A Candle in the Dark

Praying man let his daughter die

A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.

The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he believed God could heal his daughter.

She died of a treatable disease – undiagnosed diabetes – at home in rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.
…

“If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God,” he said. “I am not believing what he said he would do.”

From a ‘senior vatican official‘

“We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith,” the official says. “This is not just theory. And you can’t start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight.”

In the context of any discussion or a debate, it’s essential to remember that not all opinions are equally valid; some of them are based on reason, rationality, empirical evidence and ethics, while others are based on ignorance, pseudoscience, superstition and religion.

The recent Delhi High Court ruling in India which ‘decriminalized’ homosexuality is a landmark civil rights milestone in India’s history which recognizes equality and affirms individual human rights. However, this is not enough. I hope that this judicial ruling is the first step towards eventually legalizing gay marriage, and granting equal civil rights to all citizens, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

However, what is sadly predictable is the reaction of almost every religious group, who readily unite in their moral outrage to condemn this ruling.

“We urge the union and Delhi governments to keep in mind the views of various religious committees while taking a stand on the judgement of the Delhi High Court,” Jain religious leader Acharya Lokesh Muniji told reporters at a press conference of religious leaders in New Delhi on Thursday. “It’s not that we don’t support independence of individuals but this judgment challenges the will of god”

Sharing the platform with Muniji was the president of Jamaat-e-Islaami Hind, Maulana Syed Jalaluddin Umari. The Maulana said that according to Islam homosexuality is a crime. “Such behaviour is against the moral values of our nation that is based on cultural and ethical traditions. The government should take our views seriously.”

Agreeing with him was Sardar Tarsem Singh of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. “Sikh religion doesn’t view homosexuals as criminals but we don’t encourage it.”

Father Dominic Emmanuel, the founder of Sarvadharma Sadbhav (Communal Harmony and Peace), said: “We have no objection or opposition to de-criminalisation of homosexuality because we never considered them (homosexuals) as criminals”. “However, we are also clear that we are against legalising it… because what they do is unnatural and against the design and will of god.”

But wait… Father Dominic is of the opinion that homosexuality is unnatural and is against legalizing it, but has no objection to de-criminalization? WTF? This sort of broken and contradictory thinking is exactly why one should remember that not all opinions are equally valid.

Frankly speaking, the objections against decriminalizing homosexuality are bereft of facts, logic and evidence; against human rights and promote bigotry. Religious groups should ideally have no say whatsoever in this issue, because India is a secular democracy, and we have a rational-legal judicial system, not one based on any religious text. Religious groups have no right whatsoever to impose their moral viewpoints as universal law ¹.

Here’s a nonsensical petition which attempts to reverse the Delhi High Court ruling, filed by SK Kaushal, who happens to be an astrolger ²

The petition filed by Kaushal sought quashing of July 2 verdict of the high court legalising gay sex between consenting adults in private, which was earlier a criminal offence punishable with upto life imprisonment.

The petition contended that homosexual acts, by all standards, were “unnatural” and could not be permitted.

“No one can imagine the consequences of the unnatural acts. Even animals don’t indulge in such activities,” he said in his petition.

He said the high court judgement would result in spread of HIV virus as “it has been amply proven” that the infection was contracted through such sexual acts.

Really?

1. How can it be unnatural if it occurs in nature? Also, the internal combustion engine is unnatural, but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
2. ‘Even animals don’t indulge in such activities’ – Hogwash. There’s documented evidence of homosexual behaviour in animals. All he needed to do was google. Also, this is an irrelevant point.
3. “it has been amply proven that the infection was contracted through such sexual acts.” – Gee, doesn’t that imply that we should ban hetrosexuality too? In any case, it’s pathetic that he doesn’t realize that decriminalizing homosexuality would be an immense step in preventing the spread of HIV in that population group.

There are some issues which I wish to address. First, why aren’t such silly petitions dismissed by the SC? Second, it goes to show how poorly we think of politicians, that it comes as no surprise that political parties are not taking an unequivocal stand on an issue of human rights. Then, when politicians, religious groups, or organizations calls for a ‘wider consensus’, it’s important to realize that human rights issues should not decided by popular vote, (ideally) the constitution should guarantee fundamental human rights by law, and the judiciary should ensure this.

Finally, I’m against labelling any opposition to the high court decision decriminalizing homosexuality as worthy of a ‘debate’, as that usually implies that there are two sets of comparable but opposing opinions.

Fact is, if you think that homosexuality should be a criminal offense punishable by law, then you are stupid and ignorant.

Notes
[1] – And yet they attempt to do this all the time, and sometimes manage to pull it off (ex. prop 8, blasphemy laws, etc). Which is one of the reasons I think religion is very damaging.
[2]- *Ahem*

From the BBC,

Pair held for ‘offending Islam’

The editor and publisher of a top English-language Indian daily have been arrested on charges of “hurting the religious feelings” of Muslims.

The Statesman’s editor Ravindra Kumar and publisher Anand Sinha were detained in Calcutta after complaints.

Muslims said they were upset with the Statesman for reproducing an article from the UK’s Independent daily in its 5 February edition.

The article was entitled: “Why should I respect these oppressive religions?”

It concerns the erosion of the right to criticise religions.

Spoing!

The opinion piece by Johann Hari from the Independent is acessible online. It raises some very important issues.

But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.

Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.

How hard is it to understand the concept of freedom of speech? The day that India removes the idiotic rule (Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code) and allows the free criticism of every religion, is the day we take a step of progress as a democratic nation.

However, going by the explosion of outrage and protests, that day is a very long way away. I don’t think it’s ever going to happen in my life time.

Because, some philosophers still take things like the ontological argument seriously

In various ways, the account provided to this point is rough, and susceptible of improvement. Sections 1 – 5 in what follows provide some of the requisite embellishments, though — as is usually the case in philosophy — there are many issues taken up here which could be pursued at much greater length. Sections 6 – 8 take up some of the central questions at a slightly more sophisticated level of discussion. Section 9 is a quick overview of very recent work on ontological arguments:

Rape victim, 13, stoned to death

A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped has been stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants.

Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death on October 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses.

The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.

I really don’t know. Some distant day in the future, I hope that through education and rationality such horrifying acts can be eliminated. But helplessly reading about the terrible injustice committed by raving lunatics is enormously depressing. She was just a child. A thousand spectators in a stadium It makes you lose hope in humanity.

The last week had regrettably witnessed the brutal acts of violence committed by rabid Hindu mobs in the state of Orissa^{1 2 3}. It started when the BJP accused that Christians militants had committed the deplorable act of murdering a VHP leader, Laxmanananda Saraswati.

First of all, I’m amazed by the tragic inanity displayed by the VHP & the BJP. Why didn’t they actually wait for some sort of investigation to come up with actual evidence about the murderers before they make a claim? Especially when the region has a history of religious violence.

Unfortunately, the claim that the murder was committed by Christian militants has led to large scale retaliatory violence. There is absolutely no justification for the type of violence displayed by the Hindu mobs in ransacking churches and murdering civilians.

As it turns out, a group of Maoists have come forward and claimed they had committed the murder (have they been arrested and questioned?). However, the BJP don’t believe them and want a thorough probe to determine the “real culprits”. This begs the question, why not demand such a probe from the start, *before* you make such claims? And if the BJP do have evidence to the identity of the murderers, why not state the evidence along with the accusation? Indeed, this was the line of questioning asked during a panel discussion with a former MP of the BJP, B.P. Singhal. He replied:

“I will not give licence to violence but on the ground if immediate redressal operations don’t take place, people react on their own,” Singhal replied.

What a weasel worded statement. Notice that, like most politicians, he didn’t answer the question. Besides, what redressal operation? Mob violence is NOT an acceptable reaction to an allegation of a crime! This, (and indeed, most of his statements) reeks of apologist talk. There have been some reports that VHP activists were among those who committed violence ^{4 5}. What is needed from the party which made the allegation is a statement decrying violence, informing its members (and activists) that violence will not be tolerated and encourage them to cooperate with the police and paramilitary to maintain order and identify mob assailants.

That religion generally leads to violence is not new⁶, but in this case it is reported that there are some underlying factors which had been simmering away for quite some time, such as religious conversion of people from “lower” castes to Christianity, poverty and an opposition to cow-slaughters.

Let’s look at the conversion of the “lower” castes. First of all, I’ve never understood the caste system. Why do we persist in having a racist and discriminatory system of segregation? The caste system has absolutely no relevance in the modern world. Segregation and discrimination based on the caste system is a form of apartheid. Although caste barriers may have diminished in cities, there is still plenty of inequality and discrimination in rural areas^{7 8}. As long as the label of caste exists, narrow minded bigots will continue to use it as a form of discrimination.

I don’t think there’s an easy way to address this problem, but I think a policy of education and affirmative action is absolutely essential. Perhaps not using the current model of fixed quotas for each “caste”, but a model which includes economic factors and deemphasizes the label of caste. For instance, one extreme example would be to abolish the caste system completely, and base affirmative action policies in education and employment on a combination of economic and social factors which are determined by using a set of measurable parameters in an objective manner for each individual.

So, people switching from the “lower” castes to Christianity is understandable. Maybe it’s for economic reasons, a chance to escape poverty or attaining a better social status, or for more opportunities, maybe they were bribed, or maybe it was even for actual religious reasons. It doesn’t matter. If many people are leaving the lower hierarchy of your religion, then maybe you need to realize that it’s a problem with your religion, rather than try to ban conversions or some other stupid measure. Besides, freedom of religion is a fundamental right expected in a democracy. People are free to convert to whatever religion they choose.

Going back to the same CNN-IBN discussion, Mr Tathagata Satpathy, an MP of BJD, said

Question: Isn’t it worrying that on the ground, the tribals and the Dalits are being used as a lab for a larger political experiment?

Satpathy replied, “The point is that if I am sitting in a chair and I want to grow so much that I move other people who are sitting besides me, they are going to object.”

He added it has become fashionable to speak against Hindus in order to be marked as a secularist. “Secularism doesn’t only apply to Hindus,” he said and added, “It applies to Christians, Muslims and everybody. The tribals and the backward classes had been living in the area without any problems for centuries. In fact, there was no problem till two years ago. Suddenly with the missionaries coming in from different parts of the state and the country, this problem has started coming up. I’m not talking against the missionaries. What I’m saying is that it is time they themselves take stock of the situation — whether they want to destroy the fabric of a peaceful society or be content with what they have.”

(emphasis mine)

Be content with poverty, and a lower social status? Perhaps that’s the problem which Mr Satpathy missed, while casually mentioning the “backward classes” to have been living without any problems. Besides, he claims he’s not talking against missionaries, but wait … he is. Ah, the classic affirmation by denial technique.

The other issue is the objection to killing and eating cows. It’s extremely stupid to ban the killing of cows just because you think they are sacred. If I think think that noodles and spaghetti are religious, will you ban people from eating them? If you’re offended that someone eats cows, then too bad. Religious beliefs cannot be used as a factor in a rational-legal judicial system.

The kind of religious violence we see in places like Orissa is a great tragedy. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s much hope for preventing such types of conflicts. Historically, conflicting religious beliefs tend to result in irrational acts of violence, and unless we can encourage rationality, freedom of expression and wean people away from imposing their beliefs on others, the view that the various religions are going to be “the language of peace, sacrifice and compassion” maybe an excessively optimistic one.

External references and notes

[1] - Riots grip India’s Orissa region (BBC News)
[2] – Kandhmal: Panic-stricken villagers hide in forests(NDTV)
[3] – Christians hide in forests as Hindu mobs ransack villages (Guardian)
[4] – VHP bandh: Orphanage torched(The Economic Times)
[5] – Christian woman burnt to death by rampaging VHP mobs in Orissa(The Indian Express, via yahoo news)
[6] – Atleast, in my opinion. You’re free to disagree.
[7] – India’s “hidden apartheid” (Gopal Guru, UNESCO journalist)
[8] – India’s apartheid (The Hindu)

PZ Myers brings attention to a really tragic event which took place in Iraq.

It started when 17 year old Rand Abdel-Qader was murdered by her father. The story is heartbreaking to read.

At that time, her mother Leila Hussein was powerless to stop her husband and sons from murdering her daughter. She had to live for two weeks in that house, suffered beatings and a broken arm when she told she wanted to leave, before she found a chance to escape and join a women’s right group in Iraq. She immediately received death threats there, for speaking out against the murder.

“They cannot accept me leaving him. When I first left I went to a cousin’s home, but every day they were delivering notes to my door saying I was a prostitute and deserved the same death as Rand,” she said.

“She was killed by animals. Every night when I go to bed I remember the face of Rand calling for help while her father and brothers ended her life,” she said, tears streaming down her face.

…

“I miss my two boys,” she said. “But they have sent a message saying that I am wrong for defending Rand and that I should go back home and live like a blessed Muslim woman,” said Leila, who is now volunteering with a local organisation campaigning for better protection for women in Basra.

Tragically, Leila Hussein was killed day before yesterday by gunmen as she was to leave Iraq to campaign for women’s rights from a safer location.

What about her husband who murdered her daughter? He still walks free.

“If I had realised then what she would become, I would have killed her the instant her mother delivered her,” he said with no trace of remorse.
…
Abdel-Qader, 46, a Government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done.

“They are men and know what honour is,” he said.

…

“Death was the least she deserved,” said Abdel-Qader. “I don’t regret it. I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his religion.”

“I don’t have a daughter now, and I prefer to say that I never had one. That girl humiliated me in front of my family and friends. Speaking with a foreign soldier, she lost what is the most precious thing for any woman.

“People from Western countries might be shocked, but our girls are not like their daughters that can sleep with any man they want and sometimes even get pregnant without marrying. Our girls should respect their religion, their family and their bodies.

“I have only two boys from now on. That girl was a mistake in my life. I know God is blessing me for what I did,” he said, his voice swelling with pride. “My sons are by my side, and they were men enough to help me finish the life of someone who just brought shame to ours.”
.

First, it beggars belief that the murderer walks free. The simple question is,

Why is this monster not in jail?

Also, this is a clear example of when religion kills.

I’m aware some people might think that I’m being very crass and naive. That this is culture, not religion. Just because some fundamentalist misinterpreted the religious text, it doesn’t mean that the religion itself condones misogynistic actions and murder. After all, moderates (or True Believers^TM) would never do such a thing. So aren’t you being stupid when you attribute this to a religion?

No, because one can only comment on a religion based on the action of its adherents. This isn’t a question of ‘misinterpreting a text’. Rather, it’s about interpreting what is written. Recently, the Jamiat-i-Hind issued a fatwa against terrorism, which is a good thing if it’s able to convince religious adherents that terrorism in the name of religion is wrong. But what’s to stop other imams from issuing fatwas, or instructing followers that the religion requires you to kill? After all, the Quran does contain passages which are literally interpreted by muslims to support such barbaric killings.

The courage and bravery that Leila Hussein showed to escape from her husband and to speak out for fundamental rights for women, despite the threats to her life by religious nutjobs, is enormous. It’s an immense tragedy that her life was cut short in such a manner.

The HRW released this report today: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia

The Saudi government has instituted a system whereby every Saudi woman must have a male guardian, normally a father or husband, who is tasked with making a range of critical decisions on her behalf. This policy, grounded in the most restrictive interpretation of an ambiguous Quranic verse, is the most significant impediment to the realization of women’s rights in the kingdom. The Saudi authorities essentially treat adult women like legal minors who are entitled to little authority over their own lives and well-being.

Every Saudi woman, regardless of her economic or social status, is affected by these guardianship policies and the deprivation of rights that their enforcement entails. Adult women generally must obtain permission from a guardian to work, travel, study, or marry. Saudi women are similarly denied the right to make even the most trivial decisions on behalf of their children.

As the HRW report details, there’s the almost criminally mislabeled institution called the Permanent Council for Scientific Research and Legal Opinions (CRLO), whose legal opinions on interpretation of religious statements are often implemented as law. When asked about women’s employment, they said

God Almighty … commended women to remain in their homes. Their presence in the public is the main contributing factor to the spread of fitna [strife]. Yes, the Shari’ah permits women to leave their home only when necessary, provided that they wear hijab and avoid all suspicious situations. However, the general rule is that they should remain at home.

If you have the time, and are not aware of the extent, I strongly suggest you go through the entire report. It summarizes the absolutely pathetic “rights” of women, and how truly messed up the situation is.

Check out Pharyngula for the hilarious story

(image from the comments section)