Why the Four Horsemen matter

Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennet are described by the media as alternately the New Atheists or the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. All four men have written books that challenge religion, ranging from imploring theists to simply rationally consider their beliefs to flat-out mocking the stupidity of belief in a sky fiend that is unprovable and obviously doesn’t act in a way that is consistent with their belief system (hence, the old cop-out “God works in mysterious ways”).

These four are not the only atheists to write books lately, but they certainly are the ones that get the most press. It’s not difficult to understand why: each of these authors has risen in the face of years of treating religion with kids gloves and directly called attention to the irrationality of unchallenged beliefs. Reactions to this new brazen charge, including the rise in media attention to atheism, incorporated opposing reactions. On the positive side, many non-theists saw these books and the resulting media attention as a positive step in not only coming out of the atheist closet, but also more strongly asserting their belief systems. On the negative side, many (including a fair share of atheists) felt that the confrontational language of the books was too strong and served to widen the social gap between theists and non-theists.

It’s not difficult to acknowledge the conflict that the publication of these books has stirred up, but we would be remiss in dismissing the books of the Four Horsemen based solely on this fact. For you atheists and theists who think these books are distateful because of their confrontational and blunt nature and see it as a dividing line between the two groups, that may be. However, it wasn’t the point of them to narrow the divide. Some have described the books as evangelical, attempts to make theists see the light. That seems more likely, but I don’t think that was really it, either.

What I see these books doing is bringing atheists out of the closet, which is no mean feat. They are letting atheists know that we have a reason to be proud of our realistic view of the world, that we’re no bad because of it, and there’s damn good reason to see the world as we do. Use of humor, reasonable argument, and meaninful prose, each book tells us atheists that we are right to think as we do, and there’s no reason to let other make you feel bad for it. They instill a sense of pride for a human condition that has vastly been seen as a nasty to an even monstrous belief.

That is why we must not ignore these books or these writers. They may not have acheived a goal that we thought would have been more worthy, but what they did acheive was laudable in and of itself.

PS: This post was written over a few days, so please forgive any inconsisencies!

:::::::::::

More Islamic human rights

A 28-year-old Russian woman and a 30-year-old Lebanese man were arrested in Dubai and put on trial. Normally, this is where you’d read that they were smuggling opium, but their crime was far more atrocious than that. They drank juice in public.

Shame! Scandal! Oh, the delinque… wait, what?

Yes, they are on trial for drinking juice and were arrested because:

In accordance with the Federal Penal Code of the United Arab Emirates, a public intake of food and beverages during daytime hours of the month of Ramadan is forbidden by Article 313. The article stipulates the punishment in the form of either a monetary penalty – up to 2,000 dirhems ($555) – or even a term of up to one month in prison.

Ah, sharia law… Is there no idiocy that it can’t commit?

(h/t to RichardDawkins.net)

:::::::::::

Last post on the haunted mansion

Okay, this is the last word on this, but it looks like commenter Jae was right. According to Steven Novella at the always excellent Rogues Gallery, Anwar Rashid had filed for bankruptcy. Looks like he couldn’t quite afford that mansion after all, so he defaulted on the loan and made up a story about ghosts.

It turns out that Anwar Rashid is in bankruptcy. The following is from public records posted on Richard Dawkins.net:

7 (17.09.2007) BANKRUPTCY NOTICE entered under section 86(2) of the

Land Registration Act 2002 in respect of a pending action, as the

title of the proprietor of the registered estate appears to be

affected by a petition in bankruptcy against Anwar Rashid

presented in the High Court (Court Reference Number 9623 of 2007 )

Incredible, the amount of bullshit that can spew from someone’s mouth when they are trying to get out of trouble. Considering the amount of play this story has gotten, the better financial decision may have been to start offering tours for $50 a pop.

:::::::::::

Why religion matters in politics

We know that there isn’t supposed to be a religious test for political office, and the vast majority of the secular community suports that. Including me. However, there is another level to this that is more obvious this year than it has been in the past.

Our current president, may he fade from the public eye soon, started a war based on what he thought was god’s decree. This year, we have the democrats falling all over themselves to gain the christian vote, but the real shock to the non-theists came with McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Palin is a Pentecostal christian. When someone jokingly refers to people speaking in tongues and praying for the end of the world, it’s the Pentecostals that actually belive that shit. This is when I started thinking about the religious test for office in a different way.

Could you imagine Palin getting all riled up, for instance, in front of the UN?

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: Vice President Palin, you have requested to speak to the Assembly about peace in Israel. The Secretary General yields the floor.

VP Palin: BLAARGHARGH hummina hummina woop! woop! falrgindle gret marnia digglet paferndum! Pref! PREF! Charligndle freep vardenbingle wibble wobble!

Yerp.

General Assembly (as one): HOLY SHIT!

No, let me say that this is never going to happen. I just wanted to lighten the mood before I talk about what really bothers me about Palin, or any people who share her weird religious beliefs, potentially running this country. This is the belief that we are in the end-times and the second coming of jesus is “nigh”. Worse, they believe this is a good thing and want it to happen in their lifetime.

This belief infects all of their thinking. Why bother dealing with global warming. We’ll be in heaven soon! Why try to end war in the middle east when it’s a sign of the end times? Why bother improving anything at all when the world’s time is so short? Jesus will sort it all out when he gets here again!

Having this kind of thinking in our highest office frightens the shit out of me. I wouldn’t want to see President Jim Jones and I don’t want to see Vice President Palin. Religion, when it affects secular values and how you will affect the world, must be a consideration when voting for a candidate. Until religion is something that is not a factor in politics, I’m afraid it very much is a test for office.

:::::::::::

Quote of the day

This one-liner from vjack of Atheist Revolution made me laugh out loud, literally. RIght at my desk, too. Thanks for that one, vjack!

On the other hand, you are right to ask for considerable evidence to support my claim that a supernatural being punishes sinners with hurricanes while rewarding homophobia with Republican votes. (source)

Well played!

Atheism in politics

Thanks the excellent Google news alerts service, I get emails containing links to news articles that hold a special interest to me. One of those is articles reating to atheism and secularism. Before I get to the point of this article, let me give a word of advice to other bloggers: this service is a great way to target articles of interest without having to actively search or poach from other blogs or Fark.

One of the articles sent to me today is on secularism, atheism, and politics: On Secularism and Politics, by Rob Breakenridge. In this article, Rob wites on theism, atheism, and secularisms place in politics and makes a few good point, but reaches a faulty conclusion. Some key excerpts:

Secularism is the principle that there be no religious test for public office. Beliefs about first and last things, and religious worship, are private choices in which the state has absolutely no legitimate role.

…

Atheism is a private belief, and one I hold; it is not a position that should occupy civic space, any more than should the monotheistic religions.

…

The cause of secularism is politically vital. But there is no political case for atheism.

All of this is absolutely true. I wouldn’t appreciate an atheist congressman using his office to promote atheism any more than I appreciate people like Bush or (if things go terribly wrong in November) Palin legislating their religion. It is simply not the place for it, and it wastes my time and my tax dollars. We pay these people to run our country, no to use their office as a soapbox for their religious or irreligious beliefs. However, I think Breakenridge is overlooking the strong ties between atheists and secularism when he says:

I do not wish to see, and will not sign up to, an organised interest group of atheists, because atheism is a private belief, of no civic significance.

Yes, atheism is a private belief, but who is out there with the strongest voice supporting secularism? Focus on the Family? The Discovery Institute? No, it’s groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State; two groups founded by, run by, and supported by primely atheists. These are atheist groups, make no mistake about it, and that makes them atheist lobbyists. I’m glad they are out there, and I’m completely unsurprised that these atheist groups are able to promote secularism without allowing their beliefs on religion to get in the way.

So, opposite of Rob Breakenridge’s views, I say “Bring ‘em on!” We need more atheists fighting for secularism. So few theists are.

:::::::::::

Clifton Hall haunting: part 2

I’m getting a lot of traffic on the previous post on Anwar Rashid and the “haunting” at Clifton Hall. The comments that I’m getting on that post shows a bewildering ignorance on what kind of site this is, so let me break it down:

THIS IS A SKEPTICS SITE AND WE DON’T BELIEVE IN GHOSTS, SPOOKS, OR SPECTRES HERE!

Got it? I had thought that the mocking “video” of Mr. Rashid being attacked by ghosts actually being an animated gif of fucking Pac-man might have given that impression. Apparently, I am being too kind to certain thick-headed people. Listen, folks, context clues are not exactly an obscure literary convention. Please learn to target and make use of them!

Another note: I don’t know how to contact Mr. Rashid. I just wanted to mock a guy who gave up a multi-million dollar mansion because of Inky, Binky, Pinky, and Clyde. I would also like to say that if I did know Mr. Rashid, I would help him by engaging the aid of a therapist and a sound accountant, not psychics, dowsers, ghostbusters, or any of that rabble.

I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.

Islamic Human Rights

Is there a more self-contradictory phrase? Let’s take a look at some of the egregious violations of humans rights that have been executed under this draconian, pre-Enlightenment philosophy.

1. Honor killings – you’d have to have your head stuck in the sand to have not seen a story about
   some Islamic father/brother/<insert male noun here> that has brutally murdered some oppressed woman in the name of Allah.
2. How about women’s rights in general?
3. Threats of prison and torture for an elderly British teacher that named a teddy bear after a student whose name happened to be Mohammed. I’m not making this up.
4. Let’s not forget beheadings.
5. Or the worst terror attack on U.S. soil ever, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths.

There’s more out there, but it’s tough to look at all those links without feeling a little nauseous, so I’ll spare you. Islam recently came to the UN Human Rights council with a request for help: they didn’t want Islam to be criticized during debate. Self-serving, eh? I guess starvation, poverty, and disease are nothing compared to the easily fractured ego of Allah!

You may be surprised to hear that Islam is continuing it’s selfish and infantile crusade for their version of human rights by proposing the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. Pitched (in my head, it’s by that merchant at the beginning of Disney’s Aladdin), as an addendum to the laudable Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accepted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.

Austin Dacey and Colin Koprosky have a breakdown of the Islamic Declaration that shines a light on it’s manipulative, deceitful, and anti-human-rights nature. I’ll give an example from the Dacey and Koprosky
article that describes the use of false Arabic-to-English translation to hide the references to sharia law and binds non-Muslims to it:

English: Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to circulate reports that may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo, or to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons.

Arabic: Everyone may think, believe and express his ideas and beliefs without interference or opposition from anyone as long as he obeys the limits [hudud] set by the shari’ah. It is not permitted to spread falsehood [al-batil] or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination [al-fahisha] or forsaking the Islamic community [takhdhil li’l-umma].

The English version reads as an innocuous restatement of well-established norms, embracing rights to speech and generally accepted limits involving slander and libel. In its original Arabic, however, this article demonstrates a clear religious test for speech: one may not express oneself where limits are set by Islamic law, and one must not “encourage abomination” or “forsake” the Islamic community. (Emphasis mine)

Considering the monstrous violation of human rights mentioned above, why does Islam even have the ear of the Human Rights Council? Did they really think that they could slide through legislation that makes all UN members susceptible to victimization under sharia law? We’ve all heard that Muslims want sharia for them selves in countries that they have emigrated to, but this is the first time I’ve seen them try this kind of deceit to trick us all into following their thuggish code.

The Human Rights Council should laugh this drivel off the floor, and the UN should take the first step in telling Islam that they have to evolve their society into one that follows current human rights laws before they get to try to enact any.

(h/t to Pharyngula for the link and providing me with some morning rage)

:::::::::::

Join the Atheist Blogroll

I have been added to Mojoey’s Atheist Blogroll. The link has been added to the right. There’s some great blogs listed there so visit it often, try something new, and add them to your feedreaders! While you’re at it, add me as well!

Finally, a payoff

I joined a ultra right-wing Christian news service. Have I gone mad? Possibly, but not for the reasons that you think. I joined OneNewsNow to keep tabs on these nuts as an afterthought while I was using their automatic email service, intended to send Christian hatemail to Hallmark for showing love to the GLBT community, to send Hallmark a thumbs-up for starting to carry gay marriage/civil union cards.

Since then, my mailbox has been assailed with all manner of trivial garbage, but today, this headline cought my eye:

Biden ‘honored’ to speak at pro-homosexual gala

From this article are two hilarious quotes, and one not-quite-infuriating one. Let’s do funny first, shall we? Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans for Family Values (probably not Larry Craig or Ted Haggard fans) has this to say:

“I think the Democratic Party has sold its soul to the radical homosexual lobby,”

Radical? Why am I picturing a bunch of gay Ninja Turtles eating pizza and making closed-door deals with the Democrats? Now we know why Donatello wore purple!

Another idiot… no, wait, LaBarbera again says the Democrats:

“are now fully in bed with the homosexual activist lobby.”

So, now the gay Ninja Turtle lobbyists are having (assumingly) premarital or extramarital relations with the Democrats! Tortopedobestiolobbying is the new fad. Sounds like it would be a kinky, repressed Republican thing!

If you read the article, you may have by now divined which quote is angering, if not entirely infuriating.

The pro-family activist points out that Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) is the most pro-abortion and pro-homosexual candidate ever to receive a major party’s presidential nomination.

LaBarbera again… sigh. I have never heard of anyone who is pro-abortion. Pro-choice? Yes. Pro-abortion? No. I have had two children and no one, when I told them the news said, “Hey, congrats! Have you considered an abortion? They’re neat!”

There’s a world of difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. In one, you value the life of a thinking, feeling woman over the life of a bundle of cells, in the other you walk around with a glitter-decorated coat hanger, just in case. This is an example of one of the things I hate most in politics, which is spin in order to demonize your opponent. You see it every time someone talks of kool-aid, rethuglicans, wingnuts, moonbats, or any of that shit. It’s a way to avoid debate by denigrating who would be your opponent. Don’t have a good argument? Compare your opponent to Hitler and you don’t need one!

But, I digress. I hope to see more stupidity from this mailing list in the future. I somehow doubt I’ll be disappointed.

:::::::::::