Blasphemy Special - The right to free speech

Lets get the week off to a good start. One of the liveliest debates of recent times on this blog was when I covered and inadvertently misrepresented the Archbishop of Athieism Richard Dawkins. Mr Dawkins has the rather annoying habit on twitter of not posting replies to his subjects, just leaving comments, so when I saw a comment he'd posted, I took it out of context. This provoked what I found to be a rather interesting debate with a few people on the subject of belief and the belief in the lack of belief.

Anyway, this morning I noticed another rather odd tweet from Mr Dawkins

Help. I'm about to be jailed for making derogatory comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://t.co/1Y2GpWJoov
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 9, 2013

Not being familiar with Mr Dawkins use of the term "flying spaghetti monster" for God, I was intrigued. Anyway, I followed the link and found that the story which concerned Mr Dawkins was the indictment and possible imprisonment of four bloggers who made derogatory comments about Islam.

It made me pause for thought about my views on blasphemy. Technically the four are not on blasphemy charges. Blasphemy is insulting God. The four bloggers are held on charges of insulting Islam, which as best I understand it is a wholly differenjt thing. Islam is a man made institution, which aims to preserve and propogate the teachings of the prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him). Anyone who doubts this, should consider how many different branches of Islam there are and see how these different factions view each other (factionalism is not unique to Islam, I hasten to add). Now my own personal view is that any institution should be able to take criticism, especially one which claims to have authority from God. As a member of the Roman Catholic church, I have witnessed only too well how the inability to engage with critics has nearly destroyed the moral authority of the church to all but ardent believers. Any institution which uses its power to silence critics and hide scandals is pretty much doomed. The Catholic church has paid a heavy price for hushing up and hiding the scandal of paedophile priests. In this case, the church initially used every lever to suppress and discredit victims, the very people the church should stand up for. It entered a state of denial and behaved in the most appalling way imaginable. People who had suffered terrible abuse were treated as the guilty party and all manner of lies an innuendo were spread. The trouble is that you cannot suppress the truth.

In the case of the four bloggers in Dhaka, the state and the religious authorities are looking to impose draconian sentences to suppress expressions of free speech. If you belong to a religious congregation, theoretically every other religious or athieist viewpoint is blasphemous, sacreligious and insulting. If we followed this through to its logical conclusion, we'd all be locked up. The only way any of us can get by is to agree to differ and respect each others right to express ourselves. There are people who I know who post highly offensive comments on twitter and facebook. If it upsets me, I don't follow them. If someone else retweets them, so I see it, I ignore it. If you find this blog offensive, the stop reading it. Simple as that. Any institution that cannot take criticism, in my opinion is deeply flawed and is probably hiding something.

Let us now consider blasphemy. Blasphemy is the insulting of God, not his institutions on earth. How do I feel about this. Well I tend to think God is a big boy (excuse the genderisation). When Richard Dawkins calls God "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" it is surely blasphemy of the most henious kind. I do however believe this is and issue for Mr Dawkins to resolve with God. It is no one elses business. Mr Dawkins clearly feels that God doesn't exist, so he can say what he likes. I tend to think he has every right to do so. If any belief I had was so flimsy that I'd be insulted or hurt by Mr Dawkins, then perhaps it is me who has the problem.

In the Catholic tradition, we were brought up to believe in Judgement day, when all of the lost souls would be cast into Hell. My teachers told me that murderers, thieves, adulterers and blasphemers would be tossed into a burning furnace, tormented forever by fiery Jack. This was my incentive to be a good boy and eat my greens. Is Mr Dawkins as cupable as Adolf Hitler, because he assembled all of the information before him and decided that if there was a God, he was a winged Sphagetti Monster? I really don't know, but I suppose I'd be a tad disappointed if this was the case. I had this conversation with an acquaintance who is a fundamentalist. She informed me that Dawkins was worse than Hitler, because he was actively seeking to turn people against God by use of logic and reason. I was shocked by this proposition. I believe that anyone with faith should have good reasons to have faith and should have logically arrived at their conclusion. I have found that with ideological athieists, it is virtually impossible to explain the benefits of faith and organised religion. The benefits of community and quiet reflection, the urging to do acts of charity and the sense of mission to make the world a better place are concepts that they cannot understand in a religious context. I respect all viewpoints. I don't dislike people who have views I consider odd or strange, I wouldn't insult someone for this.

Where I do draw the line is when other people expect me to conform to their religious viewpoint. This could be  the religious right fundamentalist or the Athieist or the Judge in Dhaka who feels my blog should follow his ideology.

I stand with anyone who believes in the right to religious freedom, freedom of expression, the freedom to blaspheme and the freedom to insult if we think this is necessary and called for. If you are a religious person, then use the example of the way you live your life as the riposte to people who insult you. There are two possible outcomes for blasphemers, either Richard Dawkins is right and absolutely nothing will happen, because when they die, that is it. If that is the case, they are not blasphemers and so there is no price to pay. The other alternative is that there is a God and that God will act as they see fit towards the blasphemers, in which case it really is none of our business anyway. I am personally a highly superstitious person. I must confess that blasphemy does make me feel uneasy (a result of my upbringing), as I think that it is never wise to take risks with the unknown. I have a friend who calls such superstitions "Fire Insurance". I personally can't understand why anyone would want to insult other peoples beliefs or take a chance (however small) with such matters, but I guess that most of you will just put this down to superstition and ignorance. 

The bottom line is that I am pleased we live in a society where people have the freedom to blaspheme and insult, but I wish people would not use that right unless they think it is absolutely necessary.

Richard Dawkins - Hardline religious fundamentalist?

Richard Dawkins is probably the best known advocate of athiesm in the UK. He believes that science has disproved the existence of God and that all followers of religion are deluded and misguided. Many people agree with this view. For the record, I don't but this doesn't really have any bearing on why I find Mr Dawkins to be advocating a very harsh, cruel and divisive brand of athiesm. I believe in live and let live and I respect the right of everyone to make up their own mind about the existence or not of God. I have no objection to athiests setting out their case and having reasoned debate about it. I have no objection to them spending their money on adverts on the side of buses, if thats what they want to do. I do find people who want to convert me to athiesm after six bottles of wine a tad irritating and boring at times, especially I would never try and impose my views on them. If people want to know why I hold my beliefs, they are welcome to ask. They are welcome to outline their own views, they are welcome to debate them.

I regularly discuss religion with all manner of people, I have the belief that anyone who seeks to do good things and not harm others is on the right track, regardless of their system of belief or lack of it. I believe that anyone who seeks to use religion or athiesm to harm other people, or compel them to do things they don't wish to do to be evil. I believe we are all part of the same family and we should treat each other with  respect and dignity. People have used religion for many evil purposes throughout history, but I happen to believe that in countries where Athiesm was adopted, such as the USSR and China the same thing happened. I personally see religious disputes in the same light as football violence. I believe it to be tribal hatred, practised by idiots who have rather missed the point of it all. I would not associate myself with any view which seeks to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. That is why I was shocked and moved to write this blog when I saw the following Tweet posted by Richard Dawkins

Would you ban yr children's grandmother for a difference in politics? Or music? Food? Sport? No only 1 thing. Yes, poisonous religion.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2013

In effect Mr Dawkins is saying that he encourages families to ban contact between Grandparents and Grandchildren if the Grandparents are not athiests. I cannot imagine how hard this could possibly be for a Grandparent. It is cruel and unfair. My parents were both staunch Roman Catholics. Both of my elder brothers are athiests. My parents would have preferred my brothers children to be baptised. This did cause a little heartache to my parents, but my brother was not prepared to compromise and that was that. My father loved his children as much as he loved my sisters children who were all brought up in the faith. When my father died unexpectedly in 1987, the whole family was devasted. I cannot imagine the heartache that would
have been caused had my brother adhered to Mr Dawkins directive.

I believe that anything which drives wedges into families is evil and corrosive. We may not agree with the religious views of our siblings/parents/children etc, but we have to respect them and love them anyway. My brothers both disagree with my views on faith, but we would defend each other to the death and we respect each others right to hold those views. One would assume that most athiests subscribe to the view because they have a sound intellectual argument to support their views. They should also have an understanding of why their parents subscribe to a different view. Surely the correct way to deal with this situation is to say "Grandma believes this for these reasons, but we have a different view because...." using this approach will allow the child to think about the issue and decide on which road is right for them. I have always encouraged my children to think for themselves about such issues. I have suggested that whatever decision they make is informed and rational. I have no idea whether they will grow up to follow my faith. To be honest, it is their decision and whatever one they make, it will be the correct one for them and I will respect it.

I happen to believe that the existence of God is and always be impossible to scientifically prove or disprove. Belief is a matter of faith and for the individual to decide upon. As such I believe athiesm is simply another form of religion, albiet one with no deity. It is a system of belief. Whilst most athiests I know would recoil at Mr Dawkins suggestion, it does trouble me that in his role of as the Archbishop of Canterbury for athiests, he is spreading a message of hate and division. I support free speech and the right of anyone to hold whatever view they choose. I do however think that in light of his comment, I have formed the opinion that in some ways Mr Dawkins is a dangerous religious fundamentalist. In my book anyone who preaches division in families is someone who has gone too far.

********** Updated 12:43 ***********
Many thanks to Aaron Shaw who suggested I look at the full twitter exchange preceding this. When I see a tweet which I use in a blog, I will check it for a chain, but the one above had none. Mr Shaw rightly observed that there were two preceding tweets, which when read as an entirity change the meaning.

@RichardDawkins My daughter will not let me see my grandchildren strictly because I voice my non-belief. This is discrimination!
— Kathy Massey (@KathyMassey07) August 20, 2013

"My daughter will not let me see my grandchildren [because of my non-belief]". "@KathyMassey07 Obscene to allow her stupid god to interfere.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2013

It seems that the whole situation is a little more complex than I originally assumed. What I hadn't realised was perhaps how accurate my description of Mr Dawkins as the Archbishop of Canterbury of Athiesm actually was. I find it truly bizarre that someone would tweet him about a family row. Whilst I can understand his initial response, does it really help? It strikes me that the mother and daughter are both similar characters, who have issues backing down. If I had a row with my daughter, I most certainly wouldn't email the Pope. Mr Dawkins response is extremely hard line. As none of us know the background and what caused the fallout, as it is unlikely to be a single issue, it is a bit difficult to draw too many conclusions, but Mr Dawkins clearly does not feel at all constrained.

In his comments, he mentions things that families don't fall out over. I know families who have fallen out over all of the things he mentions. Politics, food and sport have caused all manner of issues. Even music, I know loads of families where musical difference have caused punch ups. Look at the Davies brothers in the Kinks.

Aaron Shaw is right that I misinterpreted Mr Dawkins tweet, but I am not sure that his response is any less fundamentalist. Surely he has merely given reinforcement to a family feud over religion. If it was between a Catholic Mum and a Protestant daughter,  he would surely have reacted different. As one of the protagonists belonged to his faith, he took sides, without any knowledge of the full background. I'd say that is a fairly fundamentalist world view.

My view. Girls, get over yourselves and start thinking about the daughter/grand daughter rather than this silly grandstanding. 

Is intelligent design fact or fiction?

I read in the Observer that Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist society are claiming a great victory, because the government have announced that free schools teaching intelligent design as fact may have their funding removed. They have stated that this is a victory for reason and common sense. I am not so sure. I think they've actually picked the wrong battle. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that intelligent design is science. It isn't, it's a belief. It is not scientifically verifiable. You may or may not believe it to be true, but you will never be able to "proove" God created Adam and Eve.

My issue is not whether such schools teach about intelligent design. It is that they surely should teach the theory of evolution and why it accepted as the explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. They should have to teach what makes something accepted in this way and why science is based on evidence. If the school, having taught the fundamentals of scientific principles, then say "and we believe this to be science and we believe intelligent design to be scientific" I don't have a problem with this, so long as the pupils have been given the information needed to make an informed decision as to what they choose to believe.

I studied biology to A level. We were taught about the theory of evolution and the competing theory of Lamarkism (which in the 1800's was accepted by many faith groups as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution). The reason a discredited theory such as Lamarkism was mentioned was because it was used to show how flawed theories are superceded by ones with sound evidence. The problem with intelligent design and science is that it is completely unscientific. People who subscribe to the theory, subscribe to belief in God. If you accept that God exists, then you have to accept that God is not bound by the normal rules of science. This in effect means that if you roll a six sided dice, you can get a seven. People such as Dawkins take this as proof that God doesn't exist. People of faith take it as proof that with God anything is possible.

Whatever your belief, you should want your children to have the best possible education. Teaching them things which are not scientific in science lessons, can only be acceptable, if they are taught the science properly and the other bits are taught as belief. If the school wishes to include this in the science curriculum I don't have a problem, so long as everything else is fully covered.

For many years, I struggled with the fact that faith and science are seemingly incompatible. I then realised that I was making a mistake trying to compare apples with pears. The early books such as Genesis in the bible, to me, are early man's efforts to try and understand order in the world. As they didn't have the advantages of science, the book had to describe things in understandable terms. One of the things which many people such as Dawkins use to debunk the bible is the fact that early characters such as Noah lived to the age of 950 year. I happen to believe the reason for this is because until the Jewish people were enslaved by the Egyptians, they used a lunar calendar and had no concept of the solar year. Therefore Noah lived for 950 transitions of the moon. When the people were enslaved by the Egyptians, they were forced to use the solar calendar, but they refused to amend the holy texts. Can I prove this? No of course I can't but it makes a degree of sense. What about the story of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? I believe that this merely refers to the awakening of spirituality in Adam and the recognition of God as a single entity. It is quite clear that humanity existed long before Adam and Eve and it is also that many civilisations existed with no links to Adam, Eve and the Jewish people. It really doesn't matter. The purpose of religion, as far as I'm concerned, is to help us to live a life where we are committed to building a better world and looking after those less fortunate than ourselves.

In short, faith should be about improving ourselves as people. Not in a competetive "my faith is better than your faith" mould, but as a tool for us to challenge our own behaviour and to make ourselves better citizens. These Free Schools that Dawkins & Co are getting so animated about, should concern themselves less with trying to turn the world of science on it's head, argue that white is black and start turning out well educated students who are a credit to their school and their faith and recognised as such by all people regardless of whether they believe or not. At the end of the day, if I need to see an oncologist to get my cancer fixed, I want to see someone who understands the dynamics of cancerous cell mutation and the chemicals which prevent it. I don't want them to send me home and tell me that if I say ten Hail Marys it will all be alright because you have faith. Sadly the world is littered with the graves of people who don't recognise the old truism, God helps those who help themselves, and fall for all manner of non scientific nonsense when faced with life threatening illness. And that is the purpose of education, to teach us to make good decisions. Give the children the tools they need to face the challenges of life. Anything less is completely irresponsible and such schools should not be allowed to teach children, let alone be state funded.

Have a pleasant Sunday