Police Investigate Deadly Indian Temple Stampede (The BBC; Mar 5)

Police in India have lodged a case of criminal negligence against the managers of a Hindu temple where at least 63 people died in a stampede.

Dozens more were injured when the gate of the temple in northern Uttar Pradesh collapsed leading to a stampede.

All of the dead identified so far are women and children, police say. The temple gate was still being built.

Hundreds of people have been killed in stampedes at crowded Indian temples in recent years.

Senior police official Kunda Iqbal Singh told the BBC that investigations were under way but no-one had been arrested in connection with the incident.

Temple authorities have offered financial help to the families of the victims.

Thursday’s disaster happened at a popular Ram Janaki temple in the town of Kunda in Pratapgarh district, about 25km (15 miles) north of the city of Allahabad.

The temple is owned by a Hindu holy man, Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj, who police say was marking the anniversary of the death of his wife with a ritual feast.

Thousands of people had gathered for the ceremonial feast and free distribution of clothes – the stampede occurred when people scrambled to collect the offerings being handed out.

Local journalists told the BBC they were mostly poor people from local villages.

Police officials said an iron gate leading to the temple complex collapsed, leading to a crowd surge.

The BBC’s Ram Dutt Tripathi in the state capital, Lucknow, said the temple gate was under construction when it collapsed.

The chief minister of Uttar Pradesh state, Ms Mayawati, has ordered an inquiry into the incident.

Government officials say it appears that the organisers of the event had been unprepared to deal with the size of the crowd.

Eyewitnesses say it took a while for help to arrive and there was no-one on hand initially to offer them any assistance.

[For more about the aftermath of this incident as well as about the criminal negligence that seems to have led to it, go here.]

There have been a number of similar accidents in India in which large numbers of people congregate in an area ill-equipped to handle big gatherings.

In 2008, nearly 300 people were killed in stampedes and scores injured in two different Hindu temples in Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh states.

INDIA STAMPEDES

January 2010: Seven people die at festival on Ganges in West Bengal

September 2008: More than 220 people die at temple in Jodhpur

August 2008: At least 140 people die at temple in Himachal Pradesh

March 2008: At least eight people killed at temple in Madhya Pradesh

January 2005: Up to 300 people die on pilgrimage to Maharashtra temple

You can find the BBC’s list of the 9 deadliest stampedes here. (Three involve Hindus and five involve Muslims.)

If I could have prevented these stampedes, I would have.

Why are the Hindu gOds (among others) so much less compassionate and caring than the average atheist?

Related posts:

1. Stay Away from Hindu Temples…
2. Holy Water Kills AGAIN!
3. Does Allah Hate Muslims?

Mythical beings are incapable of hating anyone at all.

But if you believe Allah isn’t a mythical being… well, suffice it to say that he seems remarkably indifferent to the tragedies that befall his devout followers even as they’re in the very process of worshipping him….

Deadly Crush At Timbuktu Mosque (The BBC; Feb 26)

Twenty-six people, mostly women and children, have been killed in a crush at the famous Djinguereber mosque in Timbuktu, sources have told the BBC.

The stampede happened during the Mouloud festival to mark the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, when people walk around the mud mosque in northern Mali.

The worshippers had to use a different path than usual because of renovations to the 14th Century building.

Timbuktu, in the Sahara Desert, was once a centre of Islamic learning.

Initial reports said that 16 people had died but local officials have subsequently told the BBC that a further 10 bodies were recovered at the scene and buried by their families without going to hospital.

According to Muslim tradition, people should be buried with 24 hours of their death.

Local tour guide Halif Mohamed al-Hassan told the BBC’s Focus on Africa programme that up to 25,000 people converge on the mosque each year and walk around it three times to mark the prophet’s birthday.

He says the people were killed after an elderly woman fell down and others were trampled to death.

Some 40 people were injured, the police say, according to Reuters news agency.

“I lost my sister. She was 16 and had gone to pray,” said local resident, Ali Kounta, reports the AFP news agency.

The Djinguereber mosque is the largest in Timbuktu.

The once wealthy city helped spread Islam across West Africa.

Its fortunes declined after the 16th Century, as the region’s main trade routes switched to the Atlantic Ocean, instead of the Sahara Desert.

For several other examples of how going to a mosque can be hazardous to your health, see the entry I posted on Feb 22.

(Would you prefer to read about how dangerous it can be to participate in the annual pilgrimage to Mecca? See the entries I posted on Jan 13, 2006 and Jan 21, 2008.)

Related posts:

1. Where Was Allah?
2. Does Shiva Hate Hindus?
3. Muslims Kill Hundreds Of Christians

I’ve also asked slightly different versions of the same question before (perhaps most notably here and here).

I have yet to receive a good answer from a Catholic or any other variety of Christian.

Instead, events this year have only further sharpened my questions.

Consider:

Archbishop Of Port-au-Prince Monsignor Serge Miot Killed By Haiti Quake (Ruth Gledhill/The Times; Jan 13)

The Archbishop of Port-au-Prince is among those killed in the huge earthquake that devastated the city.

The body of Monsignor Serge Miot, 63, was pulled from the rubble of his offices, according to missionaries from the Saint Jacques Society.

The diocese’s vicar general, Benoit Seguiranno, is also missing following Tuesday’s 7.0-magnitude quake in Haiti, which is largely Catholic.

[NOTE: According to the CIA World Factbook, Haiti is 80% Roman Catholic and 16% Protestant.]

Father Andre Siohan, a missionary of the French Saint Jacques society, wrote in an e-mail to the Missionary International News Service Agency from Port-au-Prince: “Nou atè nèt” (in Creole, “We are on our knees”)….

He added: “I went to the city centre this morning to visit the other religious communities: the area is completely devastated and there are thousands of victims. It is terrible. We are all well, but some of our seminarians are missing. Some are injured, but some are maybe dead. Pray for us.”

Father Pierre Le Beller, who returned to France after serving around 30 years in Haiti, told the missionary agency by telephone: “Our confrères, some seminarians, friends and neighbours of the Pacot area are currently sheltered in tents in the gardens of our house, damaged by the quake. We fear an extremely elevated number of injured: the real emergency is that of treating them.”…

The Caritas Centre in the central Saint Antoine neighbourhood, a facility for the assistance and reintegration of street children, which he founded and has dedicated his life to for many years, was devastated….

The earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale, was the strongest to hit Haiti for 200 years and was followed by two strong aftershocks….”

Legendary Brazilian Aid Worker Among The Victims Of Haiti Earthquake (Andrew Downie/The Christian Science Monitor; Jan 13)

A Brazilian doctor whose work helped save the lives of tens of thousands of children through a Church-run network that provides basic health care and support to infants was among those killed in the Haiti earthquake.

Zilda Arns was in Haiti to support the local volunteers of the Pastoral da Criança (Children’s Pastoral), a group she founded in southern Brazil in 1983.

The group teaches uneducated mothers the importance of healthcare issues such as breast feeding, vaccinations and proper hydration, and then instructs them how to pass on that knowledge to friends and neighbors in Brazil’s most impoverished communities.Today, the Pastoral is one of Brazil’s most respected organisations and Arns was one of the nation’s best-known faces.

The group is present in 42,000 Brazilian communities, with 260,000 trained volunteers attending to 1.8 million children under the age of 6. In those communities, the infant mortality rate is 11 per 1,000 births; in Brazil overall it is 22.5.

“There is absolutely no doubt that the Children¹s Pastoral program revolutionized public health here, which was then based solely on government health services,” said Cesar Victora, a epidemiologist who worked with Arns for more than two decades.

When UNICEF looked to set up a new children’s health program in Brazil, her brother, then a bishop, asked the 75-year-old paediatrician Arns to come up with a proposal and she used the parable of the loaves and fishes as inspiration.

“God told people to organise and they were fed,” she said in an interview last year. “We organised the communities, we identified the leaders in those impoverished areas, and we told the ones that wanted to work as volunteers in multiplying knowledge and solidarity that we would teach them how to do that. I knew if we did it right we could save millions of lives.”…

Arns herself was extremely devout and alongside the diplomas and awards that cover the wood-panelled walls of her office are religious icons and photographs of churchmen, including one of her with Pope John Paul II.

Her faith helped her through her own tragedies. Her first born child died just three days old and her husband drowned while rescuing a girl from rough seas in 1978. One of her five other children died in a car accident in 2003….

And now Arns herself is gone, her life snuffed out by a natural catastrophe that her gOd either caused or stood back and did nothing to prevent.

If this is the way the Christian gOd treats his most devout nations and workers, who needs Satan?

But perhaps this tragedy – as mammoth as it is – has at least helped Haitians to come to their senses and realize the impotency and/or evil of the deity they’ve wasted so much of their time, money, and prayers on?

Ummm, not quite….

Haitians Praise God After Apocalyptic Quake (Michelle Faul and Mike Melia/The Associated Press; Jan 17)

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti: Drumbeats called the faithful to a Sunday Mass praising God amid a scene resembling the Apocalypse — a collapsed cathedral in a city cloaked with the smell of death and rattled by gunfire, where rescue crews battle to pry an ever-smaller number of the living from the ruins.

Sunlight streamed through what little was left of blown-out stained-glass windows as the Rev. Eric Toussaint preached to a small crowd of survivors. A rotting body lay in its main entrance.

“Why give thanks to God? Because we are here,” Toussaint said. “We say ‘Thank you God.’ What happened is the will of God. We are in the hands of God now.”

As Catholic and Protestant worshippers across the city met for their first Sunday services since the magnitude-7.0 quake, many Haitians were still waiting for food and water after five days and violence began to crack through….

At the roofless cathedral, elderly women worried the beads of their rosaries and prayed for the intervention of Our Lady Of The Ascension, to whom the 81-year-old church is named.

A military helicopter roared overhead, drowning out a hymn by the congregation. Above loomed the partially destroyed office of the archbishop who died nearby and another building whose blown-out walls had laid it open it like a doll’s house….

At the cathedral, the Rev. Toussaint described his own near-miraculous survival.

“I watched the destruction of the cathedral from this window,” he said, pointing to a window in what remains of the archdiocese office. “I am not dead because God has a plan for me.”

“What happens is a sign from God, saying that we must recognize his power – we need to reinvent ourselves.”…

Perhaps that reinvention ought to include the abandoning of a gOd who has been revealed to be so impotent, uncaring, and/or outright evil?

The Bible repeatedly ridicules those who cling to false gOds even in the face of such obvious impotence. Why shouldn’t Bible-believers in turn be ridiculed when THEIR gOd does so little to protect them from disasters?

And as if the Haiti earthquake wasn’t a clear enough message for Christians around the world to wake up and abandon their silly religion, they soon had it reinforced by this event:

Huge Quake Hits Chile (Roberto Candia & Eva Vergara/The Associated Press; Feb 27)

TALCA, Chile: One of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded struck Chile on Saturday, toppling homes, collapsing bridges and plunging trucks into the fractured earth….

Chileans near the epicenter were tossed about as if shaken by a giant.

It was the strongest earthquake to hit Chile in 50 years. President-elect Sebastian Pinera said more than 120 people died, a number that was rising quickly.

The quake shook buildings in Argentina’s capital of Buenos Aires, and was felt as far away as Sao Paulo in Brazil — 1,800 miles (2,900 kilometers) to the east.

In Talca, just 65 miles (105 kilometers) from the epicenter, furniture toppled as the earth shook for more than a minute in something akin to major airplane turbulence. The historic center of town largely collapsed….

Collapsed roads and bridges complicated north-south travel in the narrow Andean nation. Electricity, water and phone lines were cut to many areas….

In Santiago, modern buildings are built to withstand earthquakes, but many older ones were heavily damaged, including the Nuestra Senora de la Providencia church, whose bell tower collapsed….

The largest earthquake ever recorded struck the same area of Chile on May 22, 1960. The magnitude-9.5 quake killed 1,655 people and left 2 million homeless….

Saturday’s quake matched a 1906 temblor off the Ecuadorean coast as the seventh-strongest ever recorded in the world.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Chile is 70% Roman Catholic and about 17% Protestant.

How many more signs of the evil, powerlessness, or simple non-existence of their gOd must Christians in general and Catholics in particular experience before they revise their beliefs and rituals accordingly?

Related posts:

1. Does God Hate Catholics?
2. Haiti: Another Christian Response
3. Do Christians Hate The Disabled?

“Does the Koran actually say, ‘Tho shallt wear a burqa so that only thine husband may glimpse they body in shape or detail.’? Or does it just say, ‘A veil was drawn to give the couple privacy so nobody would see them having sex on their honeymoon.’? Or is it something else? I guess what I’m saying is even if you think God told the Prophet what to write in the Koran, it was still men who decided what it means. In some countries it means cover your face. In others it means cover your body. In all it seems to mean men get to say what women wear. The only difference in France is there are probably some women doing the voting.” - Deve (3/2/2010 3:08:51 PM)

“I don’t know enough about Islam. But the first article states that nowhere in the Kuran does it say to cover your head… and then the editorial says the Kuran tells women to do so. So which is it?” - Ampris (3/3/2010 8:23:36 PM)

As is so often the case when it comes to religion, the answer to the question “Does the Koran mandate the burqa?” seems to provoke quite a few opinions which some mistake for Absolute Truth.

Here is how Wikipedia explains the situation:

The Qur’an instructs Muslims to dress in a modest way. The following verses are generally interpreted as applying to all Muslim men and women….

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss…. (Qur’an 24:31)

In the following verse, Muslim women are asked to draw their jilbab over them (when they go out), as a measure to distinguish themselves from others, so that they are not harassed….

Those who harass believing men and believing women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a grievous sin. O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad) That is most convenient, that they may be distinguished and not be harassed…. (Qur’an 33:58–59)

The following verses give special directives to the wives of Muhammad though some commentators believe that all women should imitate their example….

O Wives of the Prophet, ye are not like any of the (other) women. If ye do fear (Allah), be not too complaisant of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speak that is just. Abide still in your homes and make not a dazzling display like that of the former times of ignorance: and establish regular prayer, and give regular charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye Members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless…. (Qur’an 33:32–33)

Another verse in the Qur’an (33:53) talks about the veil as being a separation of two men and spheres of life such as the public and the private, rather than between men and women. This could very well be the definitive verse on hijab as it has been quoted as such by a number of Islamic theologians….

O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! That would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! That in Allah’s sight would be an enormity. (Qur’an 33:53)….

Other Muslims take a relativist approach to hija-b. They believe that the commandment to maintain modesty must be interpreted with regard to the surrounding society. What is considered modest or daring in one society may not be considered so in another. It is important, they say, for believers to wear clothing that communicates modesty and reserve in the situations in which they find themselves.

Along with scriptural arguments, Leila Ahmed argues that head covering should not be compulsory in Islam because the veil predates the revelation of the Qur’an. Head-covering was introduced into Arabia long before Muhammad, primarily through Arab contacts with Syria and Iran, where the hijab was a sign of social status. After all, only a woman who need not work in the fields could afford to remain secluded and veiled.

Leila Ahmed argues for a more liberal approach to hijab. Among her arguments is that while some Qur’anic verses enjoin women in general to Qur’an 33:58–59. “draw their Jilbabs (overgarment or cloak) around them to be recognized as believers and so that no harm will come to them.” and Qur’an 24:31. “guard their private parts… and drape down khimar over their breasts (when in the presence of unrelated men)”, they urge modesty but do not mention the word hijab or the covering of the head, neck, etc.

However according to the vast majority of Muslims Sunni and Shia, al-Mawrid al-Qawrid Arabic dictionary, Hans-Wehr Dictionary of Arabic into English, and the exhaustive ancient Arabic dictionary “Lisan al-arab”, (literally the tongue of the arabs) the word ‘Khimar’ means and was used to refer to a piece of cloth that covers the head, or headscarf today called ‘hijab’.

Other verses do mention separation of men and women but they refer specifically to the wives of the prophet….

According to at least two authors, (Reza Aslam and Leila Ahmed) the stipulations of the hijab were originally meant only for Muhammad’s wives, and were intended to maintain their inviolability. This was because Muhammad conducted all religious and civic affairs in the mosque adjacent to his home….

They argue that the term darabat al-hijab (“taking the veil”), was used synonymously and interchangeably with “becoming Muhammad’s wife”, and that during Muhammad’s life, no other Muslim woman wore the hijab. Aslam suggests that Muslim women started to wear the hijab to emulate Muhammad’s wives, who are revered as “Mothers of the Believers” in Islam, and states “there was no tradition of veiling until around 627 C.E.” in the Muslim community….

Traditionally, Muslims have recognized many different forms of clothing as satisfying the demands of hijab. Debate focused on how much of the male or female body should be covered. Different scholars adopted different interpretations of the original texts.

The four major Sunni schools of thought… hold that entire body of the woman, except her face and hands – though many say face, hands, and feet – is part of her awrah, that is the parts of her body that must be covered during prayer and in public settings.

Some Muslims recommend that women wear clothing that is not form fitting to the body: either modest forms of western clothing (long shirts and skirts), or the more traditional jilba-b, a high-necked, loose robe that covers the arms and legs. A khima-r or shaylah, a scarf or cowl that covers all but the face, is also worn in many different styles. Some Salafi scholars encourage covering the face, while some follow the opinion that it is only not obligatory to cover the face and the hands but mustahab (Highly recommended). Many of them say it is mandatory to cover the face. Other scholars oppose face covering, particularly in the west where the woman may draw more attention as a result. These garments are very different in cut than most of the traditional forms of hija-b, and they are worn worldwide by Muslims.

Detailed scholarly attention has been focused on prescribing female dress. Most scholars agree that the basic requirements are that when in the presence of someone of the opposite sex (other than a close family member – see mahram), a woman should cover her body, and walk and dress in a way which does not draw sexual attention to her. Some scholars go so far as to specify exactly which areas of the body must be covered. In some cases, this is everything save the eyes but most require everything save the face and hands to be covered. In nearly all Muslim cultures, young girls are not required to wear a hija-b. There is not a single agreed age when a woman should begin wearing a hija-b; however, in many Muslim countries, puberty is the dividing line.

In private, and in the presence of mahrams, the rules on dress are relaxed. However, in the presence of husband, most scholars stress the importance of mutual freedom and pleasure of the husband and wife….

The burqa (also spelled burka) is the garment that covers women most completely: either only the eyes are visible, or nothing at all. Originating in what is now Pakistan, it is more commonly associated with the Afghan chadri. Typically, a burqa is composed of many yards of light material pleated around a cap that fits over the top of the head, or a scarf over the face (save the eyes). This type of veil is cultural as well as religious.

It has become tradition that Muslims in general, and Salafis in particular, believe the Qur’a-n demands women wear the garments known today as jilba-b and khumu-r (the khumu-r must be worn underneath the jilba-b). However, Qur’a-n translators and commentators translate the Arabic into English words with a general meaning, such as veils, head-coverings and shawls. Ghamidi argues that verses [Qur'an 24:30] teach etiquette for male and female interactions, where khumu-r is mentioned in reference to the clothing of Arab women in the 7th century, but there is no command to actually wear them in any specific way. Hence he considers head-covering a preferable practice but not a directive of the sharia (law)….

In more secular Muslim nations, such as Turkey or Tunisia, many women are choosing to wear the Hijab, Burqa, Niqab, etc. because of the widespread growth of the Islamic revival in those areas. Similarly, increasing numbers of men are abandoning the Western dress of jeans and t-shirts, that dominated places like Egypt 20 to 30 years ago, in favour of more traditional Islamic clothing such as the Galabiyya.

In Iran many women, especially younger ones, have taken to wearing transparent Hijabs instead of Chadors to protest but keep within the law of the state.

The colors of this clothing varies. It is mostly black, but in many African countries women wear cloths of many different colours depending on their tribe, area, or family. In Turkey, where the hijab is banned in private and state universities and schools, 60% of women wear it.

In many of the western Nations, there has been a general rise of hijab-wearing women. They are especially common in Muslim Student Associations at college campuses.

Some Muslims have criticized strict dress codes that they believe go beyond the demands of hijab, using Qur’an 66:1 ["O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?"] to apply to dress codes as well; the verse suggests that it is wrong to refrain from what is permitted by God….

Some governments encourage and even oblige women to wear the hijab, whilst others have banned it in at least some public settings.

Some Muslims believe hijab covering for women should be compulsory as part of sharia, i.e. Muslim law. Wearing of the hijab was enforced by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and is enforced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Taliban’s Islamic Emirate required women to cover not only their head but their face as well, because “the face of a woman is a source of corruption” for men not related to them. While some women wholeheartedly embrace the rules, others protest by observing the rules in slipshod or inconsistent fashion, or flouting them whenever possible. Sudan’s criminal code allows the flogging or fining of anyone who “violates public morality or wears indecent clothing”, albeit without defining “indecent clothing”,

Turkey and Tunisia are the only Muslim countries where the law prohibits the wearing of hijab in government buildings, schools, and universities. In Tunisia, women were banned from wearing hijab in state offices in 1981 and in the 1980s and 1990s more restrictions were put in place. The Turkish government recently attempted to lift a ban on Muslim headscarves at universities, but were overturned by the country’s Constitutional Court….

The veil has become the subject of lively contemporary debate, in Muslim countries as well as within Western countries with Muslim populations. For example, British government minister Jack Straw was recently drawn into the debate after he suggested that communication with some of the Muslim members of his constituency would be made significantly easier if they ceased covering their faces. In broader terms, the sweep of the debate is captured by Bodman and Tohidi, stating that ‘the meaning of the hijab ranges from a form of empowerment for the woman choosing to wear it to a means of seclusion and containment imposed by others’. The subject has also become highly politicized. There is a diverse range of views on the wearing of the hijab in general….

If you happen to run into Allah before I do, you might ask him exactly what he meant in the passages from the Koran quoted above and why he didn’t make himself clearer.

Related posts:

1. Should The Burqa Be Banned?
2. Burqa Ban Thoughts
3. Did Muhammad Exist?

I’m not sure I’m able to answer those questions today.

Here are a few of the things I’m thinking about as I try to work my way towards an answer:

1) Attempts to justify or excuse the wearing of the burqa on religious grounds cut very little ice with me. Freedom of religion means freedom to *believe* whatever you want – not *do* whatever you want. Because what we do in public has an impact on the public, regulations governing what we do seem just and proper in principle.

Should a ban on the burqa in particular be considered a just and proper act? Again, I’m not sure – but given society’s right to regulate public behavior, it seems safe to say that it *might* be just and proper. Oumkheyr’s assertion that “It is very unfair that they are even considering this law” seems out of line. In fact, it seems to me to be yet one more attempt by a religious person to arbitrarily place some questions beyond the reach of rational discourse for self-serving reasons.

2) Everything else being equal, it seems to me that any rules and regulations that a society enforces with regard to dress ought to be applied fairly and evenly without regard to particular religious beliefs.

Would a ban on burqas constitute a targeted assault on Muslims? Not necessarily. If the rule is “A person’s face must be visible at all times for reasons of public safety and identification,” then a burqa ban would merely be one consequence of a rule that also bans many other things. As I understand it, many US states banned masks in the 1920s after KKK members took to wearing masks so that they could engage in their illegal activities while hiding their identities. Recently the banks in my area have banned hoodies and sunglasses so as to make it easier to identify robbers. The intent of these rules isn’t to discriminate against Muslims or members of any religion but to promote public safety.

A world of masked faces apparently would be an inherently less safe one. In a free, democratic society like ours or France’s, there seem to be few good reasons for cloaking our identify when out in public. The reasons Oumkheyr gives for wanting to cloak her face do not seem strong enough to me to justify overturning the general principle that people in public ought not to have their faces obscured. (Those reasons also seem pretty weak to me when used to avoid having one’s photo taken for a photo ID. Those reasons seem weak regardless of whether it happens to be Muslims, the Amish, or anyone else presenting them.)

3) Are there reasons besides public safety that might justify a ban? Perhaps. Some schools ban gang colors in an attempt to reduce tensions and conflict. Do burqas (and other religious symbols and dress) rise to the level of gang colors? Do they divide people unnecessarily? Do they create in-groups and cliques that make others feel excluded and inferior? If they do, does that justify a ban? If it does justify a ban, what else might be banned on similar grounds? Expensive clothes? Goth attire? When does justifiable regulation become state-mandated regimentation?

4) If the burqa offends others, is that in and of itself reason enough to ban it? I am inclined to say no. Yet many people seem to think that skimpy attire, low-riding pants, “offensive” t-shirts, flip-flops, and other “messy” or extremely informal dress ought to be banned, at least some of the time (such as in schools). If something constitutes too much of a distraction for others in a classroom, school administrators seem inclined to prohibit it for the good of others and the educational process. I don’t know of any school that allows its female students to go topless; should the other extreme be judged by a different standard? Why?

5) The burqa makes communication more difficult. That may not justify banning it, but it does seem to add to my dislike of it. Apparently we all have regions of our brains that have evolved to fixate on and recognize faces. As social animals, a lot of our brains are apparently devoted to trying to separate the living from the non-living, people from animals, friends from foes, and to trying to figure out what those friends and foes are thinking. Faces and facial expressions play a huge role. People (such as those with autism) who aren’t good at reading faces and figuring out what others are thinking are at a disadvantage and suffer as a result. The burqa serves as kind of an artificially imposed autism that disadvantages all of us – or so it seems to me. The fact that it is once again a religiously-inspired element of life that seeks to reduce knowledge and the free exchange of information further reduces my respect for religion (just as the religious origins/support for burqas make burqas naturally suspect in my eyes – it’s a real negative feedback loop).

6) Oumkheyr ended her defense of her decision to wear a burqa by saying “I obey the laws of God not the laws of man.” That rankles on so many levels, it makes it hard for me to see whatever good reasons there might be for her beliefs and actions. As Deve indicated in a note, those “laws of God” were written by men. In my estimation, this is yet one more example of the way theists use gOd the way a ventriloquist uses a dummy.

Setting that aside, even many of Oumkheyr’s fellow Muslims seem to disagree with her. “Yes, there ARE holy laws,” they seem to say, “but the need for women to wear the burqa is not one of them!”

And beneath those issues lies a more fundamental one: Claims like hers are what I call “value neutral” and can be used to justify virtually anything equally well. One person’s assertion that their understanding of gOd’s laws trumps everything else is a non-starter – an indefensible premise that would open the door to everyone in effect becoming a law unto themselves and doing whatever they wanted if we granted it the respect Oumkheyr apparently thinks we should.

7) But of course that’s not quite the premise Oumkheyr (or any other theist) would probably defend. A more accurate closing statement might have been “I obey the laws of the One True God and not the laws of man or the false laws of their false gods!”

There’s an element of special pleading inherent in all this – an element that often gets obscured whenever religious issues are debated. Islam, after all, isn’t about gOd in the abstract or the right of everyone to follow whatever deity or religion or secular philosophy they have decided is best – it’s about submission (the literal meaning of “Islam”) to Allah. Period. Freedom has very little to do with it. Oumkheyr’s attempts to defend her burqa-wearing on “freedom of religion” grounds consequently rings more than a little hollow. And it will continue to ring hollow until Muslims like her couple their arguments for personal respect with calls for predominantly Muslim countries to grant all their citizens the same sort of freedoms and respect she is claiming for herself. It seems to me that logical consistency demands that those who would defend burqas in France must also defend bikinis on the beaches of Dubai, Christian crucifixes in Saudi Arabia, Jewish yamakas in Mecca, pro-atheist t-shirts in the Gaza Strip, and much else besides. Unfortunately, I’ve rarely encountered a Muslim who embraces such consistency. Oumkheyr certainly doesn’t in her essay. Instead, that essay seems to me to boil down to one more long and loud demand for special rights and consideration from one particular theist whose respect for the rights of others seems questionable….

But perhaps I’m being too harsh. Perhaps my judgment has been colored too heavily by one too many stories about Sikhs demanding the right to wear their ceremonial daggers *everywhere* they go, and suicide bombers in Iraq who were able to slaughter many others because of their explosives-hiding burqas and/or the special consideration given Islamic females (and those posing as Islamic females), and the apparently endless stream of articles I’ve come across in which people who can’t defend a belief or action with logic and evidence play the religion card, then get all pissy when others don’t immediately bow down to them….

Ah, well, what can I say? I’m only human. I try to do the best I can.

If there’s a good reason for women to go around dressed up like beekeepers, I’m willing to consider it. If anyone can make convincingly the case that the right to wear such attire is more important than all the issues and objections that I’ve raised here, I’m prepared to revise my opinions accordingly.

All I can say at this point is that I’d probably vote to ban the burqa if I were a member of the French government today.

And if such a ban has the unintended effect of driving Oumkheyr out of the country (as she says in her essay that it would), well, that would seem to just provide me with more evidence that irrational religious beliefs motivate people to value and do some pretty silly things.

Related posts:

1. Should The Burqa Be Banned?
2. As Clear As Mud
3. A Few Thoughts Of My Own Now…

Hello,

Our organization is suing the bible and the koran for sexism, homophobia, call for murder etc. To support our legal action, we have put two petitions online (http://atheists-in-action.com/184/English.html). One is to support our legal action in France. The other is to support a text that would regulate the sale and distribution of those two books in Europe. Our organization is a-political, nonviolent, law-abiding, and nonprofit… only the atheist cause counts for us. We would appreciate if you could forward the info. Thanks,

Atheist greetings,

Salvatore Pertutti, President of Atheists in Action

First of all, you cannot sue an object, like a book, you can only sue a person, corporation, or government body (come to think of it, there were several books that I read for High School English that I wish that I could have sued….). Besides, what is the Bible going to swear upon once it takes the stand? That is just stupid.

Secondly, there are some serious free speech issues here. Given that there already exists or might soon exist blasphemy laws in various countries around the world, any movement on that part of atheists to censor or control through political force the contents of books is just plain stupid. Didn’t the Catholic Church try that once for hundreds of years? How well did that go? Stupid.

Related posts:

1. What Atheists Assume about Christianity
2. Are atheists mostly religious people?
3. Some People are Just Stupid

Calvinist-turned-Catholic touts interfaith respect

Author Peter Kreeft packed the house at Newman’s Bookshoppe on a recent Friday night, offering his views on interfaith harmony in a lively talk.

…

One woman in the predominantly Catholic audience wanted to know how she should comfort Protestant friends after they lose loved ones without “toning down” her Catholic beliefs, including her belief in praying to patron saints. Another asked how to approach non-believers in discussions of faith.

“God has given us a very powerful tool — death,” he responded to the second question. “And every atheist — unless he is an idiot — is really agnostic. No one really knows if there is a God, so ask that person, ‘What do you think happens to you after you die?”

If, as you say, no one really knows if there is a God, shouldn’t every theist also really be an agnostic? And if we really don’t know if there is a God, why would we know if there was an after life? What then is the point of asking such a question?

I mean, in one sentence Peter Kreeft proclaims that God has given the evangelist death as a powerful tool of persuasion (fear?) and then two sentences later he empathetically says that no one, not even Peter Kreeft, really knows if God exists.

Who is the idiot here?

Related posts:

1. What kind of (atheist/theist) are YOU?
2. Word Games
3. Steve Harvey is an Idiot

Religious people do have a clearer moral code than secularists

It’s come to this. The secularists have got me sticking up for Cherie Blair. Those barrels of laughs, the British Humanist Association and National Secular Society, have complained, apparently with straight faces, that she has discriminated against non-religious people by taking a convicted man’s religious observance into account when suspending his sentence for a violent crime.

…

At a huge risk of stating the bleedin’ obvious, Cherie Booth QC, as we must call her when she’s not trading on her married name, wasn’t saying that religious people are morally superior to others. She was saying that, as a religious man, he should know better.

Even Booth, who isn’t herself blessed with an unerring sense of right and wrong, will know that there are bad religious people and good non-religious people.

But what the humourless and po-faced bozos of the BHA and NSS have to get into their restricted imaginations is the answer to this question: Do adherents to a major faith have demonstrable, objective and tangible standards of behaviour towards others enshrined in their religious traditions, to which they can and should be expected to aspire because they are accountable to their divine authority, that are not so prescribed by secular authorities?

That’s a good question, George. Do religious people have demonstrable, objective, and tangible standards of behavior enshrined in their religions? Should be fairly easy to answer if they are, after all, so demonstrable and objective. So what is the answer, George?

Yes. Get used to it, BHA and NSS.

How…..useful. You leave me wondering what precisely these demonstrable and objective standards are and for which religion they are demonstrable and objective for! This would be really great to know, being a secularist myself with no moral codes of my own (gag).

The case in question involves a Muslim named Miah who – get this – broke a man’s jaw with two punches after a dispute in a London bank. The judge, Cherie Blair, trying the case wrote, “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before,” she told him at Inner London Crown Court. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.” Blair (who also goes by Booth) herself is a devout Roman Catholic.

So George’s main point, recall, is that this is not a statement that religious people are morally superior but that “She was saying that, as a religious man, he should know better.”

To be sure, while Judge Blair may not be saying that religious people are morally superior, she is saying quite clearly that religious people should be held to a lighter standard of punishment merely for being religious, and that, presumably, non-religious people simply do not know any better!

If Osama Bin Laden was caught would Blair lighten his sentence because he is a ‘religious man’ and should know that his behavior is not acceptable?

Related posts:

1. Spare The Nose And Spoil The Father?
2. Top Ten News for 2009
3. Follow ALL The Money (2)

Change Marks 10th Anniversary Of Rector (Cate Lecuyer/The Salem News; Jan 29)

BEVERLY, Massachusetts: If a new altar isn’t enough to mark the 10th anniversary of the Rev. Manny Faria, rector at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, a visit from the bishop — for the first time in five years — should do the trick.

The Rt. Rev. M. Thomas Shaw will give Sunday’s 10 p.m. service and bless the new altar — paid for by an anonymous $100,000 donation from a parishioner.

“To me, it was a godsend,” Faria said, “because I didn’t think it was responsible to start a capital fund to move the furniture around.”

But the donation came with a request that it be used to enhance the worship space, so church members spent the summer working with architects to create a new look.

They finished everything up a couple of weeks ago — just in time for Bishop Shaw to consecrate the new altar and chancel space around it.

“He was actually supposed to come in December,” Faria said, “but he was called away to South Africa so he had to reschedule.”

The trip is part of a regular rotation, where bishops make the rounds to different churches. The goal is to have them come once a year, but that doesn’t always happen, and visits are often made by the two suffragan, or assistant, bishops. A visit by the diocesan bishop is an honor that hasn’t happened since September 2006.

The biggest change to the space was eliminating a set of stairs leading to the chancel, so parishioners in wheelchairs can go forth to receive Communion. Church members also kept the original altar, but moved a second one forward — so Faria can preach closer to the congregation — and replaced pews with chairs on both sides of the chancel. Workers also created a credence table and cross out of a bulky wooden pulpit, and moved the baptismal font from the front of the church to the entrance, where it traditionally belongs.

Another parishioner also stepped up with a $30,000 donation to make the organ movable, so the space is more appealing for outside concerts or church events.

“It’s much airier,” Faria said. “It gives us the flexibility we never had the old way.”

The space, however, still “looks like St. Peter’s.” Although there have been changes since he became the rector 10 years ago, the church has always maintained its identity, Faria said.

While some parishioners have come and gone, many others have remained a part of the community for years. Lately, there have been more young families with kids, which has led to a larger Christian-education program. Faria said he’d also like to start holding alternative services that appeal to high school and college students. Church members have also become increasingly involved with international issues, like the awareness of Arab Christians, and went on a mission trip to Israel last year.

“I’m very excited about what we’re doing as a parish,” Faria said.

This story strikes me as noteworthy for a number of reasons.

Here are a few of them:

1) An Episcopal church is involved. The somewhat similar stories I shared yesterday involved Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches. Clearly, lavish spending on churches is not limited to any particular Christian denomnination but involves many (including the most well-known and popular).

2) Rev. Faria didn’t think it appropriate to ask people to pay to “move the furniture around” – yet he calls the $100,000 donation from one parishioner for precisely that purpose “a godsend.” Apparently he didn’t try to convince that parishioner to spend the money in a more socially useful way. Apparently he prefers instead to think of that donation as “a godsend” – something in accordance with the will of gOd and Jesus – rather than an insult to the gOd who condemns graven images and Golden Calves or an insult to the Jesus who told people to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and indicated that perfection involves selling all we have and giving to the poor.

3) Why did the parishioner think this was a wise use of $100,000? Was he or she crazy? Or was he or she merely acting in accordance with a lifetime of conditioning that offers high praise and gratitude to people who lavish money on material items for a church? Even when such gifts are given anonymously, they allow the giver to think of him- or herself as good and holy even though such gifts help a few, relatively well-off people in relatively unimportant ways. Once again, religion seems to be perverting genuine morality – in this case, taking a rather goofy donation that benefits a church/club and its people and presenting it as if it were as worthwhile as the purchase of life-saving vaccines. It’s similar to the way religion can transform terrible acts of war and violence and present them as supremely good, gOd-approved things.

4) Are donations like this tax deductible? As far as I can tell, they are. Should they be? It’s hard to see why.

5) The story tells us that another parishioner donated $30,000 “to make the organ movable, so the space is more appealing….” In a world in which thousands of children die every day because they don’t get food and medicine costing a few pennies, do Christians *really* believe this is the sort of thing that makes their Jesus smile? Why? Just how out of touch with their own scriptures are they? How insulated are they from the needs of the real world?

6) The story concludes by quoting Rev. Faria as saying “I’m very excited about what we’re doing as a parish.” Besides the new altar and making the organ movable, the only things that his parish is doing that are mentioned are these: A larger Christian education program; an awareness of Arab Christians; a mission trip to Israel; and hopes for alternative services geared towards students. None of these things seem to do anything for poor people, sick people, or society as a whole. Instead, they all seem to be self-centered attempts to deepen and spread a sectarian message or to support the people who embrace that message. As sociologist Mark Chaves discovered during his in-depth study of congregations in America, this is typical Christian behavior.

7) Nowhere in this story does the reporter question or challenge the appropriateness of these expenditures or activities. Instead, we find that a journalist is once again acting as little more than a PR agent for the church. The only information that gets passed along is the information provided by that church. Although most stories that get published about atheist and humanist groups seem to include comments from disapproving Christians, few if any atheists or humanists are ever quoted in stories like this one. All of this reinforces the general cultural assumption that what churches do is good and that it’s rude or inappropriate to question that.

8) The Bottom Line seems to be that we live in a society in which mainstream Christian church activities/expenditures and charitable activities/expenditures that benefit society as a whole have become conflated and confused. Christian churches that spend the vast majority of their budgets on themselves, their music, and their message are generally seen and presented as unquestionably good while secular organizations that do more good things for far more people are often covered less often and then presented as less good, less noble, less efficient, and of course less in the eyes of the Supreme Judge. It’s an ass-backwards situation, and virtually no one in the mainstream media seems conscious of this, let alone interested in exposing and correcting it. Stories like the one quoted in this entry underline this reality.

9) I usually come across stories like this one only because I specifically go looking for them. As far as I know, no one else is out there attempting to track where the $100 billion-plus raised by US religious institutions every year is going. No matter how much money a church irresponsbily spends on an organ, it apparently always remains a local story. The fact that churches across the country and around the world are spending huge amounts of money on organs every day remains a fact that’s apparently recognized by few. The fact that I’ve pretty much limited my sporadic research to organs, and only to easily accessible public sources, makes me wonder just how much I might be missing. The fact that most of the information I do find is only what the churches have released and want people to know must also be kept in mind. As outrageous as the church expenditures I catalog may seem, they’re only a *very* small part of what’s going on out there. A full accounting would almost certainly shock me in ways I can’t now imagine.

10) The fact that so few people seem interested in a full accounting and so many are content to settle for the meagre, pro-church, anecdotal accounts of food banks, soup kitchens, hurricane relief efforts, fund-raisers for Haiti, etc., seems to me to be just one more indication of our culture’s pro-religion bias and the tendency of people to embrace comfortable illusions rather than face disturbing truths. Atheists who can help theists discover, understand, and change those disturbing truths are providing them with a service at least as important as any that’s ever been provided by an organ player or an altar polisher.

Related posts:

1. Follow ALL The Money
2. Merry Christmas! Please Send Money
3. With A Name Like Gabriel Of Urantia…

Awkward?

Perhaps, but that is what many young girls are doing as they participate in such elaborate ceremonies like ‘purity balls‘ or ‘purity weddings’ in which the daughters put on a purity ring and pledge their virginity to their father. I was reminded of this as I read the blog post, “Purity Balls – Because Metaphorical Incest is Totally Cool,” which provides some humorous commentary on such practices.

The sex-as-taboo mentality cannot possibly be conducive to constructive conversation between parent and child about the facts of life. And, as the blog author points out, what about the boys? Why is it the daughter’s duty to restrain her sexuality? I mean, the image of a boy pledging his virginity to his mother is more or less equally strange as this cartoon aptly illustrates:

“The point is”, the blog author concludes. “I really don’t think anyone needs a virginity ring, or a ball, or even a virginity pot–luck. I think what people need is an on-going dialogue that evolves organically from the world around you.” This is, after all, how we tend to approach other aspects of our lives.

But beyond the humor and making-fun there is a serious issue here. According to at least one study, 88% of women who made virginity pledges broke them before being married (so much for the fear of God). How much do you want to bet that these women as girls were taught about safe sex? Probably not. On the other hand, how many of the remaining 12% got married too early (and possibly to the wrong person) so that they wouldn’t break the pledge?

Religion makes people believe a lot of silly things, to be sure. But so far as I can tell, only religion influences otherwise normal people to demonize natural inclinations and induce unnecessary guilt.

Related posts:

1. The Theological Debate Continues…
2. Newdow vs. Fox News. Who Wins?
3. Flabbergasted