"The world is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tales to believe." -Ed Krebs, photographer (b. 1951)
"The average (person), who does not know what to do with (her or) his life, wants another one which will last forever." -Anatole France, novelist, essayist, Nobel laureate (1844-1924) ____________________________________________________________________________________
AN UNIMAGINABLE number of child sex-abuse reports this year was a humiliation the church must accept as an exhortation to truth and renewal, Pope Benedict XVI has said.
The Pope used his annual speech to Rome's cardinals and bishops to urge the church to reflect on how it let the abuse happen. But he also blamed the influence of the secular morality of child pornography and sex tourism, and a form of moral relativism that influenced Catholic theology in the 1970s.
''We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred,'' he said. ''We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen.''
The Pope said the church was well aware of the gravity of this sin committed by priests, and of the church's responsibility. But nor could he be silent about ''the context of these times''.
''There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society,'' he said on Monday. ''The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times.''
He also said he heard from bishop after bishop in developing countries how sex tourism threatened an entire generation, while the problem of drugs was extending ''its octopus tentacles around the entire world''.
He criticised moral relativism from the 1970s that discarded absolutes, leaving only a ''better than'' and ''worse than''. ''Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist.''
The Pope was pessimistic about the future, saying: ''For all its new hopes and possibilities, our world is at the same time troubled by the sense that moral consensus is collapsing, consensus without which juridical and political structures cannot function.''
A Catholic ethicist, Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, said the Pope's use of the 12th-century saint Hildegard's vision of the church as a battered woman, her garments rent and torn by priests' sins, was a powerful metaphor for the church's suffering caused by paedophile priests. He said the Pope could not blame secular culture, because the culture did not stoop so low as to advocate abusing children, but he was right to criticise situational ethics because child abuse was always an absolute wrong and never justifiable.
Victims' advocates were sceptical yesterday. Helen Last, of In Good Faith, said: ''These statements we continually get are just crocodile tears until they open their files and processes to secular authorities.''
Ms Last said it was encouraging if the Pope put the interests of children first, because that had not been the church's practice for the past 20 years.
The Melbourne historian Dr Bernard Barrett, who has researched clerical sexual abuse, said it did not begin in the 1970s but spanned the church's 2000-year history and remained a deep-seated problem.
Format: You can (1) read any or all of the article(s) that is provided for each meeting, (2) read something somewhat related to it, or (3) be prepared to share a situation that has some connection to it. We'll have a moderated discussion of all the above.
Rules: Listen and contribute to a diversity of views respectfully, especially ones you don't agree with.
Dinner: After our discussion we'll walk to Peking Duck Restaurant for dinner. (151 South California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA - (650) 321-9388.) (Note: this is different from where we normally meet)
If anyone has another somewhat related reading they wish to share please let me know.
I look forward to seeing you and anyone you wish to bring along.
A US hospital has been stripped of its ability to call itself Catholic because of a surgery that ended a woman's pregnancy to save her life.
Bishop Thomas Olmsted announced the decision to remove St Joseph's Hospital and Medical Centre's Catholic status at a news conference in Phoenix.
Bishop Olmsted said "the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld". He called the surgery an abortion.
Bishop Olmsted said the hospital is in violation of ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops. The 697-bed hospital does not receive direct funding from the church, but it will be prohibited from celebrating Mass and must remove the Blessed Sacrament from its chapel.
Hospital officials said the surgery was allowable under exceptions to the church's abortion policy.
European court rules that failure to provide services to a woman whose life could have been at risk was breach of human rights
Sarah Boseley and Henry McDonald, guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 December 2010
Carmel Stewart, a lawyer of the three women prevented from having an abortion in Ireland, reads the judgment from the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, eastern France. Photograph: Christian Lutz/AP
The Irish government is under pressure to reform its abortion legislation after the European court ruled that failure to provide services to a woman whose life could have been at risk was a breach of her human rights.
The Strasbourg judgment was only a partial victory for campaigners; the European court of human rights rejected the cases of two other women who claimed they had suffered hardship by being forced to travel to the UK for an abortion. But its decision in the case of C, a woman who had suffered a rare cancer and believed her pregnancy might cause it to return, left pro-abortion groups with the hope at least of clarification of the law where the woman's life is in danger.
"Today's decision is a landmark one for Ireland and, in particular, for women and girls," said Niall Behan, chief executive of the Irish Family Planning Association. "The very considered and clear view of the European court of human rights leaves no option available to the Irish state other than to legislate for abortion services in cases where a woman's life is at risk.
"As a first and immediate step, we are calling on the government to set out how it intends to address today's ruling, and ensure that no further violations of human rights take place because of the state's failure to offer safe and legal abortion services, in – albeit – limited circumstances."
As rulings of the European court are binding, the Irish government will be under pressure to implement a woman's right to an abortion if her life is at risk. It is understood that the judgment is being considered by the republic's department of health and the Irish attorney general.
Abortion is banned in the republic and legalising it requires a referendum to change the constitution. Following a referendum in 1983, the unborn child is an Irish citizen with full rights.
As the next Irish government, following elections in March, is likely to be comprised of Fine Gael and Labour, the prospect of a referendum on abortion could prove divisive. Fine Gael opposes abortion, but many in the Irish Labour party support a woman's right to choose.
About 5,500 women are thought to travel to England and Wales every year from the republic to seek an abortion, at considerable cost and distress.
The first of the three women who took their cases to the European court was a recovering alcoholic whose four children had been placed in foster care. She sought an abortion because she believed another baby would jeopardise her chances of getting her children back. The court accepted she was living in poverty – she borrowed from a money-lender to travel to a private clinic in London. The second woman was unmarried and not prepared to become a single parent.
In both cases, the court ruled Ireland had not breached the women's human rights. But it took a different view of the woman who feared her rare cancer might return.
"The court considered that the establishment of any such risk to her life clearly concerned fundamental values and essential aspects of her right to respect for her private life," said the judgment. If her doctor found her health was at risk and advised an abortion, both ran a serious risk of criminal conviction and imprisonment if his view was later found to be against the Irish constitution, it said.
Tracey McNeill, director of Marie Stopes International in UK and western Europe, said: "The court highlighted that the law needs to be changed to ensure that doctors feel confident that they won't face prosecution for providing abortions if the woman's life is considered to be at risk. What we would like to see in the future is Irish women having the same fundamental rights to choose as people in the rest of Europe."
All-Ireland Primate Cardinal Sean Brady said the judgment leaves future policy in protecting the lives of unborn children in the hands of the Irish. : "The direct destruction of an innocent human life can never be justified, however difficult the circumstances," Cardinal Brady said. ". We are always obliged to act with respect for the inherent right to life of both the mother and the unborn child in the mother's womb.
"No law which subordinates the rights of any human being to those of other human beings can be regarded as a just law."
He added that as a society we all have a responsibility to respond sensitively to any woman who finds herself dealing with an unplanned pregnancy."
Ireland violated a woman’s right to privacy by restricting abortions to cases where a doctor certified the mother’s life was put at risk by the pregnancy, the European Court of Human Rights ruled today.
Ireland was ordered by the Strasbourg, France-based court to pay a woman who went to the U.K. to abort a pregnancy she feared would kill her 15,000 euros ($20,000), for violating her rights under the European human rights convention.
The penalty of life imprisonment for an abortion, under an Irish law from 1861, was modified in 1992 to allow women to leave the country to end a pregnancy and allowed abortions in Ireland if “there was a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother,” the court said in summarizing the case. The issue lay in who had the authority to determine whether the mother’s life was at risk, the court said.
The woman “had a rare form of cancer and she feared it might relapse as a result of her being pregnant” and “the establishment of any such risk to her life clearly concerned fundamental values and essential aspects of hr right to respect for her private life,” the court said in announcing the ruling.
Irish law “constituted a significant chilling factor for women and doctors as they both ran a risk of a serious criminal conviction and imprisonment if an initial doctor’s opinion that abortion was an option as it posed a risk to the woman’s health was later found to be against the Irish Constitution,” the court said.
The court found in favor of Ireland in two other cases, brought by women whose lives were not at risk, saying the country has the right to restrict abortions given “the profound moral values of the Irish people in respect of the right to life of the unborn.”
Strasbourg court to rule on three women's claim that Irish abortion ban violates European human rights convention
Press Association guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 December 2010
Anti-abortion protesters in Dublin. Photograph: Niall Carson/PA Ireland's abortion laws face a landmark ruling today that could overturn the republic's sovereign right to protect unconditionally "the life of the unborn".
Three women living in Ireland want a European court to declare the country's longstanding abortion ban a violation of the European convention on human rights, to which Ireland is a signatory.
The three women, identified only as A, B and C in court documents, claim the ban forced them to travel abroad for abortions, endangering their health and wellbeing, which is safeguarded by the convention.
Their case, backed by the Irish Family Planning Association and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, was heard in the European court of human rights in Strasbourg a year ago.
The Irish government argued that the safeguards of the convention could not be interpreted as endorsing the right to abortion. Its case that Ireland must retain the sovereign right "to determine when life begins" is being supported by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and the European Centre for Law and Justice, which argue that rights are attached to "prenatal life".
Abortion was outlawed in Ireland in 1861 and life imprisonment remains a sentencing option for women convicted of "unlawfully procuring a miscarriage".
Ireland's constitution "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right". The ban was reinforced by public backing in a 1983 referendum.
The three women at the centre of the legal challenge say being forced to leave Ireland to terminate their pregnancies caused hardship and unnecessary cost.
One of the three had been diagnosed as at risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb. Another had become pregnant while receiving chemotherapy for cancer. The third already had children who were taken into care because of her inability to cope.
They all complained in 2005 that the Irish law breached the human rights convention's guarantees of the right to respect for private and family life, their right to life, the prohibition of discrimination and prohibition of torture.
The one-day court hearing last year took place two months after Ireland approved the EU's Lisbon treaty following guarantees that the country's anti-abortion constitution would remain unaffected. The threat now comes not from the EU but from the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, guardian of the human rights convention.
If the women win their claim today Irish abortion law may have to be adjusted – but not necessarily removed altogether – to take account of the health and wellbeing of pregnant women.
Cities deep in Christian country are well-known for their vocal proselytizing, but when your viewpoint veers off the God script, watch out. That's what atheists in Fort Worth, Texas, are discovering, as a new non-godly ad campaign on buses is being attacked by local believers. According to the New York Times, clergy members and others are trying to take down ads saying “Millions of people are good without god,” even as a majority of religious-related campaigns tout Christianity in that city.
But the reaction from believers has been harsher than anyone in the nonbeliever’s club expected. Some ministers organized a boycott of the buses, with limited success. Other clergy members are pressing the Fort Worth Transportation Authority to ban all religious advertising on public buses. And a group of local businessmen paid for the van with the Christian message to follow the atheist-messaged buses around town.
But the little war in Fort Worth is just a larger indicator of a trend playing across the United States, says the Times. Billboards in various other cities have invoked similar opposition and even vandalism, even in outwardly liberal Manhattan:
“In New York City, a large billboard promoting atheism at the entrance of the Lincoln Tunnel, which a local affiliate of American Atheists paid for, has generated controversy. (The message: “You know it’s a myth. This season, celebrate reason!)”
The religious ad-space stand-off is particularly acute at this time of year, when atheist groups take out ad space to help non-believers feel not-alienated around Christmastime. Read more at the Times.
By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd
Posted at December 14, 2010, 7:17 am
Almost every December, I make a donation to the pediatrics department of a hospital in the San Francisco Bay Area. This year I chose the Valley Medical Center (VMC) in San Jose.
After some inquiries, I learned that the pediatrics department at VMC prefers to receive cash, as opposed to toys, so that they could purchase items which could be used by all kids (for example a new TV).
As I had done last year, I asked the Humanist Community to join me in this effort. I am happy to say that in early December, a total of $560 was sent to the VMC Foundation from:
a. San Francisco Bay Area Humanists - $100
b. Humanist Community in Silicon Valley - $460
Thanks to all for helping make a positive impact locally!
In the first half of a two-part interview the author, journalist, public intellectual and fierce atheist Christopher Hitchens talks to Lateline about living with cancer and not seeing any valid reason to change his religious beliefs close to death.
Transcript
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Last week I travelled to Washington to interview author, journalist and public intellectual Christopher Hitchens.
The interview's in two parts. We'll screen it over the next two nights.
Hitchens was diagnosed with cancer earlier this year while on tour promoting his memoir Hitch-22.
Tonight's interview deals with how he responded to the illness and whether facing death has softened his fierce atheism or caused him to modify his belief that "religion poisons everything".
Here's the first of our two-part special.
It's very good to see you.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, AUTHOR & JOURNALIST: Tony. Nice of you to come to DC.
TONY JONES: It's a pleasure to be here, although the circumstances aren't great. And the question that most are going to want to know is how are you at the moment? How are you feeling?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: If this had been yesterday - I was wondering in fact yesterday if I could do this today.
That's because I've just had a kill-or-cure dose of venom cocktail mainlined into me, and in the first few days after that, you feel very compromised, very nauseated, very weak, very demoralised. And that's on top of knowing why you have to have it, which is I have a tumour in my oesophagus which has spread. So it's called stage four.
The thing about stage four is that there is no stage five, so I'm finding out how this can be managed, whether I can live with it, whether it can be - I doubt curable. I think the word "curable" doesn't really apply, but it can be treatable. What kind of life and how much of it I have is my big preoccupation now.
TONY JONES: Are the treatments working? Do you know?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, the tumours were shrinking with the first round, but they've stopped doing that. They're having to try something a bit stronger now and I may be a candidate for radiation therapy, which is a very tough thing. You've got to be quite strong for it. I have quite a decent constitution in spite of all my abuse of it and my advanced years. I'm still quite robust.
TONY JONES: We wouldn't say advanced years.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, I'm in my 60s now. I finally look it, I think. People until I was 60 would always say they thought I looked younger, which I think, without flattering myself, I did, but I think I certainly have, as George Orwell says people do after a certain age, the face they deserve.
TONY JONES: So are you actually up for a long interview about life, death, the universe and everything?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Oh, yes. I mean, my interest in all the large questions hasn't dimmed at all. In fact, it's quite a good way of concentrating the mind.
TONY JONES: You've talked and you've written about the cancer right from the very beginning and people have been following your account as you put out your monthly pieces in Vanity Fair. You've talked about crossing a border into the land of malady. What is that like?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, for me personally it was a bit like being deported, in that I woke up in New York, having gone to bed feeling more or less OK during a very gruelling book tour, and I woke in the morning thinking I was actually dying.
The whole liquid sac, the pericardium, as it's called, around my heart had just filled up. It was if my whole chest (inaudible) had been crammed with wet cement. I couldn't move, I couldn't breathe. And I managed to call the emergency services and these wonderful New Yorkers arrived, very heavily armed with cuffs and torches and boots. And I remember thinking idly as they loaded me into the ambulance, "Why do they need all this for one stricken civilian?"
It was a bit like being arrested and deported. And in fact, in their kindly way, they were escorting me across the frontier from the land of the well into the land of the very ill indeed. And, well, it's not a transition you can ever forget making and of course it's not one you can ever fully make back again either. However well I respond to treatment, I'll never be able to feel the way I did the day before.
TONY JONES: What does it actually mean for your day-to-day life because we see you continually out there writing, doing interviews like this, taking on, as you said, lectures, debates? I mean, how hard is it to actually get yourself out of bed in the morning to continue the life of a public intellectual?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, I don't get out of bed much before 11 these days and I go to bed much earlier than I did, so I can do about half, I suppose, of what I was doing before. I can continue to write as well. That's my big test.
There were a couple of days when I was afraid I wasn't going to be able to write, and that terrified me very much because being a writer is what I am, rather than what I do. It's my - without sounding I hope too affected, it is my raison d'etre, and as well as being terrified of the thought that I wouldn't be able to do what I'm supposed to do, I was afraid that it would diminish my will to live.
I mean, what would I be doing if I couldn't write? But that fortunately hasn't proved to be the case and I can read any day. I still read a lot, and I can write any day, but much more slowly and fewer words.
TONY JONES: Being a writer, you actually personified or personalised the cancer. You call it a blind, emotionless being. You know, that is a pathetic fallacy; you've acknowledged that yourself. But does it feel like that: that you've been invaded by something?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, obviously it can't have emotions and as far as we know it can't see. It is a being. The thing is, it can't have a life of its own, but it is an alien and it is - it is alive as long as I am. Its only purpose is to kill me. It's a self-destructive alien.
It's like the absolute negation, I suppose, of being pregnant, having something living inside you that is entirely malevolent and that wishes for your - doesn't wish for, but is purposed to encompass your death. And keeping company with this is a great preoccupation. Once you think about it like that, it's hard to un-think it.
TONY JONES: How do you feel about the people who are praying for you, because there are some, there are some who are praying for to you go to hell?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Yes.
TONY JONES: There are many more in fact who are praying for you to be cured and some who are praying for you to be converted?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: That's right - or converted and cured, to be fair to them. Well, to the people who pray for me to not only have an agonising death, but then be reborn to have an agonising and horrible eternal life of torture, I say, "Well, good on you. See you there," sort of thing.
I don't feel I'd be very much obliged to engage with them. For the people who ostensibly wish me well or are worried about my immortal soul, I say I take it kindly. I mean, it's a show of concern, it's a show of solidarity, which is a very important word to me. It's a kindness. If it doesn't do any good, and I'm sure it doesn't, it doesn't really do any harm.
The only objection I have is one I touched on a moment ago which is it seems to me a bit crass to be trying to talk to people about conversion when you know they're ill. The whole idea of hovering over a sick person who's worried and perhaps in discomfort and saying, "Now's the time to reconsider," strikes me as opportunist at the very best and has a very bad history in the past.
There've been false claims made by people who bothered Thomas Paine while he was dying or - and published reports later that he'd recanted on his death bed. Even tried that on Charles Darwin; there was an attempt at a false story of that kind. This I think is shameful, and to the extent that it reminds me of that, I resent it.
TONY JONES: The New York Times says your illness has actually spurred one of the most heated discussions that they can remember of belief, religion and immortality. It's almost inevitable, isn't it, when a famous atheist faces death, that this will happen?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Yes. Yes, it's an occasion and people never tire of saying when - as they do, many people write to me or email me, including perfect strangers, readers, well-wishers, sometimes former students or people who know me a little bit, they all, one way or another, make the point that, "OK, I won't pray for you, don't worry," or, "Perhaps you won't mind if I do."
They are all doing as if they're doing it for the first time. It's rather touching. But as I say, the argument's about immortality, the supernatural, the last things - death, judgment, heaven and hell - are or are not valid quite independently of my mental or physical state. And so there's something fishy to me in the suggestion that, "OK, now that your system is breaking down, wouldn't it be a good moment for you to repudiate the convictions of a lifetime?" Again, there's something about the underlying assumption there that I want to resist.
TONY JONES: More than 20 years ago - you mentioned Thomas Paine - but more than 20 years ago, the Oxford philosopher AJ Ayer wrote about being drawn to a red light when he'd had a near-death experience and that was interpreted by a lot of people as a suggestion that it actually changed his views of a lifetime. Are you worried this kind of thing could happen to you?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: There are two great - well, Freddy Ayer's dead now. He died not long after that. But there have been in the recent past two great humanists and atheist thinkers: himself and Professor Daniel Dennett, who've come very, very close to death and in a semi-conscious state, enough to allow them to speculate about consciousness independent of the brain and other things that fascinate all of us.
But both of their conclusive essays on this matter are in my collection The Portable Atheist, because they both, having undergone, so to say, that test, came out with their convictions unaltered.
TONY JONES: Not entirely unaltered in Ayer's case. I mean, he did conclude the experience weakened his conviction that death would be the end of him. So, he had a - not a conversion, but at least a doubt thrown in about his pure atheism.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, we can't say any more than we can say there is no god, there is no after-life. We can only say there is no persuasive evidence for or argument for it.
But I think I'd be much more willing to say there's no evidence at all that any human being can tell you how you qualify or what's meant by seeing some bright light at the end of the tunnel or coming towards you, or that if you'll only make the right propitiation or right incantation or join the right church, they can tell you about how things will be after you're dead.
I'm quite sure there's no human agency that can do that. I like surprises. If there's to be a second look around with somehow not me and not my brain, but some kind of consciousness, well, that would be more fascinating than many days I've spent in real life.
TONY JONES: It would indeed. These debates have been going on for centuries, though, and ...
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Yes, and I think will persist.
TONY JONES: You quote Blaise Pascal, who talked about a wager that could be made with a god that would actually allow you at the very last minute to make a deal with him, ...
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Yes.
TONY JONES: ... to believe for a brief period and that wager would be that, "What have you got to lose?"
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well it's rightly called a wager 'cause there's something rather hucksterish about it. And I'm not a Christian, let alone a Roman Catholic Christian as Pascal was and I'm also not a theorist of probability as he was. He was a great mathematician.
But I say hucksterish for this reason: his wager assumes two things: one, a very cynical and credulous god; in other words, a god who would say, "Well, I can see your mind working and I know that you're wagering on me because what have you got to lose, so naturally I'll reward you if you say you believe in me." Why does that follow? Why wouldn't you think, "That's not a very good reason. It's not very good reasoning. It's not a very good (inaudible)."
You might just as well be a god; in fact, you should perhaps prefer to be a god who would say, "Actually, I've more respect for the person who couldn't bring himself to believe and certainly wouldn't claim to do so in the hope of getting a favour."
TONY JONES: Yes, we're talking now logic, and of course, ...
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, not just logic; I think there's a moral tinge to this.
TONY JONES: Well, exactly, because there's an argument that the jealous god who would consign non-believers to hell is actually immoral, so why would you follow him anyway?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: There's actually a Sufi prayer from the Middles Ages that is addressed to the creator and says, "Master," or however these things are addressed, "If I pray to you in the hope of getting heaven for myself, you should deny it to me. And if I pray for you only in the fear of hell, you should send me there."
These would be bogus forms of belief, they'd be simply behaviourist, reward and punishment stuff, conditioned animal reflexes, coercive and they'd require a slave mentality, which is my second objection to the Pascal wager: it demands of us that we think of this god as a cynical, rather credulous, rather capricious opportunist, easily flattered, and of ourselves as the raw material for a pretty cruel and meaningless experiment.
Now, often we un-believers are accused of being nihilistic and not seeing the lovely deeper meanings of life. Well, what could really be more negative, more pessimistic, more cynical than the attitude I've just described?
TONY JONES: Let's go back to those people who are praying for you, because if you are in fact cured, then they'll take credit for it to some degree and perhaps even describe you as a miracle. Are you a bit nervous about that?
Because, for example, we've had two cases of spontaneous remission from terminal cancer that allowed very recently the first Australian saint, Mary MacKillop, to become St Mary of the Cross. It only happened a month ago. But the idea of intercession by prayer has certainly not disappeared in the 21st Century.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, no, it hasn't and nor will it go away as long as our fear of death persists, which I rather think that it will. We are the only mammals, we are the only primates who do know that we're going to die, and we're the only ones who have made the attempt to award ourselves, under certain conditions, an afterlife. And it's a very tenacious illusion and it's very unlikely to be dispelled.
(Coughing). Sorry. This sometimes happens. How far back should I go?
TONY JONES: That's alright.
I'm wondering have you softened at all and are you prepared to concede anything at all to the faithful that there may be some value in it. I mean, the comfort that religious belief for example gives to people who are in the same position as you?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Tony, as with a lot of this argument, looking death more closely in the eye, as I have been doing, doesn't teach you much that you didn't already know, surprisingly enough. It focuses it, brings it into quite a sharp relief, but it isn't as if I didn't already know that some people, whether they're sick or whether they're well, derive great comfort from the thought that they have a saviour, that they're a member of a flock, for example.
I mean, I personally am incapable of describing myself as a member of a flock for reasons that I hope are self-evident. I'm not a sheep. Some people like to be called sheep and think that they'd like to have a shepherd. And if that makes them feel happy, I must say I think it's a rather contemptible form of happiness, but doesn't bother me as long as they keep it to themselves. As long as they don't try and make me believe it, as long as they don't try and have it taught in schools, as long as they don't want the government to subsidise it, as long as they don't want to block scientific research in its name or because of it, then that's fine.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "I don't mind if my neighbour believes in one god or 15 gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." As long as he or she leaves me alone. I don't want to even have to know what they think. But will they requite this bargain? Of course not. Of course not. They - it doesn't really make them happy. They can't be happy ‘till everyone else believes it too, and that's sinister, in my opinion, and creepy.
TONY JONES: You've grown to distrust the idea of a utopia.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Yes.
TONY JONES: I presume actually you would imagine a world without religion would be utopian. But, let me ask you this: what do you think a world without religion, without all the cultural side-effects of it, would actually look like? I mean, would it be verging on pure commercialism and materialism? I mean, would it take people away from any spiritual side of themselves at all?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, no, that wouldn't be it because as we know from bitter experience, materialism and commercialism are unusually inordinately compatible with religion. That's why there've had to be so many successive affirmations, because the religious life goes so well with greed and accumulation and acquisition.
When asked where they really want power and influence, this world or the next?, they tend to think rather the same as the more crass materialists (inaudible) do. That doesn't make it any easier to imagine a world without religion, and it's not that I don't think that I have too little imagination to imagine that, it's just that I think it cannot in fact be imagined.
Religion is part of the human make-up. It's also part of our cultural and intellectual history. Religion was our first attempt at literature, the texts, our first attempt at cosmology, making sense of where we are in the universe, our first attempt at health care, believing in faith healing, our first attempt at philosophy.
All of them very crude and all of them long-since transcended and left behind, but respect for tradition alone makes it, I think, necessary for me to say that someone who doesn't know about religion or doesn't take an interest in it is only quasi-literate.
TONY JONES: I want to ask you what you think about Martin Amis' idea that writers like you must actually believe in some form of life after death because not all of you, not all of the parts of you are going to die because the printed words you leave behind constitute a form of immortality. I mean, is he just being kind, or do you think that there's a truth to that?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Littera scripta manet - "The written word will remain". That's true, but it won't be that much comfort to me.
Of course I do write - I've always had the sense of writing, as it were, posthumously. I once wrote an introduction to a collection of my own essays. I stole the formulation from Nadine Gordimer who said you should try and write as if for post-mortem publication because it only then can screen out all those influences: public opinion, some reviewer you might want to be impressing, some publisher who might want to publish you, someone you're afraid of offending. All these distractions, you can write purely and honestly and clearly and for its own sake. And the best way of doing that is to imagine that you won't live to see it actually written, then you can be sure that you're being objective and you're being scrupulous.
I think that's a wonderful reflection, but it doesn't - it isn't the same term as immortality at all.
TONY JONES: As you say in your memoirs, you've written for decades day in, day out - I think you said at least 1,000 words a day for many, many years - despatches, articles, lectures, books - in particular books. Doesn't it give you some comfort that your thoughts, and indeed some version of you, is going to exist after your death, is imperishable?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, if you want to know - because I try to avoid the blues when talking about all of this, but if you want to know one of the most sour reflections that I have when I think that I'm 61 now and I might not make 65 - I quite easily might not.
One of the bitter aspects of that is, well, I put in 60 years at the coalface, I worked very hard. In the last few years I've got a fair amount of recognition for it. In my opinion, actually, rather more than I deserve. Certainly more than I expected. And I could have looked forward to a few years of, shall we say, cruising speed, you know, just, as it were, relishing that, enjoying it.
Not ceasing to work, not resting on the laurels, but savouring it a bit and that - I was just getting ready for that, as a matter of fact. I was hit right at the top of my form, right in the middle of a successful book tour. I'm not going to get that and that does upset me. So that's how I demarcate it from immortality.
Similarly, I'm not going to see my grandchildren - almost certainly not. One has children in the expectation of dying before them. In fact, you want to make damn sure you die before them, just as you plant a tree or build a house knowing, hoping that it will outlive you. That's how the human species has done as well as it has.
The great Cuban writer Jose Marti said that a man - he happened to say it was a man - three duties: to write a book, to plant a tree and to have a son. I remember the year my first son was born was the year I published my first real full-length book, and I had a book party for it and for him - Alexander, my son - and I planted a tree, a weeping willow and felt pretty good for the age of, what?, I think 32 or something.
But, the thought of mortality, in other words of being outlived, is fine when it's your children, your books or your trees, but it doesn't reconcile you to an early death. No, it doesn't.
TONY JONES: Is it only people outside of your existence then who can actually romanticise this idea of the immortal Hitchens?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, people write to me - and it does - I will say this having, sorry, surrendered briefly to the blues there, but I don't want to put on any false front. I mean, in the same way, by the same token there are people who write to me and say that what I've done or written has meant something to them, that I haven't wasted my time, that I've - my life's been worth living. That's very nice too, but I'd like to have hung around to get more such letters.
TONY JONES: It's interesting you say that because that's actually where I plan to end this part of our interview, because I do plan to give my sons Letters to a Young Contrarian, and I really hope that they then pass it on to their children. And to me, whatever that means to you, that's a kind of immortality, but it's something that only people who've been following you for years can actually do.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, you couldn't have said a nicer thing and I hope you would have said it - I'm sure you would anyway. And I have to have - I'm afraid, they're the same response. I would like to have heard even more people say that. And even met some of their grandchildren and seen if it worked for them too. And this I won't get, but I've - look, I've lived longer than I used to think I probably would.
I've written and published more than I thought I would. It's been better received than I expected, and without being falsely modest, in some cases better than I think I deserve. So don't mistake this for self-pity, but I'm not going to resort to any kind of bogus joviality either.
TONY JONES: Christopher Hitchens, we'll leave you there for now. In the way of things, we're going to come back to you again tomorrow. We thank you for ...
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: If I'm spared. Inshallah.
TONY JONES: And tomorrow night in part two of our interview with Christopher Hitchens we talk about some of the extraordinary events in recent history that prompted his controversial shift away from the politics of the left.
Paul Harris in Toronto
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 November 2010 09.38 GMT
Staunch atheist wins over audience in debate with Catholic convert over whether religion is a force for good in the world
Former British prime minister Tony Blair (left) and author Christopher Hitchens before their debate on religion. Photograph: Mark Blinch/Reuters.
In theory it was not an event that should have created a stir: a philosophical debate on the moral merits of religion. In an age of reality TV drama and Hollywood blockbusters loaded with special effects it would seem hard to get the masses to flock to witness such an old-fashioned, high brow spectacle.
But when the two debaters are the world's most famous recent Roman Catholic convert in the shape of Tony Blair and the charismatic yet cancer-stricken sceptic Christopher Hitchens suddenly it becomes easier to sell tickets.
Two thousand seven hundred tickets to be precise. For that was the size of the crowd that packed the space age-looking Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto late last night to watch the two ideological foes – when it comes to religion – spar and trade verbal blows.
The occasion was part of the Munk Debate series, organised by the Aurea Foundation group, and the motion was simply: "Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world".
Both men were unabashedly stalwart in their positions. Hitchens, one of the leading "new atheists" and author of the hit book God Is Not Great, slammed religion as nothing more than supernatural gobbledegook that caused untold misery throughout human history. "Once you assume a creator and a plan it make us subjects in a cruel experiment," Hitchens said before causing widespread laughter by comparing God to "a kind of divine North Korea".
Blair, perhaps not surprisingly, was a little less forthright. On the backfoot for much of the debate he kept returning to his theme that many religious people all over the world were engaged in great and good works. They did that because of their faith, he argued, and to slam all religious people as ignorant or evil was plain wrong. "The proposition that religion is unadulterated poison is unsustainable," he said. Blair called religion at its best "a benign progressive framework by which to live our lives".
Throughout the 90-minute debate Hitchens seemed to have the crowd's sympathy. That might have been to do with his ill appearance due to cancer, but was far more likely to be down to the sharpness of his verbal barbs and the fact that 57% of the audience already agreed with his sceptical position according to a pre-debate poll, while just 22% agreed with Blair's side. The rest were undecided.
But the true winner of the debate was most likely the organisers. The high-profile debaters and controversial subject matter ensured not only a packed hall but an overflow location where people who could not get tickets were able to watch it on TV monitors. Tickets sold out weeks ago and were selling on eBay for several times their cover price. The debate was also trailed on the front pages of some Canadian newspapers and covered by local television.
It even attracted a small but vocal knot of anti-Iraq war protestors accusing Blair of war crimes. Demonstrators unveiled placards that read "Arrest Blair" and "War criminals not welcome here", proving that, as with the merits of religion, some arguments are unlikely to ever be settled with a single night's debate.
BBC - 26 November 2010 - (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11843586) Former UK prime minister Tony Blair is to take on columnist Christopher Hitchens in a televised public debate for and against religion.
Mr Blair, a Catholic convert, will argue that faith is a force for good.
Mr Hitchens, terminally ill with cancer, is expected to argue it is the world's "main source of hatred", as he did in his 2007 book God is not Great.
A 23-country poll paid for by the debate's Canadian organisers suggests the world is evenly split on the issue.
Some 48% of the 18,192 people questioned by Ipsos took the view that "religion provides the common values and ethical foundations that diverse societies need to the thrive in the 21st Century".
Fractionally more - 52% - supported the view that "religious beliefs promote intolerance, exacerbate ethnic divisions, and impede social progress in developing and developed nations alike".
Rich countries were less likely to see religion as a force for good than poor countries - the main exception being the United States, where 65% said it had a positive impact.
Ahead of the debate, which will take place in front of a sell-out audience of 2,700 people in Toronto's Roy Thomson Hall, Tony Blair said: "The good that people of faith all over the world do every day, motivated by their religion, cannot be underestimated and should never be ignored."
It could, and should, be a force for progress, he said.
Christopher Hitchens - who has described Christianity, Judaism and Islam as the "real axis of evil" - has continued his outspoken attacks on religion in interviews as he is treated for cancer of the oesophagus.
He is scathing about those who suggest his illness might lead him to retract his atheism.
In a BBC Newsnight interview to be broadcast on 29 November, he says he is not afraid of death, but regrets the fact that it will cause distress to friends and family.
In comments released by the debate's organisers he said it was "bizarre" that Mr Blair, a Catholic since 2007, had converted "at one of the most conservative times for the Catholic Church, under one of the most conservative popes".
Both men have recently published autobiographies.
Tickets for the debate - the sixth in a semi-annual series of Munk Debates - sold out within hours of going on sale.
The event will also be available to watch online, on a pay-per-view basis, on the Munk Debates website.
The Ipsos poll, conducted in September, found that Europe was the region most doubtful about the benefits of religion, with just 19% in Sweden agreeing that it was a force for good.
At the other end of the scale, in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, it was seen as a positive force by more than 90% of those questioned.
Within North America there was a pronounced divide. In Canada only 36% agreed with the positive view of religion whereas 64% saw it as a negative force - figures almost exactly the reverse of those in the US.
By MARINA KAMENEV / SYDNEY Marina Kamenev / Sydney Tue Nov 23, 8:25 am ET
Seven years ago, Simon Longstaff, the executive director of the St James Ethics Centre, was approached by a small group of parents. Longstaff's not-for-profit organization in north Sydney usually teaches businesses about making ethical decisions, hosts debates on topical issues and provides free counseling for people wrestling with ethical dilemmas. The parents were hoping he could extend his services to their elementary-school-age children.
In public schools across New South Wales, children have an optional one-hour lesson of special religious education - usually Christian Scripture - every week. Those who don't go participate instead in activities that Longstaff describes as ranging from "punitive to vaguely useful." Depending on the school, some children spend an hour collecting litter, some do homework, some watch videos, and still others sit outside the principal's office with a book. "The parents felt that what their children were required to do at the school during this time was meaningless," recalls Longstaff. "They wanted [them] to have access to something that other children had access to, but without the religious component." (See what makes a school great.)
Getting a religion alternative into the classroom took time. In 2003, Longstaff asked Philip Cam, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales, to design a secular-ethics curriculum for elementary-school students. He also approached the state's then minister for education, Andrew Refshauge, with the idea. Refshauge didn't believe it could garner sufficient support to be successful, nor did his successor, but eventually Longstaff proved that his idea had enough backing for it to go mainstream. Cam's curriculum was tried out this year in 10 primary schools with children ages 11 to 12. Volunteer parents trained by the St James Ethics Centre taught the program, and classes were only made available to those that weren't enrolled in special religious education.
Australia is not the first country to wade into this controversial territory. In 2008, Quebec installed a compulsory ethics-and-global-religions course across the Canadian province. This June, a landmark court hearing ruled in favor of a Catholic school in Montreal seeking to be exempted from teaching that curriculum on the basis that the school disagreed with presenting ethical and religious perspectives as morally equivalent to each other. In Germany, ethics classes have been compulsory in Berlin's public schools since 2006, after the honor killing of a Turkish woman by her brother. A referendum in April 2009 to give religious classes, which are optional, an equal status confirmed that no one wanted to change the status quo. Only 14% voted to make religious education compulsory. (The rest of Germany's public schools give students an option between studying ethics and religion.)
In Australia, the ethics pilot program has also been met with mixed response. Sue Knight, a lecturer from the University of South Australia in Adelaide who was commissioned by the New South Wales Department of Education to write an analysis of the curriculum, said the classwork was effective in making children more aware of ethics in everyday life. The state's Education Minister Verity Firth is expected to announce by Christmas whether Longstaff's proposal will be adopted in every public school in New South Wales next year. The classes would be available only to those who have opted out of Scripture, but Longstaff hopes the contents of the secular-ethics curriculum will eventually be made available to everyone: "Those teaching [religion] can use whatever part of the curriculum that they find helpful." (Read "Australia: Inquiry Sparks Push to Fix Child Protection.")
Religious groups, however, feel the program is, by design, exclusionary. Make a Stand, a website run by the Australian Christian Lobby, has more than 50,000 signatures on their "Save Our Scripture" petition to ban the new ethics program from schools on the premise that it's unfair to make a child choose between Scripture and secular ethics. This belief was reiterated by the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in September. He said Christians were excluded from the course: "It's the same as if you were offering reading at one time and sport at the same time, therefore forcing parents, and children, to choose between two good things." (Comment on this story.)
The national debate that has sprung up around the course has come as a surprise to Longstaff, but he is pressing ahead. The curriculum, which references a range of philosophers from Socrates to Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, covers topics like lying, fairness and the abuse of animals. "Our job is not to provide answers but to rib students into thinking about the questions," says Longstaff, who says parents have particularly commented on the dinnertime conversations that follow the classes. "[Parents] like the battle between compassion and honesty. The question of 'What do you do when grandma knits you a sweater for Christmas and you don't like it?' was very popular."
Within the Humanist movement, there is a belief that political and economic ideologies should not and cannot be addressed via the Humanist philosophy because Humanists can differ widely from one another in their political views. What exactly does this mean and how does it affect what we do (or don’t do)?
Many Humanists support and sometimes even actively participate in organizations that have political clout and resources, and can influence changes that they deem important. But the one thing we don’t do is to organize as Humanists to make changes under the Humanist banner, unless it is in response to the Religious Right or about our favorite subject, separation of religion and government.
What I would like to do in this essay is to discuss (as provocatively as possible) the subject of Humanist involvement in politics.
As Humanists we have the Affirmations of Humanism, the Humanist Manifestos I, II, III, and 2000, the Amsterdam Declaration, and the Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Principles and Values: Personal, Progressive, and Planetary. What can we do to make Humanism more than just a set of impressive manifestos, affirmations, and declarations?
The claim that political and economic ideologies should not and/or cannot be addressed via the Humanist philosophy leads one to think that these various affirmations, manifestos, and declarations don’t play a meaningful role in the lives of Humanists; it’s as if there is no alignment between these Humanist documents and the lives of those who claim to be Humanists and that these documents are irrelevant to the worldview of Humanists and unable to inform their actions. Worse than that, the downside of this is that Humanists cannot agree on any issue that is politically significant; this means that they are not able to take on an issue that will lead to significant social change and perhaps make Humanism relevant in the real world.
Even a cursory look at a couple of these documents shows why these arguments are false.
The manifestos, affirmations, and declarations can and do inform our actions - actions that could guide us socially, politically, and economically. For example, the Amsterdam Declaration says, “Humanism supports democracy and Human rights.” The Humanist Manifesto III says, “We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.” Clearly, these are supportive of political and economic rights, as well as civil and human rights. Furthermore, Humanism can provide a common framework for people all over the world. But for Humanism to be more than just a set of manifestos, affirmations, and declarations we need to do more than just talk; we need a pragmatic Humanist activism based on the ideas and ideals in these numerous manifestos and affirmations to give life to what are now merely words on paper.
This means that we need to articulate a coherent social, political, and economic vision of a more reasonable world and have our voices represented in the political arena. Otherwise, we’ll be doing what we are very good at doing, and that is, complaining that the Religious Right has too much voice and power.
What do we need to overcome? What are some of our challenges?
It appears that we Humanists prefer to keep to generalities because we can agree on those. It is often said that we should have an open-ended approach to issues; we also have a tendency to steer clear of social or political action, unless it is one of our favorite targets. This is one of the challenges that we need to overcome.
Our current approach allows many controversies to go without resolution within most Humanist groups, which provides a false appearance of ideological unity. We fear that getting into details will trigger conflict and cause the group to fall apart. This is why we are not able to have a unified public voice that articulates a Humanistic position on important and relevant issues of the day to counter the irrational voices that have taken over; this is why we are not able to apply Humanistic thinking to real world problems; and this is why, unlike most other groups, we have not been able to produce political leaders representing our Humanist philosophy.
One of the implications here is that we value our individualism and personal freedom to the point that to be inclusive we can only focus on generalities. One of the problems with this is that the inclusion and equal treatment of the range of views creates an environment where Humanists work against each other. This leads us to more debate and conflict, as opposed to compromise and action. But to take public positions on issues, we need to articulate a clear and unified position that is informed by our affirmations, manifestos, and declarations. If we are not able to do this, it would follow that our Humanist philosophy is more suited to private than to public life.
I think the notion that we need to stay with generalities to be inclusive is totally false, destructive, and irrational. First, it squelches reasoned and rational discourse on significant issues. Second, there are many specifics that we can all agree on under the broad generalized statement in our various Humanist documents because ultimately we agree on things that are basic human decencies and are reasonable. And third, those who believe we can only agree on the generalities, but not the means, show a lack of imagination, for there is a spectrum of means that are reasonable and possible only if we seek them.
I would like to address this fear that taking positions will lead to arguments and conflict, and be an alienating experience for those whose positions are not adopted by either their local Humanist groups or by more nationally organized groups, and that this will cause people to leave these groups and even cause groups to fall apart. Since the beginning of time, even in the simplest hunter and gatherer societies, humans have used political processes to manage dissent and slowly move discussions, debates, and negotiations toward a kind of closure that could serve as the basis of action. This type of closure is arrived at through consensus, compromise, or majority opinion. This simple human ability to use a political process to come to closure on issues that then guide our actions is what allows us to survive as humans. It provides the big tent under which we are all able to coexist. When we become ideological to the point that we are not able to do this, we have moved away from the Humanist position of rational and critical thinking; this should be a more serious concern than the group falling apart.
Another major issue that is commonly brought up when it comes to Humanists taking action: Being a Humanist or a non-religious person is a hurdle that prevents most Humanists from entering the world of politics. In other words, the “god thing” matters.
Although the god thing may matter, we have successful politicians, such as Pete Stark, who are atheists. So the god thing is not the only thing that matters. There are many other things that prevent Humanists from successfully entering the world of politics.
We need to learn to separate the private from the public. During an election debate with Bush, Kerry was told that Catholic archbishops stated that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate who supported unlimited stem-cell research and a woman’s right to choose. Kerry’s response was, “I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman's choice.” This is not just a respect for our Constitution, but a separation between the private and public domain of Kerry’s life. We Humanists need to learn to do this.
Also, we need to learn to become part of a team. Our individuality will not disappear if we set aside our individual opinions and work toward a fusion of ideas that might better reflect a humanistic view as opposed to our own private view. Individuality and self-centeredness are two different things.
More importantly, getting involved in politics doesn’t mean that we need to vote for any candidate who publicly declares that he or she is an atheist. Our focus should be on the vision of the candidate. A good Humanist candidate is one who supports humanistic economics over corporate capitalism, who supports religious tolerance, and who is willing to change social structures in a way that would increase self-reliance and safeguard the dignity of human beings. In other words, he or she subscribes to the various Humanist values enshrined in our numerous documents.
Furthermore, what may prevent Humanists from successfully getting involved in politics is, what I call an attitude problem: We believe that we are the world’s best skeptics. In my opinion, we do not hold a monopoly on skepticism, and we sometimes misuse it and are confused by it. Ordinarily, healthy skepticism provides the basis for examining commonly held beliefs, questions the accuracy of certain ideas, and brings the structures that support inaccurate ideas into the limelight for closer scrutiny. This is a good thing. But if skepticism is used to ridicule most of the ideas that give meaning to people’s lives, without providing compelling alternatives, then it is destructive.
Conclusion:
In an issue of The Progressive, in an article entitled “Winning Isn’t Everything,” Steve Cobble, who worked on Kucinich’s campaign, said the following: “Sometimes, … politics is changing the landscape. … [S]ometimes politics is about changing the behavior of a major party. Or... strengthening a constituency that a major party can then adopt or co-opt. Sometimes … politics is about bringing new blood into a stagnant system, training a new cadre of organizers, changing the rules of the game. And sometimes … politics is about poetry as well as prose, offering a new way of thinking about America, challenging the power structure head-on, giving voice to the voiceless.”
I know that not everyone is a politician, nor does everyone want to be one. But I think the majority of us are involved in the democratic process one way or another, because we believe that even the little we contribute today creates an opportunity for someone to build on tomorrow. It allows us to speak truth to power and make others more seriously consider the issues; it keeps significant issues alive. We do this either though various organizations or individually.
Let me ask the question that I asked at the beginning of this essay: What can we do to make Humanism more than just a set of impressive manifestos, affirmations, and declarations?
I think one answer to this question is that we should practice Humanism and not just speak about it. Our Humanist philosophy - as stated in our manifestos, aspirations, declarations - is our guide to social, political, and economic action. We should get over the barriers that we have created for ourselves and start practicing our ideals, as enshrined in our Humanistic documents, for these will allow cultural changes, which will in time support a much more secular and dignitarian society, where the welfare of human beings comes first.
We should be leading this effort because it’s the Humanist thing to do. As they say, “Let us be good ancestors.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Armineh Noravian was a member of the Board of Directors of the Humanist Community in Silicon Valley between 2007-2010, where she served as Vice President in 2008 and President in 2009 and 2010. She was also President of the Silicon Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and state from 2005-2006, and a member of the Board of Directors of the ACLU, Santa Clara Valley chapter from 2006-2008. She holds a M.S. in Engineering and a M.A. in Applied Anthropology (cultural).
The Progressive
By Annie Laurie Gaylor, November 12, 2010
It’s not a happy birthday for Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
The leading suffragist was born on Nov. 12, 1815, but her 195th birthday comes amid a concerted attack on the nation’s highest elected woman.
The despicable attempt to demean Nancy Pelosi’s achievements as the House Democratic leader and to belittle her determination to keep her leadership role shows how precarious a woman’s place in U.S. politics remains.
It was Pelosi who insisted that President Obama deliver meaningful health care reform instead of abandoning ship. It was Pelosi who got the House to pass crucial bills on jobs and global warming, which the Senate unfortunately squashed. She kept a fractious Democratic Party in line in the House, which is no small task.
No male politician with her skills and accomplishments would be treated so badly. The double standard lives on.
Stanton would applaud Pelosi’s grit and determination, in the face of ridicule, to carry on in the leadership position she has rightfully earned.
Stanton was not only among the first to call for women’s suffrage. She was the first woman candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. She firmly believed in the importance of women’s political power.
When Stanton grew up, there wasn’t only a glass ceiling; there was a “no woman allowed” sign at every door.
Despite a brilliant intellect, Stanton was barred, as a woman, from college, from a respectable career, and from the rights and duties of citizenship itself.
As a newly married abolitionist, Stanton was silenced and curtained off from participation at the World’s Anti-Slavery Convention — a humiliation that opened her eyes to the civil enslavement of all women. As a disenfranchised citizen, Stanton called the ballot “the mightiest engine yet . . . for the uprooting of ignorance, tyranny, superstition, the overturning of thrones, altars, kings, popes, despotisms, monarchies and empires.”
Even some friends castigated her when she had the temerity to insist that suffrage be part of the plank of the first women’s rights convention in 1848. The press, the clergy and representatives of polite society piled on.
Stanton later recalled “how the Bible was hurled at us from every side” by critics citing scripture and verse to gag “uppity” women. And the very women’s movement she had co-founded scorned her for writing “The Woman’s Bible,” which criticized religion and fearlessly urging women to replace superstition and belief with “science and reason.”
But Stanton never backed down. Neither should Pelosi.
Annie Laurie Gaylor is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., and is editor of the newspaper Freethought Today and the anthology, “Women Without Superstition: No Gods - No Masters.” She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
Living Philosophy: The Philosophical Tradition & S.F. Bay Area Secular Humanist Communities
by Jason Smick - lecturer, Santa Clara University
Last month I discussed some of the reasons that I think philosophy and humanist communities need one another. This week I would like to amplify one aspect of that discussion. More specifically, I want to discuss why it is that I think the academic philosophical community could benefit from a closer involvement with humanist communities.
From the beginning, philosophy was indeed a distinct way of thinking. Yet in the ancient period, this way of thinking was related to and served a distinct way of life. To paraphrase a point made in different but complementary ways by the French philosopher and historian of philosophy, Pierre Hadot, one might say that most contemporary philosophers regard philosophy as a theoretical discourse, one not bound necessarily to a lived community that includes, in addition to philosophical theoreticians, persons devoted to the ways and cause of philosophy but who are themselves not philosophical theorists as such. This is to say that philosophical theorists today ordinarily do not see, let alone enact, philosophy as a way of life and type of community. The consequence would seem to be that philosophical communities in the ancient sense have disappeared.
But is this the case? Can one show that, contrary to appearances, there remain philosophical communities analogous to the ancient Greek and Roman schools such as Epicureanism and Stoicism, or, even more recently, to the Enlightenment-era Philosophes or the Marxist revolutionary movements of the 20th century?
I would like to suggest that the philosophical communities associated with academia do not exhaust the reality of philosophical society at present. There continue to exist philosophical communities, which, like their ancient and modern antecedents, include philosophers who are not philosophical theorists. There are communities that use the language of philosophy, see the world in a philosophical way, enact philosophical practices, and structure their self-understanding and understanding of others with the help of distinctly philosophical ideas. These communities are constituted by lawyers, doctors, computer programmers, and schoolteachers who are philosophers not because they write treatises or give papers at conferences, but because they think and live a philosophical life.
What communities do I have in mind? In my view, contemporary secular humanist associations are living examples of philosophical community in the broader, deeper, and more inclusive sense. Take as an example, and one that is close to home, the Humanist Community (HC). Most of HC‘s members are not professional philosophers, though some are. Rarely, if ever, is the term ―philosophy‖ used by its community members to describe the kind of community to which they belong. Yet every week, its membership gathers and repeats one of the most ancient of philosophical practices – dialogue. The weekly ―Sunday Forum‖ ‖ is less akin to Sunday church services than it might seem, though the comparison is sometimes made. More so, these forums are philosophical dialogues informed, ideally, by reasoned presentations and discussions carried out in a spirit that is generally charitable and open-minded. In this way, and perhaps without realizing it, HC does on a weekly basis what philosophers have done on a regular basis for the last 2,600 years in both formal and informal contexts. Where the two differ is in their practical life. The HC‘s collective advocacy on social justice issues and its children‘s program are two examples of the way that humanist groups continue to preserve and cultivate the practical dimensions of a philosophical life, that is, one oriented primarily to the world and worldly concerns. The very fact that HC is understood to be a community, and is carried out as a community, is another example.
These observations reveal an at least implicit, and, at times, explicit commitment on the part of humanist groups both to a philosophical account of life – a philosophical worldview – and to a philosophical approach to the project of life that necessitates acts that found and/or perpetuate a community. The aforementioned HC practices of dialogue, social action, and children‘s educational programs not only serve as means for fleshing out ideas and issues, or addressing social issues, or caring for the young. They are also practices that draw its membership into community with one another so as to renew their commitment to the community itself.
That few, if any, professional philosophers see humanist communities as philosophical communities is perhaps partly due to the complex historical relation of philosophy to Christianity. This is Hadot‘s claim, and it is one that I would accept as a provisional, working hypothesis. The same complex relation might also help to account for why it is that humanist communities ordinarily do not see themselves as philosophical communities. Hadot argues that one consequence of the Christian tradition‘s efforts to consolidate its intellectual, social, and political influence and to comprehend its own meaning and goals, was the reduction of philosophy to a theoretical activity directed toward the formalization and rationalization of the Christian faith. Christianity recognized in philosophical thinking a resource that could and did provide a good deal of the conceptual language for articulating and expressing the Christian worldview and way of life. The practical dimensions of philosophy – its various communities, ethical codes, and ways of dealing with loss and death – offered an alternative to the Christian life. It quite rightly, therefore, saw philosophy as one of its competitors. It thus suppressed existing philosophical forms of life while retaining and further developing philosophical theory and its methods and concepts within the context of Christianity. But it also incorporated many of the non-theoretical practices philosophy such as ―examination of the conscience. As a consequence of this reduction and incorporation, over the course of the modern era, even as philosophy recovered itself as an autonomous tradition, it continued to see itself as a strictly theoretical activity. One might say it had forgotten that it was ever anything more than a community of theorists.
It is perhaps for this reason that a book Reginald White published in 1970 on the 18th century Enlightenment philosophers known as the Philosophes could be called The Anti-Philosophers. Why ―anti-philosophers‖? As White recounts, the Philosophes were considered such by some philosophers because they were interested in practical affairs like education and political reform and not just questions related to epistemology, metaphysics, or natural philosophy. Perhaps this is one reason that most philosophers, for their part, do not see humanist communities as philosophical communities. And the professional philosophical community is the poorer for it, I believe. This is why I would encourage members of the HC to explore the claims I have made here. And if you find that they can be substantiated, I would further encourage you to experiment with your assumptions about what humanism is. For example, do your studies of philosophy suggest that humanist communities can reasonably be redescribed as philosophical communities? If so, and if that led to a dialogue between philosophy and humanist communities, groups like the HC could serve as a living reminder to contemporary philosophical theorists that they too belong to a community as meaningful and real as their ancient and modern precursors; or at least that they once did, and perhaps could again.
This column was first printed in the Humanist Community Newsletter November 2010, vol.16, issue 11)
____________________________________________________________
(Jason Smick is a lecturer in Philosophy of Religion at Santa Clara University. A native of the Sacramento area, he holds degrees in philosophy, theology, and religious studies. His work focuses on the practical and communal dimensions of ancient and modern Western philosophical traditions, and the relation of secular cultures and traditions to both the religions and Western philosophy.)
Religious Right Forces Are Certain to Demand Action in Congress on Divisive Culture-War Concerns, Says AU’s Lynn
WASHINGTON - November 3 - Voters want Congress to focus on fixing the economy, but Religious Right groups are sure to demand that attention be paid to their divisive agenda, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Exit polls show that more than 60 percent of voters cited the economy as their top concern in yesterday's voting. The figure was even higher in states hard hit by the financial setbacks.
But the changes in Congress, says Americans United, will empower Religious Right leaders who will insist on action on controversial social issues.
"Voters sent a strong message that they want Congress to focus on fixing the economy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, "but the election results may inflict collateral damage on the Constitution. I think the Religious Right will seize this opportunity to advance its agenda in Congress."
Lynn said he expects the Religious Right to push for religious school vouchers, publicly funded "faith-based" hiring bias, creationism in the public schools, laws allowing electioneering by churches, "Christian nation" resolutions and other measures that undercut church-state separation.
Lynn noted that likely House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have long records of working with the Religious Right on a wide variety of social issues.
"Americans did not vote to stoke the fires of the culture war," said Lynn, "but they may have done so inadvertently."
Lynn noted that many candidates who openly attacked church-state separation were defeated.
Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, Delaware House candidate Glen Urquhart and Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle all lost. (Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck was trailing in his race, but a vote count was still under way.)
Lynn noted, however, that the Religious Right remains a potent political force in some situations. In Iowa, for example, a concentrated campaign by the Family Research Council, the American Family Association and their allies resulted in the ousting of three state Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples.
"Church-state separation is going to be under sustained fire for the next two years in Congress and in many state legislatures," said Lynn. "Religious Right leaders are re-energized by the election results, and they are going to want action. Those of us who believe in individual freedom and equality are going to have our hands full."
###
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Note there are two items to download: (1) Red Letters of the King James Bible for the press.pdf and (2) Discussion.pdf.
Format: You can (1) read any or all of the article(s) that is provided for each meeting, (2) read something somewhat related to it, or (3) be prepared to share a situation that has some connection to it. We'll have a moderated discussion of all the above.
Rules: Listen and contribute to a diversity of views respectfully, especially ones you don't agree with.
Dinner: After our discussion we'll walk to Szechwan Cafe for dinner. (406 South California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA - (650) 327-1688.)
If anyone has another somewhat related reading they wish to share please let me know.
I look forward to seeing you and anyone you wish to bring along.
Amnesty International will be celebrating 50 years of human rights activism and they would like to invite you to kick off the celebration with them at this year's Western Regional Conference!
Amnesty International USA's Western Regional Conference is an annual meeting that brings together Amnesty members and human rights activists from across the 13-state region. This year they will be featuring prominent speakers from the human rights community: Amy Goodman, the host and executive producer of the award-winning independent news program Democracy Now!; Rebiya Kadeer, Uighur human rights activist and former prisoner of conscience; Jorge Bustamante, UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants; and Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA.
Join Amnesty International members and activists for an inspiring weekend full of dynamic speakers, ground-breaking workshops, and amazing panel discussions with human rights defenders.
Location:
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
The following is a transcript of a talk I gave at the American Humanist Association Conference in San Jose (June 2010).
___________________________________________________________
We live in a world where we see hunger, poverty, cruelty, and injustice; we see human rights violations. As humanists we have causes that are morally justifiable to fight for. But to be consistent with our humanistic values, it is obvious that just any means to that end will not do. We need to always remember the words in the humanist manifesto that define our means loud and clear. Those words are: “differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly spells out universal human rights in 30 articles. Nowhere in this document does it condone war as a means to achieving human rights. Nowhere does it suggest that the life of human beings should be jeopardized or sacrificed in defense of deeply held rigid beliefs. In fact, the whole spirit of the Enlightenment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to preserve the rights of each individual human being, with the primary right being the right to life.
The United States is currently involved in two war fronts, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. I am going to talk about both these wars from the perspective of a humanist and attempt to put a human face on these conflicts.
Let me begin with 9/11.
9/11 was a horrific and unforgettable experience for our country and certainly for those who were directly affected by it. 2,993 people from over 90 countries lost their lives. This attack was orchestrated and carried out by Al Qaeda, a terrorist group, hiding out in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is a militarized and politicized Islamic group that developed partly as a result of CIA recruitment and training of the Mujahideen militants to defeat the Russians in the 1980s. 9/11 became President Bush’s justification for attacking Afghanistan in October 2001 and we’ve been there ever since.
Since the 9/11 attack was not carried out by the government of Afghanistan, but by a terrorist group made up of mostly Saudi citizens hiding in that country, it would be reasonable for humanists to ask, if a terrorist group hiding out in England were to have been behind the 9/11 attacks, would the United States have declared war on England and attacked England?
I don’t think so.
The attack on Afghanistan held the entire Afghan population responsible for the terror attack.
After 9 years we have not caught Bin Ladin. We have not eliminated Al Qaeda. We have not brought peace or stability to Afghanistan. We have not made Americans safer. We have not diminished the threat of terrorism.
We have however helped Al Qaeda morph into a real 21st century organization of “terrorists without borders.” We have avenged the deaths of the 2993 people who were killed on 9/11 by killing many times that number in Afghanistan.
The invasion of Afghanistan does not seem to have been based on reason, but on vengeance.
Remember, Humanists are big on reason.
The justification for this war has evolved. What began as a war against those who carried out 9/11 nine years ago, is now touted as a good war that is “liberating” the oppressed women of Afghanistan from the hands of the Taliban.
Some of the women of Afghanistan have a very different perspective on this topic. RAWA, which is the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, says, “The US ‘War on Terrorism’ removed the Taliban regime in October 2001, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism, which is the main cause of all our miseries. In fact, by reinstalling the warlords in power in Afghanistan, the US administration is replacing one fundamentalist regime with another. The US government and Mr. Karzai mostly rely on Northern Alliance criminal leaders who are as brutal and misogynist as the Taliban.”
So we can pat ourselves on the back because in 9 years we have managed to replace one group of thugs with another.
The story of the war in Iraq is even worse.
The war in Iraq was begun in March 2003. President Bush repeatedly asserted that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, even though the UN inspectors said they could not find any evidence of such weapons. As humanists we are big on evidence. But even though there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, some of the supporters of this war were people who call themselves humanists. The reason for this support was obviously not evidence, but fear. This preemptive strike was a strike based on an emotional justification, not a reasoned justification.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq, to rid the country of Saddam Hussein and his two sons (a total of three people), has been the cause of over one million Iraqi deaths , and countless who have been maimed, traumatized, displaced, shell shocked, and forced to live in desperate conditions around the world.
As the war raged on and the death toll rose, and as weapons of mass destruction were not found, President Bush and all those who supported this invasion made up other reasons to justify this war, reasons that fit the myth of “spreading” democracy and human rights, to those uncivilized others, the Arabs and the Muslims.
Women and minority groups who were said to have been repressed by Saddam Hussein and who were also used as justification for the invasion, have now lost virtually all of their rights.
Some claim one of the benefits of this invasion is a democratically elected Iraqi government. But this so-called democratically elected government was elected in an atmosphere of fear, violence, and intimidation.
Let me switch gears here.
People like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi have moved mountains through peaceful means. The changes they have brought about are long lasting. Our Humanist Manifesto captures their deeds with the following words: “Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.”
Neither the war in Afghanistan nor in Iraq has brought about a change that can be considered long lasting or for the good of humanity. Neither war has been based on reason or evidence; both have been justified by pure emotion – vengeance and fear.
King and Gandhi fought with nonviolent means, and they won. They brought about changes that improved the human condition. Compare that with the outcome of the violent, deadly and costly wars we have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although these wars have significantly improved the profits for corporations involved in the military industrial complex, they have not improved the overall human condition.
Unfortunately, I have observed that there are people who hold their belief system dearer than the lives of other people, and would kill people to defend their belief. Our humanist belief system, at its core, is fundamentally about appreciation of human life. It is therefore an absolute contradiction to kill human beings to further such a belief system. In other words, you cannot kill to further humanism.
As an ethnic Armenian, I have inherited a painful history. The Armenian Genocide, which historians call the first genocide of the 20th century, was not something that I experienced, but my grandparents did. Even so, after two generations, I find it difficult to talk about it or to look at photographs of the dead bodies of Armenian men, women, and children without feeling pain. Pain is passed along from generation to generation.
What we have done in Iraq and in Afghanistan will leave a painful legacy that will be suffered for generations to come. The grandchildren of survivors will look back and feel the pain that we, the United States, caused them. They will not forget or forgive us for what we have done.
I was born in the Middle East. I would say that I look like a typical person from the Middle East. I could pass for a person from Afghanistan or Iraq; I could pass for an Arab or a Jew from the Middle East. When I look at those people in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Palestine or Israel, when I see their photos, I think of my parents, my relatives, my cousins, my siblings; I think of them as me.
I feel for their loss as I would feel for the loss of someone who was part of my family. They are not faceless or voiceless for me.
I have two boys who are not too far off in age than the average American soldier who has been either killed or maimed for life in these wars. Our soldiers or their families are not faceless or voiceless for me.
As a humanist, I see all people on this planet as part of one gigantic family. I don’t see their lives as something that I can casually dispense with for any end.
Those who defend these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq often gloss over the lives of people who have been killed, as if they are disposable. In conversations you sometimes hear people say something like, “the deaths toll can’t be ignored, BUT, Saddam was a bad guy who killed people.” There is always the BUT, to justify the deaths of people.
Sometimes they call the killing of civilians “collateral damage”. These deaths are spoken of almost as a side issue, and often not tracked or reported. They are deemed as necessary to achieve an uncertain end.
I could have been born in Iraq or Afghanistan. Life’s circumstances could have dictated that I remained there. I could have been declared collateral damage by those who justify killing civilians in the name of liberating them. I could have been one of the women who is displaced because her home was destroyed, or her spouse and children were maimed and killed. My kids could have been those kids who saw their parents killed right in front of their eyes.
As human beings, we are limited in our ability to imagine the pain of other people. If we are not connected to the pain we cause, we can become good at inflicting pain. If all we see are images that appear like fireworks on TV when our air power is attacking Iraq at night, or dust rising in the distance from our bombs, we don’t feel the pain of those who are maimed, killed, and suffer as a result of our attacks.
As an American and a person who has her roots in the Middle East, I am deeply disturbed to see human beings killed in countries of this region funded by our tax dollars, cheered on by those who support wars, under the guise of defending human rights.
And now to close: As humanists we should remember that deeply held beliefs make it easy to accept the absurd. It can create hubris. Propaganda such as “we are going to war to liberate people” or “we are bringing democracy to people” or “we are protecting America” are the new myths that have replaced the older ones that said “we are bringing civilization and Christianity to the native Americans, or the Mexicans.”
As humanists, we should be able to differentiate between propaganda and facts: War is violence and violence does not bring about security.
As humanists, we should not outsource our moral responsibility; we should seek out those who present pseudo-rational arguments in favor of war and expose them for their lack of reasoning and lack of compassion.
There are numerous possibilities between the extremes of all out war on one hand and appeasement on the other. It is our lack of imagination and our failure to envision other possibilities that limits our options to these two extremes.
Just envision what real diplomacy could do.
Conflict is natural. Conflict resolution is natural. But war is not conflict resolution. Just imagine what a humanistic foreign policy could do.
From a humanist point of view, war is a human catastrophe. As Humanists, we should advocate diplomacy to prevent situations that ultimately lead to wars and to identify solutions that would pave the path for peaceful alternatives to war.
Lastly, one cannot be a humanist and advocate militarism.
_____________________________________________________________ Armineh Noravian was a member of the Board of Directors of the Humanist Community in Silicon Valley between 2007-2010, where she served as Vice President in 2008 and President in 2009 and 2010. She was also President of the Silicon Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and state from 2005-2006, and a member of the Board of Directors of the ACLU, Santa Clara Valley chapter from 2006-2008. She holds a M.S. in Engineering and a M.A. in Applied Anthropology (cultural).
