Download the Episode Here!

Skeptical News:

C-30 and Vic Toews

• http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/category/full-comment/
• http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Toews+Twitter+persecutor+traced+House+Commons/6165678/story.html

Australian Universities Defend Alternative-Medicine Teaching

• http://www.aims.ubc.ca/
• http://www.students.ubc.ca/livewelllearnwell/learn-about-wellness/other-health-topics/alternative-complementary-medicine/
• http://summaries.cochrane.org/search/site/?f[0]=im_field_terms_cochrane_library%3A44450
• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/australian-universities-defend-alternative-medicine-teaching.html?_r=4&hpw

Vatican loses Tax-Exempt status on commercial property

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17072211

Topics:

Legislating Morality

• http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/10/morality-can-and-should-be-legislated.html
• http://radiofreethinker.com/2012/02/10/is-gender-selection-wrong/#comment-3881

Skeptical Highlights:

Brother Guy Consolmagno

H.R. MacMillan Space Centre

Feb. 25, 2012, 7:30 pm

The Vatican astronomer and planetary scientist lectures on how science and religion handle changes in our understanding of reality

http://stmarkscollege.ca/townlecture/.

The third annual Cross Canada Skeptical Smackdown Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 7:30pm
What is the Cross Canada Skeptical Smackdown?
It’s fun and challenging! But more specifically it is a British-style pub-quiz focussing on critical thinking and scientific topics. It occurs every year in multiple locations across Canada with local and national bragging rights at stake. It’s happening at the Billy Bishop Legion in Vancouver.

Facebook Event here

There is before parliament now a law that will give unprecedented powers to the security forces of this nation…not because they are needed but because they can do it. The “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, will give officers of the government the power not only to request private information for both Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Cell Phone Networks(CPNs) but force ISPs to retain that information for over a year (I believe 18 months was the number I heard). It also forces CPNs to disclose the unique identifier of your cell phone so security forces can ‘sweep’ an area to know everyone present. We will discuss later the issues with the bill itself, for now lets discuss how the bill was presented to parliament by Vic Toews is itself a sad story.

Printer Opps!

This bill in so many ways has shown one of the worse side of Canadian politics. First, I am sure most of you know that the bill formerly called the “Lawful Access Bill” is now the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” although it makes no reference to children or pedophile in the act itself. The name change happened at lightning speed and seems to be for completely propagandistic reasons.  If you check out the original filing of the bill by Vic at 10AM, the short title was “Lawful Access”, however it was quickly reprinted…content exactly the same, except at 11:17AM the short title was “Protecting Children from Internet Predators”.

The change was quick both conceptually which I am sure happened a day or 4 before Vic set forward the bill, as well as technically when they realized they forgot to doctor…er update the actual legislation to reflect their new ‘direction’ in promoting the bill.

In fact our government may be open to a copyright infringement claim…in 1997, a US congressman presented a bill with the same name; of course his bill was actually about stopping child predators.

Another way it exemplifies the poor state of politics is the admission made by Vic as being “surprised to learn” at what was actually in the bill he was presenting to parliament…and not some minor point but a section that was pretty significant in fact integral to the implementation of the bill. How can he say the law is absolutely necessary without amendments (a point he did eventually back down from) when he didn’t even know what was in the bill in the first place!

Lastly, he made a point that “standing with pedophiles” was not the same as supporting a pedophile…so does that mean the opposition could ‘stand by Vic’ while not actually supporting the bill? Is Vic so out of touch that he does not know what “stand with” means in our society? It’s a disingenuous comment, and not one that was a slip of the tongue. Often the Harper government has accused the opposition of outrageous rhetoric…here is a prime example of committing a near-Godwin right out of the block.

For those not acquainted with the Godwin Law, that in any argument, the side that first makes a reference to the Nazis loses the debate…it perhaps should be called the “Toews Law”, the side that first makes a (inappropriate) reference to pedophilia, would automatically resign from office…or at least lose the debate.

Thoughts?

Advertised the claim but did not actually check to see if it was true...or so Rogers claims

Rogers Communications Inc. is asking an Ontario court to strike down part of a federal law requiring a company to have “adequate and proper” tests of a product’s performance before advertising claims about the product — on the grounds that it violates its freedom of expression.

In addition to taking on the performance claims provision of the Competition Act, the telecom giant is arguing before the Ontario Superior Court the hefty financial penalties that can be imposed on a company for making a false or misleading claim are also unconstitutional.

The legal battle with Rogers began in November 2010, when the bureau went to court to levy a $10-million penalty for a “misleading advertising” campaign involving the company’s Chatr discount cell phone service. The bureau is also asking the court to order Rogers to pay restitution to affected customers and refrain from engaging in similar campaigns for the next decade.

In their advertising Rogers’ Chatr claimed to have fewer dropped calls than any other competitor and that its customers had “no worries about dropped calls”. A study of the drop rates between Rogers’ Chatr and the competition showed no difference in drop rates.

The ruling in question and the Competitions law states that before a company can make a advertised claim it must have a test in hand. Rogers is claiming this violates its charter rights to free speech because, and you may want to sit down for this one. IF what it had said was true except when they said it they did not have proof but later they could provide proof then the test would be a violation reason being it would prevent them from saying a true thing because they did not know it was true at the time”.

Make sense? No, not to me either. First the case at hand showed they issued a false and misleading statement. Second, they are saying if there is no proof to the contrary they can claim anything and to prevent them from doing so is a violation of their charter rights (not that I think corporations have charter rights!).

One aspect that plays into this is the amount and type of penalty. First it is not a fine, which is given in criminal court; penalties are handed down by civilian courts. The civilian courts are not subject to the same ‘safeguards’ as criminal cases such as:

Presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and to make full a answer and defense, and the privilege against testimonial compulsion.

Hypocracy of privilege.

Although with the exception of the last point, compulsory testimony, I don’t think Rogers is seriously implying that our courts are corrupt and thus they did not get a fair trial or were presumed innocent. It is true the threshold to guilt is a preponderance of evidence as opposed to the classic beyond a reasonable doubt…this I think is why they really want to have the Competitions law seen as criminal law vs. civil. It would be almost impossible to prove the Rogers (and the thousands of people working in it) purposely misled people…they would say “it was a miscommunications” or something.

This is became a more important issue for Rogers because in 2010, the penalty for this infraction went from a paltry $250,000 to $10M for first offence, and $15M for each thereafter.

Thoughts?

——————————————————-

Reference:

http://openmedia.ca/blog/postmedia-rogers-uses-freedom-speech-excuse-misleading-ads

https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/first-constitutional-challenge-to-civil-penalties-for-misleading-advertising/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/27/rogers-misleading-advertising-charter-rights_n_1236517.html

Some people have expressed a view that we should legislate morality…because the laws skeptics would enact could help make the world a better place.

My response to this is to reiterate my opinion last week that I think it is bad to legislate morality. First, there is a reverse implication, if we create moral laws; that implies all laws are moral…something history has shown time and again not to be true.

That said, I don’t know if we are talking about the same thing and that is often the problem with philosophy. When the religious, conservative, or traditionalist use the word morality they mean metaphysically right…the ‘ought’ vs. the ‘is’. What is moral is ALWAYS moral; it transcends time and space. Moral is the word of god and is immutable. Often in the skeptic community we hear this with regards to libertarian or, dare I say it, socialist thinking. They hold to some precepts as foundational or a prior. Regardless of where you are coming from when something is moral, it is so irrespective of reality or the way things are.

Although the original meaning of ‘moralis’ simply meant ‘proper custom’; centuries of Christian influence and indoctrination (irrevocably) alter it to ‘right, good and virtuous!’

In a skeptical article pointed out by our loyal readers, Ian (thanks for your input). The article argues that not only can we legislate morality but that we must do so. Although he makes token appeals to evidence one of his main premises, and where I have issue, is like this which states – “if your conscience tells you some action may be causing great harm to society, you have both the right and, I believe, the duty to try to help or correct the situation, through both social and political means”. I think it is the appeal to ‘conscience’ that can be problematic. It lays moral laws on a foundation of belief and opinion and not fact or reason.

In the article, written by what I would guess is a libertarian, it shows why we should not think in terms of morality because we are too culturally indoctrinated to think of this dogmatically. The article states “we don’t limit or take away the right to free speech just because a person’s exercise of that right led to deaths”. The author praises Obama’s book “The audacity of hope” for saying “I propose that most law, either in spirit or letter, is nothing but encoded morality”; one must ask whose morality?

That is the heart of my criticism. Morality is, at least in our modern context, dogmatic; dogmatism (be it theological, political or skeptical) is innately wrong…regardless of the good it may incidentally do. Using the term morality, this necessarily must appeal to “belief” and the metaphysical, creating a field of competing equals. A Christian belief in ‘right or wrong’ based on the bible is no less sound than one based on the philosophy of ‘inalienable rights’; yet both may be invalid because they are assertions of belief not discovered knowledge.

This is why I don’t think we should legislate morality. So do I think law can make society better – yes; do I think we should use law to modify people’s behaviour to make society better – yes, but cautiously; do I think I should impose my moral belief on others through law – no, no matter how right I might think they are or how much incidental good they may do. What I would do is approach law like I do everything else; use the tool kit of skepticism (evidence, logic, reason and the scientific method) to create law ethically.

Okay, what do I mean ethically, is that not just a different way of saying morality? Yes and no. There is a conflation between ethics and morality however they are not really the same. Morality is a judgment on something; ethics is more a process…a WAY to do thing.

I believe that we should make laws that are consistent with empirical evidence…rational thinking…what I could call ethical thinking. I think ethical thinking is a method like the scientific method; it is not an answer but a method to derive answers. Ethical thinking, at least as a ‘good’ skeptic would apply it, should not be dogmatic, can evolve over time and point to truth but never claim to be it.

So laws created with ethical thinking are not moral or immoral; they are the best attempt to make society better. We can say that laws are ethical or unethical. For example, the article said free speech should be maintained even if it resulted in deaths. To be fair he did make an exception for yelling fire in a crowded theater as unethical because it ignores hate speech (for example).

I can say unethical, because he is dogmatic in his views of rights thus not willing to change based on evidence. It’s double dogmatic because he makes an exception for one ‘harm’ but not another, yet of the two, genocide seems the greater…his exclusion is arbitrary based on his BELIEFS!

This view of rights are asserted as being true; as in the US Declaration of Independence, a noble document but one that asserts that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. Although I am sympathetic to these words, anything asserted is dogmatic and innately unethical because the King of England could equally assert “all men are subjects of the king”.

Here’s an example. When law is based in morality, we are stuck saying “pot smoking is immoral” forever because something is either moral or immoral…there is no kinda moral. By using the “M” word, you create dogmatic law.

It sounds self-serving, but really if 'reason' is meant authentically then...rationality to rule them all

Ethical thinking gets around this dilemma because its outcomes are not moral but the best answers so far…like science. So we can say in 1980 “pot smoking causes major harm to individuals and society” and yet as more research provides evidence it (may) not be harmful you; we can alter our law/statement “pot smoking causes little harm to self or state” without being inconstant or contradictory.

So now we return to our original question…should we legislate morality? No, I think doing so lowers ourselves to the same level of the theocrats we often decry. I do however think law can be used to make society and its citizen better if those laws are created ethically.

“Such courses involve so-called ‘complementary or alternative medicine’ masquerading as, and sitting side-by-side with, evidence-based health-related science courses,” the letter said.

In response to this, the Universities have pushed back. Nick Klomp, Dean of the Science faculty at Charles Stuart University, agreeing with some points of the letter continued to state that the degree offered at his university, a Bachelor of Health Science (complementary medicine) for example, was based on science.

He said the course was designed to impart evidence-based science to people who already had a qualification, like a diploma, in alternative health care. The course includes such subjects as biology and physiology.

Those behind the letter said “For many of us, we’ve been concerned for a long time that in this most scientific of all ages, pseudoscience seems to be flourishing,”

David Colquhoun, a Professor of Pharmacology at University College London has called for the ending of alternative-medicine programs in Britain, a member of the Australian group had some of the harshest words in the article I read when he said “Courses in alternative medicine are dishonest, they teach things that aren’t true, and things that are dangerous to patients in some cases,”

Logical does not mean rational

Now, I don’t think I have to take a survey of RadioFreeThinker to know we support the Friends of Science and would be glad to see all CAM programs ended in higher institutions with the caveat, made by the Friends group as well, that research into CAM, if warranted should not stop. That said, one thing Klomp said made me pause.

“I could ignore them or I could train them better,” Mr. Klomp said, adding that a majority of the university’s students were already practicing. “We actually create graduates who are much better health care providers. It’s all about evidence based, science based.

So, that argument is, I think, is even if you think that CAM is all fake, there is here an aspect of harm reduction. That these people would be practicing their pseudo-science regardless, this way they at least have an understanding of what real medicine is and the ethics attached to it. We often say that many CAM practitioners are not frauds but misinformed, this seems one way to at least reduce the potential harm they could do to their patients accidentally via ignorance.

Thoughts?

———————

References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/australian-universities-defend-alternative-medicine-teaching.html?_r=4&hpw

http://www.aims.ubc.ca/

http://www.students.ubc.ca/livewelllearnwell/learn-about-wellness/other-health-topics/alternative-complementary-medicine/

http://summaries.cochrane.org/search/site/?f[0]=im_field_terms_cochrane_library%3A44450

But apparently I should learn to expect the unexpected. CNN featured this story of how a elite squad of US Marines created controversy by posing with an American flag next to, what appeared to be a the symbol of the Nazi Schutzstaffel, also known as the special guards of the Nazi elite, as well as the personal army of Heinrich Himmler and were responsible for millions of war crime atrocities during the Holocaust.

The public relations branch of the military went into damage control once the image began circulating the internet on Friday, of course the photo had been taken a few years ago and was only now seeing the light of day. According to CNN, the Marine Corps Scout Snipers from the 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, who are featured in the photo, which was taken in 2010 in Afghanistan and the photo’s description says the “SS” flag had been “adopted and used by the Marines in reference to Scout Sniper.”

To quote the article (damnphasis mine) (( on the advice of my friend Yves I’ve changed the word emphasis to damnphasis))

“The Marine Corps said it became aware of the photo last November and the local command investigated, but found it not to be racially motivated, according to a statement released by a Marine Corps spokesman, Lt. Col. Stewart Upton.

The unit’s commander decided not to proceed with disciplinary action, it said, but all Marines in the unit were reminded that such behavior will not be tolerated and any further display could result in punishment.

“They determined that the Marines in the photo were ignorant of the connection of this symbol to the Holocaust and monumental atrocities associated with Nazi Germany,” Amos said in his statement Friday.”

I’d like to draw attention to some of that quote. The investigation claims the use of the symbol was found to not be racially motivated. Let’s just think about that for a moment, this sniper squad choose to use the abbreviation ‘SS’ and chose the exact same logo the Nazi Schutzstaffel squad used… This is like burning a cross that stands for “time to go.”

Even if we assume that the marines in question were totally ignorant of who the SS were or what they did, what are the odds they would pick the exact same logo and say not bother to do a quick Wikipedia search to make sure, oh I don’t know, the SS weren’t a genocidal murder squad?

Perhaps the marines wanted to be badasses or something. Perhaps they felt using the SS name was justified because the SS were feared and they thought they could latch on to that emotional impact. But that leads us into the next part of the quote I highlighted. They claimed to be ignorant of the SS and their Holocaust crimes against humanity. So these marines may only be stupid and lazy and not neo-Nazis. Wonderful.

What is also telling is that previously in the article the word ‘adopted’ is used to describe the usage of the symbol and term ‘SS.’ To me, this would imply that marines clearly knew the context of the word and logo.

Not to mention, are we really going to believe that bunch of marines, who are probably military buffs, don’t know about the largest conflict of the 20th century? Did any of them never seen Schindler’s List or one of the other famous movies about the Holocaust??

At least it appears the military is doing its job to make sure that soldiers recognize that using Nazi imagery is probably a bad thing.

“Female infanticide happens in India and China by the millions, but it also happens in North America in numbers large enough to distort the male to female ratio in some ethnic groups,” said the editorial by interim editor-in-chief Rajendra Kale.
The article published int he Canadian Medical Association Journal cites US census data from 2000 that shows male-biased sex ratios among US-born children of Asian parents, and a study of 65 Indian women in the US from 2004-2009 that showed 89 percent of them terminated pregnancies with female fetuses. That strikes me as an extremely small sample size, I mean how many “Asian” women got pregnant between 2004 till 2009…millions I suspect; 65 people seems easily prone to ‘outlier’ effect. But, that is not important to this post. I am more interesting in the general question – is gender selection wrong?

Canada in 2004 outlawed fertility practices that would increase the likelihood that an embryo will be a certain sex, or that would identify an in-vitro embryo by sex for any reason other than to diagnose a sex-linked disorder or disease Kale said the Canadian medical establishment needs to go further, and make express rulings that would ban fetal sex disclosure before seven months, when it is too late for an abortion.

Alexia Conradi, head of the pro-choice Women’s Federation of Quebec, agreed that abortive sex-selection is “unacceptable,” but questioned the motivation of those who support formal measures to prevent it.
“Any types of restrictions on abortion are met with skepticism by the pro-choice community generally,” she said. “A more appropriate intervention with sex-selection is to do more education, especially if we are talking about son preference, rather than seek to limit women’s choices or access to information.”

Okay, I understand that pro-choice people would be suspicion of any attempt to limit abortion; but the fact remains abortion IS legal in this country…more specifically, it is seen as a medical condition and a matter between patient and doctor.

So, my question is; if abortion is legal then why is gender selection wrong. I grant there is a ‘smell-test’ failure here; I feel it’s wrong but I fail to see the stronger argument why? Some will argue it is discriminatory against women. And that would be true if it’s a ‘post-birth’ child; however the argument that justifies abortion is that although we may say a fetus is a potential person it is NOT actually a person…so the argument saying it is discrimination against women seems to fail because in the say way it is NOT actually a women.

Now some have argued that although technically it’s not a ‘crime’ against the female fetus instead the practice propagates in society a devaluing of women in general…that if female fetus’ were deemed disposable that mentality will pollute the general culture and women (real women) will be devalued. That it is the secondary effect that must be prevented and thus limiting women’s right to choose…their right to even know the gender…should be abridged.

I am also uncomfortable with the fact that this seems close to legislating morality. We atheist often criticize and condemn the religious types for trying to legislate morality (such as banning same-sex marriage) but how is this different? One could argue that its like racism or the civil rights movement of the 60′s; but gender selection is not a major issue in Canada as a whole and the law would apply to everyone. Racism was (and still is) a institutional and ingrained aspect of our society requiring legislation of morality because it was so lacking in the society…I don’t see the parallel, maybe its appropriate for India or China where these are systemic and major issues.

If we accept this legislation, it will of course have secondary effects. We are saying that women cannot be trusted with this power over their own bodies…does this not also devalue women? I am unsure where I stand on this. I accept it has a bad smell to it and yet i think I cannot morally or logically say I think gender selection, in itself, is wrong although I trust myself not to fall into the traditional conservative mentality that would make me wish to abort a daughter and would advise my friend likewise.

Your thoughts?

Well, you can blame Libya or at least how we did the job there. One of the concerns by international governments (like Russia and China) was that the UN mission was not actually to protect the people instead, an opportunity to get rid of an internationally unpopular dictator…i.e. regime change was the real point.

As it turned out, they were right.

The role of NATO (the instrument of UN protection) seemed not to limit or prevent Gaddafi’s ability to punish his people but to act as an unofficial air force for the ‘liberation’ rebels. Now, it could be argued that getting rid of Gaddafi was a good; however the poor choice of mechanism for regime change has come home to roost and the people of Syria are paying the price.

Assad, Syria’s ruler, unlike Gaddafi has some strong supporters in the international community; Iran, Russia and China being the most notable and important. Even though I think (grant me a moment of sentimentality) that as much as the political leadership of these countries desperately want to see the end of the deaths in Syria; they do not want to get rid of Assad who is too important to their geo-political machinations. They fear, and Libya seems to have proven, that UN intervention will not be limited to protecting civilians but will be used as a means of regime change.

Sadly, they are probably right.

Of course some may argue that if NATO actually did the work in Libya and WE, the West, control NATO, why not have NATO unilaterally intervene?

Fears of western imperialism not new

Secondly, Syria has a military. One of the facts that led to the defeat of Gaddafi was his relatively small aged and ineffective military. Libya had been on the arms embargo list for decades; Syria has large forces, well organized and equipped with modern and deadly weaponry. Libya’s forces were largely used to suppress its own people; Syrian forces are in constant preparation for a war with Israel…a major threat to Syria (let us not forget these countries are still technically at war and Israel bombed Syria in 2007). Syria’s military is, at least conventionally, able to deal with a major Israel threat; NATO would be minor compared to what Israel could do.

Arab spring or swapping jockeys

The only hope the people of Syria have is the Arab League of Nations…their local UN. The Arab league has sent in observes to judge the level of violence and quickly left because the levels of savagery they saw shocked even ‘professionals’ like them. They have condemned Syria and attempted to isolate it politically. However, the Arab League is composed of 21 Arab nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; these nations have had difficulty presenting a unified front in the past and there are few military that could take on Syria.

Of course another major issue is that after the “Arab Spring” most of the oppressive nations, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, do not want to promote ‘liberation movements’. The Saudi’s sent troops into Bahrain to stop uprisings there and the Egyptian military is trying to maintain its control over Egypt after the loss of Mubarak. Economically, Russia and China (and India, Brazil, South Africa) see Syria as valuable for economic, political or geo-strategic imperatives.

Short vs. Long term

I came out strongly in favor of the intervention in Libya to “protect innocent civilians” and at the time I mentioned my fears that western powers would use this noble (and necessary) principle for a more opportunistic agenda (regime change). Well, my trust in humanity (as principled and tentative as it was) was misplaced. That said, there is a lesson to be learnt.

One of the goals of Radio Free Thinker, is to expand the frontier of skeptical thinking; taking the tools of critical thinking and the scientific method beyond their traditional limited spheres of science. We have a learning opportunity here; one I hope political leaders will learn from. Libya and Syria are empirical data points about what happens then noble and just actions are hijacked for more cynical political gains. That if politicians hope to elevate the state of humanity and create a better world for themselves (and maybe by accident for us all) they need to learn from the lessons of the past…that when we are dogmatic, be it in religion, history or politics, we are condemned to death, destruction and failure.

{End note – As my loyal readers know, I like to have a good supply of images in my posts. Often I use cartoons. When I was looking for images for this post I was struck by the number I found in Arabic…most poignant ones were ‘local’. I have not found this for any other blog I have done to date; I think this is saying something and if I were Assad, I would be looking for a place to retire sooner than later.}

Download the Episode here!

Skeptical News:

• World’s First “Chopra Yoga Center” Opens in Vancouver Canada 
• Mystery atheist in Vancouver
• Is gender selection wrong?
• Secrets of Mona Lisa revealed?
  
• How Libya killed hundreds in Syria
• New Study Shows Men Try to impress Women

Topics:

Canadian imams issue fatwa against honor killings

• http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/fatwa-honour-killings-misogyny-domestic-violence.pdf

Skeptical Highlights:

Richard Heinberg Opening Lecture

Theatre 5 (Room A130) Langara College

Friday February 10th  5 – 7 pm

Richard Heinberg is one of the world’s most effective exponents of the urgent need to move away from fossil fuels and towards a post-growth economy. Author of 10 books, including 2010′s The End of Growth, his wry, unflinching approach addresses challenges such as climate change, peak oil, economic instability, and food insecurity.

http://www.codev.org/film-festival/richard-heinberg-opening-lecture/

Gwynne Dyer: The New Middle East

February 8, 2012 | 7-9 PM

Djavad Mowafaghian Cinema SFU downtown, 149 West Hastings Street.

Tickets $10

Non-violent democratic revolutions are sweeping through the Arab World, until now one of the last strongholds of tyranny and poverty. They are a great advance for liberty, but they don’t solve the problem of poverty – and they may open the door to power to Islamist movements.

There are fears oil embargo, which did not happen after the Iranian revolution; fears of Al quida terrorism, which is unlikely as these revolutions are a massive, probably decisive popular rejection of the violent, extremist ideology known as “Islamism”.  Al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies have been trying to trigger revolutions against the existing Arab regimes for three decades, with absolutely no success. Now the revolutions are happening, but with no Islamist involvement whatever.

If people choose to elect Islamic (NOT Islamist) parties to power afterwards, that is no cause for panic. We should be no more frightened of Muslim Democratic parties (like the none that has won three successive elections and governed Turkey for the past ten years) than we are of Christian Democratic parties.

These new democracies may start representing the views and opinions of their people and not be parrots of American foreign policy which will put pressure on Israel to deal effectively with Palestine.

This shift in Arab strategy, though it does not involve military action, would be a long-term existential threat to the current Jewish state of Israel. These revolutions, by removing regimes that conformed to American policy rather than the views of their own population, are revealing the reality of Israel’s strategic situation in the region. But they also create an opportunity, perhaps a last opportunity, for a realistic Israeli government to negotiate a “two-state solution” that could win the support of the new Arab regimes.

http://sfuwoodwards.ca/index.php/events/details/the-new-middle-east

African Americans For Humanism

The need for critical thinking skills and a humanistic outlook in our world is great. This is no less true in the Black community than in others. Many African Americans have been engulfed by religious irrationality, conned by self-serving “faith healers”, and swayed by dogmatic revisionist historians. Many others, however, have escaped the oppression of such delusions, and live happy and upstanding lives free of superstition. African Americans for Humanism (AAH) exists to bring these secular humanists together, to provide a forum for communication, and to facilitate coordinated action. In an irrational world, those who stand for reason must stand together.

Check out their new website at http://aahumanism.net/

In response to the convictions of four people in the Shafia family murder of four female members, over 30 imams signed a fatwa that condemns honour killings, domestic violence and misogyny as “un-Islamic.” In a classic apologist play, this group attempts to explain how previous translations or interpretations of Koranic verse were incorrect. That those (and it was, is?, the majority) who think that when the Koran says a husband is superior to his wife it means the man is better than the women…no, no, no….the term ‘superior’ doesn’t mean better than but only that the husband has a greater responsibility (ie superior responsibility) to provide for the family. aaAAHHhh(sound of coming realization), so superior really means more accountable .

They go on to address domestic violence directly by stating that the term “wadhriboo-hunnah” ( وَٱضۡرِبُوهُ نَّ ) has been mistranslated. The wrong read is ‘strike’ where it should be ‘cite’. So, when imams and the faithful use to incorrectly read what to do if you find your wife having an affair they thought Allah commanded them to 1) advise her, 2) abandon her bed and then 3) strike her until she learns to obey. How they should have read the commands is 1) educate her on what her duty is, 2) move to separate bedrooms, and 3) CITE her to the authorities (where they can ostracize her or whatever the sharia court may impose). They do make it clear when they also add “Honour killing is a major sin in Islam.” and those who commit this crime should be punished both by secular law as well as the justice of Allah in the next world.

[Small aside – if this is the unerring word of god…failure to follow or understand this religious laws/lifestyle will mean eternal damnation…it seems odd that a loving god would be so ambiguous. Seriously, if the original Arabic was inaccurate why not correct it when the language was available…Allah is supposed to be all powerful? He (I assume it’s a he considering the treatment of women whether you think it special or inferior) ]

The fatwa is three pages long, four if you include the ‘signature’ part, and mostly tries to explain that Islam is not a religion of violence…never was, it’s all about love and genuine obedience to Allah. Standard PR stuff. It comes across as very apologetic for Islam and that ‘real Muslims’ would never condone this. On that, I think most PEOPLE do not, in spite of their religious beliefs, think killing your spouse appropriate.  That said, claiming that the Islamic community does not have a major problem with domestic violence because of religious doctrine seems disingenuous; in the same way the Pope says that the Catholic Church does not have a pedophile problem. It is true that all peoples suffer from domestic violence, and that it is not uniquely an Islamic problem; however it is unique that many Muslims are new immigrants who come from very conservative cultures. Because of this and the current geo-political atmosphere, conservative views are common in their community.

Pakistani activists perform a skit in a street in Hyderabad, Pakistan (2008) to portray the recent "honor killings" in a tribal town

I think the imams missed a golden opportunity. They could have moved their community forward by acknowledging they have a particularly worsening problem in their community (along with perhaps Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians) that must be addressed and not excused away. I think most people who perpetrate regular or extreme domestic violence do so because of personality defects; however religion and religious communities can become enablers for violence…providing the excuse to do violence; and then provide the apologetic. The message was clear by the imams that Islam condemns domestic violence…as stated; however it would have been more powerful and responsible if they acknowledged the complicity by which Islam and Koranic tradition has been in allowing this tradition to exist and the need to use human standards for ethics and, not a 1500 year old befuddling document.

{End note – I do not think Islam is more (or less) ‘wrong’ than any other religion. My disdain of religion is universal. This could be seen as anti-Muslim, but that would just play into the hands of the apologist and those individuals who perpetrate violence. This only talks about Islam because that is what the story is about…in the same way the “hiding priests” scandal was a catholic church thing, not because we hate Catholics but because it was their wrong doing that was the story. }

———————————-

Reference: