Atheists and Atheism

As if the misconceptions about atheists and atheism weren't already pervasive, the Straits Times published a forum letter today muddying the already cloudy waters.

As per my modus operandi, I shall go through this letter point by point. Let's begin.

Despite what he suggests, there is no conclusive definition of atheism.

Some, like neuroscientist Sam Harris, would agree with him. Others, however, define atheism as a belief, as philosopher Michael Martin has done in his book The Cambridge Companion To Atheism.

Oh? An atheist philosopher who doesn't notice the different subclasses of atheism and tars all atheists as strong atheists?

Well, according to the University of Cambridge's site, Investigating Atheism, which cites Dr Michael Martin's book referenced in the forum letter, it says:

Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief. For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God. This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism.

So, no. Atheism is acknowledged to be, at minimum, referring to the "lack of theistic belief". And the assertion of the claim contrary to theism is known as strong atheism or positive atheism.

Seems like we're off to a bad start.

Despite the lack of a conclusive definition, the more commonly accepted definition is the one used by Pastor Lawrence Khong ("'I told the minister to send me to jail'"; Sept 7), namely, that atheism is a belief system.

Even disregarding the confusion between atheism and strong atheism, a single belief is NOT a belief system. This is just wrong. Period.

There are cogent reasons why atheism should be treated as such.

Treat atheism as a belief system even though it isn't? This should be interesting. Go on.

First, as a society, we need to be open about what we believe in and why we believe it, rather than hide behind labels.

Firstly, "atheism" and "atheist" are accurate labels to describe someone who doesn't hold theistic beliefs. It is open and honest to state so.

Secondly, hide what? Oh, he's about to tell us.

It is not enough to describe. A person who describes himself as an atheist should be expected to give a rational defence of his belief. An absence of belief is still a belief.

Just as we expect religious believers to substantiate their claims, we should expect the same standards of proof from atheists.

Ah. Wrong.

The burden of proof is always on the claimant. In this case, the claim is theism - that there is some god(s). Failing to prove/demonstrate the claim means that any one is justified in simply rejecting the claim.

When you make an outrageous claim, I don't ever need to prove my case in order to disbelieve yours.

This applies to strong atheists who assert that god(s) do not exist, of course. However, weak atheists, who make no such claim, have no such burden.

This leads to the second point - atheism as a belief system allows for discourse with other belief systems and permits a meaningful exchange in world views, something especially important in a pluralistic society like Singapore.

This can be done already.

However, one should note that atheism is NOT the worldview of atheists. Atheism is a single position on a single claim. Indeed, for humanists and skeptics, atheism is merely a conclusion, not their dogma.

If we are to mature as a society, then no assertions ought to be immune from scrutiny in the public sphere. Everyone should be mutually obligated to explain their belief systems from which they challenge other belief systems.

And the unforunate error carries over throughout the letter.

Again. Only strong atheism makes a positive assertion. Weak atheists (ie, most atheists) make no such assertion.

Ultimately, the definition of atheism is contextual and dependent on how the person is using that term.

Yes. But not in the way you explained so far. Most people simply aren't familiar with the terms, as you were.

Lawrence Khong, whom you attempted defence for, most definitely had no clue what atheism is let alone the nuances of the term.

Mr Tobin's letter should not be construed as defining what atheism really means, especially when even atheists themselves cannot agree on a single definition of atheism.

Actually, Mr Tobin was providing THE single definition of atheism that covers ALL atheists. Afterall, if you don't reject theism, you would be a shitty atheist.

There. Ugh.

Replying to Singaporean Creationists

4 days ago, a creationist letter was published in the Voices section of TODAY. I was going to write a blog post for it but it was literally rehashing common creationist misconceptions of evolution -- boring shit.

The letter is: Creationism still part of the evolution debate -- reposted in full below (since I don't know if TODAY's online articles stays online).

I refer to the commentary "Theory of evolution in crisis - and it's a good thing" (Sept 7). There are problems with the idea that creationism has never posed an intellectual challenge to evolutionary thinking.

First, creationists do not pose a threat to scientific thinking. The founders of modern science and many modern scientists are creationists who study an orderly, non-random universe.

Dr Marc Kirschner of Harvard Medical School has remarked that almost all of biology over the last 100 years has proceeded independent of evolution.

In fact, evolution hinders medical discovery. The writer himself highlighted the crisis in traditional evolutionary thinking, which has been so dogmatic as to not even consider creationism as a viable option.

Whilst science comprises experimental and historical types, the issue of beginnings and the past falls within the latter and should not be accorded the same authority as the former.

Natural selection and mutation do not equate to evolution.

The former is a principle also recognised by creationists. It might explain the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. One cannot modify a Mr Potato Head into a GI Joe.

How do genes "move" in sexual reproduction in higher animals? Do we presume that once moved, they can just be "absorbed"?

Does the recipient genome have the machinery or resources to process the "absorbed" gene?

The idea of two bacteria forming the first eukaryotic cell (the more complex cell type found in multicellular animals) is speculation.

There are many questions for evolutionists:

How did life originate? Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment, with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed long age of the universe, not one average-sized functional protein would have formed.

So how did bacteria form? How did the DNA code, biochemical pathways, multicellular life and gender all originate?

There are more fundamental questions: From where do natural laws come? From where does logic come? These are non-material stuff but often taken for granted.

A quick summary of the letter (in paragraphs): introduction; trivial; quote-mine; false, projection; false; misconception; expression of incredulity; expression of lack of study; expression of lack of study; lack of understanding of scientific terms; creationist "probabilities"; expression of lack of study; irrelevant, logic fail.


Fortunately, two awesome letters have been published in response to the truckload of "creationism".

One from the fine professors of our NTU School of Biological Sciences: Profs respond to debate on evolution, creationism

The letter "Creationism still part of the evolution debate" (Sept 28) reproduces some misunderstandings of the theory of evolution. Some fundamentals should be emphasised for the record.

The evolution of new species from pre-existing species is recognised as a fact, not a conjecture, by a great many scientists due to abundant, robust and mutually supporting evidence from multiple fields of science, and the absence of findings to the contrary.

We use the term "theory" in the scientific sense: We are certain that evolution has generated all life on Earth.

Our current inability to explain every detail of its processes does not disprove evolution, just as gravity cannot be denied despite an inability to explain fully how it works.

Disagreements on these details do not imply that the theory is shaky. To the contrary, disagreement between scientists in any field is the norm, the necessary outcome of vigorous inquiry and an impetus to refine our knowledge through further investigation.

For the broader review this question deserves, we refer interested readers to Science and Creationism, and Science, Evolution and Creationism from the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies in the United States.

Both documents are free for downloading. We also recommend the book Why Evolution is True, the related blog by Professor Jerry A Coyne and many other books on the subject.

That addressed mostly the lack of understanding for scientific method, terms and process.

Thank you professors.

The other letter is from the Humanist Society (Singapore): Creationism yet to earn intellectual spurs

We refer to Dr Luke Tan's letter "Creationism still part of the evolution debate" (Sept 28). Several Humanist Society (Singapore) members read with alarm Dr Tan's claims about evolution, and creationism as its intellectual challenge in modern biology.

Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. So, it was surprising to read the assertion that Harvard Medical School's Mark Kirschner claimed that evolution had played only a minor role in the last 100 years of biology.

We contacted Dr Kirschner for verification and, as it turned out, his quote, taken from a Boston Globe article in 2005, was a lament that evolution has not been a more integral part of biology. Also, he noted that "broadening the inquiry into evolution beyond natural history and population genetics only adds more evidence for evolution and explains more of the mechanistic transitions".

"We thought of that because the molecular, cellular and developmental insights very much increase our appreciation and confidence in evolution."

While Dr Tan's letter rehashes several misconceptions, there is no scientific debate over evolution's validity. The wealth of experimental and observational evidence in its favour is astounding; the only objections to evolution are theological.

The theory of evolution accounts for the origins of species, not life, as he implied. To claim evolutionary biologists have been dogmatically rejecting creationism as a viable option is to suggest creationists have been putting forth viable evidence to no avail.

There is no international conspiracy spanning two centuries; there is just no evidence. The theory of evolution is part of an experimental science: Biology. The experimental-historical boundary that he perceived is artificial.

Even if the theory of evolution is overturned, however unlikely that may be, creationism will not become the default explanation for the origin of species. It must earn the title of intellectual challenger on its evidential merits.

HSS' letter addresses the quote mined statement of  Dr Kirschner and directly points out that creationism does not contribute to our knowledge AT ALL even if the theory evolution is false.

For those who are actually interested in learning, here's my recommendations.

Berkeley has some resources on Evolution 101 and the Scientific Method.

If you like textbooks, there are 3 sample chapters from Mark Ridley's Evolution available online

And if you're a creationist who got most/all of your information from church, I don't know how to put it nicely... you've probably been thoroughly misinformed. In which case, do watch this playlist of AronRa's videos. I can assure you this does not attack the belief in god -- it only attacks the lies that some unscrupulous men of god like to tell.

If videos ain't your thing, do check out TalkOrigins' Index of Creationist Claims. If you heard it from creationists, it's there. They also have a couple of other pages worth seeing.

Stay smart. Be well informed.

Pulling Jesus out of FHM

In an act of deference to religious hypersensitivity, FHM Singapore is pulling its latest issue off the shelves because of two articles that were described as "highly objectionable and deplorable" by the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS).

TODAYonline reports in the article "FHM pulled off selves, editor apologises":

SINGAPORE - The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) has sharply criticised two articles published in the latest edition of FHM Singapore, describing them as "highly objectionable and deplorable". The criticism prompted an immediate apology from the senior editor of the men's magazine and the removal of the publication from newsstands islandwide.

In a statement yesterday, the council, which represents more than 150 churches across denominations, said the articles "make fun of the Lord Jesus Christ". The statement, signed by NCCS president Bishop Dr Robert Solomon and its three vice-presidents, added: "These articles appear during the holy season of Lent when Christians remember the sufferings and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and they cause serious offence and hurt the sensitivities of the Christian community."

The NCCS also urged the authorities to "look into the matter and ensure the material in question is removed", adding that "such offensive articles threaten the religious harmony that we work so hard to build and maintain".

Noting that it has become "fashionable" to depict religions in the media in ways that are offensive to religious communities, the council urged that "society must be on guard against such trends". FHM Singapore is a title produced by MediaCorp Publishing. The articles in question were entitled "Which of These Celebs Might Secretly be Jesus?" and "Jesus 2.0: What can we expect?".

When contacted, FHM Singapore senior editor David Fuhrmann-Lim said: "We would like to apologise for any offence caused ... We are always sensitive to people's religions and beliefs, and while the article was written with a tongue-in-cheek humour, we do realise now it was not done in the best taste or judgment. We will certainly be more mindful of such sensitive issues in the future."

"Furthermore, we will immediately remove all copies on sale in the newsstands; this process should be completed in the next two days," he added.

When contacted, a spokesperson for the industry regulator Media Development Authority said: "We are investigating this complaint for a possible breach of our content guidelines for publications."

Let's see what do we have here. We have religious hypersensitivity being used to justify censorship. We have religious folk who don't differentiate between humor and malice. We have a business kowtowing to religious bullies. We have the same meaningless "FOR religious harmony!" rhetoric being employed. We have the authorities being invoked to possibly penalize the expression of unpopular speech.

On a side note, why are these good Christian folks reading FHM? Oh wait. My bad. All their sins are forgiven so what would a little lusting hurt anyways. Duh.

Back to the topic; There's really not much left to talk about. This nonsense is small compared to the bigger nonsense that is our social-legal environment here. Religions are accorded undue respect and influence on our freedom of speech here in Singapore. There is no reason why such humor should be censored because some religious folks are "offended" that not everyone has nice things to say about their sacred stuff.

Imagine if the Prophet Muhammad was depicted instead. Given the climate in Singapore, I'll be surprised if no one was prosecuted under the Sedition Act. Yet, it should be allowed just as FHM shouldn't be censored. But then again, the authorities would simply give in to religious pressure because those religious folks might riot over such inane offense.

Singapore. Where we wuss out to religious hypersensitivity.

Atheist AND Agnostic

Apparently, Ricard Dawkins admitting that he is agnostic is news. Holy crap, who knew? [/sarcasm]

The Daily Mail Online has this breathtakingly stupid article titled: "'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic"

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This is NOT news. Not especially when the same book, The God Delusion, that propelled Prof. Dawkins to becoming the "world's most nototrious atheist" also has him describing himself as a 6.9 atheist on his own scale. So if anybody was stunned then it's obvious none of them knew what Prof. Dawkins actually said about himself.


So let's go over the distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism that I've gone over before.

Theism and Atheism: Theists believe the claim that there is/are god(s) and an atheist rejects the claim. A gnostic has knowledge of god(s) and an agnostic has no such knowledge.

These 2 definitions permit for 4 permutations: gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist.

Check out Wikipedia articles on Atheism and Agnosticism

Weak & Strong Atheism & Agnosticism: The atheist and agnostic can be distinguished further between weak and strong versions.

A weak atheist only rejects the theistic claim of the existence of god(s) while a strong atheist not only rejects but also makes a positive claim of the non-existence of god(s).

A strong agnostic holds the view that the knowledge about the existence of non-existence of god(s) is unobtainable. A weak agnostic holds the view that such knowledge have not been acquired but still possible to acquire.


These sub categories allow for what is the position of most atheists: weak agnostic weak atheist (the agnostic atheist). In general, atheists who ask for scientifically valid evidence for the existence of god(s) holds that position. Science do not have absolute knowledge; a position based on scientific evidence do not permit the strong position for either atheism or agnosticism.

This is also what Prof. Dawkins has indicated is his position. He does not absolutely know there are no gods (weak agnosticism) and he believes the evidence does not support the claim that there are god(s) (weak atheism).

Referring to the scale used in the God Delusion, Prof. Dawkins melts the two scales together. This gives a skewed scale where only the two extreme ends (1 and 7) are the strong positions for theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. The middle (4) is the agnostic who knows shit about probabilities. And everywhere in between is the weak positions. Prof Dawkins indicates that he's a 6.9 which means he's an agnostic atheist with such confidence that he borders on holding the strong position.

What's so damn new about that?

NUS Crusaders' Not-pology

Just a day after a photo of its poster spread virally over the social networks, the NUS Campus Crusade for Christ took the posters down and issued an apology. The Straits Times online article reports:

A Christian student group at the National University of Singapore (NUS) apologised on Thursday for making insensitive remarks about Buddhists and Muslims.

The NUS Campus Crusade for Christ, made up of 80 to 100 students, posted an apology on its Facebook page for remarks made on its website and on posters it put up on campus benches on Wednesday.

The university also apologised on Thursday. The Ministry of Home Affairs, which is looking into the incident, said that while people are free to propagate their religion, it should not be done by insulting or denigrating other religions.

The Christian group's posters promoting a mission trip to Thailand said that the country, known as The Land of Smiles, was actually 'a place of little true joy'.

The NUS Campus Crusade for Christ has the following apology on their Facebook wall:

Dear Netizens,

We humbly apologize for the distress we have caused you through the poster of ours that has gone viral online. We recognize that our choice of words used should have been more sensitive and tactful. We acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and it is definitely not our intention to force anyone to believe in what we do.

We have since removed our posters and websites, and will be watchful of future actions. Thank you for your understanding and our deepest apologies again for the distress that this incident has caused you.

With sincere apologies,
On behalf of NUS Campus Crusade

What's the poster that caused this explosion of attention on intolerant/bigoted ideas? You can check it out here at YawningBread where there is too an article on this incident.

Now back to the apology. Notice the statement "We recognize that our choice of words used should have been more sensitive and tactful."? There is not an apology for the bigoted idea expressed in the poster. Rather it's apologizing for the tactless way in which it was phrased. Sweet, huh?

Yet, I would consider it typical or, at least, logical that a Christian would endorse the poster. After all, if you sincerely believe that your religion is the ONE TRUE religion and that you can only experience TRUE happiness by following that religion, then that IS what you would say to non-believers of your religion. To  do otherwise would be being inconsistent.

But the thing is, it is a bigoted idea. So there you have all the other religionists jumping in to say that that is intolerant, insensitive or plain wrong. Liberal Christians jump in to say essentially "that's not what our religion is about".

Some people stated that freedom of religion allows for such offensive speech. Others say that religion or not, bigoted ideas are a no-no.

So how does this resolve in Singapore? Combine the two. You have the freedom to have those beliefs but you cannot express them (lest you cause a fracking riot or something).

That is why I have said before: Religious harmony in Singapore is not religions running happily through the green meadows but an uneasy roundtable where a wrong move by any one religion triggers a free for all; "Harmony" is a euphemism for begrudging tolerance here.

The former is what I suspect most people want (but I contend is impossible) but the latter is what Singapore produces. And that is unhealthy for our society -- we're simply waiting for disaster.

Equating Strong with Weak

It is almost as if it is a trend to accuse atheists of strong atheism despite repeated clarification that we generally espoused weak atheism. And I'm not talking about religious fundamentalists -- it's moderates and even freaking "agnostics".

An article by a "Christian agnostic", titled "Atheism: Null Hypothesis on God", makes a similar point. He didn't point fingers but makes a rather explicit indication that the atheists currently in the public forum are strong atheists and that they should be weak atheists if they're reasonable.

The article has the typical misunderstanding of what atheism and agnosticism is.

And that's why I struggle to understand atheism.

Etymologically, atheism has similar Greek roots to agnosticism, coming from the words "a-theos" which means "no God" or "without God." This implies the same kind of certitude that a religious fundamentalist might claim is arguing they "know without any doubt that God exists." Based on what? Either of you? There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Especially when we can't even nail down what exactly it is we're talking about.

Firstly, screw the etymology. That is beside the point. I've seen rather pointless arguments over whether "atheism" means "without belief in gods" or "belief in no gods" when the actual point is whether the atheist is or is not a strong atheist.

Secondly, the common usage of the word "atheism" by atheists who use the label is weak atheism. That is "without belief in god". It is not an assertion that gods do not exist but a rejection of theism.

Third. I am pretty sure that if he have indeed talked to atheists, most would be quite okay, or even happy, to admit that their position is not held with absolute certainty (unlike religious fundamentalists).

Fourth. Disproving god can be done if the said entity explicitly contradicts with observed reality or is logically contradictory.

Fifth. Using vague ass definition of god to argue the case is kinda dishonest. With close to half of the American population subscribing to some form of creationism and a portion of those believing in a god who poofs all of existence into existence with incantations, I don't know what "nailing down" the author is talking about. The nutjobs' gods? We can nail down and dead actually -- they are the most pressing problem we're dealing with.

Now, I'm not a scientist, but it makes perfect sense within this model to have the "null hypothesis" that God doesn't exist.

However, to leap from that to certitude of God's non-existence is to violate the principles of the scientific method, isn't it?

Oh look. Weak atheism is philosophically tenable and strong atheism is too unreasonable.

Gee. Who knew? Fucking old news.

It seems to me, to paraphrase Paul (like Huxley), that we risk becoming that which we hate in staking claims of certainty on either side of this issue. In pushing back primarily against religious fundamentalism, atheism risks embracing the very fundamentalism it resists. And in doing so, it abandons the very principles of science it claims as the basis for non-belief.

......

I don't know if God exists. You don't know if God doesn't exist. But if scientists can not only coexist on both sides of a hypothesis, but even use that difference to promote progress, it seems we can and should apply similar principles to the public forum.

Is he completely in the dark that atheists generally espouse weak atheism? Or is that an implicit accusation that atheists shouldn't be strong atheists (because he thinks we currently are)?

Either way, that sounds like a very uninformed piece trying to sound educated. Ughhh...

Indonesian beaten and faces jail for his atheism

Once again, bigots in Indonesia and its government are exercising their religious intolerance. An Indonesian civil servant, who created a Facebook page where he discusses his disbelief with other like minded people, was beaten by a mob for posting "God doesn't exist" and now faces jail for "blasphemy".

MSNBC reports:

PADANG, Indonesia -- A 30-year-old Indonesian civil servant who was viciously attacked by a mob after posting on Facebook that "God doesn't exist" is now threatened with jail time for blasphemy.

“He has triggered unrest among local residents," Dharmasraya Police Chief Chairul Aziz told The Jakarta Post on Friday.

The man, identified as Alexander, was arrested Friday on charges of blasphemy for his writings on his Facebook page. He had created a Facebook fan page titled Ateis Minang (Minang Atheist) and gained more than 1,238 Facebook "likes" before it was taken down from the social network site, according to the Post.

On his page, Alexander wrote about his Muslim upbringing, how he didn't believe in angels, demons, heaven or hell and how he stopped practicing his faith in 2008, according to media reports. He posted comments regarding the Islamic faith, including "God doesn't exist" and "If God exists, why do bad things happen? There should only be good things if God is merciful."
advertisement

Aziz said Indonesia's Council of Ulema, the ruling Islamic authority, charged Alexander with defiling Islam by using passages from the Quran to denounce God, The Telegraph reported on Friday.

If convicted of blasphemy, Alexander could face up to five years in prison.

Dozens of residents in his hometown in Pulau Punjung, West Sumatra province, stormed into Alexander's office on Wednesday and carried on their heated debate over religion, police said. Alexander was beaten, including by some of his colleagues.

Dharmasraya Regent Adi Gunawan told the Jakarta Post Alexander he has not taken any action to remove the man from his job on the planning board.

“I will await the legal process and decide later about his employment status,” Adi told the newspaper.

Firstly, this demonstrates one of the reasons for needing a separation of church (in this case, mosque) and state. There should be no laws that discriminate against religious or non-religious persons. The "blasphemy" law is utter nonsense -- an infringement on basic freedom of speech -- wherein blaspheming literally harms no one.

Secondly, this also shows that those bigots worship a little god. Their version of Allah is so helpless that its followers must intervene on his behalf to punish persons who dare use their brain in a skeptical manner. Blasphemy laws do not demonstrate a glorious deity -- they demonstrate a little vain one.

Thirdly, the fact that a mob actually bashed a civil servant for expressing his disbelief on an FB page for atheists is just ludicrous. The intolerance, while expected from a country like Indonesia, is still nonetheless breathtaking. Actually, I'm using the word wrong: It's not intolerance, it's discrimination. Beating someone and legally imprisoning someone for differences in opinion is active discrimination.

This is yet another demonstration why atheists will not ever settle for silence again.

There is NO god. Grow up.

Seriously MOE? Abstinence?

At the time of writing, the following two news articles reported the Ministry of Education's drafting of a revised Sexuality Education Programme (SEP):

From Yahoo! News (SG)
A new focus on sexual abstinence

The Ministry of Education (MOE) has drafted a revised Sexuality Education Programme (SEP) to boost emphasis on abstinence over contraception, reported The New Paper (TNP).

The new programme, Breaking Down Bridges (BDB), will be taught to Secondary 3, first-year junior college and centralised institute students, said the paper.

TNP also reported that the old programme faced some criticism from some Catholics due to the emphasis on using contraception, and the lack of awareness given to abstaining from sex. While it understands from MOE that the new programme will be ready in 2012, no details have yet been confirmed.

An MOE spokesperson told TNP that the revamp is part of its "periodic review" of the SEP curriculum to "ensure that it is updated and relevant" to students.

Parents of students in Catholic schools in Singapore welcomed the change to the programme.

Yahoo! Singapore spoke to Marilyn Koh, 47, a Catholic whose son attends a Catholic school, "I'm really looking forward to MOE changing their focus on the SEP. I was not very comfortable with the previous curriculum as it was not catered to Catholic teachings."

Francis Chan, who also has a son in a Catholic school, agreed with the change, "It's a lot more appropriate for Catholic schools to be teaching the children to abstain from sex, instead of promoting contraception. I'm perfectly fine with the current programme running in a secular school, but Catholic schools should be imparting Catholic values, right?"

And,

Online article by The New Paper
Sex-ed revision sparks questions

CONTRACEPTION may have to give some way to abstinence in a revised version of a Sexuality Education Programme (SEP) here.

The New Paper understands that a draft of this revised SEP for all schools here has already been drawn up – and that the 30 or more Catholic Schools here should find fewer issues with it.

Some communities find sections of the current programme overly promote the use of contraception, and lack emphasis on abstinence.

They are especially offended by a video showing how a condom should be used.

Others, however, are concerned about what the refreshed programme will entail.

The articles are not clear about what is meant by "boost emphasis on abstinence over contraception" and "contraception may have to give some way to abstinence". Is MOE adding some emphasis to sexual abstinence, reallocating emphasis to abstinence away from contraception or actually going for the "abstinence only" nonsense?

Secondly, why is Catholicism explicitly brought up in the articles? Again, is MOE placing additional weight on the "moral teachings" of Catholics over the well being of ALL students? No religion should hold sway over the secular (sexual or otherwise) education of students through their own religious teaching. There should be no sectarian bias in any of MOE's education programmes

Another point: Shouldn't sexual education be primarily decided by the Health Promotion Board instead? I'd think that sex ed. should be taught based on the science and data instead of religious "morals".

So, MOE, whatcha doing actually?

Farewell, Hitchens

Farewell, Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

Here's a video (by TheThinkingAtheist) in memory of Hitchens.

Religious harm (in the news)

I haven't writing any articles lately. Frankly, it's because there's not that much to write about when all of religion can be defeated with "Where is your fucking evidence?" (PS: "You must have FAITH!" is not a valid response.)

One other thing that is frequently propped up to save their religion is how much good it does. And if they want to play the weighing game, let's look at all the unnecessary harm attributable or contributed by religious idiocy. We don't have to look far at all. Just look at this past week-or-so's news -- we'll start with today.


Dec 2, 2011 -- Afghan rape victim freed from jail, to marry attacker

The Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered the release of a woman who was jailed for adultery after being raped -- but she now faces having to marry her attacker, officials said.

The move came after some 5,000 people signed a petition for the release of the woman, named Gulnaz, who has served two years in prison after a relative raped her at her home. She has been raising the child she had by her attacker in a prison cell in Kabul.

......But the officials also said that Gulnaz should marry the man who attacked her, due to fears she could be in danger if released because of the stigma surrounding her attack in Afghanistan.

She consented to the union, Faizi said.

"She agreed to the marriage but only if his (the attacker's) sister marries Gulnaz's brother," the spokesman added, explaining that this was a way to try and ensure Gulnaz was not attacked by the man in future.

Raped. Imprisoned for "adultery". Bore a child from the rape. Released to marry your rapist. Had to have the caveat that your rapist's sister be married to your brother to protect yourself from probable attacks in the future.

That is one very very sad state of affairs ENTIRELY brought about by Shariah law and a society soaked in Islam.


Nov 28, 2011 -- Egypt police: Killing sparks sectarian clash

Police say that a Muslim has been killed by a Christian in southern Egypt, sparking a sectarian clash, and the military has intervened to stop the violence.

......The director of security for the province of Sohag, Gen. Abdel al-Aziz al-Nahas, said the village of al-Ghureizat was under a police and army cordon Monday night following the death of a Muslim earlier in a fight with his neighbor. The conflict was about the building of a wall.

A sectarian clash over a murder over a conflict about building a wall. The divisive nature of religion really shines through this one.


Nov 27, 2011 -- 4 dead, churches burned in north Nigeria attack

Witnesses and authorities say at least four people died in an apparent attack on a northeast Nigeria city that saw churches and businesses burned to the ground.

......Witnesses say attackers blew up a local police station and attacked a bank, as well as set fire to businesses and at least eight churches.

More tribalistic behavior attributable to religious division.


Nov 26, 2011 -- Pope says all society, not just church, must be held to same standards against sex abuse

Pope Benedict XVI said all society must be held to the same standards against sexual child abuse and defended the Catholic church’s response in handling the series of child abuse scandals that have marred their institution starting in the 1980s.

Benedict made the statement on Saturday at the Vatican in remarks to visiting US bishops, insisting the “scourge” of pedophilia is a problem for every institution, the Associated Press reported.

Dear Pope, the rest of society has been held to higher standards compared to your church. We don't hide our pedophiles and send them off to other locations to rape more kids -- you DO. Now fuck off the moral high ground you stole.


Nov 25, 2011 -- Churches told dying patients they were cured

At least six people have died in Britain after being told that they had been healed of HIV, and could stop taking their medication.

There is evidence that evangelical churches in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow are claiming to cure HIV through God.

We sent three undercover reporters into the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN) , which is based in Southwark, south London.

All of them told the pastors that they were HIV positive. All were told that they could be healed.

Christians performing subtle genocide against HIV patients amongst their own. That's some crazy shit there. What can I say? Faith is glorified ignorance and ignorance can kill.


Nov 24, 2011 -- Christian-Muslim clashes Nigeria kill at least 12

Clashes between Muslim and Christian ethnic groups in central Nigeria have killed at least 12 people and left "enormous" destruction, including houses burned, officials said on Thursday.

......A resident who did not want to be named said churches and an Islamic school were also burned.

......The clashes appeared to result from reprisals carried out over killings that had occurred several days ago.

......The area has been caught in a deadly cycle of attacks and reprisals that have regularly flared up for years.

Beroms and other mainly Christian ethnic groups are viewed as the indigenes in the area, while Hausa-Fulani Muslims are seen as the more recent "settlers" despite the fact that many have been there for decades.

Policies that favour indigenous groups when it comes to such issues as patronage and jobs have created animosity.

In turn, Beroms fear that Hausas -- a much larger ethnic group throughout Nigeria as a whole -- will eventually be allowed to dominate an area they see as their own.

Many say the crisis has been fueled by politicians in a local struggle for political and economic gain, but religious sentiments are increasingly being stirred as well.

Years of violence over arbitrarily defined division along religious lines. Again, tribal behavior facilitated by religious division.


Religion -- Creating unnecessary problems since conception.

Catholic Church trafficking babies in Spain

The headline says it all and it reads: 300,000 babies stolen from their parents - and sold for adoption: Haunting BBC documentary exposes 50-year scandal of baby trafficking by the Catholic church in Spain

I don't have a lot to comment on this. On some level, it's almost expected.

Spreading AIDS in Africa. Child rape and cover-up. And now, there's baby trafficking on the list of shit that the Catholic Church peddle. Granted it's just the Catholic Church in Spain and not the Pope's Vatican, the atrocity is still substantially religiously motivated and facilitated.

This is yet another example of how organized religion can conduct immoral actions with efficiency through its organized structure and be cloaked by inculcating a false veil of moral superiority.

Steve Jobs needn't have died young

It has come to my attention that the recent death of Steve Jobs was very probably premature and I'm not speaking from an emotional point of view. He may have survived his cancer had he gotten treatment right away but... he did not.

Here is a link to an article written on the subject by the Daily Beast: Job's Unorthodox Treatment. And here is a ScienceBlogs entry about the same topic: Steve Jobs, neuroendocrine tumors and alternative treatment.

Of course, we cannot be absolutely sure that he would have survived had he undertook immediate medical treatment but 9 months is very significant if his cancer was indeed aggressive. Aggressive or not, it seems clear that he would probably live much longer if those 9 months haven't been wasted on "alternative medicine".

I feel dirty for using the word "medicine" in the phrase "alternative medicine". "Alternative medicine" is not medicine -- if it worked, it wouldn't be an "alternative" at all.

I didn't write this entry to dump on Steve Jobs for making that bad decision but to bring to light what an unnecessary tragedy this is. It's a pretty good bet that he could have stuck around longer if he had known better.

The blame is on society and educators. We failed. We failed to equip laypeople with the knowledge and skills to fend off unevidenced beliefs. And in this case, unevidenced beliefs has cut a brilliant man's life short. There are many more people out there who are now on the same path because they too have succumbed to pseudoscience and magical thinking.

But you can help. Educating yourself on such areas of knowledge would be most helpful -- admittedly however, most people either do not have the time or is not bothered by such.

Well, it's time to be bothered. The next time someone talks about astrology as if it was true, give it to them, wake them up. Someone wants to waste money on homeopathy? Give him some education. Whatever the pseudoscience or superstition, be bothered, be very bothered and let them know that it is wrong.

Some tragedies need not happen. Don't let it slide.

Open, tolerant and respectful

I am guessing that most Singaporeans should have noticed that when it comes to racial or religious harmony, our government always reiterates the same points with the same rhetoric all the time. Don't get me wrong; I do agree that we should maintain racial/religious harmony -- that's not the issue here.

What gets on my nerves is how vague they are every single time that I've seen it. It's always the same vague language, imploring that we should be open, tolerant and respectful of other beliefs. Okay, good. What does that mean?

What is being open?

To be open is to be ready to entertain new ideas. And here in Singapore, I never really thought that this was an issue at all (so far).

What about being tolerant?

To be tolerant something is to permit and endure its existence. Again, I, for one, have no issue with this. I am not, and I hope nobody else is, going to prohibit religion or irreligion in general.

Then what about being respectful?

To show deference to a right. Sure, people have the right to have or not have religious beliefs -- that's fine.

What then is the issue here?

Wait, there's another commonly used meaning for respect I'm forgetting -- to hold in esteem or honor. That? HELL, NO.

Now, think of the common thread that holds this 3 terms together. For non-believers on the internet, I'm pretty sure you might have guessed it -- Criticism of religious doctrines and practices.

In the eyes of (some of) the religious and squishy liberals, simply criticizing religious doctrines and practices is equated to being close-minded, intolerant and disrespectful. Guess what? They're wrong. One can be open, tolerant and respectful of religious beliefs without silencing all opposing ideas (ie, criticism).

I will entertain your beliefs, respect your right to hold them, tolerate your practices AND tell you what I find disagreeable. But the last part is what seems to get their goat. And that appears to me, what they wish to achieve with the usual rhetoric.

When tensions between religions (and the irreligious) mount around the globe, the rhetoric is used to quell any tension that might be building here in Singapore. In this case, it might have been the tension between the freethought community and the religious in the USA and Europe.

It becomes ironic when you consider what happens when religious conflicts do escalate. It ends with one religious faction making a hell of a fuss by rioting. So essentially, I cannot criticize you because you might lose your sanity and kill people -- and this is supposed to be acceptable?

For example, if a riot broke out because a group of people were unhappy with the government's decision, those people are insurgents. But if a riot broke up because a group of people were unhappy because they were presented facts about their religion, those people are good citizens who should be protected from information? Bite me.

I genuinely hope the that is not the position the government is holding and is possibly using that same old rhetoric about religious harmony for more benign reasons.

To summarize, my position is that, I will defend your right to believe in nonsense so long as you do not deny my right to call it nonsense.

Answers to three questions for humanists

On the online Straits Times Forum, two letters were posted in response to the news article on (Secular) Humanist Society. The following is a response to one of them, titled: "Three questions for humanists" The online story can be found here.

Three questions for humanists

MR PAUL Tobin rightly observes that one does not need to believe in God in order to be good ("'I've no God - and am proud of it'"; last Saturday).

We know this from our interactions with friends and relatives, and from news of prominent people in public life. And we need only look at history, past and contemporary, to observe how much harm religion can do.

Nevertheless, I do have a few issues with humanists.

And I'll try to address them.

First, Ms Catherine Lim says she prefers to have faith rather than a faith. But the two are not mutually exclusive. "A faith" refers to an organised religion. One can believe in God (or gods) without belonging to an organised religion. Until not so long ago, the secretary of the British Humanist Association was an Anglican priest.......

Yes, it is correct to point out that (blind) faith is not exclusively in the domain of organized religion. One can have faith in the existence of god(s) without subscribing to any particular religion.

But I believe that wasn't her point -- she was merely stating she has a preference for having trust in the potential of humanity to guide the world than any particular religion which would claim to be able to do so. She was probably being inaccurate with her language when making that point -- I will concede that.

......In the West, Christian humanism has been around for many years. So, more precisely, humanism as described in the article refers to secular humanism. Even so, it is difficult not to ascribe the values of humanism to its religious roots.

Many of the values of Western humanism can trace their roots to Christianity.......

Honestly, I don't care if humanism's roots can be traced back to Christianity. I am not clear what relevance that would have.

I doubt that the proposition is meaningful. The most important aspect of Secular Humanism is its rejection of dogmas and propositions without evidence. In this respect, it stands completely at odds with organized religion where the very existence of a god is asserted without evidence.

In view of this, the values that Secular Humanists stand for are not grounded in the existence of any god but in human empathy, reason and evidence. So, in a sense, to say that Humanism has its roots in Christianity is to have it ass-backwards. Christianity has values which roots are in humanity -- Humanism merely holds onto those values and hack away the supernatural weeds that have grown around them (strangling them).

......Secular humanists may say these values would have been dominant anyway, since they have proven to be the most adaptive for human survival and religion has only been the vehicle through which such values have been transmitted. This may be true, but in itself is not an argument against the existence of God.

No one is arguing that Secular humanism itself constitutes evidence against god. That would be ludicrous. Strawman?

Another member says he will let science rather than religion lead his thinking. This is fine so long as we do not go into the science versus religion debate. This is a false dichotomy. As astrophysicist Paul Davies reminds us, science describes the "how" while religion answers the "why".

Well, Paul Davies is wrong . Well, on the face of it, he may appear to be correct.

Religious people have no problem rationalizing scientific data and theories into their respective belief systems. Religious doctrines and scriptures have been interpreted to death by their adherents to conform (or at least, not contradict) other beliefs (scientific or otherwise) that they have.

However, that is also where science definitely clashes with faith and religion. Science requires that conclusions be drawn from observations and biases should be eradicated to avoid distorting data. Faith contravenes that important principle by requiring that a priori religious beliefs be brought to bear on the evidence and, in some cases, reject the evidence if it contradicts those religious beliefs. In this sense, science and faith are fundamentally at odds -- the same reason why fundamentalists versions of religions go after science with such fervor.

The history of science is peopled by God-believing scientists. Indeed, the first person to postulate the Big Bang was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. Another Catholic priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, took the evolutionary theory on a radical path. Not so many years ago, Pope John Paul II pronounced the theory of evolution to be more than a theory. And we know that the person who headed the genome project, Dr Francis Collins, is a staunch Christian.

These people also did not believe that science contradicted their religion and that their religion offers an interpretation of scientific data that they are comfortable with. The "false dichotomy" still stands.

How do secular humanists respond to the following questions:

- Why is there something rather than nothing?

Don't know. (More honest than religions, eh?)

I actually think it's a trivial question  even though it sounds like a deep philosophical question at face value. If there must be something to cause anything to happen, then the very existence of anything indicates that there was never nothing to begin with. That is, the question makes no sense. This is not a formal philosophical argument, just my opinion if you want it.

For the people who ask that question thinking that it somehow justifies belief in god, you're arguing for the god of the gaps. The honest answer is still "I don't know" not "therefore, god must exist!"

- If matter is all there is, how can specks of dust (matter) combine to produce a human being with consciousness (non-matter)? Astronomer Carl Sagan's standard response ("billions of years") is unhelpful.

But Carl Sagan's response is probably accurate. Nature is not required to provide feel-good answers.

Secondly, the mind is an emergent phenomenon. It IS matter.

For example, wetness is an emergent property when water molecules get together in a sufficient quantity. Water molecules themselves are not wet. So, is wetness non-matter?

- If matter is all there is and thoughts are a product of a chemical reaction in the brain in response to stimuli, then there is no free will, including the freedom of thought. Every thought we have is an inevitable response in accordance with set natural laws. In other words, we cannot help thinking what we think. In that case, how can we believe anything, since the thinking is "done" for us? How then can we trust what we believe, including the belief in no God?

I'll just point out that you are assuming we hold to the determinist position on free will.

We believe propositions on the basis of reason and evidence. Are you proposing that reason and evidence is somehow not real if we are following natural laws?

Here's a thought. What are "You" if not your thoughts, feelings and experience?

I've no god - and am proud of it

 The following is an article by the Straits Times via Jakarta Globe:

Singapore. A growing number of people in Singapore who do not believe in a God have banded together, determined to be unapologetic about being non-religious.

Registered as the Humanist Society (Singapore) last October, their ranks have since expanded from 10 to 100 registered, fee-paying members.

Their backgrounds are as diverse as their reasons for not professing a faith, but they are united by their belief that morality comes from humanity itself.

Calling themselves 'secular humanists', they are also united in their rejection of a theistic or supernatural explanation of reality, and their embracing of scientific inquiry.

Today is a red-letter day: The society presents its inaugural Humanist of the Year award to author Catherine Lim.

Another recent milestone was the society's application to join the International Humanist and Ethical Union, a European body of humanist societies around the world.

The humanists here include artists, government officials, students and entrepreneurs. The youngest member is 19 and the oldest, 65.

Most describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, though some eschew labels. Others are adamantly definitive. Take Nanyang Technological University student Eugene Tay, 24, who declares: 'I'm an atheist-agnostic secular humanist.'

Statistically, the proportion of people here with no religion has climbed steadily in the last 30 years - from 13 per cent in 1980 to 17 per cent last year.

Since non-believers have no church, temple or mosque to go to, they have carved out their space online.

The founding members of the Humanist Society came together in 2008, through www.meetup.com, a social networking website.

The online group they formed has more than 500 members.

Since it was set up, the society has cast itself as the voice for the non-religious here. Its president Paul Tobin, 46, wrote to The Straits Times' Forum page last December, in response to a report that suggested that non-religious young people were prone to violence and cynicism. In his letter, he rejected the claim and concluded: 'One does not need to have a religion to lead a good, happy and meaningful life.'

He told The Straits Times: 'That was a watershed moment. After that letter, our numbers shot up. I feel now that we have a say in what goes on in Singapore.'

Land surveyor Loh Kwek Leong, 58, who learnt of the society through this newspaper last year, said he grew up in a typical Chinese household - one that was 'a bit Taoist, a bit Buddhist, a lot superstitious'.

As an adult, he found putting his faith in science better. He said: 'The questions I had about the world, about life and death - I found my answers in science, not religion.'

The group pulls together because of a shared sense of being alone in a society where four in five people profess to believe in a Supreme Being.

Communications manager Winston Chong, 36, who said he has philosophical debates with his parents, who are religious, said: 'It's about time we had a group for ourselves. I've been waiting for this, to find like-minded people.'

As a recipient of the society's award, Dr Lim joins a list of internationally honoured humanists, including astronomer Carl Sagan and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

Asked for her take on religion, she replied via e-mail: 'I suppose if I had a religion, it would be the 'religion of humanity', based on confidence in the indomitability of the human spirit. I would rather have faith, than a faith.'

If I want to be pedantic, I'll take issue with capitalizing the word "god". Excuse me, are you trying to be a bigoted monotheist, dismissing all the other gods other people believe in -- hmmm?

I also take issue with the phrase "putting his faith in science" because it reeks of religious language that confuse the issue of faith, trust and confidence.

But all in all, nice -- a positive article about secular humanism and non-belief is always good to have.

Clash of Church and State in the Philippines

Once again, the sex obsessed Catholic Church is rearing its ugly head, this time in the Philippines over the Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

The Independent reports in its news article, Church and State clash over sex and condoms in the Philippines:

A 13-year battle between church and state in the Philippines, one of the world's most devoutly Catholic nations, has come to a head over government plans to provide free condoms and sex education. Catholic bishops have threatened to excommunicate President Benigno Aquino over a reproductive health bill introduced into the Congress yesterday.

......

The aim of the bill is to control population growth, reduce HIV infection rates and eradicate the need for women to seek backstreet abortions. Mr Aquino, who is determined to see it become law, is prepared to be banished from the church, if necessary. "I have been taught in school, which was a Catholic institution, that the final arbiter really is our conscience," he said yesterday.

But the church, which has enormous clout in the Philippines, is not about to give way. Since 1998, it has quashed several previous versions of the bill. "Sex is not a game that should be taught to children, along with the use of condoms, supposedly to avoid disease," the Archbishop of Manila, Gaudencio Rosales, told an anti-contraception rally in the capital two months ago.

I appreciate the president of the Philippines for, effectively, holding the wall between Church and State. While I am not a Filipino, it is nice to see politicians do the right thing despite opposition from religious lobbies instead of succumbing to them.

But as usual, there are always some politicians happy to smear their religious beliefs all over their politics.

As well as the powerful church, Mr Aquino is opposed by one of the most popular figures in the Philippines, the world champion boxer turned congressman Manny Pacquiao.

Mr Pacquiao said this week that he would never have been born, or become a champion, if his parents had used contraception. "God said go forth and multiply," he declared. "He did not say just go and have one or two children."

What a vacuous statement. If your parents were doing ANYTHING other than fucking at that moment when they did have sex to produce you, you wouldn't exist. So? What's your point?

And may I ask why anyone is obliged to care what you believe your god said in an ancient book of inconclusive authorship? Thankfully, there is still sane people in their government to put this nutter in place. According to ABS-CBN news,

She (Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago) also criticized his use of the biblical quote, "Go forth and multiply."

"The Bible does not say, 'Go out to the world.' It sounds very much like God is encouraging us to go out and copulate in public. God said in the Bible, "Go forth and multiply." That meant that God wanted man, not necessarily to literally multiply, but to go out to work with the rest of the human beings of this planet and to apply the stewardship theory. Meaning to say, taking care of each other, who are all in the planet living together.

"I would like to say if this is going to be a debate of biblical quotes, then I will counter with a quote: 'The devil can cite scripture for its purposes,'" she said.

She also called on Pacquiao not to read and interpret the Bible to literally, pointing out that the Bible was not even written by God himself.

"It is very dangerous to be a fundamentalist. Apparently that's what Pacquiao is. He reads the Bible literally. The Bible was not written by God ... Nobody has a monopoly of the thoughts of God," she told Senate reporters.

Nice. More public figures should state that publicly, thank you -- 'cause it seems like nobody bloody knows that. She also said,

She also said the separation of church and state should be maintained.

"Because the principle of church and state, while we respect the freedom of speech of people of every persuasion across religious boundaries, still we have to stand up for the principle in democratic governance that the church cannot dictate to the state. So the State must always argue in favor of free speech and free conscience, that is why I call this a freedom of conscience issue," she added.

Here's another politician with his head screwed on right --  voicing the core reason for defending the separation of Church and State here as reported by Sun.Star Davao newspaper:

Duterte said the Catholics who believe in the stand of the Church and the warnings of the priests can do so, however, he said the Philippines cannot be ruled by the Roman Catholic Church.

"Iba-iba naman ang relihiyon. As I said, within this country, there are people who believe in God, and there are those who do not believe in God," Duterte explained.

The Church cannot speak on behalf of everyone, he added.

I'm not going to comment much about the Church's stance here -- it suffice to say that the Church's morals are "biblical", as in centuries behind on moral progress.

It's a miracle, not

Sai Baba died. Finally. Pity people will be all "Oh, that's so sad" over a death and forget about all bullshit miracle healing he did (or rather, didn't do).

Here's TODAYonline's little news report:

Hindu holy man Sathya Sai Baba dies In India at 86

PUTTAPARTI, India (AP) - A doctor says Hindu holy man Sathya Sai Baba, considered a living god by followers, has died. He was 86.

Dr. A.N. Safaya says Sathya Sai Baba died Sunday morning after more than a week on breathing support and dialysis at the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences.

Women selling marigold garlands broke down into tears outside his ashram in Puttaparti village in southern Andhra Pradesh state. Followers began trickling into the temple complex, where the holy man's body will be lay in state until Tuesday.

The saffron-robed Sathya Sai Baba had a huge following, with ashrams in more than 126 countries across the world.

By the way, it's not miracle either if he didn't die. Just so you know.

A Sick Healer

It's funny how faith and miracle healers never seem to be able to invoke the same powers they claim to have used to heal thousands to heal themselves.

India's "spiritual leader" Sai Baba is still in hospital (yes, apparently, actual medicine is preferred) according to BBC news:

India spiritual leader Sai Baba 'on life support'
BBC News - 22 April

One of India's most revered spiritual leaders, Satya Sai Baba, is critically ill and on a life-support system, his doctors say.

Thousands of his followers have begun converging at his home town in southern India, prompting the authorities to step up security.

The 84-year-old guru is thought to have millions of followers around the world.

His distinctive orange robes and hairstyle have made him one of India's most recognisable gurus.

Sai Baba was admitted to a hospital in his hometown of Puttaparthi last month, with what doctors described as lung and chest congestion.

After initially showing signs of improvement, his condition become critical once again, they say.

A health bulletin issued by the hospital said his vital organs were not responding well to treatment.
Controversial career

The news of Sai Baba's ill-health has prompted many of his followers to rush to Puttaparthi.

Police have erected barricades around the hospital as a safety measure and also announced a ban on large public gatherings to prevent large crowds forming.

Sai Baba counts former Indian prime ministers, prominent businessmen and cricketers among his followers.

But his career has also been dogged by controversy. He has been accused of faking some of the so-called miracles attributed to him.

And some former followers have levelled accusations of sexual abuse against him and other members of his ashram - charges that he has denied.

He has never been charged by police in connection with these allegations.

I'm sorry, I don't believe anyone ever had any kind of healing powers. No, wait, I'm not the least apologetic about it - Sai Baba included. I'm not the least bit sympathetic either - in fact, I'd be quite happy to see charlatans die due to ironic causes.

It is not Islam - It's Religion

This is a response to "'Flaming' of Islam has to be stopped" published in the Review and Forum section of The Straits Times, 6 April 2011.

An American pastor branded a cultist by estranged followers eventually made good on his threat to burn the Quran. He can now rouse his dwindling flock by saying President Barack Obama, the Defence Secretary and the general conducting the Afghanistan campaign could not stop him from dramatising his beliefs.

Okay... So he "won" some boasting rights in some people's perspective. Uh huh.

Which were, what? Of the wanton killings by Muslim rioters that his act caused in Afghanistan the past week, pastor Terry Jones disputes that he has blood on his hands. His next act, he suggests, is to place Prophet Muhammad 'on trial', just as he had the Quran. Its burning had been the 'sentence'.

Bloody fucking nonsense.

"Wanton killings by Muslim rioters that his act caused"? It might as well have read "Failures in School Examinations caused by Science."

This statement brazenly ignores the autonomy of the Muslims involved in the riotings and killings. If I killed a murderer's mother as revenge for the murderer's killing of my mother, would I somehow be relieved of my responsibilities because my actions were a reaction to offences against  me? I say not.

There is nothing theatrical about random acts of provocation. They are downright dangerous, abetted in some cases by permissive laws. A case could be made out that there are degrees of madness or delusion which afflict leaders of cults. But how to define depravity within an American constitutional context of free speech guarantees? Bringing decorum to the religious sphere has to start in America because intolerance tends to find fertile soil in its interior communities.

I honestly don't believe that Free Speech itself is the issue here. It is not the root of the problem at hand. Again, blaming Free Speech for permitting religiously motivated hateful speech is like blaming cars for people speeding in them.

That the Quran burning was a triumph of ignorance and bigotry, there is no doubt. Fair-minded people are rightly alarmed at the poisonous overtone of religious contestation that arose after the Sept 11 attacks spawned a misleading view of Islam. What is being done to roll back the prejudice? The pastor's act and that of a Danish newspaper cartoonist who drew offensive caricatures of the Prophet are signs of an anti-Islam baiting campaign gathering force. It could get more widespread, in Europe as well as in America. It will spark retaliatory mob violence which in turn will harden attitudes against Islam. What then?

 Again, it seems unusual to me that the author of this article passes over the autonomy of the people involved in the "retaliatory mob violence". 

So it's not okay to speak ill of others' religion but it's okay to kill people, destroy property because you were pissed over someone speaking ill of your religion. 

What's the bigger issue here? Somebody needs to get their priorities straight and I don't think it's me...

The American public, politicians and the media have acted sensibly in condemning the pastor for his stunt. The Quran-burning ritual which took place on March 20 had been deliberately blacked out by media. It became public knowledge only after the pastor posted a video of it on his website. But America may have to go beyond a climate of censure as a check against intemperance, to consider criminalising incitement in an expansion of hate-crimes legislation. Arguing free speech as a First Amendment bedrock protection may become less convincing over time when religious extremists begin to cause schisms and serious disruptions in society. The European Union has just as robust protections. Yet Germany and many other European nations still outlaw denials of the Holocaust and the Jewish extermination. What could be more injurious to social order in a post-Sept 11 world than the 'flaming' of Islam as sport?

The article seeks to pin blame on Free Speech for permitting insults that causes Muslim robots to go insane and kill people. No?

"Bullshit"  is an appropriate response I think.

The problem as I see it is two pronged (and Free Speech ain't either one of them) - it is education in general and religion itself.

It is a failure of education of the public in general. Fundamentalist Christians are thought to be poor in their general knowledge of religions around the world (their religion included). It doesn't help that the religious, conservative segments of the population perpetuate the "Islamist" stereotype of Muslims in general in their communities and some media sources.

One might argue that the failure of education is due to certain religious attitudes which brings us to the other prong.

Throughout history, religions has demonstrated their ability to cause and catalyse conflicts. This is no exception.

Create insular societies based on unevidenced claims to ultimate truths and a connection to the divine creator of the universe. Follow that up by creating an Us versus Them scenario where "us" is good and godly and "them" is evil and of the devil. Wait for one party to do something perceived as inflammatory by the opposing side and watch the shit hit the fans.

Yes, the pastor did something distasteful - he burnt a Quran. And yes, just distasteful. It's not the most pleasant or eloquent way of making a point but still, it is a valid point and can/should be discussed.

But we don't fucking kill people for it. You can be all pissy and disagree with that pastor but if you go ape-shit and kill somebody over it, you are wrong. Period.

The author seems to skip over this aspect as he attempts to blame Free Speech for the problem as if it was acceptable to murder because someone insulted your religious beliefs. To this, my first  response was "WTF?"

Such obscene irrationality on the part of the religious should be condemned whenever and wherever it happens. Instead, here it's seems to be regarded as somehow acceptable because it's religious.

If you don't like people criticizing your religion, perhaps it's your religion that needs fixing - you don't "fix" the people.

Charges initiated against the Pope

Finally, somebody is bringing the Pope to the International Criminal Court. That lousy excuse for a human being should have been hauled off to jail a long time ago.

According to the Irish Times, 23 Feb 2011, Charges initiated against Pope for crimes against humanity,

Their charges concern “three worldwide crimes which until now have not been denounced . . . (as) the traditional reverence toward ‘ecclesiastical authority’ has clouded the sense of right and wrong”.

They claim the Pope “is responsible for the preservation and leadership of a worldwide totalitarian regime of coercion which subjugates its members with terrifying and health-endangering threats”.

They allege he is also responsible for “the adherence to a fatal forbiddance of the use of condoms, even when the danger of HIV-Aids infection exists” and for “the establishment and maintenance of a worldwide system of cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and their preferential treatment, which aids and abets ever new crimes”.

They claim the Catholic Church “acquires its members through a compulsory act, namely, through the baptism of infants that do not yet have a will of their own”. This act was “irrevocable” and is buttressed by threats of excommunication and the fires of hell.

It was “a grave impairment of the personal freedom of development and of a person’s emotional and mental integrity”. The Pope was “responsible for its preservation and enforcement and, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of his Church, he was jointly responsible” with Pope John Paul II.

Catholics “threatened by HIV-AIDS . . . are faced with a terrible alternative: If they protect themselves with condoms during sexual intercourse, they become grave sinners; if they do not protect themselves out of fear of the punishment of sin threatened by the church, they become candidates for death.”

There was also “strong suspicion that Dr Joseph Ratzinger, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of his church and as Pope, has up to the present day systematically covered up the sexual abuse of children and youths and protected the perpetrators, thereby aiding and abetting further sexual violence toward young people”.

I love the charges leveled against "His Holiness".

The focus should be on the charge of aggravating the spread of HIV amongst people who heed his word with religious conviction and, even more importantly, aiding and abetting child rape in his churches. The third charge is almost impossible to indict the Church for since almost all religions do it to different extents.

I wonder what punishment would prescribed for committing "crimes against humanity"? Personally, I think death is almost too easy for that sanctimonious piece of shit.

I really hope that human justice be upheld in this case. But it seems somewhat unlikely... am I being too pessimistic?