It remains difficult to reconcile the fact that groups of purportedly religious individuals, who claim to be acting from a higher moral authority, can still call for the death of an individual for a book written more than a decade ago.
Where is the morality in taking the stance "What you say appears insulting, so I demand your death?"
The recent knighting of Salman Rushdie has reignited the furore surrounding his book "The Satanic Verses". When it was first released, Ayatollah Khomeini, having not read the book himself, issued a fatwah against Rushdie, claiming that it would be morally acceptable, indeed necessary, for anyone claiming to be of muslim faith to kill Rushdie.
It would appear that since 1988, Rushdie has still not been forgiven for this work of fiction.
While some of the controversy had died down in the last few years, the recent knighting of Rushdie has given hard-liners with an obsession for killing people who disagree with them justification for reigniting the demand for the man's death.
The fatwah called for the death of Rushdie and anyone associated with the production of the book; this resulted in deaths and attacks; unable to reach Rushdie themselves, extremists killed the Japanese translator of the work, and seriously injured the Italian translator, as well as attempting to assassinate the publisher from Norway.
There's a lot of writing that we disagree with. If one were to insist on only writing something that everyone would agree with, one would publish at best a book of blank pages with no title.
It is sad to think that anyone can claim moral superiority while calling for someone's death.
References:
Saturday, 30 June 2007
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Religion masquerading hate speech under "freedom of speech"
A student in the United States was recently suspended from High School after wearing a T-Shirt with the message "Homosexuality is shameful (Romans 1:27)" on the back, written on tape and stuck to the shirt. The opposing side of the shirt read, "Be ashamed. Our school has embraced what God [sic] has condemned." The student wore the shirt to school the day after a "day of silence" was held in support of non-heterosexual students.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but hate speech justified due to religious convictions walks a fine line.
The student is suing the school claiming an unfair suspension.
What is odd about this is that the student has quoted the bible as justification for the statement made on the T-Shirt. Under the guise of being about homosexuality, a topic of morality that certain religious groups have claimed to be authoritative experts on, this is supposedly "free speech" as opposed to "hate speech".
The bible is an antiquated collection of bigotry and myths which throughout the ages has been used to justify a large number of hateful comments. So the question is, were a T-Shirt quoting the bible promoting slavery, or the killing of opposing tribes, or the belief that women should not appear in church whilst having their periods have been justified?
Of course not.
What is the difference then between this statement on homosexuality and a statement promoting slavery (or decrying the abolition thereof?)
None.
References:
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but hate speech justified due to religious convictions walks a fine line.
The student is suing the school claiming an unfair suspension.
What is odd about this is that the student has quoted the bible as justification for the statement made on the T-Shirt. Under the guise of being about homosexuality, a topic of morality that certain religious groups have claimed to be authoritative experts on, this is supposedly "free speech" as opposed to "hate speech".
The bible is an antiquated collection of bigotry and myths which throughout the ages has been used to justify a large number of hateful comments. So the question is, were a T-Shirt quoting the bible promoting slavery, or the killing of opposing tribes, or the belief that women should not appear in church whilst having their periods have been justified?
Of course not.
What is the difference then between this statement on homosexuality and a statement promoting slavery (or decrying the abolition thereof?)
None.
References:
Tuesday, 26 June 2007
Killing in the name of religion is still murder
It seems impossible to discuss immoral applications of faith without touching on the ongoing and frequent deaths around the world due to religious inspired suicide bombings and other mass-killings. This is a topic that requires no direct reports, no specific instances named. We all know of instances. They fill our evening news, our morning news, our midday news, our radio news, our internet news, our papers, our lives.
Every day news reports disguise the religious nature of these atrocities by referring to them as "sectarian violence" or "Person(s) from TribeX attacked people from TribeY". This is sugar-coating of the worst kind.
Murder is a despicable crime that demonstrates a profound immorality. To rob another person of their life, the only life we have evidence of us having, is a truly heinous act.
It is logically impossible for someone to argue that murder based on faith is an acceptable or moral behaviour; "you don't agree with me therefore you must die" is not in even the most basically compelling argument to any moral human being. It's a sick justification for a hate-based crime.
The most fundamental question we must ask ourselves moving forward as a race is – are we animals, or are we human beings? Is a human being just a specific instance of creatures within the animal kingdom, and therefore justified in killing each other simply based on some biological drive for being the alpha humans, or are we animals who have learned to think, feel, and discover an intrinsic moral purposes to our lives?
I sincerely hope we aim for the latter.
Every day news reports disguise the religious nature of these atrocities by referring to them as "sectarian violence" or "Person(s) from TribeX attacked people from TribeY". This is sugar-coating of the worst kind.
Murder is a despicable crime that demonstrates a profound immorality. To rob another person of their life, the only life we have evidence of us having, is a truly heinous act.
It is logically impossible for someone to argue that murder based on faith is an acceptable or moral behaviour; "you don't agree with me therefore you must die" is not in even the most basically compelling argument to any moral human being. It's a sick justification for a hate-based crime.
The most fundamental question we must ask ourselves moving forward as a race is – are we animals, or are we human beings? Is a human being just a specific instance of creatures within the animal kingdom, and therefore justified in killing each other simply based on some biological drive for being the alpha humans, or are we animals who have learned to think, feel, and discover an intrinsic moral purposes to our lives?
I sincerely hope we aim for the latter.
Monday, 25 June 2007
Australian prime minister supports continuing discrimination and two-tier society
In a move that surprised none, the current Australian Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, a known Christian, has gone on the record as continuing to support a discriminatory, two-tier society where same-sex couples are not awarded the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. It is understood that the Australian Labor party, led by another known Christian, Kevin Rudd, supports the continuing discriminatory system.
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission recently published a report following a national inquiry into discrimination against people in same-sex relationships. This report identified federal laws which expressly deny same-sex couples equal rights to their heterosexual counter-parts.
Currently under Australian law, same-sex marriages are not recognised at the Federal level, denying same-sex partners equivalent access to a variety of services that are immediately awarded to heterosexual couples.
It is morally reprehensible to continue to discriminate against a section of the community. In this case, what is worse is that since homosexuality itself is legal within the Australian community between consenting adults, the government and opposition are supporting discrimination against people who should otherwise have full legal rights in the community.
References:
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission recently published a report following a national inquiry into discrimination against people in same-sex relationships. This report identified federal laws which expressly deny same-sex couples equal rights to their heterosexual counter-parts.
Currently under Australian law, same-sex marriages are not recognised at the Federal level, denying same-sex partners equivalent access to a variety of services that are immediately awarded to heterosexual couples.
It is morally reprehensible to continue to discriminate against a section of the community. In this case, what is worse is that since homosexuality itself is legal within the Australian community between consenting adults, the government and opposition are supporting discrimination against people who should otherwise have full legal rights in the community.
References:
Ultra-Orthodox Jew planned mass murder
In late June, the annual Jerusalem Gay Pride march was held by proud gay activists and their supporters, with approximately two and a half thousand participants.
Protests against the march were held elsewhere in the city, with Ultra-Orthodox Jews vehemently disagreeing with the march, believing it is a debasement of the city.
According to the Associated Press, quoted by the "Boston Edge", a 32-year old man was arrested on the morning of the march carrying explosives. Under questioning, the man admitted that he had wanted to plant the explosives along the planned route of the parade.
An Ultra-Orthodox Jew, the man obviously felt that killing in the name of religion was acceptable. Given the horror frequently experienced by Israeli citizens by suicide bombers, it seems contradictory and hypocritical that someone who supposedly comes from a deeply religious part of the Israeli community would feel that this was a morally appropriate action.
It is morally certain that a basic tenant of humanity is refraining from taking another life; regardless of arguments for or against capital punishment, it is clear that an attempt at mass murder simply because one disagrees with the sexuality of a group of people conducting a peaceful march is unacceptable.
References:
Protests against the march were held elsewhere in the city, with Ultra-Orthodox Jews vehemently disagreeing with the march, believing it is a debasement of the city.
According to the Associated Press, quoted by the "Boston Edge", a 32-year old man was arrested on the morning of the march carrying explosives. Under questioning, the man admitted that he had wanted to plant the explosives along the planned route of the parade.
An Ultra-Orthodox Jew, the man obviously felt that killing in the name of religion was acceptable. Given the horror frequently experienced by Israeli citizens by suicide bombers, it seems contradictory and hypocritical that someone who supposedly comes from a deeply religious part of the Israeli community would feel that this was a morally appropriate action.
It is morally certain that a basic tenant of humanity is refraining from taking another life; regardless of arguments for or against capital punishment, it is clear that an attempt at mass murder simply because one disagrees with the sexuality of a group of people conducting a peaceful march is unacceptable.
References:
Sunday, 24 June 2007
Australian Catholic Leader attacks democracy
In early June, 2007, the Australian state Parliament of New South Wales debated proposed changes to the stem cell research laws. These proposed changes were mainly to deal with allowing the cloning, under specific circumstances, of embryonic stem cells to support medical research purposes. Researchers seeking the legal changes aimed to be able to expand their understanding of debilitating diseases that cause permanent quality-of-life impairment or even lead to death.
The most senior catholic representative of Australia, Cardinal George Pell not only voiced his disapproval of this bill, but went on to threaten the democratic process of Australia.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald article, dated 5 June 2007 entitled "Vote against cloning, or else, Pell warns":
"Cardinal George Pell has warned Catholic politicans they face 'consequences' in the life of the church should they vote for an 'immoral' bill before the NSW Parliament to expand stem cell research."
Qualifying his comments, Pell cited that while he wasn't saying that Catholic MPs who voted for the proposed amendments wouldn't be excommunicated, he did feel that such a vote would threaten their role in the church.
Thankfully, many Catholic MPs in the NSW Parliament ignored this pointed attack on democracy and medical research by following their hearts in a rare conscience vote, helping to get the proposed bill changes through the lower house of the Parliament.
While George Pell is of course entitled to his personal opinion on embryonic stem cell cloning, and to make that opinion publically known; however, by threatening Members of Parliament - those who have been elected or re-elected only very recently by the NSW population - he has clearly demonstrated his contempt for the democratic process.
Since the Commonwealth of Australia is defined as a democracy, not a theocracy, the blatent threatening of elected officials is hardly an appropriate or moral activity by such a senior religious figure.
References:
The most senior catholic representative of Australia, Cardinal George Pell not only voiced his disapproval of this bill, but went on to threaten the democratic process of Australia.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald article, dated 5 June 2007 entitled "Vote against cloning, or else, Pell warns":
"Cardinal George Pell has warned Catholic politicans they face 'consequences' in the life of the church should they vote for an 'immoral' bill before the NSW Parliament to expand stem cell research."
Qualifying his comments, Pell cited that while he wasn't saying that Catholic MPs who voted for the proposed amendments wouldn't be excommunicated, he did feel that such a vote would threaten their role in the church.
Thankfully, many Catholic MPs in the NSW Parliament ignored this pointed attack on democracy and medical research by following their hearts in a rare conscience vote, helping to get the proposed bill changes through the lower house of the Parliament.
While George Pell is of course entitled to his personal opinion on embryonic stem cell cloning, and to make that opinion publically known; however, by threatening Members of Parliament - those who have been elected or re-elected only very recently by the NSW population - he has clearly demonstrated his contempt for the democratic process.
Since the Commonwealth of Australia is defined as a democracy, not a theocracy, the blatent threatening of elected officials is hardly an appropriate or moral activity by such a senior religious figure.
References:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)