Showing posts with label atheists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheists. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Charlie Hebdo: "How the Hell Did I End Up Here?"

Charlie Hebdo on the Brussels attacks

Almost a year ago we reported that Charlie Hebdo announced that it would no longer draw cartoons of Muhammad. There has been much internal disagreement at the magazine about its direction following the horrific Muslim terror attack of January 7, 2015  and the resulting huge inflow of monies from donations, grants and increased sales.

The current state of he magazine is a topic for another post. But I want to reprint the lead editorial from the first edition to come out after the recent Brussels attacks. It's a rejection of the notion that the problem Europe faces is merely "extremism" or even "Islamic extremism." Instead, to quote the piece, we must ask the deeper question, "how the hell did we end up here?"

Some of you may be annoyed at the way the question is perhaps partially presented at the end, as secularism (good) versus religion (bad). It's a bunch of grumpy French atheists. What do you expect? But the larger points--about "moderate" Muslims, the obligations to think and speak, and what happens when we give those up so as not to offend or worse, out of fear--are spot on. And the piece frames it brilliantly: That harmless academic, that nice veiled woman, that pleasant baker--surely they are not my enemies? Surely it must be wrong to do or say anything that labels or stigmatizes or blames them? How the hell did we end up here, indeed.

A note on the cover. It features Stromae, a "multi-cultural" Belgian rap singer, whose biggest recent hit was “Papaoutai” (Papa, where are you?). Against a Belgian flag, multiple flying body parts declare "Here I am!" Is that sick? Of course. So was Paris, Brussels and Cologne. 

HOW DID WE END UP HERE?

Par Charlie Hebdo - 30/03/2016  
For a week now, experts of all kinds have been trying to understand the reasons for the attacks in Brussels. An incompetent police force? Unbridled multiculturalism? Youth unemployment? Uninhibited Islamism? The causes are numerous beyond counting and everyone will naturally choose the one that suits best their own convictions. Law and Order fans will denounce the haplessness of the police. Xenophobes will blame immigration. Sociologists will rehash the evils of colonialism. Urban-planners will point to the evils of ghettoisation. Take your pick. 
In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale. Our noses are endlessly rubbed in the rubble of Brussels airport and in the flickering candles amongst the bouquets of flowers on the pavements. All the while, no one notices what's going on in Saint-German-en-Laye. Last week, Sciences-Po* welcomed Tariq Ramadan. He's a teacher, so it's not inappropriate. He came to speak of his specialist subject, Islam, which is also his religion. Rather like lecture by a Professor of Pies who is also a pie-maker. Thus judge and contestant both. 
No matter, Tariq Ramadan has done nothing wrong. He will never do anything wrong. He lectures about Islam, he writes about Islam, he broadcasts about Islam. He puts himself forward as a man of dialogue, someone open to a debate. A debate about secularism which, according to him, needs to adapt itself to the new place taken by religion in Western democracy. A secularism and a democracy which must also accept those traditions imported by minority communities. Nothing bad in that. Tariq Ramadan is never going to grab a Kalashnikov with which to shoot journalists at an editorial meeting. Nor will he ever cook up a bomb to be used in an airport concourse. Others will be doing all that kind of stuff. It will not be his role. His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people from criticising his religion in any way. The political science students who listened to him last week will, once they have become journalists or local officials, not even dare to write nor say anything negative about Islam. The little dent in their secularism made that day will bear fruit in a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic. That is Tariq Ramadan's task. 
Take this veiled woman. She is an admirable woman. She is courageous and dignified, devoted to her family and her children. Why bother her? She harms no one. Even those women who wear the total, all-encompassing veil do not generally use their clothing to hide bombs (as certain people were claiming when the law to ban the burqa was being discussed). They too will do nothing wrong. So why go on whining about the wearing of the veil and pointing the finger of blame at these women? We should shut up, look elsewhere and move past all the street-insults and rumpus. The role of these women, even if they are unaware of it, does not go beyond this. 
The visible part of a very big iceberg. 
Take the local baker, who has just bought the nearby bakery and replaced the old, recently-retired guy, he makes good croissants. He's likeable and always has a ready smile for all his customers. He's completely integrated into the neighbourhood already. Neither his long beard nor the little prayer-bruise on his forehead (indicative of his great piety) bother his clientele. They are too busy lapping up his lunchtime sandwiches. Those he sells are fabulous, though from now on there's no more ham nor bacon. Which is no big deal because there are plenty of other options on offer - tuna, chicken and all the trimmings. So, it would be silly to grumble or kick up a fuss in that much-loved boulangerie. We'll get used to it easily enough. As Tariq Ramadan helpfully instructs us, we'll adapt. And thus the baker's role is done. 
Take this young delinquent. He has never looked at the Quran in his life, he knows little of the history of religion, of colonialism, nor a great deal about the proud country of his Maghreb forefathers. This lad and a couple of his buddies order a taxi. They are not erudite like Tariq Ramadan, they don't pray as often as the local baker and are not as observant as the redoubtable veiled mothers on the street. The taxi heads for Brussels airport. And still, in this precise moment, no one has done anything wrong. Not Tariq Ramadan, nor the ladies in burqas, not the baker and not even these idle young scamps. 
And yet, none of what is about to happen in the airport or metro of Brussels can really happen without everyone's contribution. Because the incidence of all of it is informed by some version of the same dread or fear. The fear of contradiction or objection. The aversion to causing controversy. The dread of being treated as an Islamophobe or being called racist. Really, a kind of terror. And that thing which is just about to happen when the taxi-ride ends is but a last step in a journey of rising anxiety. It's not easy to get some proper terrorism going without a preceding atmosphere of mute and general apprehension. 
These young terrorists have no need to amass the talents of others, to be erudite, dignified or hard-working. Their role is simply to provide the end of a philosophical line already begun. A line which tells us "Hold your tongues, living or dead. Give up discussing, debating, contradicting or contesting". 
This is not to victimise Islam particularly. For it has no opponent. It is not Christianity, Hinduism nor Judaism that is balked by the imposition of this silence. It is the opponent (and protector) of them all. It is the very notion of the secular. It is secularism which is being forced into retreat. 
Above all, in a sense, this stops us asking perhaps the world's oldest and most important question - "How the hell did I end up here?". "How the hell did I end up having to wander the streets all day with a big veil on my head?" "How the hell did I end up having to say prayers five times a day?" " How the hell did I end up in the back of a taxi with three rucksacks packed with explosives?" Perhaps, very sadly, the only people who are still asking themselves that most important of questions are the unlucky victims. "How the hell did I end up here, six yards away from that big bomb?" 
The first task of the guilty is to blame the innocent. It's an almost perfect inversion of culpability. From the bakery that forbids you to eat what you like, to the woman who forbids you to admit that you are troubled by her veil, we are submerged in guilt for permitting ourselves such thoughts. And that is where and when fear has started its sapping, undermining work. And the way is marked for all that will follow. 
* Sciences Po is an elite French public research and higher education institution.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

H.L. Mencken on the Traditional Mass


The two greatest American skeptics of a century or so ago--Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken--are famous for their anti-religious, anti-Christian and anti-Catholic posturing. Yet, in their I think sincere quest for righteousness and truth they were occasionally more reverent and spot on about religious things than many a faithful Catholic.

Twain penned one of the greatest biographies of Saint Joan of Arc. It has long been a feature of Catholic book clubs, and the otherwise cynical Twain counted it as his most important work.

Mencken defended the Traditional Mass.

I love Mencken. I own ten or so of his books, which is only about 3.5% (or whatever) of his output. Like Chesterton he was a journalist who wrote 10,000 words a day--most of them after three steins of beer and at least ten sausages.  When I am stranded on a desert island, I will finally read all of the Mencken and Chesterton that I own (if they wash up with me on shore). Or perhaps I will read them in Heaven.

Ignore Mencken's opinions on Nietzsche. He was wrong there. (It's a German thing and we're not supposed to understand.) And also ignore many of his wrong opinions on Christianity in general. But here he is on the Mass (from The Smart Set, 1923):
The Latin Church, which I constantly find myself admiring [!], despite its occasional astounding imbecilities [Ha!], has always kept clearly before it the fact that religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. It is accused by Protestant dervishes of withholding the Bible from the people. To some extent this is true; to some extent the church is wise; again to the same extent it is prosperous... 
Rome indeed has not only preserved the original poetry of Christianity; it has also made capital additions to that poetry -- for example, the poetry of the saints, of Mary, and of the liturgy itself. A solemn high mass is a thousand times as impressive, to a man with any genuine religious sense in him, as the most powerful sermon ever roared under the big top by Presbyterian auctioneer of God. In the face of such overwhelming beauty it is not necessary to belabor the faithful with logic; they are better convinced by letting them alone. 
Preaching is not an essential part of the Latin ceremonial. It was very little employed in the early church, and I am convinced that good effects would flow from abandoning it today, or, at all events, reducing it to a few sentences, more or less formal. In the United States the Latin brethren have been seduced by the example of the Protestants, who commonly transform an act of worship into a puerile intellectual exercise; instead of approaching God in fear and wonder these Protestants settle back in their pews, cross their legs, and listen to an ignoramus try to prove that he is a better theologian than the Pope. 
This folly the Romans now slide into. Their clergy begin to grow argumentative, doctrinaire, ridiculous. It is a pity. A bishop in his robes, playing his part in the solemn ceremonial of the mass, is a dignified spectacle; the same bishop, bawling against Darwin half an hour later, is seen to be simply an elderly Irishman with a bald head, the son of a respectable police sergeant in South Bend, Ind. Let the reverend fathers go back to Bach. If they keep on spoiling poetry and spouting ideas, the day will come when some extra-bombastic deacon will astound humanity and insult God by proposing to translate the liturgy into American, that all the faithful may be convinced by it.
I don't agree completely with the tenor of this. Catholicism has always been a religion of reason (though, Mencken would probably laugh at that) and it is a slander to say that it has withheld the Bible from the people. As well, of course, we should all bawl against Darwin.

But he gets much of it right. We go to the Altar of God to worship Him in awe, not to sell Him as a self-help scheme or, equally bad, pitch Him as a dippy hippy who likes to niggle us about sharing.

The creators of the New Mass designed a liturgy that was less than a puerile intellectual exercise. The New Mass is merely puerile, as childish as a camp meeting led by Mencken's caricature of a minister with sweaty shirtsleeves--but frumpier and not as charismatic.

If anything, it is the Modern Church that wants to keep the Bible from us, just as it wants to keep Christ from us.

Cupichism: the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be celebrating the Traditional Mass.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Population Control Quack Appointed to Pontifical Academy of Sciences

The earth could use six million billion fewer people

It was announced today that Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and advisor and presenter of the forthcoming Papal Encyclical on climate change, had been appointed to the 80-member Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican.


He's an atheist. More importantly, he's an utter quack, but I'm not going to argue for that here. You may believe it or not.

At the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Congress, Schellnhuber famously declared:  
In a very cynical way, (global warming) is a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.
That would take us back to about 1810. The good news is we could stay there forever.

The bad news is we would still have internet.

The above photo collage pairs Schellnhuber with Reinhard Heydrich, the high-ranking Nazi SS-member and self-styled Übermensch.

Is that pairing unfair?

Sure.

So is giving people stones when they ask for bread.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Third Atheist Blogger Hacked to Death by Muslim Assassins

Oyasiqur Rahman

Dhaka Bangladesh, 30 March 2015. Anti-Islam blogger Oyasiqur Rahman, 27, was attacked and killed by three-cleaver wielding men in broad daylight on a public street. He had been on his way to work and was just fifty feet from his home.

"Robbers are killing a man! Save Him!"

Bystanders raised the alarm and a number of people pursued the men, catching and holding two of them after a half-mile chase. News sources have described the quick-acting Samaritans as "hermaphrodites" or "transgendered persons" whose behavior contrasted with that of "locals" who were reluctant to get involved.   

The attackers immediately confessed to murdering Oyasiqur because of his anti-Islam views. They had been given their "assignment" the previous day by another man.

This is the third fatal machete or "cleaver" attack on atheist anti-Islam bloggers in the capital of Bangladesh. Ahmed Rajib Haider was killed in February, 2013 and just last month, visiting Bangladeshi-American writer Avijit Roy was killed after leaving a book conference. His wife Rafida Bonya Ahmedwere was also injured in the attack.

According to some reports the faces of Haider and Oyasiqur were so mangled as to be unrecognizable. 

"#I am Avijit"

After the murder of Roy, Oyasiqur changed his Facebook avatar to include the above on a plain background, adding on his profile,

"#WordsCannotBeKilled".

From The Daily Star (Dhaka) and the Dhaka Tribune.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Bill Maher: The Pope is Dead to Me Now




The more obvious title quote would have been a bit too much, even for me.

We're going to offer this without comment, except for noting one thing: why did it take an atheist to call attention to the at least superficially odd contrast between the Pope's recent words and the famous words of Jesus?

Full transcript:
(The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo) sold three million copies, with a certain prophet on the cover. I'm not going to say which one. 
You know, it took us ten years to rebuild the World Trade Center. France went back to insulting people like that. 
But not everyone agrees. The Pope...this is so sad, I was starting to really like this pope. He's dead to me now. (Pause) oh yeah, f**k the Pope. 
Well, look, George Bush said it--you're either with us or against us. Okay. Apparently the Pope is not with us because he came down on the side of the bad guys. He said, you cannot provoke. You cannot insult someone's faith. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. I guess he doesn't get HBO.  
And then mimic punching someone in the face (Marr mimics punching someone in the face). He pointed to his aid, and he said, you know what, if Luigi here...or Giuseppe, whatever his name is (it was Alberto -ed.)... made fun of my mother, pow! (Maher mimics another punch.) 
Yes, just like Jesus said. I think it was in Galatians 13* when Jesus said, turn the other cheek...into my fist, you f*cking mook!
*It was actually Matthew 5:29 and Luke 6:29.