climbing Mount Improbable) brings to mind the time I also went out with my father one night to see Halley's Comet when I was 8, since I was such a huge astronomy buff at the time. The thing was, even with a (very small) telescope, there wasn't a heck of a lot to see, alas; all I remember is a tiny whitish smudge.

And the term "trailer trash" has made it across the pond, I see... ;-)

118. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #212923 by Layla Nasreddin on July 17, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

I can see how you could get that impression Bonzai, I have to say that it never occured to me until it was pointed out here.

See, this is why we need more "consciousness-raising." Then again, perhaps I've hit the feminist tracts too heavily; I don't know. I grew up reading about a few women scientists like Marie Curie, Lise Meitner, Florence Bascom, Rosalind Franklin and others, and how they had to work (at least) twice as hard to be accepted in the all-male preserve of science decades ago. Although things have changed, at least somewhat, it might take a long time for the stereotype of scientists as "old white guys" to change.

About the whole "Professor" thing...Perhaps my memories of university are too fresh, because I keep getting the feeling that I'm going to be flunked out of the course tutorial site on account of some awful, misinformed post I might write -- "Dreadful work! Very poor! God help us, what is this?!?" (You know it's bad when the nonexistent deity is invoked...) Mind, I did well in all my courses there, but I was always acutely aware that that was a state of affairs that could change at any time!

119. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #212226 by Layla Nasreddin on July 16, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Bonzai wrote:

Believing or not, I do agree with you. I was not making accusations like maybe utsusemia was,--though I can be wrong on that too. I was only relating my feeling, which I cannot control. It is like a picture that catches your eye because there is something odd about it. In pop culture science is identified with geekdom and boring people in lab coats and here "the voice of science" appear to be the voices of a bunch of old white guys in suit. I just can't help noticing it.

No, I never had "role models' that look like me, and I think the idea of role model is kind of lame anyway.

Well, I feel acutely aware of the fact that so many of the Outspoken Atheists are males (and white males at that). This is the case even though I always make sure to remind myself that it shouldn't be about the sex or race of the person putting forth certain ideas or arguments, it's the ideas and arguments themselves that matter -- all else is extraneous, insignificant detail. I feel ("feel" is certainly the right word) that this is something of a failing of mine in not being sex/color blind, but it's there nevertheless. So I definitely know what you mean about "I just can't help noticing it!" On the other hand, I definitely don't want to denigrate anybody because they, in fact, just happen to be white males, nor wish them to be replaced by women/minorities. Sigh.

120. The Return of Religion

Comment #212196 by Layla Nasreddin on July 16, 2008 at 7:40 pm

I don't think it's as difficult as you contend. You write a national curriculum the same as with any other subject, and you hold the schools to that curriculum. If schools fail to meet the standard curriculum, you withhold Federal funding. The almighty dollar has a way of motivating even the most recalcitrant.

One big quibble: I don't believe there IS a national curriculum in the US! It's pretty much all on the state/local level.

Also, I can easily imagine such courses turning into slushy, relativistic "aren't all religions wonderful?" love-fests, for fear of offending anybody...and even with all that, I'd bet that such a course would be considered a breach of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment. Heck, it might even be an atheist bringing the suit ("why are they filling my child's mind with this garbage")! And of course there's also the totally-justified fears that religious teachers in certain parts of the country (or anywhere, I guess) will use such a course as an excuse to preach/proselytize.

121. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #212183 by Layla Nasreddin on July 16, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Bonzai wrote:

When I saw the picture it struke me that they are all stuffy looking straight white males in suits who are middle aged or older. I kind of hope "the voice of science" would be more diverse, youthful and universal.

Well, perhaps -- there were comments complaining about this earlier in the thread. On the other hand, as was also mentioned:

utsusemia wrote:

Are the only "leading" scientists whose opinions are worth consulting white males? I mean, surely women and POC scientists have a hard enough time in the field without supposedly enlightened people like Richard Dawkins perpetuating their marginalization?

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Do you seriously suppose we sat down and made a list of scientists we wanted to include, and then travelled to see each of them in turn? Isn't it obvious that, on my various lecturing tours, we opportunistically approached people who happened to be there, willing and available?

While I myself bristle at the idea that I wouldn't be able to "understand" or "get into" science (for example) simply because so many scientists happen to be males, I can understand that it can be a bit off-putting to have few people who "look like" you in the field. I guess the only way out is to continue to encourage women and "POC" to pursue careers and interest in science -- something that won't happen if it is claimed, per some misguided "feminist" scholars, that science is "inherently male" and "phallocentric" and not a part of "women's ways of knowing" and all that garbage.

Oh, and despite my slight quibbles, that was a very fascinating conversation. More, please!

122. The Return of Religion

Comment #212144 by Layla Nasreddin on July 16, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Scruton was fairly boring and forgettable when "debating" Dawkins, Hitchens and AC Grayling in that "We'd be better off without religion" debate. I mean, I'd have to listen to it again to remember a single point he made (if any). Maybe that's why he's so bitter; he got his behind handed to him (in American parlance) in the ensuing vote! Anyway, Dawkins is too much the proper English gentleman to be "loud", "strident" and "violent"!

123. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #212041 by Layla Nasreddin on July 16, 2008 at 1:56 pm

In the Weinberg interview, Dawkins says, "If you really want to kill religion, translate the holy books into modern speech and that will go a long way towards it."

I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more (sorry!). Wasn't one of the triggers for the Reformation precisely the translation of the Bible into the language of the common man and woman (Luther's German Bible, the early English Bibles), which also did so much for the consequent revitalisation of religion? Now anybody who could read could have access to the "Word of God", instead of either having to learn Latin or depend on the priests.

Also, the American mania for fundamentalist readings of the Bible seems to depend, at least a little bit, on the existence of understandable translations (look how many Bibles in modern language are sold to fundamentalist or evangelical "Bible-believing" Christians). Even translations aimed specifically for children are quite popular. The widespread existence of Qur'an translations today (previously translations tended to be frowned upon) seems to be doing a lot for the increased religiosity in non-Arab Muslim countries. I don't know how many people have been converted by reading (sometimes misleadingly mild) translations of the Qur'an.

Side note, and a nit-picking one: Weinberg talks about how impressed he was by the "Al-Aqsa mosque." Well...I think he probably means to say the Dome of the Rock, which is right next to the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Al-Aqsa mosque itself is fairly impressive, but NOTHING like the Dome of the Rock!

124. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211947 by Layla Nasreddin on July 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Steve Zara wrote:

The previous year, I invited Carolyn Porco to be the Charles Simonyi Lecturer. Not because she is a woman but, again, because she is brilliant.

Her presentations at TED and at Beyond Belief have been outstanding, and truly awe-inspiring. She would be outstanding in that position, I am sure.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the reference is to the Simonyi Lectures, not the (soon to be opened) Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science! (Though I have no doubt she would be outstanding in that position as well because of her work; the fact that she's a woman would just be icing on the cake.)

The Simonyi Lectures

125. Host Desecration is Old Anti-Semitic Nonsense

Comment #210616 by Layla Nasreddin on July 14, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Sargeist wrote:

Layla, your comments about what the Jews were accused of is similar to what I get on many occasions that my atheism comes up (or gets brought up, by me) in conversation. Most Catholics I meet have this odd idea that I know god exists, but that I'm just saying he doesn't to be awkward, or annoying, or something. Or they think that I know god exists but I don't like him, so I have to keep saying I don't believe in him.

That seems to be a really, really common reaction to atheists from theists. It's so "obvious" that the deity exists that you yourself must acknowledge this on some level; you're just "angry with God" or you "hate God" or something. Perhaps, they might say, engaging in a bit of pseudo-psychoanalysis, you're even defective as a person because you can't/won't believe! You're lacking in some "essential human trait" or some "depth of feeling"!

"Why do you continue rejecting God when He loves you so much?"
"Uuuh...I don't believe he exists?"
"You heartless bastard! You just want to replace God with your ego! 'Thou shalt have no other gods besides...you!' Worshiping God would mean that you could no longer worship yourself!"
"Where on earth did you get THAT rot?!?"

*rolls eyes*

126. Host Desecration is Old Anti-Semitic Nonsense

Comment #210246 by Layla Nasreddin on July 14, 2008 at 6:39 am

Raiko wrote:

Oh, do I love wikipedia!

These accusations may have been based on the paradoxical belief that Jews considered the host the literal body of Jesus;...

(emphasis added)

Wikipedia knows best!

I assume this means it's ridiculous to think that a group of people who emphatically did NOT subscribe to the church's doctrines would in fact believe that the host turned into the body of Jesus. Add to the fact that they didn't believe in Jesus as anything other than a human being to begin with, and you end up with some pretty bizarre imputations of belief. "The Jews KNOW that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but they're just evil and so go on rejecting him!" Similar to the Muslim belief that the Jews in Medina did in fact "recognize" Muhammad as a prophet, but rejected him...presumably because they were stubborn, evil bastards, or something. I mean, that's pretty messed up! The idea that one might reject the whole notion of transubstantiation or of prophecy never seems to have entered their minds.

127. Host Desecration is Old Anti-Semitic Nonsense

Comment #209914 by Layla Nasreddin on July 13, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Yeah, I noted that in the other thread. I felt/feel physically ill when contemplating the long and sordid history of "host desecration" -- and that some people TODAY are still upset over it! Like I said, this whole affair has more than a whiff of the medieval about it, doesn't it?

I'm just surprised that the long and often anti-Semitic history of this canard wasn't picked up on right away. Study your medieval history, damn it! You'll have never-ending ammunition against the Church! ;-)

128. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #209424 by Layla Nasreddin on July 12, 2008 at 7:12 am

The responses to this letter in the Times itself are amusing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4303966.ece
Sir, I have long admired Richard Dawkins and consider him one of the great intellects of the age. I do hope he will not now detract from that image by setting himself up as a false authority on the English language (letter, July 9 ).

The verb "address" is now widely used to mean "deal with". Surely the eminent evolutionist realises that language evolves?

Ronald Forrest
Lower Milton, Somerset

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4311516.ece
Sir, It would be fascinating to know what Richard Dawkins says to his golf ball when addressing it (letter, July 9). Perhaps, "I cannot pray for you to reach the green, but, I beg you, at least try and avoid the big bunker on the left", might be appropriate.

David Boswell
Tarrant Gunville, Dorset

Dawkins golfing? I'm trying to picture it...

Speaking of grammatical pedantry, is there a reason that letters to the Times are addressed as "Sir" and not "Sir or Madam"? Is it just tradition?

129. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209396 by Layla Nasreddin on July 12, 2008 at 5:42 am

Well, this is what I wrote (I mentioned writing before). The shorter, the better, I say!

Sir,

It has come to my attention that the Catholic League and others are calling for one Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris, to be disciplined or even terminated for certain statements he made on his personal blog. I believe very strongly that everybody should be free to express himself or herself outside of his or her job without fear of professional reprisal. This is especially true in the case of a university, dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. Please do not give in to these demands and allow the spirit of free speech and free inquiry to continue to inhabit your fine educational institution.

Sincerely,
Real Name Here

130. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #208886 by Layla Nasreddin on July 11, 2008 at 10:50 am

As an addition to riemann's remark, here's the entire letter:

Sir, "Addressing" is for envelopes, golf balls, haggises, crowds and computer memory. Not "issues".

Richard Dawkins
New College, Oxford

That's it. (Obligatory English-slaughtering comment, just because I'm difficult: And I ain't got nuttin' to say, 'cause I don't know nothin' 'bout it.)

131. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208774 by Layla Nasreddin on July 11, 2008 at 8:36 am

Radesq wrote:

In order to accomplish that I think I would need a bottle in front of me - or a frontal lobotomy.

Well, chalk it up to that hoary stereotype of women supposedly being more empathetic than men...maybe. Or else I'm just one of those people tending towards 'my mind is so open my brains fall out', I don't know. (Why aren't there more outspoken women atheists, anyway? The field seems awfully male to me...)

Anyway, I suppose trying to 'get through' to religious people (not simply theists) is probably not what Dawkins and other writers are trying to do. They're trying to reach people who already are doubting their religion/faith and are looking for, well, I wouldn't quite call it 'confirming evidence', but something that lets them know that they aren't the only ones who have had these thoughts.

But then, I get a bit frustrated because it seems that all the negative reviews and things like that hit on the same dozen or so points (not all of them by theists, and not all of the points being complete and utter tosh, I think) as to why Dawkins's arguments should be dismissed. If you dismiss their objections casually and don't really go into depth as to why they're not valid, you shouldn't be surprised to see them dismiss you casually!

But then, since convincing people like Lennox is not really what Dawkins is in it for (I presume), perhaps discussion of those matters would just be a tedious waste of time, I don't know.

132. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208337 by Layla Nasreddin on July 10, 2008 at 9:00 pm

I am unpleasantly reminded of the pogroms and riots that accompanied accusations of "host desecration" during the Middle Ages. It still blows my mind -- real, living, breathing people (often Jews) were savagely killed over supposed offenses to a piece of bread! (Another one for the "Evil of Religion" files...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

This whole affair does have more than a whiff of the medieval about it, doesn't it?

Edit: Duh, email sent, using real name (not fake Islamic one...)

133. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208313 by Layla Nasreddin on July 10, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Teratornis wrote:

Once upon a time I would have agreed with Lennox. At the time, I had some imbecilic beliefs, but I was no more generally convincing as an imbecile than I am now (I had the test scores, the top of the class ranking, the scholarships, the degrees, etc., all the objective trappings of a person considered smart). I feel I have a pretty good idea of where Lennox is coming from, because I have personal experience of existing within a very similar world view. It is incredibly seductive and self-contained, once you are in it. It can make just as much sense as the scientific world view, depending on what evidence you focus on.

I have to say I agree with Teratornis here. Once you make that 'leap of faith' and allow yourself to believe in the 'truths' of Islam or Christianity or another religion, it IS, in fact, quite coherent -- on its own terms. It can be very difficult to chip away at this self-contained worldview, especially when it has developed all sorts of defensive manoeuvers just to protect against that (all doubts are 'challenges of faith' or from Satan, blind faith is a virtue, that sort of thing).

Perhaps it would be helpful to be an ex-True-Believer (in adulthood), just so you can kind of understand where they're coming from, what arguments they would or would not find convincing, what they would consider an embarrassment and what would be something to proclaim with pride, that sort of thing.

Yes, Lennox sounds perfectly, utterly ridiculous...to people here! To a believing Christian, he probably sounds quite reasonable!

Let me give a concrete example. I don't know if you recall the 'debate,' or rather heated conversation, between Dawkins and David Quinn -- the mp3 is here under the title 'Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins'); a transcript is here, from, of all places, a 'Catholic education' website. Well, there were theists all over the blogosphere exulting over how Dawkins had got his clock cleaned by a believing, practising Catholic. 'Hah! Dawkins was completely embarrassed by Quinn! He really had him on the ropes!' (Here's a thread with exactly such responses.)

Now, you look at the same thing and say, 'What? How on earth could that be considered embarrassing to Dawkins? Are these people high on something?' Yes, on religion! But let's move on...

The point of all this is that sometimes you have to will yourself to inhabit the 'opposition's' mindset in order to figure out the best way to challenge them. That's my opinion, anyway. Many theologians think (yes, I know, 'theologian' and 'think' -- oxymoron alert!) that Dawkins's 'Ultimate 747' argument against the existence of a deity is completely unconvincing and full of holes. 'But it's not!' That's not the point. The point is to find out why they think that way, and determine the best way to counteract their reasons for rejecting it, no matter how risible, stupid, or ridiculous those reasons may be, because people actually believe them. I mean, if you're trying to convince people, you have to anticipate and defend against their objections!

Last point: interestingly, this conversation is on sale at Fixed Point's site (recall, they're a Christian organisation). (http://www.fixed-point.org/store/shop.asp?ItemID=86&CategoryID=112) I wonder if they'd do that if they considered it damaging to their side, or are they just making it available?

134. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207207 by Layla Nasreddin on July 9, 2008 at 10:24 am

He openly admitted, on the record, that he not only believed in the resurrection (that's standard issue for all Christians) and the Virgin Birth (surprisingly common). Lennox admitted, indeed proudly proclaimed, that he believes in all the miracles, even Jesus turning water into wine. I thought nobody believed in that one except fundamentalist wingnuts.

Wow, things must really be different over there! Christians I've spoken to (not necessarily wingnuts) have no problem saying (to me, anyway) that they believe in that one!

But why the distinction? After all, all three miraculous events are from the same (unreliable) source. Besides, if you believe in a deity who does things like impregnate virgins and raise people from the dead, turning water into wine should be a snap for such a being! In for a penny, in for a pound.

To somebody who really believes in what the gospels say, if Jesus is described as performing miraculous deeds X, Y and Z, then by God it must have really happened. Things like weeping statues, well, they're not in the holy book so they don't count.

Is it because it seems such a cheap, unworthy miracle? You could say the same of any "miracle" described in the gospels (or even the whole Bible).

135. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207090 by Layla Nasreddin on July 9, 2008 at 7:09 am

Comment #206995 by hadrianushaereticus

Well, absurdity in religious matters is kind of in the eye of the beholder -- "how can they believe something so ridiculous!" one believer in a religion says of another!

One reason Dawkins might be so shocked by belief in miracles because, in the case of those who say, "oh, it's just symbolic, we don't really believe in it," it's possible to sweep the whole matter of their ultimate core beliefs under the rug. Maybe they don't really believe in all that weird trinity stuff, either; it's all just a metaphor, much like Einstein's view of "God." But believing in miracles marks one as a True Believer, and that might really be difficult to get one's head around, especially when the person in question is quite bright and thoughtful.

136. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206906 by Layla Nasreddin on July 9, 2008 at 12:57 am

I was thinking that Lennox had half a point: if you believe something as counterintuitive as the Trinity, that God is three persons and that one of those persons was sent down as a human male, then belief in, say, the Resurrection or turning water into wine would be a rather minor offence against reason in comparison! If you really, truly, honest-to-God (sorry, couldn't resist) believe in the whole Christian worldview, with its all-powerful tripartite deity intervening at will, well, why not? That just shows that they really, truly believe in the whole thing! Why should Dawkins be so surprised that Lennox claims belief in (some) miracles, when it's the starting points of his religion that are altogether more fantastic? (Just my opinion.)

(Honestly, I've never understood why the Trinity is supposed to be "more ridiculous" than the Jewish or Islamic notions of the deity. More ridiculous than selecting a particular tribe out of all the peoples of the world and sending down a Law to them from a mountaintop? More ridiculous than sending an angel to dictate a book in Arabic to an illiterate merchant, then sending him on a midnight ride to Jerusalem on a winged horse-creature so he could ascend into heaven and meet the earlier prophets in the seven heavens? It's not like any of these notions have any supporting evidence whatsoever -- you're basically arguing over which fantasy story or which conception of the FSM is more believable.)

137. Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95

Comment #206759 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Comment #206755 by Brian English

No, that makes perfect sense. You can criticize their actions if you disagreed with them, but don't make it personal. There is a line between honesty and gloating bad taste, I think.

138. Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95

Comment #206753 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 6:29 pm

mordacious1 wrote:

One cannot RIP. One rots, or goes up in a puff of smoke....whatever. To say RIP implies that one may not RIP, and what does that mean?

Well, I was speaking metaphorically, the way an atheist might say "(God) Bless you" out of habit to somebody sneezing, or the way I keep saying "in sha' Allah" when mentioning a future event (despite my best attempts to stop!).

I don't want to sound like a self-righteous prig (too late!), but I've never liked rejoicing at somebody's death, even if he/she honestly deserved it and the world is better off without him/her. I was downright nauseated at a lot of the remarks made after Jerry Falwell's death, for instance, even if I didn't think much of the guy. Even in the case of Saddam Hussein -- who deserved it more than almost anybody -- I was still uneasy at the celebration.

That said, I can understand why people might have not-so-nice thoughts about people who have died, and I don't really want to be the kind of person who whines at everybody else to shut up because it offends my sensibilities. Speaking of which...

Tyler Durden wrote:

To paraphrase Hitch:

"You should speak only good of the dead. Sir John Templeton is dead. Good."

I can hear Hitch saying now, "Pardon me for saying so, but fuck your oh-so-tender sensibilities." And he'd be perfectly entitled to say so! ;-)

Anyway, even "P Zed" didn't speak ill of the dead...though he did remark that Templeton's son is apparently more into evangelical Christianity (ugh).

139. Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95

Comment #206349 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 am

I know that Dawkins and many other scientists strongly disapproved, to put it mildly, of Templeton's aims and the works of his foundation (like the Templeton Prize and the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science and Religion, to take two examples), but I don't think it's appropriate to "dump" on the dead (your mileage may vary). So RIP Sir John.

140. Degrees of religion

Comment #206214 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 7:14 am

Damien Trotter wrote:

Before I became diabetic, one meal a day - at night - was my modus operandi for years. It's easy.

Well, it's easy once you're used to it (which would take me a few days). Doing without food all day wasn't THAT hard. But what really made it difficult for me was the "no liquids" -- in a desert, with 95-degree temperatures (fortunately, Ramadan is only now starting to shift over to summertime...). Yikes!

141. Degrees of religion

Comment #206040 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 3:37 am

Damien Trotter wrote:

Nope, she only 'fasts' during the daylight hours of Ramadan. A quite pathetic badge of honour to be parading around.

Yeah, well, don't denigrate it until you've actually done (or attempted) it! It's not very easy, especially the "no liquids" bit! ;-)

I have to say I kind of identify with the author; I might have written something similar not so long ago.

mixmastergaz wrote:

What I find frustrating about this article is the lack of intellectual integrity. The author seems to know perfectly well that her faith is untenable, that she is leading a double life and is guilty of self-confessed hypocrisy. Yet she insists that she must tolerate this in herself and in others, indeed she prescribes this as some sort of panacea for the world's problems.

A better description of my state of mind at the time could not have been written, with special emphasis on the bolded part!

Still, I wouldn't be too hard on her. Giving up one's faith can be a very difficult and scary thing, especially in an Islamic context.

142. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206020 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 3:13 am

I have to say that my favorite bit was at the end, where the announcer mentions that the Christian Fixed Point Foundation is a tax-deductible organization.

Minor point: if Genesis was written by a scribe during the Babylonian exile, it wouldn't have been written circa 800 BCE (as Dawkins suggests at one point) but more like 550 BCE, which is when most modern scholars say it probably began to be written, or rather put together. (See, the more biblical scholarship you know, the more effectively you can demolish Judeo-Christian claims based on the Bible!)

Lennox goes on about how the creation account in Genesis is so much different than ancient myths; I guess he hasn't read about the much-documented and extensive similarities between Genesis and the Enuma elish, the Babylonian creation epic. It's just been "de-paganized" for a monotheistic audience. And if he wants to use Genesis to back up an ex nihilo view of creation, as he seems to suggest by mentioning the Big Bang, he'll have to explain the "waters" in Genesis 1:2 ("and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters") before creation even started, the primeval waters being another element taken from Babylonian creation mythology.

I could go on in this vein, but why?

143. Teaching Evolution in Mexico: Preaching to the Choir

Comment #205725 by Layla Nasreddin on July 7, 2008 at 6:18 pm

decius wrote:

I can tell you, though, that catholic bigotry is second to none, even if they emphasise the new over the old testament.

I can't disagree, really -- well, except for Islamic bigotry; I've suspected for a long time that Islam stole shamelessly from the established churches, Catholic and Orthodox, of the time...

I found the article interesting because I live right next to Mexico and there's a lot of "bleed-over" in terms of culture, with a very, very pronounced Latin Catholic flavor.

It seems that, even if you're raised (or "indoctrinated") Catholic, you don't really get the full "impact" of Catholicism unless you're living in a Catholic country. The influence of the Church in such a country is almost stifling, even in a secularized nation like France, which I've seen firsthand! (Not to say that Catholicism isn't guilt-inducing or stultifying or flat-out abusive to anybody who happens to have been brought up in it, just that it seems the impact is much worse if the entire cultural milieu is also Catholic.)

Now, although Catholics are the largest single religious group in the United States, that doesn't change the fact that it's 75% not Catholic, it was founded by (at least nominal) Protestants operating within a Protestant frame of reference regarding religion, etc. If you're a Catholic in the UK, your religion is tempered by the fact that the country is (at least nominally) overwhelmingly Protestant and has a Protestant state church. Compare the UK to Ireland (well, less so now, but the Church is still very powerful there even if fewer people believe in it).

By contrast, Mexico is a very Catholic country, even atheists can't entirely escape the influence of the church (they're "Catholic atheists" after all that indoctrination and cultural influence), and all that sort of thing. It's worth noting that the most extreme anti-clerical movements seem to start up in Catholic (or Orthodox) countries, though hardly surprising!

About Dawkins's comment -- it was such a throw-away comment I'll probably not find it again unless I happen to stumble over it. One little aside: Dawkins says in Root of All Evil? concerning the Assumption of Mary: "Of course there is no evidence for this. Even the Bible says nothing about how Mary died." So? In the Catholic Church, the Bible is very much secondary (or even tertiary) to the Sacred Tradition and Infallible Papal Authority, don't you know? Obviously that's the kind of objection a Protestant (or ex-Protestant) would make! ;-)

144. Teaching Evolution in Mexico: Preaching to the Choir

Comment #205574 by Layla Nasreddin on July 7, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Hmm. I'm reminded of a throwaway remark Dawkins made once (can't quite remember where), "Catholics don't know the Bible." Which is not wrong, really, though there are always exceptions. I have heard it said that the Catholic Church claims to be based on "the Bible and Tradition" -- much like how Islam is supposed to be based on the Qur'an and sunnah (tradition). In both cases, it's the latter that provides most of the actual rules. The Catholic de-emphasis on the Bible can be an advantage -- less fundie literalism, though of course this means that most believers haven't the slightest idea of what's actually in their holy book!

145. Harper says new mosque shows 'the true and benevolent face of Islam'

Comment #205218 by Layla Nasreddin on July 6, 2008 at 9:01 pm

The mosque is called 'Baitun Nur' which means "peace and blessings of Allah be upon him."

Uh, no. It means "House of Light." *cries*

I have some sympathy for the Ahmadiyya because they're treated like absolute heathens by other Muslims; still, that doesn't mean I think their beliefs are any more "reasonable" than other Muslims'.

146. Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?

Comment #204747 by Layla Nasreddin on July 5, 2008 at 4:51 pm

"Please continue."
"The experiment requires you to continue."
"It is absolutely essential that you continue."
"You have no other choice but to continue."

I recall reading about this experiment when I was about 15 or 16, and it really made an impression on me. I thought, well, I'd LIKE to think I wouldn't continue, but in truth I'd probably be far too much of a cowardly wimp and would follow their instructions (above). Which depressed the hell out of me, I can tell you that! :-(

On the other hand, thinking about it now, I might (or might not) have just pulled some manipulative stunt like bursting into tears or running around screaming, anything to get away, as opposed to simply refusing to do it. Of course, all of this would be a moot point since I already know what the experiment is (and so wouldn't be much of a subject), but still.

147. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204167 by Layla Nasreddin on July 4, 2008 at 9:11 am

Oh, and one more point: shari'ah law as defined by WHOM? Saudi clerics? Pakistani mullahs? Iraqi ayatollahs? Liberal reformers? Shari'ah law isn't just one, immutable "thing," contrary to what a lot of people (including Muslim clerics) think. You have to decide what kind of law, and the interpretation of that law varies -- just read the numerous contradictory fatwas from muftis on any number of subjects! And who decides? Probably the (unelected) male leaders of the community...

148. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204149 by Layla Nasreddin on July 4, 2008 at 8:38 am

It's that supposedly "voluntary" bit that concerns me. What's to prevent the cleric to declare that any women who fail to submit to shari'ah arbitration are "not good Muslims" or something? Imagine the pressure from families and the community to conform!

Oh, and "Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News that sharia law applied only to civil matters". ONLY civil matters...I believe a lot of Muslim women might take exception! There's a reason why some of the biggest opponents of shari'ah tribunals (which would "only" affect "civil matters") in Canada were Muslim women!

149. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202115 by Layla Nasreddin on June 30, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Want to know what the religious think?

Everybody's a f**king victim, no? (Pardon the language.) I see this all the time. "Waaah, they're picking on me! They have NO RESPECT for me or my beliefs!" "I am victim, hear me bleat!" It's SO boring.

I recall an article about the infamous Abdul Rahman apostasy case in Afghanistan and the whole "death to apostates" rule. There was a long response from a Muslim convert woman (not me!) about how we should look at hard it was to be a convert to Islam in the West, where people look at you funny and give you a hard time, especially if you're a woman wearing the hijab. "Waaah, I'm a victim! Feel sorry for me!" Fortunately, nobody was buying it, and even I wanted to barf; there's a big difference between being ostracized by your family (bad enough, granted) and being put under SENTENCE OF DEATH by the authorities for changing your religion. Too many of these people have no concept whatsoever of true suffering and repression.

If you read a lot of religious blog or sites, you won't have to scroll far before seeing endless comments about how "hard" it is to be religious today (yes, in America), how the mean secularist bullies won't just leave them alone and insist on shoving their unbelief in their faces, and all this crap. Yes, I know it can be difficult to live up to your faith these days, I admit it. I want to "understand," really I do, but you can only take so much of this whingeing before rolling your eyes and saying, "Get over it! This whining is undignified and pathetic, and makes you look like a five-year-old! The fact that the US government is not going to pay for vouchers for your parochial school or enact your religion's moral precepts into law does NOT mean that 'true Christians' such as yourself are destined to be forced back into the catacombs before long!"

End of rant...sorry.

150. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202101 by Layla Nasreddin on June 30, 2008 at 9:13 pm

I'm under the impression that the present "boom" in faith schools is the fault of Mr Tony Blair, who did so much to encourage them (using tax money, of course).

The idea of public (i.e. secular state) schools having an "act of collective worship" and that RE (religious education) is a REQUIRED subject is so totally foreign to me! Here in America, the only references to religion in the curriculum that I can remember were a few glancing references in history -- oops, "social studies" -- texts, which were quickly passed over without too much comment. (Admittedly, the schools I had the misfortune to attend were utter failures when it came to actually educating students in anything but sports, maybe, but never mind.) We don't want offend anybody, you know, or be seen as "promoting" a religion by spending extended amounts of time on it!