The Courage of Common Sense

Take a look at this clip (http://richarddawkins.net/videos/607471-why-wafa-sultan-left-islam) of Wafa Sultan explaining her reasons for leaving her religion – in this case Islam.

It is hard not to be moved by this. I do wonder what the Western Left would make of her. They have a habit of apologising and justifying the fundamental aspects of Islam and its treatment of women. Some of them also have a habit of turning on brave women such as Wafa and Ayan Hirsi Ali. Shame on them.

Could you show the kind of bravery this woman shows? I'm sure not many could, and I'm sure she has probably made a lot of enemies, perhaps within her own family. I really do wish her well.

Many thanks to the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

The Nit-Picking of Bias

Great fun can be had watching the ding-dong battle between the BBC and its ‘watch’ site Biased-BBC. I look at the BBC site quite a lot, and I also check out the Biased-BBC site from time to time.

Naturally, Biased-BBC is not too happy that the BBC is allegedly pumping out lots of anti-Christian propaganda before the UK census. This post lists the charge (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2011/03/just-as-census-beckons.html).

There are essentially two accusations. Firstly, the Beeb is “trying to neutralise the presence of Christianity in the UK ahead of the Census.” As backup, it cites the BBC’s recent story about the “extinction of religion” in certain countries (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197), and then a link to the British Humanist Association’s recent study about religion in the UK. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12799801).

I haven’t really noticed the BBC ripping into Christianity any more than usual. If we go back to the influence of Christianity in the UK (certainly in terms of church attendance), it could arguably be said that it needs to be neutralised even more. Why does the BBC have to reflect the religious makeup of the country anyway? It does not. The second of the stories (the BHA study) is simply the reporting of facts. Admittedly, facts that Biased-BBC and various Christian groups don’t want to hear. I think it is down to Biased-BBC being more of a conservative outfit, than a religious one, though.

Biased-BBC also implies that the BHA is not partial (no evidence, of course), before describing archaeologist Francesca Stavrakopoulou as an ‘atheist’. This is something of a stretch. This is the woman who claimed God may have had a wife, remember! An atheist wouldn’t say such a silly thing. She has a doctorate in theology and presented the BBC’s ‘Bible Secrets’ programme, which Biased-BBC claim sets out to undermine the Bible. I would point out we hardly need archaeological digs to undermine the Bible! I would also point out that she is most definitely not an atheist.

Biased-BBC then moves onto Dr. Brian Cox, whose wonderful science-based programmes have been enjoyed by millions, even if the background music is a little loud (according to some). Biased-BBC claim he presents “theories on which there is often no scientific consensus as fact, with supreme confidence and naturally without the need for God.” Yes, you generally don’t need God when you make a science programme. BTW, Biased-BBC doesn’t say what theories are without scientific consensus. Maybe it’s because I could call them on it. This is just simple nit-picking.

The second criticism, more reflected in the comments of the thread, is that the BBC gives Islam far much more respect than say, Christianity. Biased-BBC may well be right here.

Like any central-Left media outfit they are frightened of offending Muslims. Christianity does not have the “special protection” demanded by Muslims for their religion. Believe me, there are many Christians and religious people who do demand that they are respected and that their faith is not questioned or mocked. But in the UK, there is a long tradition of questioning and mocking, and it is taken for granted that Christianity has no special privilege not to be criticised or mocked. The same attitude does not prevail towards Islam, simply because of the reason stated above. The double standard is glaring, but why should Christianity get the respect it wants just because another faith gets its respect through veiled threats. It shouldn’t, and I would argue, neither should Islam.

As an atheist I don’t have trouble with this double standard, but I do have trouble with the demands various religions make. It is time for it to stop. No religion is automatically granted special privilege not to be criticised or mocked, whatever religion it happens to be.

Dark Side of The Super Moon

I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notice recently that we are lucky to witness a so-called ‘super moon’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermoon). This is essentially when the Moon is at its closest (perigee) to the Earth (some 357,000 kilometers). As you’d expect, this has promoted all kinds of nonsense. (The Moon has a long history of inspiring weirdos – hence the term ‘lunatic’)

The ‘super moon’ theory was developed by astrologer Richard Nolle in 1979. Now, read that last sentence again. Yep. Astrologer! This gets the alarm bells ringing straight away. Now, his theory claims that the ‘super moon’ coincides with natural disasters, and because the awful Japanese earthquake and tsunami occurred fairly close to a ‘super moon’, some are now claiming this to be truth.

The science however disagrees. No stand-out natural disasters or freak tides match up to the previous dates of ‘super moons’. If Richard Nolle and his followers are going to point to this disaster as proof of their theory, then it is simply a case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses. A common logical fallacy used by all psychics, astrologers and charlatans.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this story is how the UK media (including all of the tabloid press, of course) promoted this story in relation to the Japanese earthquake. Hardly any mention is given to the failure of the theory during previous ‘super moons’. Instead, we are treated to yet more quackery on the very same pages that detail real-life death, tragedy and disaster. Putting it towards the back of the newspaper with the other star sign advice would have been more prudent.

May The Farce Be With You

It’s March, 2011, and it is a decade since the last UK census. The census forms have been sent through the post and have landed on the doormats of houses, bungalows, mansions and flats across the country. The census is very important in determining things such as future budgets, council spending, and crucially, funding for sectarian schools (aka faith schools).

The nature of the question about religion in the 2011 UK census has been raised by the British Humanist Association (http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/771). This is just the latest in a series of articles highlighting concerns about how the religion question is phrased.

In its latest survey the BHA claim to have published “fresh evidence that the census question is fatally flawed for its intended purpose of planning public services.” I agree.

In England and Wales, when asked the question ‘What is your religion?’ 39% ticked ‘no religion’. When asked ‘Are you religious?’ 65% said ‘No’. This is very revealing. It really does illustrate how differences in which a question is asked can give very different results. More worryingly perhaps, it demonstrates how many people are unable to distinguish between religion and cultural background. How many people tick the religious box just because they were baptised? How many tick the religious box because their parents did the same? How many tick the religious box because they have attended a funeral, wedding, baptism, etc. How many tick the religious box because they have a Christmas dinner?

It is this distinction that inflates the value of religiosity in the UK beyond its true figure. Perhaps a more accurate indicator of the popularity of religion in the UK is to look at church attendance figures, which, for Christians at least, is dismal.

So, may this serve as a reminder. If you tick the religion box, think about it, are you actually a practicing member of that faith? Do you believe that snakes can talk, people can rise from the dead, water can be turned into wine, etc.? If not, can you really say you are religious? At the most, you could be a Deist if you didn't believe all that. Stating this would be more honest that saying you are a Christian.

If you are thinking of writing ‘Jedi’ as your religion – think about it. Think carefully about how census data is used to uphold the notion that religions dominate the social makeup of the UK. Do we really want any justification for the funding and spread of sectarian schools. No!

It’s time for the census to reflect the real secular makeup of the UK.