Hadiya Masieh: On A Mission To Fix The Damage Caused By Extremism

I recently wrote about the disgusting chants of a group of Muslim Extremists during a home coming parade by our troops. In the post I said how I wished more Muslims would publicly distance themselves from the warped version of Islam being advanced by extremism.

So I was pleased to read about Hadiya Masieh, a Muslim woman who turned her back on the extremist group who’d brainwashed her into supporting the 9/11 attacks and is condemning those who’ve hijacked her faith. Hadiya now works for the Three Faiths Forum, a group whose aim is to bridge the gap between religions. Given my wish for more condemnation of extremism from the Islamic community I feel I should commend Hadiya.

Anyone familiar with me will know my thoughts on religion and there is plenty wrong with Islam, even in it’s most “liberal” form; but I support anything that aims to drown out the nonsensical noise being made by extremists.

You can read about her story here in the Guardian

Brave Soldiers Come Home To Abuse From Extremists

I’ve neglected my blog again. I’d love to have an excuse, but I’ve just been lazy.

I’ve slapped myself on the wrist and I won’t do it again!

I was sickened to hear about the brave soldiers returning home from the front line who were subjected to vile abuse by a group of Muslim extremists. The members of Muslims Against The Crusades shouted “murderers!” and “go to hell!” at the troops.

I think it’s important to make the point that these fanatics do not echo the thoughts of the majority of Muslims. I know that most Muslims are law abiding citizens who just want to get on with their lives and that these few extremists are the minority not the majority.

But if most Muslims don’t agree with them, where are they? Why aren’t more Muslims speaking out against these fanatics? Those Muslims who deplore the terrorist atrocities should do more to condemn some of the evil that has been perpetrated by the likes of the Taliban. If the Muslim world could unite and help eradicate the rogue elements who do things like executing children for spying then we’d get a lot further, a lot quicker. It seems to me though, that often many sit on the fence.

The signs of brainwashing are all over these fanatics. The following statement, made by the young “leader” of the group, is so nonsensical that it is pretty obvious he’s not very intelligent.

“We are quite disgusted by the fact these murderers that raped our people are coming back and they are being honoured for doing something wrong. These people have been killing and raping and pillaging in Islamic countries and they should not be welcomed home. As Muslims, we wanted to make a stand.

“The families of the soldiers are not the only ones with feelings. We also have feelings, our fellow Muslims are being butchered. Islam is not a violent religion but we will use violence if necessary to defend ourselves. Democracy is failing, that was clear as this year we had a hung parliament. Islam is the alternative.

“People in this country are very patriotic. They support Britain even if the country has done something wrong. We want to show that there is an alternative. Sharia law would provide an alternative, it would provide balance in the UK.

“People say ‘don’t take it out on the soldiers, they are just doing their jobs’. But how it when Osama Bin Laden blows up a plane or a building he is a terrorist. It is not that he is just doing his job – this is a double standard. They are both killing.”

He makes ludicrous statements claiming Allied troops are raping and pillaging and thinks Sharia law is the answer. It’s a view so tainted with the evidence of a brainwashed religious fanatic that nobody has taken him seriously.

His attempt to propagate the myth that our soldiers are raping people is intended to anger, and anger it certainly has. It is evident from his belief that the west is “pillaging” that he has a limited understanding of the complexities of the conflict, either that or he has no idea what pillaging means. In fact it’s probably both.

What makes it quite clear this guy is of limited intelligence is the last part where he tries to claim Bin Laden was just “doing his job” and that supporting our troops for doing their job somehow means we’re demonstrating double standards. Does he not know Bin Laden lives in a cave and answers to himself? I’d love to know who hired Bin Laden. That’s an interview I’d love to see!

If you want to learn how to make statements completely devoid of logic, take a lesson from this guy.

Most of the extremists try and divert the conflict in the Middle East into one about religion. They make it about the West trying to eradicate Islam and use that to advance their argument that they must fight to defend their religion. The leaders at the top of the Taliban do this intentionally and are fully aware of the power this has to capture the spirit of young Muslims. It’s the young people like Muslims Against The Crusades who have no idea they’re being drip fed lies. These young guys probably come from honest, normal Muslim families and their brains have been poisoned by the powers in the East.

I don’t support the conflict. I’ll make that known now. I never have and I never will. I am pretty ashamed of some of the things the West has done to the East and I’m not blind to the reality that people in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan can find plenty of reasons to not trust us. We were misled by our leaders and ill prepared for what we met when we invaded. There were ulterior motives for invading and history will not look favourably on what we’ve done. We’ve made the area more unstable and we are more at risk from terrorism now than we were before.

Having accepted that we’ve made lots of mistakes that I do not condone, I do not believe we are over there to eradicate Islam. So we must make a stand against those trying to divert this conflict into one where they try and force Islamic law on Britain. Muslims Against The Crusades would do well to remember that it is the freedom of thought, speech and religion granted to them in Britain that allows them to shout the vile things they do. In many Islamic countries you wouldn’t be able to stand on the street saying such horrible things against that country without ending up in jail. Someone needs to teach them they can’t have their cake and eat it.

Despite wishing we weren’t involved in this war we’re ultimately there to help rid the East of the grip of the Taliban. They force people to obey strict, archaic rules, enforcing them without a shred of compassion. They murder anybody who dares to denounce or disobey them. Women are virtual prisoners and elders roam the town beating any unfortunate woman found out without an escort. Education for women is non-existent and healthcare is poor. The Taliban are virtually in control of Afghanistan and rule based entirely on man-made religious doctrine that makes no sense and results in an appalling quality of life for so many.

It is this sort of life these young protesters advocate. They are trying to divert our thoughts elsewhere and make it about their own religious agenda. This is not a religious war and we can’t let them make it into one.

This post was updated on June 17

South Park Should Stand Up To Muslim Threats

This week I had the privilege of watching the 200th episode of South Park. I have to say it was one of the funniest I’ve seen in a long time. In terms of jokes it wasn’t as funny as some episodes but what it did wonderfully was highlight the absurdity of Islamic censorship.

For those who didn’t see it the basic plot saw all the people South Park has previously made fun of bring a class action lawsuit against the town. The only way to stop the lawsuit was to bring the prophet Mohammed to Tom Cruise. Rather than actually depict Mohammed the creators dressed him in a bear suit.

Not surprisingly then, given the willingness for violence of some Muslims when someone dares to depict Mohammed, the writers of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have now received death threats. The internet has also been awash with angry Muslims ranting about how incredibly offensive the show was. Funny how those who say they’re “people of God” are the ones making the death threats, a shining example of morality!

I applaud South Park for having the guts to stick their neck on the line. It’s about time the world stopped pussy footing around and pandering to such lunacy. Some may say this episode was trying to purposefully offend Muslims but lets face it, that’s what South Park does isn’t it? It’s important to point out that in the US they have a concept called free speech (It’s a concept they’ve not heard of in the Middle East), one which is far more important than not drawing images of some bloke called Mohammed. This South Park episode screamed from the rooftops “this is America and we allow people to say what they like”.

It’s because of this I was sad to hear they’d censored the follow up episode. I understand that the creators value their lives and I can understand Comedy Central wanting to avoid being the centre of a religious row, but what on earth did they think would happen? The first episode made a point of how Muslims would respond so they were aware of the response it was going to have.

This episode raises an important issue which is deeply affecting the planet at the minute; the issue of why the religious think that the rest of the world has to humour their beliefs. If, as a Muslim, you wish to refrain from drawing pictures of Mohammed then by all means go ahead but that should not give you the right to dictate what the rest of the world does. It seems to be that we have created a new human right: the right to not be offended if your illogical beliefs are questioned.

We need to sort this out. Let’s face it, if we seriously think we can continue this farce of never offending the religious then we’re very mistaken. All religions are built upon ancient superstitions which are slowly being proven fallacious. We are trying to create a ‘free speech’ world yet, at the same time, we’re granting the religious not only the freedom from persecution but freedom from having anything negative said about them. As we push forward into a new age of enlightenment this is only going to cause conflict. The result of sending this signal to the religious, that the world will bend over backwards to accommodate their beliefs, will create a generation of fools who think they can say whatever they want but can’t have anything said back to them. It is nothing more than ludicrous for the religious to demand that non-believers live their personal lives in accordance with a religion they have no interest in.

Situations like this are going nowhere and will happen again. This is why the world needs to get some balls and stand up to religious threats.

Why I’m Pretty Damned Sure God Does Not Exist – Part 4

Today’s post is part 4 of a series on the arguments for the existence of God.

The First Cause

I’ve often heard the religious bring up the subject of cause and effect. Everything that moves is moved by something, they say. Everything that happens is the effect of an earlier cause.

In its simplest logical form this argument states that everything which exists has a cause and because the Universe exists it must also have a cause. Therefore the cause must be God. The argument is an example of infinite regress. With every effect having a prior cause the ‘chain’ continues backwards forever. The religious argue that only God can break that regress and so must be the first cause.

The flawed logic is immediately obvious to me and it raises more questions than it answers. To claim God breaks the infinite regress makes the assumption God himself is immune to having a cause. We have nothing to suggest this and so it is an example of special pleading.

Even if it could be said that the Universe did have a cause, to assign responsibility of that to a ‘God’ is another jump in logic. God is not the only available explanation; the big bang provides a much more likely explanation.

“God exists because the Bible says He does”

Anybody who bases their belief in God on nothing more than because of what a book says clearly has some mental issues. I’ll just get that out the way first. There is no helping these people, they’re completely devoid of any ability to process thoughts logically so don’t waste your time with them. I wasn’t even going to comment on this argument because it’s so stupid.
So this is here purely for the sake of it. I mean come on, is it even worth wasting my time on people who make the above statement? I don’t think so but I guess I have to justify what I’m saying. Having to justify my belief these books are full of shit is like having to justify my belief the Sun exists. I am referring to every single religious text here not just the Bible.

Still there appear to be many of these people. Most deny evolution because the book says, some murder people because the book says and all base their entire life on what the book says.

It’s quite clear that all the religious texts cannot be correct. They all contradict each other too much for that to be true. This then throws plenty of doubt over all of them. While aspects of them have been historically verified the vast majority of the scriptures are the writings of some pretty confused people thousands of years ago.

The single biggest problem with all the religious books is that they were written by humans. In the 23 years I’ve been alive I’ve learned that some humans are totally fucked in the head and some have a tendency to think and believe complete rubbish. I’ve especially learned to keep well away from people who believe God has revealed something wonderful to them and only them. A man two thousand years ago who believed God was speaking to him is likely to be even more untrustworthy than the crazy nuts now. These people lived in a time when they thought the Earth was flat and the centre of everything. They thought the stars were the ‘heavens’ and that hell was under the ground. They had no knowledge of the billions of planets and stars or the detail of DNA. But yet some wish us to believe them? Given the track record of total bullshit in the Bible, Qu’ran, Book Of Morman and all the rest, I think we can safely say their authors were definitely a bit off the mark.

It saddens me occasionally when I think of the misery and death caused by religion. I have met so many who’ve experienced unnecessary turmoil as a result of conflicts between their religion and their life. Right now the single biggest cause of instability on the planet is religion. Religion can be found somewhere in every major war. For me personally the biggest problem I have with religion is that it turns our eyes upwards. It makes us look for favour with God and forget that we have a short time on this Earth. If we could rid the world of religion maybe we could realise we are all the same species and must rely on each other for survival. Perhaps we would stop obsessing about an imaginary ‘after life’ and make the most of our only life on Earth.

At times I think this is an impossible dream and that religion is too deeply seated. But it is important to remember we are only 150 years from the publication of The Origin Of Species. We are witnessing “New Atheism” in its infancy. Every day science discovers new things and our knowledge of the Universe increases. I do genuinely believe it is possible for the Earth to sort itself out although I don’t expect to see it in my life time.

One thing I do know is that time will tell. History will vindicate today’s ‘sceptics’.

Why I’m Pretty Damned Sure God Does Not Exist – Part 3

Over the past couple of days I have been sharing my opinion on the arguments for the existence of God and today I continue by looking at religious experiences.

“I Experienced God So He Must Exist”

This is perhaps one of the most convincing arguments for the existence of God. There are many people who believe they have had some sort of spiritual experience. They range from direct ‘supernatural’ experiences where people say they’ve witnessed miracles or angels, to circumstantial experiences where prayers have seemingly been answered. They include ‘out of body’ experiences of people believing they have met God or seen their life ‘flash before’ them. When presented to us by people who otherwise seem totally logical and ‘normal’ they can be convincing and when accompanied by events that seem unexplainable they are strengthened further.

The argument in its logical form states that it is only possible to experience something which exists and therefore if someone experiences God, then God must exist.

To test this I thought about whether it was possible to experience something that doesn’t exist. There are many examples of humans experiencing something that doesn’t exist. Dreams are situations where the brain completely believes the dream is real. It is not until you wake up you realise you’re dreaming; you never realise while you’re actually dreaming. A hallucination is the same thing except you are awake. Some drugs can alter our minds so that we believe we are experiencing something that isn’t happening. Drugs add no new capabilities to our brain they merely interfere with the normal processing occurring within the brain. Drugs have the ability to allow incredibly realistic yet non existent experiences. Some mental illnesses provide evidence of the brains ability to do this without chemical help. Schizophrenic people sometimes have very different perceptions of reality. Some people recall in the most detailed way how they were abducted by aliens and what happened to them. The world is full of examples of the human’s ability to experience something that doesn’t exist.

This concept is pretty easy to understand when you understand how the brain actually works and what an ‘experience’ is. Your eyes let in light which in turn is detected by optical sensors. These send constant signals to your brain which arranges them into an image. Your ears do the same with sound. You are not listening to an audio feed, you are hearing your brain’s construction of a constant supply of sound vibrations. It is easy to fool the brain with simple optical illusions where things appear to be completely different to how they actually are. 3D films appear 3D but are actually on a flat screen.

Sometimes we don’t receive enough information to construct a truly accurate picture and our brain calls on information it already has stored. An example of this is when a person lying in bed may hear what sounds like someone breaking into their car. On closer inspection it turns out to be a fox poking around in the bins. When the person heard the noise they thought it was a thief. Their brain was given nothing but the actual sound waves but it immediately used its pre-stored memory of what it expected a car thief to sound like. Indeed the very fact that the person suspected a car thief is evidence of knowledge previously stored in the brain. I make this example merely to demonstrate that a particular experience comprises of different factors. The brain can easily create an experience which is not actually occurring.

It is quite clear then that the argument’s main premise is false and that it is in fact possible to experience something which does not exist.

It is entirely plausible that a person with pre-determined beliefs in angels and miracles could be in a situation where they experienced what they thought was an angel. I have no logical reason to not extend the same to miracles. There are more examples of the effect pre-determined beliefs have on what we can experience. I have witnessed plenty of avid ghost hunters speak of the ‘spirits’ and ‘presences’ they have experienced.

Some religious people say God speaks to them, they say they know it’s God and so he must exist. Despite the obvious comedy value in this belief I will address it none the less. I worry about the sanity of someone who genuinely believes that the random thoughts that pop into their head are God but yet millions of people do believe it. It is more than clear that God tells them whatever they already believe God would say. Humans consistently apply characteristics they have invented to God.

I could go on with more examples; people who claim to have met Elvis after he had died, people who say God has told them to murder and rape, suicide bombers who say God told them to blow up buildings. It is more than obvious that it is possible to see, hear and experience things that aren’t actually happening and don’t really exist.

Why I’m Pretty Damned Sure God Does Not Exist – Part 2

Yesterday I began this article on why I believe there is no God. I looked at the argument from design and gave my opinion on why the Universe appears to be designed. Today I continue by looking at morality and whether it comes from God.

Without God We Have No Morals

Morality is concerned with right and wrong. To many it is an impulse, they say they just know what is right and what is wrong. It seems true to me that our sense of right and wrong is not entirely learned. We are not directly taught what to do in a given situation, yet we appear to make similar moral decisions. These decisions are sometimes found universally, spanning many cultures and nationalities. It might even be said that their are certain moral ‘laws’. People appear to feel compelled to act in a morally good way. This raises the question of why we would often act in a selfless manner, sometimes helping others at our own expense.

This argument states that morals appear to exist objectively and that they have authority beyond what society dictates. That as humans act morally right when they’re not always required to by society there must be a reason why they do so; that as morals are transcendental and not ‘within’ us they must come from God.

I have a major problem with this argument. It is, quite frankly, ridiculous. In its most basic form it says that without God people would not do good. I personally do good because of the benefits to the world not because I think God wants me to. It’s a strange argument because I don’t see how the existence of God shows us what is right and wrong. If the religious mean they get their morals from religious texts then their argument falls down. They were written by humans, and as such the moral concepts they wrote about clearly already existed in their minds. One doesn’t have to delve far into the world of most major religions to find a wonderful array of hideous ‘morals’ and ‘rules’. Islam scores maximum points here.

In addition to all of this the evolutionary advantage of doing good to our kin is plainly obvious. We can observe how most other species co-operate with their kin, watching out for each other. They stay in groups and clean each other. More intelligent species display similar social structures to us. It’s impossible to ignore the striking similarities between ourselves and primates. Not just in appearance but in behaviour also. Brothers defend their young sisters and mothers nurse their babies. Partners hug, kiss and clean each others backs and parents mourn the death of their young. It is clear to me that altruism is found at all levels of the living world. It is not unique to humans and it does not have its basis in religion or God. A species who work together for survival are much more likely to survive than a species who spend all their time doing bad to each other. It is observed in humans that when you do good to others you live a better life and it’s not difficult to see the benefit to our survival.

If the argument that morality has to come from God were true, then it should be so that the moral laws are universal. That is they are non-negotiable and apply always. If the laws don’t originate in us we can’t have the ability to alter them for different situations. Clearly if we were expected to do this it would defeat the object of having the laws in the first place as they would then become subjective not objective.

I have no option but to reject this as never in my life have I observed morality to be a set of concrete laws. There are trends consistent across the globe, however in every situation people judge what is right and wrong based on many variables. It cannot be said that to kill is always wrong, as there are many situations where taking life has been justified. Morals can also be observed to change over time. Most of society has adopted changes in morals regarding human rights over recent history. Religion has taught us it is immoral to be gay, modern knowledge and understanding has taught us it is immoral to hate something which happens naturally.

In my opinion the existence of morality and altruism is easily explained through natural selection and observed in the individual benefits we get from doing good to each other. God is not required to explain it.

Tomorrow I’ll talk about personal religious encounters and how they are easily explained.

Why I’m Pretty Damned Sure God Does Not Exist – Part 1

Either there is or there isn’t a God. It is a yes or no question. Something cannot half exist, it must exist or not. The answer to the question has huge ramifications on everything we know and it is a question humans have probably been asking since we learned to talk. Almost everyone I know has an opinion on it and it comes up countless times when people have had a few drinks! As I have declared myself an atheist I feel I should clarify where I stand. I’m writing this to record and share my opinion on this fundamental and unavoidable issue.

There are literally millions of people in the world who disagree with me. I can safely say this without having even written that much yet! So let me just get this out of the way. I’m not a philosopher, neither do I have a degree in ‘Biblical Theology’, I’m not a biologist or a particle physicist. I have no intention of fully explaining the process of evolution, those who do not understand it can find a wealth of information on it. What follows is not a PhD paper and will likely not have covered every angle of possible logic nor will I cite everything I talk about . I may be wrong, I do not assume I ‘have all the answers’. It merely stands as my observation of how the world appears to be. Not surprisingly this article has turned out to be pretty long so I have split it into a few smaller parts and will publish them over the next few days. But hey, if this was a subject you could comment on in a few lines then we’d have it all figured out by now!

‘God’ is a human creation. It is a name we have given to the imagined creator of the physical Universe. It is the result of humans asking “how did we come to be here?”. Humans have attached many characteristics to God, such as being just and fair. One of the biggest being the notion that he/she/it has to be served and that he/she/it rewards or punishes good and bad behaviour.

God is universally viewed as the creator of the Universe, the being responsible for the existence of everything we know. God is therefore superhuman. This is the definition according to most religious believers, and it is this definition I will use.

I feel the need to separate God and religion at the outset. Religion is all of the added characteristics humans have attached to God. Religious rules, texts, customs etc are all irrelevant when contemplating the existence of God. What I am concerned with, therefore, is whether any evidence can be found for God’s existence. I am not concerned with what any supposed God might like or dislike, whether he/she/it wants me to marry before I have sex, or whether to force my wife to cover her body from head to toe.

I’m avoiding getting into deep philosophical epistemology here but will simply state that I am aware I cannot claim to ‘know’ there is no God. However, I feel I can state that based on all available evidence; taking reference from the whole range of information and scientific discovery available to me at the present time; that I’m pretty damned convinced there is no God.

What follows is every single argument for the existence of God I’ve ever had put to me. There is not a single time where I’ve debated this issue that the points put to me have not been some variant of those I’ve written about here.

The Universe Must Have Been Designed

The first, and to me the most frequently used, argument is that the Universe must have been designed. I’ve had this put to me by militant creationists and hippy agnostics. Many people feel the natural world is too well suited to its environment and is too complicated, intricate or beautiful to have happened for no reason or by chance; that if it didn’t happen by chance it must have been designed with a purpose. Proponents of this argument say that the complexity of the design shows forethought and so must be the product of a ‘mind’. That ‘mind’ is what you call God.

This whole argument relies on the assumption that complexity must be the product of a ‘mind’. The argument from design presents you with limited options. It forces you to make a choice between a world where everything happens by chance and a world where everything was designed with a purpose. The design advocates use the word ‘chance’ to create an image of a world without God as one of disorder. They then claim that as the world contains order, this order must come from God. It is a complete misunderstanding of the very fabric of evolution which provides a very good explanation indeed as to how the natural world appears to be designed. Evolution is the process of natural selection. It is not an ‘anything goes’ world of complete chance. It is a series of minute improvements over millions of years which results in a complex object. Had we the ability to travel back in time we would no doubt be able to observe creatures which were not so well adapted to their surroundings. They would appear to to be badly designed.

Other people have said to me that for the Earth to be in just the right location with the right conditions for life to exist is evidence of design. That if the Earth was tilted differently or closer to the sun we couldn’t be here. They then go on to reel of a list of the many other minute tolerances in the conditions we need to survive. This, they say, could not happen by chance! The sheer number of variables that have to come together for the conditions to be perfect must require intelligence. To me, however, it’s a slightly narrow minded position. It is true that the conditions for life as we know it, consisting of the diverse collections of living things on Earth, have minute tolerances. It is also true that if you changed the conditions, even by a small amount, many living things could not survive. But we only have knowledge of our immediate solar system. We are aware of only ourselves. We cannot take it as given that for life to exist conditions must be like Earth. The Earth is one planet in a galaxy of billions of planets. The Universe contains billions of galaxies. Those odds suggest there could be billions of Earth like planets. Given the sheer size of the Universe it’s not improbable that other planets exist with life bearing capabilities. In fact to me it is more improbable that Earth is the only one. I find it hard to follow the logical path that just because the conditions are perfect for us it must have been designed. If these are the conditions we need then it’s not surprising that we’re here is it?

The tolerances and the fine balance of life in no way implies that it must have been designed. The entire design argument projects human like qualities onto the larger Universe. It basically says “because we have designed complicated things it must mean all complicated things are designed”. It is totally ludicrous and completely illogical.

Tomorrow I will comment on the argument that without God we have no morals.

Freedom Has Been Hijacked By The Religious

Recently there has been a lot of chatter in the news about the age old issue of religious discrimination. This week a Christian relationship counsellor is in court after losing his job for refusing to counsel gay couples. He is claiming it is discriminating to force him to give advice in contradiction to his beliefs. And not long ago a Christian nurse lost her case when she tried to claim she was being discriminated against after she was forced to remove her cross from her neck. The court decided the cross wasn’t “essential” to her faith and therefore she couldn’t wear it as jewellery is banned. She claimed that she’d worn it for years and there’d been no problem.

It may seem ludicrously bureaucratic to some to force a change now if it has caused no problems. But it’s important to remember that the no jewellery rule was created to combat the spread of bacteria and MRSA. Therefore a ban should include all jewellery, full stop.

On the surface this looks like yet another religious person wanting special treatment. But this issue is a little bit more complicated. Christians are not the only ones wanting to wear jewellery. Sikhs wear bangles, bangles incidentally, which are still permitted. These bangles are obviously on wrists where they pose a much greater risk of spreading disease than a cross around a neck.

Exceptions are not only being made for Sikhs though. Muslim women are resisting new rules requiring people to be bare sleeved from the elbow down. Again this is aimed at curbing the spread of bugs and allows hands and arms to be kept much cleaner. Sleeves are a big potential breeding ground for bacteria. The Muslim defence is that women must not show their arms and they reel out their usual ‘modesty’ rubbish. We’ve even gone to the length of buying disposable sleeve covers to keep the complainers happy. Doctors have resigned and medical students are quitting, all because they’re being asked to show their arms.

This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. We have a hygiene standard aimed at making our hospitals as safe as possible, but we give some people special privileges because they think if they show their arms, or remove some rings of metal, they’ll go to hell. Not only that but we’ll even charge the taxpayer the bill for indulging their ridiculous fantasy.

Whilst making these exceptions for Sikhs and Muslims we’ll refuse to budge on the rules for Christians who want to hide a small cross under their clothes. I can understand the frustration of Christians who feel they are being singled out. It certainly poses questions about underlying motives in the justice system. I fear the system has become petrified of appearing racist; so makes such stupid rulings regarding cases involving ‘Eastern’ religions; while sticking to the rules when dealing with ‘Western’ religions. Why do so many of the religious fight for equality but happily accept a little special treatment if it’s offered? We’re heading into the territory of discriminating against the non-religious to keep the religious happy.

However, singling out the Christians is not the main issue here. We shouldn’t be allowing anybody to flout the rules. This country needs a backbone. Hygiene is the number one priority in our hospitals and it needs to stay number one. Keeping the religious happy should not be a higher priority and clearly it is.

Those who wish to work in a profession which asks things of them that their religion doesn’t allow need to ask which is more important: their job, or their religion. A Muslim woman who must cover her body could not be, for example, a lifeguard. She would have to accept that she couldn’t do this job because it requires that she remove her veil. A Muslim man could not insist on being allowed to wear his traditional dress and be a fireman. Neither could a Sikh refuse to wear breathing apparatus because he’d have to remove his turban. He’d have to accept that he’d have to sacrifice his religious ‘rules’ in order to be a fireman. This silly idea that we’re doing something horrific if we impose an occupational standard and ask a Muslim to bare her arms needs to end. Are we genuinely saying that if an aspect of a religious person’s job conflicts with their religion the rules should always be bent, otherwise we’re discriminating against them? And do we really think that we can operate every organisation, work place, school etc in harmony with every single religion? Especially when EVERY single religious ‘rule’ relies on the interpretation of a human being and so is always different.

Nobody is being discriminated against by the NHS. No religion was purposefully targeted in a bid to persecute and penalise its followers. It simply happened that a new rule change conflicted with their personal beliefs. This should not be grounds to grant special privileges.

The liberal world we now live in has come full circle. We created the concept of freedom and liberty and granted people the freedom to believe whatever religion they wanted. This is an important freedom to have and prevents government persecuting the religious. Despite its intended purpose this freedom has been hijacked by the religious. They have turned it into a weapon to fight a war they have started themselves. It is a war against the modern world and a fight against common sense. Instead of using it to prevent discrimination they are using it to halt any change which conflicts with their religion, insisting on the right to veto such changes. In doing so it is actually the non-religious who are being discriminated against. We are being held hostage by the religious who are slowly turning the country into a religious state.

Whilst freedom of religion is a vitally important freedom to possess, we need to forget this new found idea that religious ‘customs’ can never be infringed.

Christian Terrorism: The Latest Breed Of Extremism?

The word terrorism brings to mind certain images. The Twin Towers, car bombs, Anthrax in the post etc. Right now the majority of the world’s terrorism has its roots in the Middle East and Islamic extremism. The East is a breeding ground for radicalised young Muslims hell bent on forcing the world to believe as they do. They oppose everything about the western way of life and will go to any lengths to make the entire planet as restrictive and appalling to live in as the Middle East. These young Muslims are a new breed who have found ways to manipulate their holy book to justify just about anything.

It is vital we do everything in our power to maintain the freedom of western life and to oppose the spread of the oppression that Islam brings. As a side note; when I talk about oppression I am not limiting this to the ‘radicalised’ Muslims. I accept that most Muslims want to live a peaceful life and do not condone the use of violence advanced by the extremists and I applaud them for their stance. However, many of these ‘peaceful’ Muslims are still sympathetic to the aspects of their religion which force women to be second class citizens in society. I live in a country free from the rule of the Taliban but witness on a daily basis the lack of freedom women in Islam have. I have known of numerous cases of women being told they can’t decide their own path in life, forced to hide under a veil, shipped out to the Middle East to marry whoever their father wanted them to marry, regardless of their own wishes. Women’s rights are just one of many examples I could cite. It is vital for the health of humanity, and to maintain the freedom we have, that we oppose these ludicrous customs fervently.

But we must not forget that the eastern religions are not the only risk to our freedom. In the USA out-dated, backwards, hateful and discriminatory feelings are stronger than ever before. These feelings are fuelled by the intense ignorance which is prevalent in American society and culture. In what is ironically called the ‘land of the free’, conservative Christianity, and it’s message of precisely the opposite of freedom, still has a stronghold on the nation.

It is a stronghold I fear could only become stronger. It is more than obvious that Islam is making a lot of noise and is currently experiencing a period of rapid growth. This growth seems to scare the Christians, who similarly want us to forget the thousands of years of social evolution we’ve experienced and pretend we live 2,000 years earlier than we actually do. Right now something scary is happening in America. Christian extremists are becoming more vocal and more confrontational than ever before, determined to make more noise than Muslims about their deluded view of how the world should work. The lengths they are prepared to go to in order to spread their message of hatred are increasing.

The Army Of God is a group opposed to abortion. They see the world in a narrow minded, black and white way where every person who aborts a pregnancy is a baby murderer. Their tactics are confrontational; their website contains a plethora of images of aborted babies interspersed with Bible verses which they twist to fit their agenda. They support the murder of abortion doctors and use inflammatory statements like “American Hero Scott Roeder”, glorifying the abhorrent actions of Scott Roeder the mentally deranged man who shot dead a father for performing abortions. ‘Pro-life’ terrorists like Scott Roeder have been responsible for burning and bombing medical centres, I dread to think what else they may be capable of. While stopping short of actually advising people to murder, the Army Of God’s web site is riddled with the sentiment that such murders are ok. Slightly hypocritical that the Army Of God clearly believe two wrongs make a right. These people are no different from the terrorists of the east. They are prepared to use and/or support violence in order to bring fruition to their own agenda.

Repent Amarillo are a group of equally narrow-minded, intolerant bigots who have elevated their religious mission into the realm of terror. They are on a self-imposed war against what they see as the evils of Amarillo and have vamped up their activity in 2010. They use military language, wear military clothing, call themselves ‘soldiers’ and create the impression they like all things violent. It’s difficult to discern what their aim is from their web site as it’s full of rambling non-sensical bullshit. They claim they “cannot stand by and watch [their] neighbours walking through the gates of hell”, which would suggest their mission is to ‘save’ people and bring them into Christianity. Their actions suggest the exact opposite, however, as to date they’ve involved themselves in standing outside strip clubs and hurling abuse at the patrons; finding the contact details of those who visit the ‘evil’ places they despise and intimidating them; picketing outside people’s houses who they disagree with; trying to ruin ordinary people’s lives by informing their employers of their sexual preferences. Not really the actions of a group wanting to save people is it?

Repent Amarillo share a number of similarities with the terrorist groups of the east. For example they exist centred around a small number of people’s personal interpretation of an ancient text which has long been shown to be total bollocks. At the centre of this group is David Grisham, a religious nut who worryingly is an armed guard at a nuclear facility. They are, in many ways, a cult built on the personal delusions of one man and his band of followers. In addition to this most of David’s recruits are young men in their teens or twenties who have found a perfect environment to vent their hatred. These young men have been radicalised in the exact same way the young Taliban and Al’Queda recruits have been.

The worst case scenario is that these new breed of Christian terrorists will ‘up their game’ in the face of this new breed of radicalism we’re seeing. These people are just as dangerous, in my opinion, as the terrorists who carry out bombings against the innocent. These people care not about the rules of decency and kindness, they have no regard for the law (apart from the parts of it which allow them to spout their rubbish) and believe the end justifies the means. I fear we are in for a rough future where these nuts will continue to carry out atrocious acts all in the name of religion.

Is Imposing Religion On Children Abusive?

The above is a question I’ve heard asked and discussed many, many times. In short, the answer is yes.

Religion is a personal choice, it’s one that adults choose for various reasons. These reasons usually boil down to the fact that it makes the follower feel better. Whatever the reasons for following religion, the important point here is that an adult is capable of making such a decision. Putting aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of religious people I’ve met are incapable of discussing their religion using logic and reason, they are still (usually) of sound enough mind to make an informed choice.

They can learn about evolution and choose to reject it. They can learn about the age of the earth and choose to believe it’s as old as the Bible says. They can ignore the hypocrisy and stupidity of the Bible/Qur’an or whatever other book they read and choose to follow it blindly. They can turn away from religion if they want. Most children in religious families do not have this option. They are simply told what to believe. In other words, they are indoctrinated. They are labelled as a ‘Christian child’, a ‘Muslim child’ or a ‘Catholic child’. As Richard Dawkins points out in The God Delusion we’d be appalled if we referred to a child as a ‘Labour child’ or a ‘Tory child’. We’d object to a child being used as an extension of their parents political belief. We’d say a child isn’t old enough to understand which political party they belong to. Why is religion any different?

Let’s remember we set an age of consent for sex, the reason being that children are not mature enough to consider the consequences of their actions. There is a minimum age for voting because children are not capable of understanding politics enough to make an informed vote. If children cannot do these things then they can never be expected to understand religion. I know plenty of adults who are still not able to decide what they believe.

Humans have evolved so that children listen to their parents unquestionably. If we tell them Santa delivers their Christmas presents, they believe us. If we tell them the tooth fairy will collect their broken teeth, they believe us. If we tell them God created the Earth in 7 days, started with Adam and Eve and requires us to live our entire lives according to the Bible, they believe us. If we tell them it’s wrong to be gay, they will believe us, and then experience absolute turmoil when they realise they are gay. To take a young mind and fill it with such rubbish can only ever be abusive.

The religious will obviously disagree. They argue that it’s their right to bring up their child according to their belief. But that is just the point. It is their belief.

This is one of those issues where society as a whole displays double standards. They scorn at the Westboro Baptist Church for making their kids stand with ‘God Hates Fags’ signs and they would no doubt scorn if a parent brought their child up as a witch or devil worshipper. They would be disgusted if a nutter who thought he lived his life in servitude to an alien god from Venus taught his young child to do the same. But some of these are the same people who will fill their child’s mind with their own delusions. What they are doing is taking their own life choices and imprinting them on their children. Children are so open to being imprinted, the Westboro Baptist church are a prime example of this. The children of the Phelps’ family believe exactly what their parents believe because it’s all they’ve ever been told. Could there be a better example of how dangerous this can get?

There will always be a small number of slightly liberal Christians who will not force their children to believe as they do. They are, however, a small number. All too often I read or hear stories of those who were forced to attend church, forced to pray and severely chastised if they even dared speak against the Lord! The fear of punishment is enough to qualify as forcing.

Can it ever be right to teach an innocent child that if they’re attracted to the same sex they’ll burn in hell? Based on nothing more than your own interpretation of an ancient text. Is it just me who sees this as atrocious? Children should be allowed to be innocent, to think about playing and having fun and not worry about going to hell. The sort of psychological damage this can, and does, do to kids is awful. I personally know of so many people who went through absolute turmoil, and some, complete ex-communication from their families, all because they reached an age where they realised that their whole childhood had been built on a lie. Because as they got older they realised their religion was incompatible with the realities of life. This issue is often magnified in Muslim families, where some are prepared to resort to murder if a family member turns from their religion. These families are completely self centred if they put their own opinion before loving their family.

I will be accused of thinking the way I do purely because I’m an atheist. I refute this. To impose any of our beliefs on our children in such a way that they do not question what they are told is indoctrination. This is not reserved for religion alone. We should encourage our children to think for themselves and not just pass on our own beliefs. It is equally abhorrent to bring a child up reading their horoscope, force feed them racist or homophobic views, tell them they belong to a particular political party, imprint our own bad eating habits on them (how many fat kids do you see with fat parents?), pass on our irrational phobias or our modern obsession with our image (how many kids do you see wearing makeup and mini-skirts?).

We need to question the parental ability of people who force their own beliefs on their kids. At the end of the day what is our job as parents? To give our children the start and the skills they need to be ready for life as an adult? Or is it to turn out mini clones of ourselves who think and act exactly as we do? Too many parents are choosing the latter.