All posts filed under “Secularism

comments 3

Oh for Odin’s sake…

‘Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’ Upsets Hindu Group.

A Hindu group has called on ABC to apologize following an episode of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. that suggested the god Vishnu, like the hero Thor, might be an alien.

In the Nov. 19 episode, which tied into the events of Thor: The Dark World, Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) and hacker Skye (Chloe Bennett) have an exchange designed to deliver exposition about the Asgardians, who in the Marvel Universe are ancient aliens who were mistaken for gods when they visited Earth thousands of years ago. “Do you think other deities are aliens, too?” Skye asks. “Vishnu for sure, right?”

Rajan Zed, president of the Universal Society of Hinduism, thinks those lines are “inappropriate,” as they “unnecessarily drag a highly revered Hindu deity in a television episode and then create misinformation about the oldest and third largest religion among a large audience.”

In a statement, the organization stressed that Hindus support free speech, “But faith was something sacred and attempts at debasing it hurt the adherents. Television and Hollywood should be more conscious while handling faith related subjects, as television and cinema were very mighty mediums and these could create stereotypes in the minds of some audiences.”

Zed is calling on ABC and Marvel to apologize, and, in an effort to correct the “misinformation/misrepresentation,” “post information about Lord Vishnu and Hinduism on their respective websites.”

That’s a key phrase right there: “…the organization stressed that Hindus support free speech, “But faith was something sacred…”. Sorry, but either you support free speech or you don’t. No “outs” for your belief in the supernatural.

And if “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” should offend anyone, it should be those of us who were hoping for more Nick Fury and less teenage romance.


comments 2

Because “god” says so?

I came across some pretty slipshod and childish arguments from Tanya Gold in The Guardian this morning.

And the article has (predictably) unleashed a torrent of comments as a result – not all of them logical or even coherent. But that’s the internet for you. It was enough to prompt me to write about it here, despite the high risk of being accused of all kinds of dastardly intolerance.

Her central thesis in this article is: banning of male circumcision is anti-semitic by default. She decries those who would put female genital mutilation and male circumcision in the same category and argues that continuation of male circumcision is essential for the continuation of Judaism.


What she neatly side-steps – and many commenters helpfully point out – is that “because my god says so” is not really an acceptable argument in any adult debate. If you want to lop pieces of yourself off as a demonstration of your religious affiliation, then I’m all for your freedom to do it. When you are old enough to understand the long-term consequences of this act.

But if you choose to do the same to an infant, who has no say in the matter and no conception of what it is to believe in a god, then I believe you’ve overstepped the mark.

Children have no say in what family they are born into. They have no say in what religion (if any) they have imposed on them. As they grow, they develop their own outlook on the world and maturity and life experience may combine such that they leave the beliefs of their parents behind.

They may decide to take a different life path in terms of political affiliation, career focus or indeed religious belief. All are up for discussion, debate and conscious decision.

Except, if as a baby, religious believers decided to take a piece of your genitals off to appease an all-knowing and all-loving “god”.

That, as you might imagine, is quite hard to change. And serves as a constant and visible reminder to you of what you are supposed to believe in.

The central fear – it strikes me – of religious people who want to impose religious marks on infants is that, if given the option to experience it as an adult instead, their son or daughter may well refuse and instead, walk away from that religion. So, the logic appears to be, get ‘em before they’re old enough to say no.

As secular thinkers have frequently pointed out, there is no such thing as a religious/Christian/Jewish baby. They are the child of religious parents. When they’re older, then they’ll be religious. Or not, as the case may be.

I don’t think it’s helpful to resort to accusations of anti-semitism (and worth noting that “Islamophobia” is a term distinctly lacking from her piece, although male circumcision is routinely practiced as part of that faith) and her constant referrals to the fact that the politician who wrote this report was German is just childish.

It’s also unhelpful to simply say male circumcision and female genital mutilation are one and the same in terms of impact on the child. But I’d argue that it’s a spectrum of impact and they’re both at the negative end of the spectrum.

I’m no expert on children’s health and would never claim to be, but I am simply seeking to point out that using illogical, ancient religious (fear-based) arguments in support of circumcision, while wildly throwing around accusations of intolerance, does nobody any good. To me, this fits into the same category as limiting the rights of women, affording second-class rights to “non-believers” and shielding your children from scientific facts that fly in the face of ancient and inaccurate religious dogma.

It simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

It’s 2013 and I firmly believe that using religious belief to side-step concerns about the wellbeing of children is just plain wrong. I’m a secularist and believe that everyone has the right to practice their belief system in peace. But if tenets of that belief system impact the lives, peace and wellbeing of others, well then…you and I will disagree.

And please don’t expect me to walk on eggshells around those beliefs. I can respect you without respecting your religious beliefs.

comments 2

Now crisps. What next?

In an episode worthy of the best Monty Python sketch, a group calling itself “Protect the Pope” has intimidated Pret a Manger so much that they’ve withdrawn a range of crisps for sale.

Funnily enough, I thought I was living in a democracy in the UK, not some form of medieval theocracy. Courtesy of The Independent:

The sandwich chain Pret A Manger has caved into religious protests and withdrawn its new Virgin Mary crisps. The own-brand variety was pulled from the shelves after a campaign led by the Catholic organisation Protect the Pope. Catholics had complained the name was offensive because of the reference to Christ’s mother, despite it also being the common name for the non-alcoholic version of the Bloody Mary cocktail.

They’re even flavoured the same as a Bloody Mary and there was no religious iconography on the packaging (that’s “pictures”, for you poorly educated scared religious zealots). Will “Protect the Pope” now visit every bar in the UK protesting every time they encounter “Virgin Mary” on the cocktail list?

Here’s a thought, guys. Instead of kicking up a fuss about packets of crisps in your efforts to “Protect the Pope”, how about reflecting on the massive child abuse committed by the very same religion you’re trying to foist on the rest of us. It’s not the pope that needs protecting, it’s the children exposed to the hate-filled nonsense you’re peddling.

Here’s another thought. You can certainly be offended at what a business like Pret does. What you don’t understand is that you don’t have the right to force your ideals on the rest of society. Take all that pent-up frustration that we’re not living in a fundamentalist state and do something useful with it. Something that might go so way to make up for the untold hurt and suffering your clergy inflicted on children all over the world.

I’m sure if you weren’t so selective in your interpretation of the bible, you might find a few passages about turning the other cheek, helping the poor and needy and so on.

comment 0

An utter nonsense

I’m sorry to say even the BBC jumped on the bandwagon today and trumpeted “British Airways   discriminated against Christian”. To me, it demonstrates that they – and most other media outlets – missed the main lesson shared in Strasbourg today – it’s not acceptable to use your own religious belief as an excuse for discriminating against others.

Forget the BA employee and her medieval attachment to a religious icon. Let her wear her cross. She’s a distraction, as far as I’m concerned. Let’s focus on the other cases heard at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg today.

They included someone who refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for gay couples and a counsellor who refused to counsel gay couples. Both of these people lost their cases, upholding the law that makes illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Let’s celebrate this common sense decision and challenge the belief that Christians are somehow discriminated against in this country. There is absolute freedom of religion, but there is no freedom to use your archaic beliefs to restrict the rights of others.

Isn’t it interesting though, that with all the chaos and disaster in this world, even in this country, it’s the fact that two people of the same gender want to express their love for one another that has the religious so up in arms.

comments 2

He must resign

The scandal of clerical child abuse in Ireland has shown the Catholic Church up for what it really is – a self-serving organisation that views its own laws and members as being above the laws of the countries in which it operates. The fact that bishops, archbishops and cardinals actively hid instances of child abuse from the authorities in Ireland for most of the 20th Century, moving paedophiles from parish to parish illustrates the contempt they have for civil law and the wellbeing of the children in their care. The reputation of the Catholic church was their prime concern, canon law taking precedence over the law of the State.

Read More

comments 2

You’ve been a very naughty boy…

I had to remind myself what year it was the other day. I’m not losing my mental faculties, but was slightly worried that I’d either been plunged back into the dark ages or had somehow missed some sort of fundamentalist religious coup. Why? Well, it would appear that one Cherie Blair was taking religious belief into account when sentencing a man for a violent crime. That is, she spared him a jail sentence because he believed in god:

The former prime minister’s wife, who sits as a judge as Cherie Booth QC, told Shamso Miah that she would suspend his prison sentence because he was a “religious man”.

Miah, a devout Muslim, had been convicted of breaking a man’s jaw with two punches after a dispute in a bank queue in East Ham, London. The 25-year-old had gone to the bank from a local mosque.

Miss Booth, who has made no secret of her strong Roman Catholic faith, appeared to indicate that she was taking into account Miah’s religious beliefs as she opted for a lenient sentence.

“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before,” she told him at Inner London Crown Court.

“You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”

This is wrong on any number of levels. Firstly, religion (or more accurately, professed religious belief) should have no bearing in a trial that does not have matters of religious belief at its very core (e.g. a religiously-motivated hate crime, religious discrimination claim etc.). This man, muslim or not, was guilty of a violent physical attack on another person and should have felt the full force of the law. Cherie Booth decided she knew better and spared him prison time because he was a “religious person”.

Secondly, as an atheist, should I be worried that the converse will also be true in future court cases? Will a lack of religious belief condemn me to a harsher punishment? Should I decide to stoop to Miah’s level and knock six bells out of someone on the street, will I automatically go to jail because I don’t go to a church/mosque/temple?

Finally, and most worryingly, is this evidence of a new trend of legal decision-makers projecting their own religious beliefs into the sentencing process? Will co-religionists go easier on convicted criminals because they believe in the same imaginary friend? Will they use the same “you should have known better” argument as Booth?

Shouldn’t this logic work in reverse if they really believe in what they profess? That is, as a convicted violent criminal, a religious man who claims to know right from wrong, you should know better and as a result I’m sending you to jail.

The bottom line: in a secular society, citizens should stand equal before the law, irrespective of where they thing we all came from and where we’re going to.

I’m happy to learn that the National Secular Society has made an official complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints. I don’t anticipate Cherie Booth making any form of apology – I’m not even sure it’s possible without adversely impacting the conviction in this case. But I also don’t think we should sit silently while religion’s influence is felt in secular offices such as the court room.