A Secular Response

Liberal Critics

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:50:00 -0400

Here’s a nice article on the “liberal media’s” reporting on the Boston Bombers’ jihadist motives. The so-called leftist press isn’t anything like apologetic to the influence of radical Islam, despite what some conservatives might want you to believe. That’s progress of a kind.

Poison in a Free State

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:34:00 -0400

Poison in a Free State:

Business Insider has a great piece about the elder Boston Marathon bomber’s descent into radical Islam, all while enjoying and living in the freest multicultural society on Earth. Tamerlan Tsarnaev fell under the influence of an Armenian convert named Misha, who among other things, persuaded Tsarnaev to give up music (forbidden according to some interpretations of Islam), become interested in the Edicts of the Elders of Zion, and to dismiss the Bible as a “cheap copy” of the Qur’an (anybody who’s studied even a sliver of religious history will know that it’s the other way around).

That a young man living in America could be persuaded so profoundly by radical Islam to commit such a heinous atrocity does not speak well of the success of secular discourse. In many ways, just about every religion is at odds with the march of progress in modern society, but none so actively threatens as does radical Islam. It’s time we really had a reasoned national discussion about Islam and Western secular democracy. The public airwaves are filled with people criticizing Deuteronomy during same-sex equality debates, or on Timothy when discussing women in society. It’s time to acquaint ourselves similarly with the teachings of Islam, inform reasoned opinions, and become forcefully critical of those who want to use it to disrupt civilization. We know most Muslims do not aspire to this kind of violent faith, and its our responsibility to deny it as well.

All this means we need to fight harder to change public discussion on faith, reason, and the differences between our religions. There’s no law that’s going to solve the problem of Islamofascism. It’s a cultural problem. This is a war of ideas, and it’s critical that we win.

Boston Bombers and Islamophobia

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:44:00 -0400

Boston Bombers and Islamophobia :

Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic makes a good point about the United States withholding the labeling of the Boston Bombers as Islamic jihadists. He says we should wait until we have more information—that there is no harm in waiting. I agree, to an extent.

For its part, the secular community has done a great job of waiting for more information. But the more details come, the more it looks likely that radical Islamic fascism has something to do with the bombers’ motives. Friedersdorf criticizes Andrew Sullivan for saying as much. Or, rather, Sullivan is criticized for his criticism of Glenn Greenwald, who maintains there could be other motives—we just don’t know what they are yet. Friedersdorf seems to side with Greenwald’s “agnosticism” on the point.

That would be all well and good save for the fact that we can’t really rely on Greenwald and other powerful voices on the left to ever truly identify Islam as the problem. If we learned anything about Greenwald’s recent and baseless smear of Sam Harris, it’s that our modern liberals are hellbent on ascribing any motive besides religious extremism to the actions of Islamic terrorists. This will continue to be a problem as we confront the future of terrorism in the waining days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

By all means, let us examine the motives of people who want to kill and maim innocents, and let us not jump to conclusions. But let us not cripple ourselves from the outset by giving an unfair pass to religious (particularly Islamic) extremism either. Religion is inseparable from political motivation because religion seeks to exert power in the here-and-now, and as such it should be open to criticism.

The Papal Resignation: Media and Legacy

Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:31:03 -0500

The Papal Resignation: Media and Legacy:

The news of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is still in the “hard facts” and “straight information” section of reportage, but it’s only a matter of time before the story changes to legacy. Too often, the mass media and public opinion let celebrities down with only mention of the good done in their lives, and offer sparse attention to the sicklier bits. Let’s hope this man (this mere mortal) won’t go down unremembered as a protector of child-rapists and wrench-thrower in the fight against AIDS in Africa.

Slimy, Catholic Monday-Morning Quarterbacking

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:55:00 -0500

Slimy, Catholic Monday-Morning Quarterbacking:

Jeremy Stodghill lost his wife and the twins she was carrying at St. Thomas Moore Hospital in Canon City, Colo. Then, he had to file for bankruptcy after losing a wrongful death case, wherein the Catholic Hospital argued that the unborn twins were not people. That’s a nightmare, but legally understandable—or, at least, it would be for a secularly minded institution.

On Monday, the clergy descended from the woodwork to frown upon St. Thomas Moore’s decision as legally right, morally wrong in terms of Catholic tradition. Nice of them to show up after it’s already been settled. Do they plan on reopening the case on behalf of Mr. Stodghill? Of course not. It’s just another case of opportunism. Another plain example of how religion solves nothing and has nothing to offer to the rational discussion of what is and isn’t right.

Victories for Civilization: Timbuktu

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 10:05:31 -0500

Victories for Civilization: Timbuktu:

A wonderful gentleman named Ali Imam Ben Essayouti knew all too well what the radical Islamists who’d infected Timbuktu were capable of. That’s why he managed to save over 8,000 manuscripts full of ancient knowledge by hiding them away. Many other Malians did the same—a tradition among a people who truly value knowledge that belongs to the world.

This NYT piece gives a good account of the challenges Essayouti and others faced once rebels and Islamists took over Mali, and how life is slowly getting better now that the French have ousted the extremist infestation.

skepticalavenger: Kinda sounds like a no-brainer when put this...

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:14:10 -0500

skepticalavenger:

Kinda sounds like a no-brainer when put this way, doesn’t it?

Yes. Yes it does.

Contraception: Religious Exception

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 05:05:02 -0500

Contraception: Religious Exception:

thecommonsenselibertarian:

asecularresponse:

thecommonsenselibertarian:

asecularresponse:

The United States handed out more special privileges for the religious today. The Obama administration’s HHS exempted houses of worship and religious schools from the contraceptive mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act. Women working there can still get contraception, but the insurance company will foot the bill.

This is good for women, and a huge win for religious whiners as well. I hope this makes the issue die down a bit, but I can almost guarantee it won’t. After all, there’s many a non-exempt, god-bothering business man who thinks it’s his right to impose his religion upon his employees.

It’s a good time to remember that we ought to care more about the plight of every woman’s rights than the totalitarian fantasies of a few Americans.

LOL “thinks it’s his right to impose his religion upon his employees.” I think you mean that the government thinks it’s their right to impose their lack of religion on a businessman.

You’re approaching this from a libertarian perspective, which is a different discussion. I’m coming purely from the secular viewpoint that religious opinions shouldn’t undermine the effectiveness of the law, assuming that the law will stand. It is literally impossible to craft a law that doesn’t infringe on some religious group’s practice and tradition—literally millions of people could claim special religious exemption from several of the requirements off the PPACA (eg: Christian Scientists who don’t want medical insurance at all because they don’t use most medicine). Therefore, special privileges should not be given; doing so would completely cripple the law’s intent, since it is based on group participation. And since I’m assuming a) the law represents many shared responsibilities and sacrifices from individuals unrelated to religion; b) the PPACA is a valid federal law, and c) no religious claims can be proven true, I can’t find a good reason to value an objection on religious grounds over any other objection.

There are many reasons to debate and reject the PPACA—most completely unrelated to religion—but so long as it is law, the rights it guarantees should not be denied from a woman because of someone else’s religious opinion.

Good food for thought, though.

Well, the way I look at it, laws shouldn’t be designed to force people to do anything. And, in all technicality, Congress doesn’t have the legal right to pass any law that isn’t necessary for them to function. Stuff like that in an infringement on states’ rights. So right there, they’re violating article 1, section 8 of the Constitution AND the 10th amendment. They’re also in violation of the 1st amendment by forcing churches to provide coverage to their employees that covers contraceptives. I’m all for religious exemptions. That’s not something that should be debatable. Freedom of religion is freedom of religion, not freedom of religion as long as the state is ok with it.

I do appreciate the civility of your reply. That’s rare to see on Tumblr.

I see where you’re coming from, but I still think the root issue of your complaint has more to do with your interpretation of the Federal Government’s role in society more than it has to do with religion. I likely have a much different opinion. For instance, I would try to argue Article 1, section 8 lends more to my side of the argument, particularly: “…all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United State”. And, of course, I would also argue that the intent of the First Amendment was to prevent any particular religious tenets from being imposed upon others who do not hold the same beliefs.

Just about every law can be objected to on some religious ground simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many religions with varying beliefs—I mean, people who object to abortion/contraception because they see it as murder still have to subsidize capital punishment and the military. I could certainly understand a position that said these people shouldn’t have to support anything they abhor (not that I would agree with that position. But again, that’s a different discussion).

I’m simply pointing out that it’s arbitrary to single out contraception unless it’s religiously motivated, in which case it becomes a problem of actively applying a belief system to unbelievers’ lives. I think it’s less intrusive to institute a passive regime of unbelief and let people act independently in their personal decisions. The federal government isn’t forcing Catholic women to take birth control pills, after all.

Anyways, I’m probably not the most qualified person to debate the roles of Federal vs. State governments. I’m more interested in pointing out problems with religion.

And yeah…tumblr’s a wasteland of hormonal teenage rage. Good chat!

"Obeying God is simply another way to obey other humans."

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:24:11 -0500

“Obeying God is simply another way to obey other humans.”

- http://asecularresponse.com/obey-earthly-power/

Obey: Earthly Power

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:23:05 -0500

Obey: Earthly Power:

Obeying God is simply another way to obey other humans.

Spend enough time listening to AM radio Christian preachers, attending church, or studying religious methods, and you’ll inevitably encounter a suggestion (or often, a command) to “obey God.” The logic seems simple enough: God loves you and is the most powerful and all-knowing being in existence, therefore it’s necessary to obey the laws that he has put in place. This will not only guarantee you redemption from Hell, but it will prove to him that you truly love him in return because you respect his requirements.

Contraception: Religious Exception

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:38:10 -0500

Contraception: Religious Exception:

thecommonsenselibertarian:

asecularresponse:

The United States handed out more special privileges for the religious today. The Obama administration’s HHS exempted houses of worship and religious schools from the contraceptive mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act. Women working there can still get contraception, but the insurance company will foot the bill.

This is good for women, and a huge win for religious whiners as well. I hope this makes the issue die down a bit, but I can almost guarantee it won’t. After all, there’s many a non-exempt, god-bothering business man who thinks it’s his right to impose his religion upon his employees.

It’s a good time to remember that we ought to care more about the plight of every woman’s rights than the totalitarian fantasies of a few Americans.

LOL “thinks it’s his right to impose his religion upon his employees.” I think you mean that the government thinks it’s their right to impose their lack of religion on a businessman.

You’re approaching this from a libertarian perspective, which is a different discussion. I’m coming purely from the secular viewpoint that religious opinions shouldn’t undermine the effectiveness of the law, assuming that the law will stand. It is literally impossible to craft a law that doesn’t infringe on some religious group’s practice and tradition—literally millions of people could claim special religious exemption from several of the requirements off the PPACA (eg: Christian Scientists who don’t want medical insurance at all because they don’t use most medicine). Therefore, special privileges should not be given; doing so would completely cripple the law’s intent, since it is based on group participation. And since I’m assuming a) the law represents many shared responsibilities and sacrifices from individuals unrelated to religion; b) the PPACA is a valid federal law, and c) no religious claims can be proven true, I can’t find a good reason to value an objection on religious grounds over any other objection.

There are many reasons to debate and reject the PPACA—most completely unrelated to religion—but so long as it is law, the rights it guarantees should not be denied from a woman because of someone else’s religious opinion.

Good food for thought, though.

Contraception: Religious Exception

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:59:29 -0500

Contraception: Religious Exception:

The United States handed out more special privileges for the religious today. The Obama administration’s HHS exempted houses of worship and religious schools from the contraceptive mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act. Women working there can still get contraception, but the insurance company will foot the bill.

This is good for women, and a huge win for religious whiners as well. I hope this makes the issue die down a bit, but I can almost guarantee it won’t. After all, there’s many a non-exempt, god-bothering business man who thinks it’s his right to impose his religion upon his employees.

It’s a good time to remember that we ought to care more about the plight of every woman’s rights than the totalitarian fantasies of a few Americans.

"All the anti-choice movement succeeds at is wasting the time of reasonable people and impeding the..."

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:27:00 -0500

“All the anti-choice movement succeeds at is wasting the time of reasonable people and impeding the march of progress towards a better world.”

- Anti-Choice: Faith-Based and Harmful

Anti-Choice: Faith-Based and Harmful

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:24:29 -0500

Anti-Choice: Faith-Based and Harmful:

An article over at ASecularResponse.com

The anti-choice movement is made up entirely of people who are not serious about solving problems or making the world a better place. On the contrary, it is a faith initiative grounded in emotional appeals and manipulative rhetoric that can never hope to do less harm than good. Last Friday during the March for Life in Washington, DC, tens of thousands of Americans proudly announced their zealousness in confounding the rights of women and hindering progress. This is a scandal.

Islamists in Mali Torch Ancient Manuscripts

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:50:57 -0500

Islamists in Mali Torch Ancient Manuscripts:

Need we yet more evidence of what radical Islam has in store for the world? Many manuscripts written in several languages detailing the medieval period of the Middle East are gone. Knowledge has been destroyed, never to be returned, and it’s worth noting that knowledge does not belong to any state, nor should it confine itself to any borders. These terrorists took something from the world that can never be brought back (just like the celebrating man they killed in the streets).

And all this happened while on the run from French troops—not exactly a prudent errand when escaping from a well-armed, first-world military. That the thought would even cross their minds shows us 1) just how much contempt radical Islamists hold for knowledge and information, and 2) the extent to which they’d risk their own lives to make ours a little worse.

Mormons: Changing the rules

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:24:06 -0500

Mormons: Changing the rules:

The Mormon Church has lowered to 19 the age that women can go off on mission trips. But this isn’t some sort of equality effort; it’s a survival mechanism. The Church and its universities are losing numbers fast to a more informed and wary (thanks to the internet) younger generation, and that means fewer bodies for outreach. This is coupled with the reluctance faced by women who reach the eligible age of 21, when they’ve settled into their life goals of career and/or family, and are less inclined to upend them for foreign service. They hope to get more missionaries from their female caste with the new change in rules.

Bravo to them, I supposed. I should like to note that in the secular world, one is free to volunteer sooner than 21 (or 19) for whatever reason, but if this action gets more people to do more good work, then that’s nothing to scoff at—at the same time, we have the responsibility to remember that these are not purely altruistic trips; they are proselytization efforts first-and-foremost.

The truly fantastic nature of this piece, though, is the example the Mormons have just painted for us. They belong to the same “values” crowd that’s fighting progress in secular society for women and LGBT, bigoted positions taken from the tenants of their faith. It seems to me hypocritical for a faith to reorganize its internal values for pragmatic reasons and still contend that they are the protectors of morality in society at-large.

But then again, it’s less than surprising to find inconsistencies in the motives of organized faith.

We can despise Egypt’s new government and still love democracy

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:36:00 -0500

Linked is an incredibly simple-minded letter to the editor that I ran across in response to another letter in the Denver Post opinion section. The basic premise: The U.S. should respect the Egyptian election of an Islamist majority because doing otherwise would undermine our respect of their newfound democracy.

“We may not like the outcome of that election, but the Brotherhood was elected democratically! Let the people of Egypt decide for themselves.”

This is hideously ignorant. If this respondent, a Mr. Braouchi, had been paying anything approaching objective attention to the scenario in Egypt, he’d have noticed that Morsi and the Salafists are intent on installing as much theocracy as they possibly can. This will not result in anything resembling democracy, and there’s no reason champions of secular society and democracy should hold their tongues.

As if to further compound the stupidity of Mr. Braouchi’s comment, President Morsi has recently used his “democratically elected” role to promote an interim constitution that not only gives him more authority and privilege than the secular dictator that ruled before him, but hands overt power over to Islamic extremism by rooting bedrock state policy in Sharia. This is particularly worrying considering that Egypt is a critical ally of ours, and must remain so, considering the instability of the Middle East and the rise of politicized Islamic extremism. Should Egypt stray towards theocracy, the United States and its allies will be faced with a political partner that mistreats its female population, brutally strangles freedom of expression, and curtails religious practice regardless of creed—in other words, a country that denies the most basic of human rights. It’s for exactly these reasons I don’t particularly like Saudi Arabia as an American ally, but I recognize their strategic and economic important. I also recognize that we need less of this brand of ally, not more.

The fact that anyone would even think of writing something so painfully ignorant with the express intent to publish shows plainly how little people understand strong faith. Proponents of the Islam in the form President Morsi and the Salafists espouse have no interest in true secular democracy for the benefit of all because they have celestial worries to attend to. It’s a clear-cut example of those claiming otherworldly knowledge demanding power in this world, and millions of real people are going to suffer and die and live in humiliation if they get their way.

And on a technical note, voting for religious authoritarianism doesn’t exactly count as a true exercise in democracy. More like sadomasochism.

Link: Maybe it Wasn't About Freedom

Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:23:08 -0500

Link: Maybe it Wasn't About Freedom:

If you’re anything like me, you’ve been following the aftermath of the Arab Spring with suspicion and concern. Those who’ve won their freedom from dictatorship seem all too willing to hand it over to some particularly oppressive strands of Islam, and this seems incredibly perplexing. This article offers a potential explanation of this dissonance.

Henry Blodget in Business Week suggests that the demonstrations and uprisings may have had more to do with high food prices than a genuine desire for complete freedom and democracy.

Link: Social Conservatives Want to Stay in the GOP

Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:23:00 -0500

Link: Social Conservatives Want to Stay in the GOP:

After a thorough trouncing of the social conservative agenda this election, the GOP is reeling and retooling, and social conservatives don’t want to lose their role in the spotlight. They claim their problem this November was simply that Mitt Romney did not champion social conservative values as furiously as he should have, and that those who did were carrying detrimental messages (see: Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock). They claim it a simple problem of bad marketing.

It’s really a problem of bad ideas.

It’s a problem of religion. Social conservatives will not hesitate to bring Christianity into the discussion as though it were some sort of good reason to take or deny rights from certain people. It isn’t a good reason, and more Americans seem to understand how combining extreme faith and government policy will actually diminish their freedoms. This isn’t something shiny marketing will ever be able to compensate for.

Americans are mired in messaging from the moment they wake up until they fall to sleep at night. They’ve become more critical scrutinizers of absolutist claims: “X is the greatest weight-loss pill,” “Joe Schmo will represent you and win millions,” “Apple is better than Microsoft,” and so on. When you boil down the kind of faith required for social conservatism, you reach the same kind of absolutism: “We MUST NOT allow abortion,” “Gays WILL destroy marriage and children,” “America IS a Christian nation despite what the Constitution actually says.” And like all advertising, this kind of marketing is subject to intense review.

Well, the reviews are in. This year (and for the past few election cycles), Americans have moved towards a more tolerant country willing to dole out equality to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, and provide women the advances of modern science so that they might take more control and freedom into their lives. This is progress. And if Americans want to continue in the direction of progress, their is no path for social conservatism to follow.

Link: Photos From Palestine and Israel

Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:56:38 -0500

Link: Photos From Palestine and Israel:

This article features some harrowing images of the massive destruction occurring at the hands of Hamas and the Israeli military. It’s a good time to remind ourselves yet again what the ultimate catalyst for all this violence has been: religion and the fight over the promised lands. Of course, geopolitical and economic issues play an important role as well, but let’s not forget that at the core of each side is a fundamental rejection of the other’s right to exist in that land simply because two versions of the same fictional story offer conflicting real estate brokerage reports.

This is well illustrated in the photo essay featured in this report, wherein we find men wielding modern-age weaponry while robed rabbis read to them from prayer scrolls, and where damaged copies of the Koran lie nearby weeping women, all wrapped head-to-toe in the clothing that strips them of any chance at the freedom their male counterparts believe they fight for.