Je sui Charlie Hebdo - in memoriam

With respect and in memoriam:  http://www.charliehebdo.fr/index.html

As an atheist and surrealist artist who has and who will continue to criticise religions I reserve the right to offend, insult, humiliate, ridicule and defame all gods and their associated prophets. But depicting one and critiquing one prophet only, Mohammed,  is illegally and illegitimately outlawed not only on the threat of but by the real prospect of execution. The brittle religion of Islam is protected on pain of death by followers of that faith. Those defending the rights of that faith to express itself without criticism fail to understand they are defending the intolerant and a brutal ideology based on intolerance.

I make no apology to Islam, Christianity, Judaism or other religions and supernatural belief systems for any hurt. With regards criticism of religions the mainstream media, political climate and social commentary have contributed to the demonising of anyone who critiques Islam because to do so is claimed to be racist and right-wing. Yet conversely Christianity or Judaism are fair game because, they somehow deserve it having caused enough bloodshed, pain and outrage in the past. Err, what? The sheer contradiction, lack of logic, and lack of historical knowledge is breathtaking.

Charlie Hebdo were largely shunned and cast as intolerant by this mainstream as, "white privileged male racists" for their critical satire lampooning Islam (only Islam). Charlie Hebdo though ridiculed all religions and politicians or societal structures on a wide scale and has done so with anarchic glee, none were/are/will remain immune. Why did/does their satire of Islam illicit a different examination by apologists, was it, is it fear of offending intolerance? Such acts of provocation, of anti-establishment dissent and resistance have a long history in France and in pre and post industrial western Europe. For free thinkers, and those who enjoy the freedoms afforded within a free society, whether tasteful or not, such criticism including the right to satire and ridicule a subject, are recognised cornerstones of that free society. Charlie Hebdo are a stark and now painful reminder to society that it needs prodding and lambasting for it to wake from its "sleep of reason”. Charlie Hedbo in all of its satire was delivering one message, perceive of what you are forgetting to protect and preserve, your hard won and long treasured freedoms.

The ability for any force or will to destabilise and undermine free societies exists and the responsibility to protect what underpins them sits squarely with those who treasure freedom. We are these custodians, us, we are the ones who must protect such a society by exposing its flaws, foibles and fallacies. This is what Charlie Hebdo was getting at with every lampooning of authority.

Surrealism was born from such an era emerging from within a society that needed reminding of what it was allowing to slip through its fingers. The freedoms we take for granted today were under attack then by an ideology and a warlord of a different kind.

We are living in as similarly an absurd time as now surrealists, satirist, critics of all kinds are again being shunned and marginalised for critiquing that which is oppressive and backward in Islam. Defenders of Islam claim it should not have to defend itself due to random misguided acts of violence by its followers - which forgets that all these followers, follow the same doctrine, the Koran and Hadith. Under such circumstances a response is warranted. By not responding strongly or at all fails to neutralise those elements within Islam who continue to take all of the prophets "teachings" to their literal conclusion. And, their mantra is always the same.

In the related violence and hostage taking in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo murders by the Islamic terrorists, the Kouachi brothers, their associate, Islamic terrorist "Coulibaly told BFM he had 'coordinated' his actions with the Kouachi brothers and wanted to defend Palestinians and target Jews" (ABC).

So, there we have it. Mocking the prophet, criticising Islam all links back to the conflict in Palestine and an insidious Jew hatred in the mind of the terrorist. It is the most deep seated and chronic of encumbrances affecting the very viability of Islam and the reason for why it is the biggest threat to the stability of a modern society which, as in the France and Europe of the 1930’s, continues to prefer to be blind to and in denial of it.

The primary motivation as always are predictably an unbridled racism toward and hatred of Jews. To critique Islam means you support Jews and are anti-Palestine so one must be eliminated to defend the other. Criticism of Islam apparently justifies any backlash by Muslims against that critic. Criticism of Judaism or Christianity elicits no such equivalent assertion or defence. It is the critic of these acts who must instead answer for the criticisms made. It is the critic who is forced to defend their criticism as if their criticism is somehow responsible for inspiring acts of violence done to protect Islam from insult. Islamic Jihadists* blame any insult to their prophet on Jews and claim they are defending Palestinians from Jewish violence who cause conflict by their very existence in Palestine. Jews do not apparently belong in Palestine and need to get out one way or another. With this sentiment those who sue surrealist artists, when informed their ideas about Jews and Palestine are racist and have a historical beginning pre the establishing of Israel, are in alignment. It is a successful tactic in the aim to subvert and deflect blame so that only the critic and the Jews are responsible for the actions of violent religiously motivated murder, such as that enacted by the Kouachi brothers on their unarmed victims.

Put simply Islam hates a critic and hates Jews. Passages in the Hadith essentially state the existence of Jews in Arab lands is to be addressed by their elimination from those lands. Jihadists* act murderously on such passages because to do so, as goes their own claims, defends Palestinians and Arab lands invaded by Jews (the so name “occupation”). Islam even hates its own progressives. Islam hates its apostates, a Muslim may not leave Islam to do so is the worst of sins punishable by death. Islam tolerates people of the book, Christians, but then defines them as non-Muslims describing the Christian trinity as a blasphemy. Islam in particular just hates Jews.

Modern Islam in contrast with other major religions continually demonstrates its unwillingness to peacefully co-exist. The so called "religion of peace" label is a marketing propaganda well utilised to deflect blame and erect barriers to nullify any scrutiny. The idea that a religion operating without scrutiny is a problem waiting to happen is not so far fetched or without precedent if we look at the conduct of the modern Catholic Church and its other associated institutions recently held to account. Islam as per most religious institutions lack the maturity and intellect to be self regulatory. Yet, there are those who maintain we must absolve Islam from responsibility for addressing acts, that are done in accordance with its doctrine, by the faithful who exact brutal revenge because the doctrine demands it.

The problem for modern society is that Islam acts to its exclusion, consistently demonstrating that its tenants are incompatible with modern thought and even basic principles of human rights. In 2015 Islam remains a totalitarian, backward and redundant belief system. Muslims, as Ayan Hirsi Ali stated post the Charlie Hebdo attacks in an ABC 7:30 interview, need to better imagine or hope for "an ideology or ideas of life, love, peace, tolerance”. (She will astoundingly be labelled racist and right wing for doing so.) Should Muslims dare to view such a future of course they ultimately will need to abandon Islam in order to achieve it.

Freedom Series - Exhibited as part of One Law for All exhibition London, 2010

Monsters emerge with the “sleep of reason”.

* "jihadist" is a term considered "anti-Arab or anti-Islam" by Apple and its third party dictionary vendor New Oxford American Dictionary. Best inform all the mainstream media outlets including France24, CNN, ABC, BBC etc, etc.

The Art of a Secular Atheist - "defamation of religion"

In 1999 I held my first solo exhibition "The Mysteries" and amongst paintings mostly celebrating a surreal and symbolic vision of mythology some were subtly, or not so subtly depending upon your perspective, critical of religion.

The Mysteries series of paintings were so titled to encapsulate the main interest and inspiration for their development, formed from ideas that had emerged through the study and ongoing interest in ancient Greek myth and mythology. It was from this relatively personal exploration that another strong theme has emerged into a broad criticism of religion. Then and since I continue to give as the prefacing title of such paintings Baleful Worship and with them I point to concerns about what a religious world would bring using canvas and oil paint.

Baleful Worship - Submission (detail)  © L. Raymond

Within The Mysteries began the first germination of the Baleful Worship theme where I assert the worship of a religion whether of a deity or a nothingness is a fatally flawed concept for humanity to adopt. History and recent events teach us religion provides a useful model and platform from which to develop and utilise negative aspirations for a nation state, race or a people. The negative aspects that manifest can include that a religion will have as an ultimate aim the purpose of achieving dominion over opposing religions and social if not socio-political systems. As such it is inherently a platform that does not tolerate criticism or dissent. It becomes Totalitarian in dominance and emerges a Theocracy, a political-religious State and system that enforces as rule of law a religion upon a country and a people and one that at its core is sensitive to any criticism of the doctrine which underpins it.

Islam today demonstrates it is particularly sensitive to any criticism claiming its critics instead must suffer from Islamophobia (sic) and have a racist intent toward Muslims (who are multi-race). It is effective propaganda, the more simplistic the argument the better for such a purpose, and is utilised like pepper spray to shut down argument by declaring it racism and intolerance when any critical examination of Islam's religious texts and practices are raised. Making it all the more important to investigate the doctrine as a consequence. All religions do not tolerate criticism well or unquestioningly (even though return argument is expected and welcome) but it is rare to claim the blanket accusation that all critics of a religion are racist and intolerant. The worst backlash from the Christian and Judaic sector currently has been to counter Atheist criticism for the most part with the label of "militant" or that they are representative of a "new" and unreasoned "radical" atheism. There exists racism and intolerance but it cannot be claimed to exist in all critics or opponents or uncomfortable arguments. The blanket declaration equates to a blanket ban, a censorship, a chilling of criticism of Islam at all, because it is a religion and somehow exempt. Hopefully that by doing so, in such uncritical blanket terms and so frequently, it is also becoming more obvious for the propaganda that it is.

Intolerance is the characteristic critics of Islam are branded with...that the critic is intolerant of Islam and not the matter raised referencing Islamic intolerance. Islam conversely is claimed by its followers and defenders to be very tolerant and peaceful so anyone claiming different is doing so because they, the critic, are intolerant. Simple propagandist argument that works to good effect as with the racism charge. And, in the face of violence performed on behalf of and in defence of Islam, the victims directly or other entities, Israel, the USA, military invasion of Islamic lands e.g.: Afghanistan, are instead blamed not the perpetrators of violence or the doctrine they use to support their violence and disgruntlement. Certain Islamic Clerics re-confirm followers of Islam are justified in conducting violent retribution against an opposition (infidel) who harm, dishonour, "insult" the peaceful and tranquil religion of Islam. Omar Bakri compliments a follower of Islam who hacked a UK soldier to death after first running him down with a car in a British street states:

 "The prophet (Mohammad) said an infidel and his killer will not meet in Hell. That's a beautiful saying," he said. "May God reward (Adebolajo) for his actions." reuters 

Baleful Worship and this recurrent theme questions the psychology and legitimacy of religion's to demand unquestioning and uncritical worship by its devotees and of course to demand retribution on its behalf.

A more recent Baleful Worship - Submission focuses on Islam for these main reasons:

1. The cheap and persuasive propaganda argument that if you criticise Islam, as the popular claim goes, you do so because you are racist and intolerant; works like riot police with pepper spray, indiscriminate but effective.

2. Islam via doctrine manifests a means by which to practice and defend misogynistic and other human rights abuse behaviours under a veil of protected legitimacy whilst of course claiming it represents the exact opposite and only lashes out in defence.

In my Baleful Worship paintings the female form is a generic representative of a prostrate or standing follower posed typically so as to appease a deity/doctrine. The alter or object/focal point for devotion has variously been, industrial machinery, a pile of debris, an organic phonic-boiler, an alien nursery, and lately a veiled tentacled monster. The underlying symbolism has become menacing. Is Islam menacing detractors/critics by declaring them enemies of Islam and valid targets for attack? Is the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam the fault of the religion's follower's interpretation of its doctrine or of its inadequately evolved doctrine? Can Islam under the Koran and Sharia be deemed tolerant? An if so tolerant under what definition. Does Islam indeed understand tolerance or does it have the interpretation that tolerance equates only with one's submission to it?

Under Anti-defamation of religion laws my questions would be declared intolerant. Which makes such a law a declaration of censorship of thought and idea and a nod to a return to a dark ages Inquisition style persecution of religion's detractors as a heresy. That one must not criticise religion, in thought or deed, based upon its doctrine (Koran, Bible, Torah) spells the resurrection of blasphemy law. Such law would make it illegal to critique, "insult" religion and if deployed any critic of religion would be a heretic and a blasphemer for doing so. With past and recent proposals to the UN human rights commission to protect religion from defamation 'aka' introduce world wide blasphemy law with the sole aim of protecting Islam from criticism represents a serious intention to limit the human right to freedom of expression of thought, and the transmission/receipt of ideas. It was found to contravene Article 19 of the  UN's Declaration on Human Rights and has been rightly voted down...again as recently as 2010. To criminalise criticism deemed to have harmed the reputation of religion as it in turn has harmed or vilified its followers is an extreme and dangerous step. Just ask Indonesian atheist Alexander Aan and unfortunately there are countless others.

The architects attempting to frame such a restriction on "the right to freedom of opinion and expression" consist mainly though not exclusively of nations where for the main the state recognised religion is Islam or where there exists a state Theocracy. The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission submission in 2008 treads a tight-rope balancing act, complimenting the "good intentions" behind it, though declining to endorse the proposal. HREOC's authors agree throughout the document that there is such a thing as "defamation of religion" that much needs to happen to "combat the defamation of religion" (though their preamble and introduction caution against use of the verb "combat" in the original proposal but then unabashedly use it themselves anyway). It was difficult to recognise HREOC's actual stance and, safe "fence sitting" appears to be the overall aim. The submission's authors revealed too that HREOC would like to have a more firm understanding in place at Commonwealth level of the condition they describe as "ethno-religious" (sec. 2.2) and that though aspects of some Australian State legislature have recognised it this is only under certain narrow conditions, that a person of a religion can have "ethno-religious" qualities and a claim to racial vilification. Leaving the door clearly ajar for all manner of subjective agenda to be applied in the future it will result in a distortion of human rights and equal opportunity more than an advancing of them arguably.

Defamation law already chills speech to a disturbing truth obscuring level in order to protect individual's or company's reputation as being only "good" - truth is not material in Australian law without proof and proof of accepted justification. Defamation law aims to obscure opinion which does not uncritically support that a reputation is good. Were defamation of religion to be its extension world wide then the same would apply for when ever anyone critiqued actions carried out in the name of a religious doctrine upon which a religion is founded or of the religious doctrine itself. To know a religion one must examine its doctrine. This would prevent critical examination and would enable a  return of blasphemy laws on a world wide scale. Imagine the level of inquisition that would emerge. Many critics against this push to implement a defamation of religion law have pointed correctly to how this would cause a damaging limitation on freedom of expression and thought and could lead the way for malicious litigation by the aggrieved claiming personal harm from criticism of their religion - because defamation law allows for this already. In doing so they are pointing out in part the flaws in defamation law that make it a playground of options for the aggrieved to take out their grievance on and to punish a critic with under the full gaze and assistance of the law and by extension the State.

So, why baleful?

bale·ful  

/ˈbālfəl/

Adjective Threatening harm; menacing: "Bill shot a baleful glance in her direction". Having a harmful or destructive effect.

Synonyms evil - sinister - bad - baneful - harmful - pernicious

and, worship?
Religion requires unquestioning devotion (faith) to doctrine in the name of an entity (God, Jehovah, Allah). The worshiper is informed they submit to, believe in, follow and if necessary defend the one true god delivered doctrine in the name of the faith and the faithful. It is because of this and other claims by religion that religious doctrine is therefore open for examination and criticism and those who would argue to defend their religious doctrine will have their arguments open to equal examination and criticism. However, the religious and clearly Islam, claim exemption from such examination because it is not permitted by their doctrine in the first place. Reason holds that one is not vilified by argument and examination one is educated by it and through their use. But religion claims exemption and with defamation law at its side and the concept that a religion can be classified as "ethno-religious" along with the concomitant support of a racial vilification and tolerance act in toe you can pull a trifecta of legal barriers to shut down all nasty criticism of religion.

Is this the world in which we want to live and leave for our descendants?

I believe in no religion and I know through reason that the separation of religion and the state must be upheld with the transparent exclusion of any religious interference within legislature and governance to have a truly independent government, democratic and free society. The opening of Australian Parliament with "The Lord's Prayer" for example must go. It does not belong in any part of our government procedures even as a nod to an earlier ritualism. If it is not already the case it can be taken to have more meaning than a ritual alone.
That I suppose now makes me a "militant secularist" too.

Paintings - oil on canvas ranging from 1999 - 2010 © Lee-Anne Raymond
 

Humanity can live without religion. The question is can we survive despite religion?

Destruction of an Atheist - Alexander Aan

Alexander Aan a young Indonesian civil servant and atheist is now a criminal against the Indonesian state, gaoled for "disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hatred or hostility". Attacks on Aan (prior his arrest) by residents from the mainly Muslim province where he lived were proof of his causing unrest in the general population. The greater charges of religious blasphemy and attempting to convert others to atheism were dropped. 
In gaol beaten and tortured he reportedly rediscovered Islam and in his court statement expressed his regret and "prayed for God's mercy".1

Dharmasraya Regent Adi Gunawan at the time of the arrest is reported to have told Aan "there was place in this country for his beliefs [atheism]" Regent Gunawan in addition assured that he had not found any other atheists who were employees of the civil service in his region. However he came to volunteer this information its meaning is fairly clear, he was concern to look for more atheists to charge.2 If Aan was going to receive significant support from within his own country this type of veiled threat would have quashed any chance of its emergence. His case is particularly tragic in that context alone, abandoned and at the mercy of an intolerant system within your own homeland.

Aan's unfortunate circumstance is to be a citizen of Islamic Indonesia which shows no tolerance for atheists as his example demonstrates and though it may claim otherwise is intolerant of other religions.3

In an earlier post I charge religions with misanthropy. The example of Aan is of a young man asking reasonable questions across social media, attempting to interact and create a discourse. For his questioning he is beaten and his enquiring mind and freedom of choice and ideas is destroyed by a religion which has control over the state.

consequences (detail)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Aan

2. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/01/20/atheist-civil-servant-arrested-blasphemy.html

3. as a compilation sample

The Inherent Misanthropy of Religion

To be clear, I am anti religion.

eternity

They exist counter-productively and counter intuitively to freedom of thought, expression and innovation.

As an atheist critiquing religion I do so from time to time from the perspective of a woman finding that I do have issue with the problem religion/s seem to have with, well, women. However that may be the case my focus on religion is of the harm done in human terms and not that just of women. It is unfortunate there is a strong focus by religions particularly Judaeo-Christian, Muslim and Hindu for example upon not just controlling human behaviour but in particular female sexuality. Religions like these are particularly interested to place people into hierarchies, men are first, women are at least secondary in many ways and rarely equal no matter what religious relativists may now want to claim.

A religion is its scripture; its teachings derive from its doctrine and for want of a better word its liturgy is communicated to the believers through human channels such as priests, brahman, imam, prophet.  For religion the concept of equality of the genders or social orders within a society is defined according to scripture and those definitions are essentially no-where close to how we may define equality now. Religion has an order and hierarchical structure for a reason. It helps to control, coerce and intends through any means it can to limit our questioning of its edicts. One way to limit criticism is through law. Racial vilification and Defamation law masked as Human Rights law but really is an attempt to introduce repressive Blasphemy Law is seeking legal grounding here in Australia and internationally to remove the right to criticise religion.

As an atheist I reject that there exists a god, spirit, prophet, brahman or otherwise by which we are instructed or judged and from whom we receive knowledge of creation and rules of living so that we may conduct our lives in dutiful worship and imitation so as to transcend existence, be accepted to Heaven, or otherwise go to Hell when we die.

There is a term that has been around for a while that I've only just recently encountered through a friend who reads lots of tech blogs. Standing for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt the term is known as F.U.D. There is an interesting wiki on it here if like me you were unfamiliar with it. It is a propaganda and advertising tool. Create fear, uncertainty and doubt and people will listen intently for the solution because you have captured their attention through FUD and in order to avoid the disasters predicted or asserted they are more compliant and eager to listen to and adopt any proposed solution.

Prior to being defined in this manner, naturally utilised not only for religious purposes, F.U.D. formed as the successful propaganda tool of choice to attract and control believers. It is a simple and robust formula through which can be sown seeds of discourse and disorder as well as fear based adherence by followers and their rejection of other's faiths. With it you can destabilise relationships with "non-believers" as well as compel compliance through superstition and fear of believers. There are non-believers and hypocrites(1) in Islam which also teaches we are all born Muslim and are only taught to reject it.(2) Hindus observe and follow the concept of ritual cleansing throughout all aspects of life in order they may be reincarnated into better circumstances in the next life and ultimately to attain nirvana breaking the endless cycle of rebirth.(3) Christians and Jews must believe in the one and only Lord God [trinity = father, son, holy spirit is rejected by Judaism], fear him and follow his ways alone to be assured of a place in Heaven or basically be destroyed.(4) Jews believe God to have awarded them as his true believers a reserved place in life and death and has chosen them to survive oblivion beyond the great flood.(5)

In critiquing religious scripture, religious ideas and concepts I do so because much of what is preached to or by followers has fundamental flaws in logic, reason, morality, fairness and is the antithesis of what is right, good and honest. Each and every religion has such flaws, all determine that man is born flawed and must repent, suffer for sins not even perpetrated, be tempted to evil and tested in order to gain fulfilment and/or recognition by God. I am naturally interested to point out also where religious doctrine, parable or not, determine women are not equal and place them at a level in that religion's hierarchy, in most cases, lower than, in service to, beneath, or sent to torment men. (tormentors as temptresses or corrupter: just what is that about?)

Generally religions actively suppress normal human behaviour. For teasing out and addressing always is the problem, as religions will have us believe, of guiding/controlling human sexuality and in particular female sexuality. It requires special attention in most major religions and interconnected religio-cultures. Disturbingly, particularly in Judaeo-Christian and Islamic realms genital circumcision is part of the practice and expression of that faith by the faithful as evidence of purity sexually and morally of the individual with the circumcised genitals. An Imam in Australia, Afroz Ali categorically states that in Islam it is a woman's right to be genitally mutilated, though as mostly children are mutilated in this way (without their consent) prior to having any rights over their own bodies such arguments, which imply choice, have to be rejected.

transplant

The World Heath Organisation and I disagree with Afroz Ali. (FGM) That this is not obviously of concern more widely baffles the logical and critical mind. All circumcision is utterly unnecessary medically and as a procedure committed primarily against pre-pubescent children it is an abusively brutal and irrationally invasive practice. I have in the past been baffled by feminist theology in particular of the kind that would have us entertain nonsensical re-evaluations of the Christian God as a Woman or in this more recent example genderless in an ultimately irrelevant and spurious argument that is unsupportable in scripture. Worse, considering evidence of an increasing use of FGM by Islam, is a Muslim feminist theology arguing a progressive reinterpretation of the Koran and Hadith by failing to acknowledge the presence of passages such as this one:
"A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband."(6)

The problem such feminist theologians have is by attempting to manipulate or conveniently ignore these aspects of the religions they defend in order to elevate the role women have in them, is that by remaining believers they simply endorse if not reinforce attitudes held by their own faith that women are inferior to men and in the grand scheme of things the cause of problems and issues for them.(7-a,b,c,) By omitting or manipulating scripture they create a furphy argument that misses the point. Questioning is a good thing but they go nowhere if they merely promulgate the idea that the word of God, Allah, Jehovah has simply been misunderstood by men and/or exploited by overarching patriarchal societies or systems.

For Christians, Jews, Muslims and even Hindus the female is cursed monthly by God with her menstrual cycle. It doesn't matter necessarily what religious rational is behind these attitudes, what matters is that these religion's hold the view the female as impure during these times, potentially infected with evil and having committed such an infraction making it necessary that God punish the female form of his creation (by inflicting menses upon her). In the Hadith it is a condemnation of the female gender due to her biology and merely another proof of a negative characteristic which she must endure and accept as evidence of her inferiority when compared with men.(8)

To be judged and remembered good or bad according to one's own true deeds and actions in life is paramount to human dignity and if we do so we honour ourselves, the living, and the dead. To be judge good or bad according to the doctrines ascribed by a faith that will assign genders to different levels in a human social order, dictate social interactions according to superstitions about one's immortal soul, or to protect against its moral disintegration through sexual misconduct (which may be as simple as looking at someone of the other gender), and order a believer's physical mutilation to control passion, evil and disease* should ring the intellectual alarm bells of any thinking woman or man.

*because human genitalia is born so imperfect that God's creation must surgically mutilated their own genitalia and that of their off-spring to become more perfect. What a perfect God would have wanted of his perfect creation?

Foot notes
(1) [The Hypocrites, Koran: 63:1-4] 
(2) [The Hadith - Sahih Bukhari, Vol:6, 060 #298]
(3) [The Garuda Purana, ch:9]
(4) [Deuteronomy 6:13-15]
(5) [II Chronicles, OT ch:6.]

(6) [Abu Dawud Book 036, Hadith Number 5251. ]

(7) a [Ecclesiasticus 25.24 "Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."] b [ Women  4.34 Dawood translation of the Koran"Men have authority over women because Allah has made one superior to the other...Good women are obedient...As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme."] c [The Garuda Purana - translation by Ernest Wood and S.V. Subrahmanyam, 1911, CHAPTER XV. 7-10. After menstruation the women should be avoided for four days. Their face should not be seen during that time, lest sin should arise in the body."]
(8) [hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/menstrual-periods/]

References
Female Genital Mutilation
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Feminist Theologian View Bible [New Testament] example
http://creation.com/biblical-view-women
The Holy Bible (Old and New Testament)

Orthodox Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_sexuality#Orthodox

Koran and Hadith
Koran - N. J. Dawood, published as a Penguin Classic, ISBN 0 14044.052 6
Hadith - http://www.hadithcollection.com/
Sharia Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Hindusim
Hindu Myths - Wendy Doniger, Penguin Classics, ISBN
Scriptures - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_scriptures

Blasphemy Laws, Atheism and Offending Religion

Australia's leading human rights organisation HREOC at the behest of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) decided along with a whole bunch of others that we needed more laws, and internationally binding ones, to protect religion from criticism by enshrining such law into the charter and covenants of the UN. It was yet another attempt by the OIC to implement blasphemy laws internationally through a UN resolution so as to make it an offence to offend religion specifically to combat, what they term as being, "Islamaphobia". The first time was in 1999 and the latest push beginning in 2007 was fortunately again unsuccessful in 2011 but another attempt is being made.

The primary aim for the proposed resolution was to specifically enact through jointly agreed international law the prohibition of defamation of religion, limiting comment on religion to that being of a positive nature only. To negatively critique or offend religion, primarily Islam, was to be deemed an offence, internationally. It was correctly defeated but they'd gotten closer on this second occasion. It is troubling that organisations such as HREOC cannot perceive the actual threat to human rights the implementing of such laws would be. Some of the major problems are that it would equate attributes held by an individual, such as race,  physicality or gender with organisations or concepts and ideas such as that of a religion. Ideas and therefore religions cannot be defamed through debate, criticism, through not "believing" them, through not accepting them and/or choosing to follow another religion. Neither is it the case that race can be assigned to a religion. Many followers of a particular religion may be of one particular dominant race (many are not) but religions are inherently multiracial. So how is that so many consider it or entertain the idea that it is racist to critique religion, in particular Islam? Race and physicality, including gender are protected attributes in sections of law designed to protect an individual from attack and persecution on this level. It is not permitted to discriminate based upon a protected attribute. Essentially the OIC and human rights bodies like HREOC are saying religion should be a protected attribute. In modelling the law along the lines of Defamation we have a way to cease any criticism of religion through an individual's right to access that law and claim the offence as being an attack on their person and religion as a protected attribute.

Baleful Worship - Submission (detail)

Taking this further to its logical conclusion if we allow for a world where there exists the prohibition of defamation of religion one can outlaw any and all unendorsed religion, commentary of any kind on religion other than by experts in scripture, other beliefs, and of course this makes atheism completely illegal. Atheism and atheists can by their existence be viewed offensive to the religious.

As what is considered non-defamatory commentary by one person, country, religion can subjectively be determined to be offensively defamatory by another person, country, religion how such laws might operate on an international or local scale other than in dictatorial or tyrannical terms makes one wonder about its proponent's ultimate aims and thinking. Clearly the State (international community?) would need to dictate the definition of what might be deemed permitted or offensive in law and by extension what religion/s were permitted or offensive in law. The result would be that the State (international community) would need to enact as law the legally recognised religion/s of the land (or planet) otherwise people might accidentally offend by not belonging to the endorsed religion/s. Further to this by not belonging to an endorsed religion or by being atheist one will have offended not only religion at this point but will have also offended the State and will need to answer not only for having blasphemed religion but having committed sedition for being anti-the-state by being irreligious. Not such an inconceivable result.

In Defamation Law an aggrieved party only needs to state they are aggrieved to have been defamed. Religious vilification laws have worked similarly. The religious perceived a threat and felt aggrieved and so are defamed by an act, a comment or reference made about their religion or religious convictions. Framed to mirror Defamation law the UN proposition to enact defamation of religion laws stinks not only of the most sinister form of censorship but by extension in addition the proposed abolishing of an individual's right to freedom of thought, ideas and expression. In the Australian State of Victoria, we already have an introduction of such limitations in the form of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, introduced by the Bracks Labor government in 2001

The Victorian Act was used in the now notorious Catch the Fire Ministry case (this link to Saltshakers blog has an excellent brief synopsis of the case and the ultimate outcome for the parties). The outcome, following a successful appeal by the defendants and instruction to have the case reheard, was arrived at during a fresh Mediation Hearing, with both parties agreeing that robust debate on religion was permissible.  This is just a mediated agreement between two parties though. It means nothing in terms of the potential for the further use of this deeply flawed law. This law has gouged a deep trench through freedoms of all Victorians and attempts are being made to deepen and make this trench wider and permanent by using it as a model to pursue changes in the UN.

The Catch the Fire case took 5 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend and presumably prosecute. The rational for which is overtly clear, protect religion from all forms of criticism and in particular the religion of Islam.

The right to pursue a religion must never entail that your religion or your conviction for it are exempted from examination, discussion and criticism by others. It is heartening the UN committee concluded

"48. Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.115"
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - General Comment No 34

The OIC will however continue to push their particular agenda to prevent criticism of Islam at the UN on an annual basis.

The "New" Atheists are BAD okay!

In an article in the Herald Sun Newspaper, in Melbourne, Australia on 17 December 2012 self proclaimed atheist Rita Panahi complains that atheism as a "movement" is being over run by zealots.
(The online version of the newspaper article doesn't allow non-subscribers access. However, you can read the full article published earlier on 16 December 2012 here.) [Though no author is attributed it is the same article]

Panahi makes so many nonsensical claims in this article that can I hardly accept she is an atheist let alone one capable of "critical thinking". She describes atheism as a "system of belief", because she does not quite grasp that atheism is not a belief system, but a rejection of any belief system. It is as if she is saying that science should allow belief and reject empiricism. I am in fact unsure why Panahi thinks she is an atheist at all and it is almost as if she is confusing her politics with her position as, what appears to me to be, that of a tentative or confused quasi agnostic-atheist.

She describes Atheism as being formerly "a quiet celebration of reason". How quaint. She describes several contemporary robust critics of religion, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as, "aggressive"with the "aim to drive religion out of public life", for their consistent subjection of religious belief to logical argument and their rejection for the necessity of religion to form any part of our educational, political and public life. Yes? And, what is the problem you have with this? I'd ask Panahi. These aims are completely consistent with atheist theory, old or new. With a church, mosque, temple or place of worship of some sort on the street corners, hills and thoroughfares of our towns and cities religion obviously has a presence, if not an overbearing one, in our societies. Where it strictly does not belong is in our schools, government or official media; after-all, if religion belongs in any of these arenas, then which religion is it? and what becomes of those not of the chosen religion? And, yet our politicians declare their religious convictions as a means for gaining voter approval amongst other reasons and open our parliament with "The Lord's Prayer", some of our official and popular media place emphasis on religion holding a position of only good and exempt from examination or criticism, and religious groups press for a presence of their particular faith in the official curriculum. Its all harmless isn't it?

Atheists have the odd conference or two to allow for discussions of contemporary thinking and provide a forum for discourse and this is seen as controversial if not down right inflammatory towards religious groups. In the image below Muslim protestors turned up to the 2012 Atheist Convention in Melbourne. "Atheism is the cancer, Islam is the answer" reads one placard another declares "ISLAM The only monotheistic Religion" another references "Hell Fire". Amused atheist delegates began to chant in response "Where are the women? Where are the women?" Highlighting the distinct absence of females in this group and of course the poor position this religion holds on gender equality issues. To contrast if a bunch of atheists were to do a Pussy Riot protest in front of a mosque, synagogue, church or temple in Australia they'd risk being labelled racist, and inciters of hate against religion. Particularly if they did so in front of a mosque. I wonder if chanting might be all they'd receive in response to their protest should one occur.

Main Placard reads - "Atheism is the Cancer Islam is the Answer" 

Panahi by her argument would have us accept there need be no quiet reflection for the religions of the world whilst requiring a respectful silence in response from atheists. Panahi should realise is that she is complaining that atheists are no longer obscure but that they should remain respectfully uncritical of religions and avoid committing any offence to them by resisting testing the faithful with valid critical analysis and questioning. This is a call to censorship and the protective exemption of a particular section of society from critical analysis. It is a position which whether or not she realises favours current disturbing moves to implement blasphemy laws (via the UN). Under such laws simply declaring you are atheist can be considered offensive to a religious person or group because your atheism is a denial of their faith which holds the existence of a higher being sacred. A sacred being responsible for the presence of chosen peoples on planet earth. To allow criticism robust or not is apparently disrespectful of the "prophets of any religion".

In fact the call is for no cartoons, no jokes, no movies, no logic, no disbelief. To criticise Islam is to be guilty of Islamophobia and a crime against humanity according to the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan.

Panahi has one point. The quiet atheist is invisible. In societies where to be openly atheist is to be labelled an "anti-Christ", a "blasphemer", a "heretic", or an "apostate" so it makes sense be "quiet" in your so claimed "celebration of reason"as it can mean self-preservation over persecution. In some Muslim jurisdictions we know apostasy is a crime punishable by death. Indeed Islam does not recognise atheism as the absence of belief but as another form of apostasy because for Islam one is born into their faith, as one is born with their skin or eye colour. Christianity believes atheism is a sin. Being atheist has not been and still may not be popular or safe. It has been challenging for people past and present to be openly atheist within their communities. As a young atheist from the late 1970s - 1990s I felt the flexibility to explore religion if I wished to do so but atheism was still shunned if not feared as something utterly sinister. Young friends asked me in horror "...aren't you afraid of the Devil?" As if I'd already been somehow possessed by the nastiest of fallen deities. If I'd been born elsewhere I may not have been so lucky in my youthful explorations and coming out an atheist.

Religions are and can be no more exempted from analysis and criticism than any other group or area of society. The argument that criticism of religion is harmful is a dangerous one because it is an unacceptable limitation on free speech, thought and expression.  

Why are we now seeing, hearing, reading more atheist views, ideas and literature? A number of possibilities come to mind. Not just through the horror of the attack on the USA. Islamic terror was alive and well before September the 11th 2001 though a defining point in history on a number of levels it arguably is. It became a last straw for well known critics such as the, in later life and post his death, much maligned Hitchens. He bluntly informed particularly the socialist left and those with leftist political bona fides of necessary home truths, you've been duped and you continue to declare your support for the intolerance you claim you fight against. He saw the hypocrisy and pointed it out without fear or favour to friend or foe. Tough love was required. The zealots, I'd argue in agreement with Hitchens, reside in the left, in denial and blinkered by their fantasy that religion is not to blame but the terrorist distorters of religion. That is similar to the argument of gun lobbyists who trot out the guns don't kill people kill argument following the latest mass murder spree. More guns it is argued is the answer. More religion is the same argument of the religious. Problem for both form of zealot is they've already demonstrated the redundancy of such a push because more religion or more guns has created the problem in the first place. Do the religious have the right to harm others in the name of their religion? Does the gun crazy US citizen have a right to hold onto his semi-automatic firearms in a country so awash with guns any person, good, evil or mad can obtain and use a weapon to kill to make their point.

As I see it these are the main conditions conducive to the existence of more atheists in our midst:
- The existence and gradual strengthening of the secular state - still way too infiltrated by religious symbolism and observance as discussed above.
- The rise of education and an educated middle class
- The rise of democracy contributing to prosperity allowing for better education, time for cultural pursuits and the exploration in and freedom of the arts.
- The rise of human rights advocacy and its application in democratic society's laws and legislation world wide. (of the type not hijacked by quazi-religious agenda)
- Recognition of the equality and human rights of women
- The WWW and the Internet where unimpeded by government control.

What can and will threaten this self-aware state of mind held by free thinking individuals is the push by human rights organisations, and their successful infiltration by religiously motivated political organisations such as the OIC (The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) to pursue internationally binding blasphemy laws to enforce upon all, which would make atheism illegal. Making it a criminal offence to offend religion is an enormously backward step for all humanity. Panahi and friends do need to consider carefully what it is they are proposing when they ask atheists to quietly pursue a gentler(?) kinder(?) atheism in a manner that will not hurt the feelings of the religious. Or, what? Should be the next question by atheists from now on. "Or, what?" To be atheist may soon be enough to be deemed "offensive". What helps threaten our freedoms and rights and helps to instil and normalise the concept of a religious world at all cost are addled quasi-atheist commentators such as Panahi, and an anti-atheist media such as The Herald Sun. Both obviously find the person who constitutes more of a threat to be the one with an absence of belief rather than the one with a blind adherence to a faith.

You cannot be a follower and an atheist

Vanitas II

Often criticism of atheists is that they simply "believe" there is no God with the corollary assumption they'll eventually come around to belief in the existence of a greater power in the end. Atheism though isn't a belief system along the lines of a religion. Because you are an atheist does not therefore mean you are searching for the right belief system with which to belong, to become a follower, just a believer who does not yet know it and have somehow lost their way to God. 

The point of difference is no quibble over the word belief. To state a belief is not to present a point of fact based upon evidence and reason. To argue atheism is just another form of belief is in part a distraction but in the main is used as a counter argument to maintain religion and atheism within some form of equivalence of position. It is a redundant argument but one the religious seem happy to consistently present as proof of atheism's flaw. 

If we agreed atheism was a 'system' comparable to religion then perhaps we'd have a foot hold for comparison, but atheism is not 'organised' or a 'system' to compare with religion/s. It is a position of thought but not a system of thought unless you determine that reason is a 'system' and therefore a format similar to 'religion'. Atheism can be a form of self determination like religion but this says only that an individual is characterised as being religious or not. An atheist does not simply not 'believe' in a god or god system they instead use reason (not necessarily scientific proofs) to determine the absence of deities of any type and to explain the world around them. 

Atheism is in my assessment the default human position before imagination turns or is turned into superstition. Religions manipulate superstition into indoctrination and pressure to conform and comply. Events man made or occurring in nature become evil portents, confirmations of doctrine, dogmatic distortion of human behaviour follow and a world better explained by reason, science and the imagination and not a holy spirit, shaman or prophet becomes a dangerous place from which to be saved by a greater power. Religions are out of control human obsessions, fears and doubts, not forms of human enlightenment.

Organised religions are systems striving to survive, grow and dominate. If necessary to survive some prop up, direct and at their worst inspire evil where it might otherwise have may remained obscured. 

Atheists can make no claim for absolution to their actions because of what is written or spoken by an unseen all powerful anthropomorphous entity. An Islamic suicide bomber calls upon Allah and the Koran as his guide and justification for what he does. Madness exists regardless but religion can be a vehicle for its physical realisation.

A much more complex set of external and internal events and characteristics of a society are at play than the presence or not of atheism to have brought about a Stalin, a Pol Pot or a Hitler. Totalitarianism and despotism do not require atheism to emerge. The process of transformation into a religious like entity with strict belief systems and controls is what makes these totalitarians successful. Characteristics of which atheism is the antithesis. Though religions can and often are used to inspire and direct mass control in the manner of Hitler; who as pointed out in this essay by Demetrios Vakras, was "the perfect Christian" and not as claimed an atheist or pagan. See: http://www.daimonas.com/pages/christian-hitler.html  

Religion, not atheism, is the effective way to galvanise a population, organise and justify oppression, and inspire the control and dominance of 'enemies' internal or external. It is outstandingly successful and effective especially when it additionally taps into tribalism, nationalism and racism. Cruel acts perpetrated upon those who are not of the "right" or endorsed religion and because a sacred text supports such acts expose that religion to valid criticism. It is why Christianity is so determined to disown Hitler. It is why Islam is so determined to deny the existence of such passages in the Koran that support violent acts by followers upon "unbelievers" instead claiming the entire text is a message of "peace". A peace which upon closer inspection though is not of co-existence, but one of submission to Islam. If you submit you will have peace. Simple.

Religion is a simple enough formula, you worship a god, you follow his rules, you will be rewarded somehow in death and punished, damned, overlooked if you transgress. To the faithful it becomes defensible to, as part of their aspirations to conform act in the defense of what and who they worship by doing harm to others. Religion is used compellingly to jell populations into war or reinforce tyrannical control over ones own people, neighbours or opponents.

Atheism cannot prevent madness but can and does seriously threaten religiously inspired domination and oppression by replacing belief with reason which introduces the conditions for producing more free thinkers rather than followers.