Rocks on the Road to Enlightenment by Roy Brown

*Roy Brown is immediate past president of IHEU and main IHEU representative, United Nations, Geneva.

Thank you, Dr Vijayam, the Gora family and the Atheist Centre for hosting this 7th World Atheist Conference: “The March of Atheism”, a conference which itself marks an important step on that march. But the path of Atheism has never been easy. I would like this morning to examine some of the reasons why.

Over the past hundred years, science has revealed the unimaginable vastness of the Universe. We now know that our planet is just a tiny speck in that vast expanse of the Cosmos, barely visible from the outer reaches of the Solar System, let alone from stars and galaxies a trillion times further away.

We also know that far from being formed complete and perfect, the object of divine creation, we humans are simply one species (well OK, a particularly versatile species) but only one species among the many millions of others that have evolved here on Earth by the blind, unguided process of evolution through natural selection.

In the light of that knowledge the idea that we humans are the ultimate and privileged product of a purposeful, divine creation can be seen as the purest fantasy. So why do so many people still cling to such beliefs?

Since Atheism is such a liberating, logically tenable, rational philosophy, why is the march of Atheism such a long, hard slog along such a difficult and rocky path? I want to suggest that there are four major obstacles on the path. And the first of these is …

Religion
Whether we like it or not, many people find religion attractive. Every religion claims to have a monopoly of truth and a monopoly of virtue. Who among us, other things being equal and provided the personal cost is not too high, would not like to be considered both virtuous and endowed with knowledge of the truth? We like the splendour, the ritual, the music, the repetition and the comfort that religion provides. But more than that, we love the certainty that religion offers in an uncertain world. Seeking answers to life’s great questions is an important part of what makes us human – and religion supplies the answers. Above all, with its promises of reincarnation or an afterlife surrounded by angels, religion offers an attractive alternative to the bleak prospect of our mortality.

How can we compete?
One problem we have in confronting the certainties of religion is that the transcendental really does exist. Don’t look so surprised! It exists in our imagination. Gods, fairies, unicorns, ghosts and angels may all be creatures of the imagination but we have no certain logical way of demonstrating that they are purely imaginary. The best we can do is to point out in the light of our newfound scientific knowledge the vanishingly small probability that the supernatural world really exists. But while we offer only probability, religion offers absolute certainty.

Now perhaps it would not matter that religion teaches nonsense (or perhaps, being charitable, I should say “that religion makes unsubstantiated claims”) if that nonsense was totally benign.

But scratch any religion and you find violence lurking just beneath the surface. Every successful religion has evolved memes for self-protection. Whether it is the promise of eternal damnation or the death penalty for apostasy, the promotion of faith over reason, or the demonization of science, these memes have helped sustain the hegemony of religion.

Finally, religion offers many people a purpose in life. Not everyone is capable of accepting the truth that we are all here by chance and that evolution gave us no other purpose in life than to reproduce. For Atheists, Rationalists and Humanists the purpose of life will always be what we choose to make it.

The second stumbling block in our path is …
Human nature
None of us is entirely rational. However much we may wish we were guided purely by reason, we are all emotional creatures. We have evolved to be that way. We trust our emotions more than we trust reason. I know I do. And I know that I have frequently been guilty of using my reason to justify my gut reaction to events. We would like the promises of religion to be true, so we have a desire to believe, an emotional commitment to belief. We use our reason to argue that, well, how can I be sure the claims of eternal life or reincarnation are unfounded? Or that if I die in battle in the cause of Allah I won’t be comforted by 72 virgins?

Secondly, it is in our nature to conform. We are social, tribal animals. Each of us grew up as part of a culture with shared beliefs and values. For most people religion is an essential part of that culture, the glue that binds society together. As children we are taught the beliefs of our parents and our community as fact. If we are part of a community that sees its particular religion as the sole repository of virtue, then to attack or challenge that religion is to attack the very foundations of society. Why would I risk alienation from my community by calling these claims into question? Surely it is better to play along; to pretend to believe even if I am not entirely sure.

The third rock in our path is …
Politics
Two thousand years ago the Roman statesman Seneca the Younger said that the common people find all religions to be equally true, the philosophers find them all equally false, and the rulers find them all equally useful. Not much has changed in 2000 years. Every tin pot dictator, every demagogue, every unworthy ruler attempting to reinforce his power has claimed the support of religion. And the priests have been all too willing to provide that support. What better means could the priests find to preserve their own power than by supporting the rulers and to have their active support in return?

The fact that our political masters find religion useful is, I would suggest, the primary reason for the continuing dominant position of religion in society. We can see this happening today not only in dreadful authoritarian states like Iran and Saudi Arabia but in the world’s great democracies such as India, the United States and even France. Just a few years ago the President of the United States said that, in his view, unbelievers should not be considered citizens.

But it is not only the priests and the rulers that find religion useful. Some philosophers do so too. I have here an article by Matthew Parris, one of the best-known atheist commentators in England, from The Times of just ten days ago. It is called: “As an atheist I truly believe Africa needs God”. He notes that in Africa people who convert to Christianity generally behave better than those who retain their earlier animist beliefs. What he means of course is not that Africa needs God but that Africans need to believe in God. Here then is a philosopher who has replaced the pursuit of truth by the pursuit of expediency. If it makes people better – even if it is based on a lie – let’s go for it. With friends like these, religion is getting an easy ride. It is just one more manifestation of the often heard, paternalistic line that “Of course I don’t believe all that nonsense myself but it helps keep the people in line.”

The fourth rock that I see impeding the March of Atheism is
… Atheism itself

Atheism, particularly in the West, has a bad name. In the public mind it is linked to the idea of State Atheism, Stalinism and the Cultural Revolution of Mao Tse Tung.

Secondly, and in contrast to religion, Atheism per se is not a complete philosophy of life. Disbelief in the transcendental may well be the only respectable, philosophically sound position for an educated, thinking person to take, but the mere absence of a belief does not constitute a philosophy of life. It is quite possible for a rational Atheist to be completely self-obsessed and to care nothing for others.

Indeed, I suspect that some of us know of such people.

The Atheist Centre of course offers more than mere Atheism, it offers Gora’s Positive Atheism, not just Rationalism. It offers Rationalism in the service of compassion: what we call Humanism. Atheism then is a necessary step on the road to enlightenment and to Humanism, but it is not enough. It is where our Atheism leads that is important.

We must recognise that the March of Atheism is not an end in itself but a step on the way to understanding ourselves, the world, and our place within it; a step on the road to caring for others as we care for ourselves; and a step towards the ultimate goal of Humanism and enlightenment.

So how can we shift the rocks from our path? Here are some ideas and some arguments we can use.

1. I would point out the importance of uncertainty, of doubt, as the mainspring of human progress. Humanity has only ever made progress when an individual has stood out from the crowd and cast doubt on the received wisdom of the day.

Any society that prohibits doubt and dissent is probably doomed to stagnation and failure. I would cite Imperial China, Soviet-style Communism, and fundamentalist Islamic states such as Iran as prime examples. Iran and Saudi Arabia may not have failed – yet – but their ultimate failure is surely inevitable.

2. While Rationalism and Atheism are, well, rational, concern for others, the second leg on which Humanism stands, is difficult to explain by reason alone. Yet altruism, or empathy, is an important part of what makes us human. We have evolved to be compassionate. The apparent irrationality of altruism can be explained by evolution. We have evolved to show kindness to strangers. Even though we feel that altruism may be driven by emotion rather than reason, it would not have evolved if it did not confer on us some evolutionary advantage.

3. Humanism offers a complete alternative to religion. Humanists the world over have shown that you don’t need God to be good. And remember that men never do evil as willingly as when they do it in the name of religion.

4. We must do all we can to promote scientific education and critical thinking. Wishful thinking is no substitute for knowing how the world really is. Applying reason to our problems might just help us find a solution; praying never will. Prayer is simply a waste of time and effort; a poor substitute for action.

5. We must challenge the truth claims of religion. Where is the evidence? The believer will reply that we must have faith. But as Mark Twain said: “faith is believing what you know ain’t so”. If religion offered any credible evidence to support its claims, believers would not need faith. The only evidence religions offer for their truth claims is reference to their ancient holy books (ignoring some of the more recent holy books concocted by failed science fiction writers). But the pre-scientific scribblings of some desert tribe are surely no competition for the evidence of science and the application of reason.

6. We must challenge the claims of religion to a monopoly of virtue. First, many of the virtues they claim as uniquely their own were known to the ancients long before their favourite prophet revealed them to the world. They evolved with human civilisation. Secondly, what some religions call virtues, others might call criminal barbarity. We need look no further than the stoning of women for adultery, at one time sanctioned by both Christianity and Judaism, to show that religions too evolve. Perhaps it is not too much to hope that stoning and slavery, no longer accepted by Christianity and Judaism, will also disappear from the Islamic world. Can we even hope that India will one day see the caste system as a primitive and barbaric throwback to a less civilised era?

7. Religion does not lead to a better world. It has always and everywhere stood in the way of progress. Many of the precepts that religion teaches us about how we should live do have value both for ourselves and for society as a whole. But all of these principles can be arrived at without reference to the supernatural – and in fact were so in the course of human history.

8. The linking of morality to religion has created a major problem for society. Teaching children that they must be moral because God wants them to, and that he will punish them if they behave badly, denies the truth that good behaviour is a worthy end in its own right. Loss of belief then leads to loss of good behaviour in society.

I could go on but I will stop there and conclude. Yes, Atheism is on the march, but we must be clear about where it is leading. Without Humanism as the goal the march of Atheism will fail to bear full fruit. We are fortunate that writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have finally broken the taboo and created a climate in which it is once again respectable to speak about Atheism.

Richard Dawkins in particular, with his clarity of thought and writing, has given us irrefutable arguments for Atheism. I would like this conference to agree to pass a resolution of thanks to Richard Dawkins. Here is a man in the tradition of Bertrand Russell, Robert Green Ingersoll, M N Roy and Gora who, through his integrity and devotion to truth can truly be said to have changed the world for the better. Thank you.

Address to the 7th World Atheist Conference, Vijayawada, India, 6 January 2009

Prof. A.C. Grayling joins IHEU at the Human Rights Council in Geneva

A.C. Grayling, Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College London, is one of Britain's leading technical philosophers with a gift for making philosophy intelligible to the layman. Anthony Grayling is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society and a distinguished supporter of the British Humanist Association. He has written widely on contemporary issues from war crimes to secularism and euthanasia and is one of the leading defenders of Enlightenment values in the English-speaking world.

He now joins Roy Brown and the IHEU team at the Human Rights Council where his incisiveness and clarity of exposition will add welcome strength to IHEU's work in defence of Human Rights.

Human Rights Council: The fight-back begins

source: http://www.iheu.org/node/3275
Submitted by admin on 30 September, 2008 - 07:16.

• UN Geneva
• Building blocks

In what was probably a first for the United Nations, delegates to the Human Rights Council heard two Muslims describe Islamism as "Racism" and tell their listeners that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) does not speak for the majority of the world's Muslims. Danish MP and leader of the Liberal Alliance Naser Khader, and Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress were eloquent in their denunciation of the OIC, its Saudi paymasters, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. The conference was widely reported, including in the Pakistan Daily Times

The conference speeches are available here:

• Introduction - Roy Brown
• The OIC's ideological agenda for Durban II: a modern-day Inquisition - Walid Phares
• World War III is here - Naser Khader
• The OIC does not speak for Muslims - Tarek Fatah
• What is going on here? - Austin Dacey

The Conference, billed as "An analysis and Discussion of Religion and Freedom of Expression at the Human Rights Council" was held on 17 September 2008 and chaired by Roy Brown, IHEU main representative, UN Geneva.

---

Introduction by Roy Brown

Two years ago, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, famously stated that: "Rightly understood, there is no conflict between freedom expression and freedom of religion". In the past two years, however, events both outside and within the United Nations have led us to question just how widely that truth is understood.

A resolution "combating defamation of religions" was first introduced by the OIC in 1999 in the old Commission for Human Rights and has been adopted every year since - by the Commission and now by the Human Rights Council.

Then in December last year the resolution was adopted by the UN General Assembly by a two to one majority. Now while the resolution is not binding on member states, it has created a framework in which it becomes legitimate for States to introduce (or where they have them already – to keep) laws combating defamation of religion: that is, blasphemy laws - laws which, I need not to remind you, some states apply with deadly effect. Rather than moving to eliminate such laws the UN is now complicit in creating an environment in which such laws can thrive.

In March this year, the Council adopted a resolution which modified the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression to require him (or her) not only to report on violations of that right but to report on abuse of that freedom. In the words of one commentator, "it has turned the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on its head".

These recent moves are by no means novel. Attempts to cater for Islamic exceptionalism in human rights go back a long way - at least as far back as the Iranian revolution of 1979. The first really successful attempt to codify this exceptionalism came in 1990 with the adoption by the foreign ministers of the OIC of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2007, the Pakistani Ambassador, speaking in the Council on behalf of the OIC, claimed that this document did not represent an alternative world view but was complementary to the UDHR. In March this year, at the 7th session of the Council, we called that claim into question, pointing out that the Cairo Declaration makes no reference to the UDHR but states quite clearly that Sharia law shall be the only source of reference to the rights contained therein. We issued a written statement to the Council, copies of which are available here, which explains this point. But when we attempted to point this out during a general debate, we were stopped on a point of order by the Pakistani delegate who said, and I quote: "It is insulting to our faith to discuss the Sharia in this forum". The implication being that the OIC could promote the Cairo Declaration but that no one could be permitted to criticize its basis in the Sharia as the source of its incompatibility with the Universal Declaration.

In June this year, during the 8th session of the Council, we attempted to make an oral statement on violence against women. Our statement was interrupted by no fewer than 16 points of order,

the majority of which were from the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates. They objected before were able to present the statement, that a) it had been heard before (it had not) and that it linked Egypt, Sudan and Pakistan to Sharia law. It did not. Canada and Slovenia (speaking for the European Union) argued that the issue was whether an NGO should be allowed to speak on the agenda item, and saw no reason why it should not. The Egyptian delegate responded, saying

"What we are talking now is not about the right of NGOs to speak but about the Sharia law and whether it is admissible to discuss it in this Council. I appeal to my colleague from Slovenia not to accept any discussion of the Sharia law in this Council because it will not happen. And we will not take this lightly"

He then attempted to force a vote on the issue. The president, H.E. Doru Costea of Romania, then adjourned the meeting for half an hour for "consultations". When he returned he gave his ruling that "this Council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth. Consequently we should not do it". Furthermore, "As long as a statement is made with restraint from making a judgement, or an evaluation, of a particular set of legislation, which is not in the point of our discussion, the speaker may continue".

Now, the subject of our statement was not religion but human rights abuse justified by reference to Sharia law. Nevertheless, given the president's ruling, we felt unable to make any further reference to Sharia in our statement.

The problem we were faced with is that many human rights abuses are permitted - or are even required punishments – under the religiously-based laws of the States concerned. Does this mean, as the States in question claim, that these laws must be beyond criticism in the Council? It would seem that this point was in fact conceded by the President of the Council. What is going on here?

To help us answer that question we have with us today, four distinguished speakers:
Naser Khader is the founder of Democratic Muslims of Denmark, Member of the Danish Parliament, and leader of the Liberal Alliance;
Walid Phares is an advisor to the Trans Atlantic Legislative Group on Jihadism and a visiting fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy. He is author of The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy and a number of other books.
Tarek Fatah is the founder and former chair of the Muslim Canadian Congress. He is a , writer and broadcaster, and author of Chasing a Mirage: the Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State.
Austin Dacey is ther main representative of the Center for Inquiry at the UN New York, and author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life.

Egypt accuses IHEU of inciting hatred

An Egyptian delegate to the Human Rights Council has accused IHEU of inciting and promoting hatred. “Every statement [by this organization] is incitement to hatred. Every statement is promoting hatred” he said. The accusation was made during a point of order by Egypt’s Amr Roshdy Hassan, who objected to the statement being made by IHEU representative Roy Brown on the subject of Islamophobia.

More..

Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

For the past eleven years the organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing the 57 Islamic States, has been tightening its grip on the throat of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yesterday, 28 March 2008, they finally killed it.

With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the “abuse” of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery

or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the writing on the wall three years ago when he spoke of the old Commission on Human Rights having “become too selective and too political in its work”. Piecemeal reform would not be enough. The old system needed to be swept away and replaced by something better. The Human Rights Council was supposed to be that new start, a Council whose members genuinely supported, and were prepared to defend, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yet since its inception in June 2006, the Human Rights Council has failed to condemn the most egregious examples of human rights abuse in the Sudan, Byelorussia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and elsewhere, whilst repeatedly condemning Israel and Israel alone.

Three years later Annan’s dream lies shattered, and the Human Rights Council stands exposed as incapable of fulfilling its central role: the promotion and protection of human rights. The Council died yesterday in Geneva, and with it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary we were actually celebrating this year.

There has been a seismic shift in the balance of power in the UN system. For over a decade the Islamic States have been flexing their muscles. Yesterday they struck. There can no longer be any pretence that the Human Rights Council can defend human rights. The moral leadership of the UN system has moved from the States who created the UN in the aftermath of the Second World War, committed to the concepts of equality, individual freedom and the rule of law, to the Islamic States, whose allegiance is to a narrow, medieval worldview defined exclusively in terms of man’s duties towards Allah, and to their fellow-travellers, the States who see their future economic and political interests as being best served by their alliances with the Islamic States.

Yesterday’s attack by the Islamists, led by Pakistan, had the subtlety of a thin-bladed knife slipped silently under the ribs of the Human Rights Council. At first reading the amendment to the resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression might seem reasonable. It requires the Special Rapporteur:

“To report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination …”

For Canada, who had fought long and hard as main sponsor of this resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, this was too much. The internationally agreed limits to Freedom of Expression are detailed in article 19 of the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are already referred to in the preamble to the resolution. If abuse of freedom of expression infringed anyone’s freedom of religion, for example, it would fall within the scope of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion. To add it here was unnecessary duplication, and “Requesting the Special Rapporteur to report on abuses of [this right] would turn the mandate on its head. Instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise … If this amendment is adopted, Canada will withdraw its sponsorship from the main resolution.”

Canada’s position was echoed by several delegations including India, who objected to the change of focus from protecting to limiting freedom of expression. The European Union, the United Kingdom (speaking for Australia and the United States), India, Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala and Switzerland all withdrew their sponsorship of the main resolution when the amendment was passed. In total, more than 20 of the original 53 co-sponsors of the resolution withdrew their support.

On the vote, the amendment was adopted by 27 votes to 15 against, with three abstentions.
The Sri Lankan delegate explained clearly his reasons for supporting the amendment:
“.. if we regulate certain things ‘minimally’ we may be able to prevent them from being enacted violently on the streets of our towns and cities.”

In other words: Don’t exercise your right to freedom of expression because your opponents may become violent. For the first time in the 60 year history of UN Human Rights bodies, a fundamental human right has been limited simply because of the possible violent reaction by the enemies of human rights.

The violence we have seen played out in reaction to the Danish cartoons is thus excused by the Council – it was the cartoonists whose freedom of expression needed to be regulated. And Theo van Gogh can be deemed responsible for his own death.

Freedom of expression is that right which – uniquely – enables us to expose, communicate and condemn abuse of all our other rights. Without freedom of expression and freedom of the press we give the green light to tyranny and make it impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, injustice and oppression.

But however important freedom of expression may be for us who live in the West, its overwhelming importance for those who live under the tyranny of Islamic law was highlighted by a courageous group of 21 NGOs from the Islamic States who issued a statement yesterday appealing to delegations to oppose the amendment. See http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/petition-hrc.pdf

Incredibly, following the vote on the amendment, the Council descended even further into chaos. At the very last moment, Cuba introduced an oral amendment – clearly against the rules of procedure. When Canada objected they were overruled by the President. When Slovenia – on behalf of the European Union – tried to intervene on a point of order and ask for a ten-minute adjournment, they were ignored. When they tried to protest in another point of order their right to do so was challenged by Egypt, and the Egyptian objection was upheld.

The main resolution was then put to the vote and was adopted by 32 votes in favour, none against, with 15 abstentions.

The NGO community now needs to think carefully about what purpose can any longer be served by continuing our engagement with the Human Rights Council, and by fighting for values that are no longer accepted within the UN system. I have personally been involved with the Human Rights Commission and Council for the past five years and can see little benefit in continuing. Our well-argued position papers are ignored, our speeches are interrupted with repeated and irrelevant points of order, and we are not even supported in our efforts by the western delegations who, shockingly, did not even vote against today’s travesty, but abstained.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights died yesterday. Who knows when, or if, it can ever be revived.

I used to wonder what States who felt it necessary to kill people because they change their religion thought they were doing in the Human Rights Council. Now I know.

The wafer-thin sham of an international consensus on the promotion and protection of human rights has finally been exposed for what it was – a sham. The fragmentation of human rights now appears inevitable. The proposed Islamic Charter on Human Rights (read “Duties towards Allah”) will certainly go ahead, as will the creation of a parallel Islamic Council on Human Rights. But the OIC will nevertheless continue to attend and dominate the UN Human Rights Council, thereby ensuring its continuing emasculation and descent into total irrelevance.

Just five months before he and more than 20 of his colleagues were killed by a terrorist bomb in Baghdad, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, wrote:

“Membership of the Commission on Human Rights must carry responsibilities. I therefore wonder whether the time has not come for the Commission itself to develop a code of guidelines for access to membership of the Commission and a code of conduct for members while they serve on the Commission. After all the Commission on Human Rights has a duty to humanity and the members of the Commission must themselves set the example of adherence to the international human rights norms – in practice as well as in law…”

States who are genuinely concerned with human rights should immediately withdraw from the Council until such time as all member states as well as those offering themselves for election agree to honour their pledges, and undertake to expel any member state which, having been put on notice regarding its human rights record, fails to put its house in order within a reasonable timescale. Failing this, what better tribute to Sergio de Mello could there be than to create an alternative organisation – Kofi Annan’s organisation of the willing - whose members agree to adopt Sergio de Mello’s guidelines and code of conduct – and are actually held to account.

Roy W Brown
Geneva, 29 March 2008

IHEU - Feb 2008

Download the full IHEU magazine here.

My personal highlights include:

• Why am I an atheist? by P M Bhargava
• Introducing the Humanist Academy: a new Humanist initiative in Scotland
  
• Islam vs Human Rights by Roy Brown

Why am I an atheist? by P M Bhargava

(Abbreviated)
Here are the ten reasons that have left me with no other choice than to be an atheist.

1. There seems to be no place for God in our evolution. Most scientists agree that our Universe began with a “Big Bang” about 13 billion years ago. We have no way of knowing now exactly what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang but we do know what happened from a tiny fraction of a second later....the very first life on our planet – the first living cell that satisfied the criteria of life as we know it today – must have arisen from the products of chemical evolution on our planet as it cooled down sometime between 3.5 and 4.0 billion years ago. Once we have the primitive cell, there is no difficulty in understanding how biological evolution gave us the variety that we find in the living species around us. Where is God in this scenario?

2.

I have no problem in assuming that God was responsible for the Big Bang but after that it seems he must have died or lost total control, because everything soon afterwards followed the laws of science.

So as a rational human being I have greater faith in these laws than in God since we are surely controlled by these laws today. There is not a shred of evidence to say that our universe is controlled by anything other than the laws of science.

3. How did God come in? Through our fear of the unknown. As our fear has diminished with our increasing knowledge, there has been less reason to believe in God. Today, we have reached a stage in our understanding of natural phenomena, including life, that we need no longer fear the unknown. We can say with confidence that where we do not have the answers, the answers will be found within the framework of science, if not today, then tomorrow.

4. Belief in God implies belief that man is special, something apart from the rest of the natural world. But man is not that special. He is a product of evolution ... if man is not unique, and all life evolved from non-living materials, where is the need to put man in a special category as a special creation of God?

5. Belief in God implies belief that God put man on Earth pre-formed, as stated in the Bible for example.

6. Those who believe in God, believe that God has a grand design. There is not a shred of proof in favour of this belief.

7. Belief in God kills one’s initiative. If you believe that everything that is going to happen to you is pre-ordained, why make an effort to do something different from what may come your way without any effort?

8. The practice of religion is highly dependent on the clergy and their role. I believe that clergy of all religions are guilty of seven deadly sins....

9. I am willing to accept, as a matter of freedom of belief, a personalised view of God, which implies a direct personal relationship between the believer and his or her god. What I find difficult to accept is the institutionalisation of this belief involving clergy. This is tantamount to the imposition of unreason on people; it contradicts the value of evidence. Such an institutionalised belief in evidence-less faith is bound to lead to irrational decisions in every sphere of life, private or public.

10. There are enormous contradictions between science and religion. There is no compatibility whatsoever between science on the one hand and the dogma that defines each religion on the other.... Science denies the existence of the supernatural: be it miracles, extra-sensory perception, clairvoyance, or psycho-kinesis.

Why Sharia Law must be Opposed

reposted from NTPI = No To Political Islam

Why Sharia Law must be Opposed

Sharia law is the instrument by which Political Islam seeks to control the Muslim world. Whilst the Sharia may have been inspired by the Holy Quran,

it has developed and evolved through time and through the efforts of men. The Sharia should be open to analysis, research and criticism like any other system of law, practice and belief. Its divine inspiration should no more shield it from criticism than Christianity should have been spared criticism for burning heretics or massacring unbelievers. The more pernicious interpretations of the Sharia today fall far short of the minimum standards of justice widely demanded by the international community and by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.

In the west, in countries that have a sizable Muslim population, there have been calls for the Sharia to be adopted for the Muslim community.

These calls should be vigorously opposed; the Sharia conflicts with many basic human values, such as equality before the law, that punishments should be commensurate with the crime, and that the law must be based on the will of the people.

The Sharia as it developed in the first few centuries of Islam incorporated many pre-Islamic Middle-Eastern misogynist and tribal customs and traditions. The Sharia was developed not only from the Holy Quran but incorporates legal principles from other sects.

We may ask how a law whose elements were first laid down over 1,000 years ago can possibly be relevant in the 21st century.

The Sharia reflects the social and economic conditions at the time of the Abbasids and has become further and further out of touch with later social, economic, technological, cultural and moral developments.

The principles of the Sharia are inimical to moral progress, humanity and civilized values.

The problem for all of us is how to oppose the violations of human rights inherent in the Sharia without being accused of blasphemy or apostasy. We would suggest that the answer lies in a return to the Five Pillars of Islam.

For non-Muslims who want to help, the problem is how to avoid charges of cultural imperialism, neocolonialism and racism, or of failing to respect “the other”. But cultural relativism is not the answer. In India, each religion has its own social laws. Muslim women do not enjoy the same rights as Hindu women. Why not? Justice cries out for secularism. One law for all – equality before the law – for Muslims and non-Muslims, for men and women alike, must be the answer.

Many of the arguments for permitting each religion or culture to determine its own laws are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of human rights. Human rights as defined in the UDHR are vested in the individual, not the group. As soon as rights are accorded to a group rather than to individuals, conflict becomes possible not only between one group and another, but between the group and its own members. Any group that denies the right of its members to leave is in contravention of one of the most fundamental principles of human rights. Yet clearly, one of the reasons for the growth of Islam over the past century has been that becoming a Muslim is a one-way street. Whether by birth or conversion (historically likely to have been a forced conversion) once you are a Muslim the only way out, under the Sharia, is death.

When Political Islam really does advocate jihad to achieve world domination, then anyone deeply concerned with humanity and human rights will be critical.

Of all the existing ideologies, Political Islam remains the greatest danger to humanity. Political Islam has been neither tamed nor moderated by progressive forces. It has the power to inspire the terrorist mind, and, through its ties to oil-rich states, the funds to pursue its plans.

Islamic apologists often claim that many so-called violations of human rights are based on a misreading of the Holy Quran and will quote this or that sura in its defense. But the arguments against Political Islam are not against the holy texts but against the Sharia as it is practiced today in Islamic states.

We are told that Islam is a religion of peace and that the struggle, jihad, to impose Islam by conquest is not to be taken literally. But for Political Islam it is. Ask the suicide bombers.

The only possible response to the charge of misunderstanding or misreading Islam is to look at the reality of what is happening in those countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and northern Nigeria where the Sharia now holds sway.

The world is a battleground of social movements and ideas. It took people in the west over 400 years of often-bloody struggle to gain the right to criticize Christianity. Even now, that right is still not fully recognized. In Britain, for example, there is still a law against blasphemy, and many Islamic clerics have argued that it should be extended to cover Islam as well. It should be scrapped. Once we are prevented from expressing our point of view in the market place of ideas we will be heading back to the Dark Ages.

We must recognize that we now live in a global community. Society is far larger, more diverse and far more complex than the primitive tribal society of 7th century Arabia that gave birth to Islam. It is time to renounce the idea that anyone should be ruled exclusively by the Sharia.

More than ever before, people need a secular state that respects freedom of religion, and freedom from religion for those that have none, and human rights founded on the principle that power belongs to the people. This means that we must reject the claims of the Islamists that sovereignty belongs exclusively to Allah – by which they mean His representatives, that is, themselves. Indeed it demands that the very concept of an Islamic state be challenged. The imposition of Sharia law for political ends must be opposed.

What is needed is nothing less than the secularization of Islamic society, and the establishment of the idea that individual conscience must be our guide and the judge of personal, private conduct.

But secularization cannot be imposed from outside by force. Attempts by America and its allies to impose democracy and human rights on the Islamic world will rightly be resisted as neocolonialism and will simply drive more and more Muslims into the arms of the extremists. The onus is on us to promote the ideals of personal freedom, progress and change from within Muslim society, with help from those in the rest of the world who share our ideals and hopes for the future.

We call on all Muslims and all who value freedom, democracy and human rights to support our campaign: NO to Political Islam, YES to Human Rights.

Political Islam by Committee for a Vision For Europe - Roy Brown

Political Islam

The Problem
The key strategies of the Islamists
Threats
A return to Europe's Christian roots is not the answer
Europe must remain secular
How Europe's Liberals must respond
Our key messages.

Details to follow. Bookmark this message.

Roy Brown of A Vision for Europe "five useful websites"

A Vision for Europe
www.avisionforeurope.org

We offer this Vision for Europe to the people of Europe as a restatement of our common values, the liberal values of individual freedom, democracy and the rule of law on which modern European civilisation is based. They are not the values of a single culture or tradition but are our shared values, the values that enable Europeans of all backgrounds, cultures and traditions to live together in peace and harmony.

International Humanist Ethical Union
www.iheu.org
IHEU is the world union of Humanist, rationalist, secular, ethical culture, atheist and freethought organizations. Our mission is to represent and support the global Humanist movement. Our goal is a Humanist world in which human rights are respected and all can live a life of dignity.


National Secular Society
www.secularism.org.uk
challenging religious privelege.

Ex-Muslim
www.ex-muslim.org.uk
We, non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims, are establishing or joining the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to insist that no one be pigeonholed as Muslims with culturally relative rights nor deemed to be represented by regressive Islamic organisations and 'Muslim community leaders'.

Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law.

By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism.

Whilst religion or the lack thereof is a private affair, the increasing intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration. We represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran. more ... Manifesto

No To Political Islam
www.ntpi.org

NO to Political Islam, YES to Human Rights

We, the undersigned, oppose Political Islam, its agenda of hatred and oppression, and its imposition of the most barbaric interpretation of Sharia law. We seek a future in which all people, men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, enjoy the benefits of equality, justice, democracy and human rights, and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression.

Political Islam is a movement that arose in the 1940s as a reaction to foreign domination and political corruption. Supported in the 1980s by western governments, it has grown in leaps and bounds since the Iranian revolution and the events following September 11th. But Political Islam is not the answer to either western arrogance or political corruption. It seeks to return Muslims to the dark ages, limiting educational opportunity, denying the right of women to participate fully as adults in the life of the community, denying equality to non-Muslims, and imposing its own brutal and outmoded interpretation of Sharia law on every aspect of public life. More...

Berlin Declaration “a victory for Secularism”

reposted from iheu.org/v4e

Roy Brown, ex President of the IHEU came to talk to Dorset Humanists today 8th September 2007 about the Brussels Declaration and Political Islam in Europe.

Berlin Declaration “a victory for Secularism”

"The Berlin Declaration is a victory for Secularism in Europe" said Roy Brown, coordinator of the Vision for Europe campaign, speaking from London last night. "The text, intended to pave the way for a new draft of the European constitution, emphasises the centrality of the individual, our ‘inalienable rights’ and the ‘inviolable dignity’ of the individual.

The Declaration contains no reference to God, religion, or to Europe’s supposed Christian heritage but clearly reflects the shared values expressed in the Brussels Declaration

launched by our campaign last month at the European Parliament. We congratulate the German chancellor Angela Merkel and our European colleagues for this outcome and we thank everyone who worked so hard for this welcome result.”

The victory for Secularism had seemed unlikely last Autumn when, following a meeting with the pope, the German Chancellor announced plans to revive the stalled project for a European constitution ‘with God included’.

The text of the Berlin Declaration was the subject of sometimes bitter debate behind closed doors between those who wanted it to contain references to God and to Europe’s Christian heritage, and those who saw any such references as potentially divisive. In the event it appears that good sense, assisted by a strong campaign by Europe’s secularists has prevailed.

The secular fight-back centred around the Vision for Europe campaign and the Brussels Declaration, a one-page restatement of Europe’s shared values: the dignity and autonomy of the individual, equality of the sexes, human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

The Brussels Declaration, a joint project sponsored by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the European Humanist Federation, Catholics for a Free Choice, and the European Parliament all-party group on Separation of Religion and Politics, received widespread support from politicians, academics, scientists, Nobel prize-winners, writers and journalists from across Europe.

It has been signed by more than 80 MEPs. The Brussels Declaration was presented to the representative of the German presidency at the European parliament on 27 February and was followed up by letters to all 27 European heads of government.

Sophie in’t Veld, chair of the parliamentary group, said "I am very pleased that the Berlin Declaration puts the dignity and rights of the individual center stage. Individual freedom, the right to one's own choices is the very essence of our European values. Freedom of religion is part of that individual freedom. Religious leaders of all corners of Europe are trying to turn the clock back by attacking individualism and the separation of church and state.”

David Pollock, president of the European Humanist Federation said: “This is a triumph for common sense but we cannot rest on our laurels. The forces of reaction will not have been silenced. Regardless of one’s personal views on the desirability of a new European constitution, all who oppose religious privilege must continue to work for a secular Europe”.

Here is the full text of the Berlin Declaration. (Translation courtesy of Times Online). The text of the Brussels Declaration is available on the Vision for Europe web site.

---

The Berlin Declaration

Europe was for centuries an Idea, a hope for freedom and understanding. This hope has been fulfilled. European unity has enabled us to live in peace and prosperity. It has created a community and overcome differences. Every member has helped to unite Europe and to strengthen democracy, the rule of law. We have to thank the love of freedom of the people of central and eastern Europe that Europe’s unnatural divisions are today finally overcome. With European unity, we have learned the lessons from our bloody conflicts and painful history. We live today together in a way that was never previously possible. We citizens of the European Union are united in our good fortune.

Section 1

In the European Union we realise our common ideals: for us the individual is central. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable. Women and men have equal rights. We strive for peace and freedom, for democracy and the rule of law, for mutual respect and responsibility, for prosperity and security, for tolerance and participation, justice and solidarity. We live and function together in the European Union in a unique way. This expresses itself in the democratic co-operation of member states and European institutions. The European Union is based on equal rights and solidarity. That is how we make possible a fair balance of interests between the member states. We uphold in the European Union the individuality and the diverse traditions of its members. The open frontiers and the lively diversity of languages, cultures and regions enrich us. Many goals cannot be achieved independently but only through common action. The European Union, the member states and their regions and local communities share these tasks.

Section 2

We face great challenges which cannot be confined to national frontiers. The European Union is our answer to them. Only together can we preserve our European social model in the future to the benefit of all citizens in the European Union. This European model unites economic success and social responsibility. The common market and the euro make us strong.

That is how we can shape the increasing worldwide interdependency of the economy and ever expanding competition on international markets according to our values. Europe’s wealth lies in the knowledge and abilities of its people; this is the key to growth, employment and social cohesion. We will jointly fight terrorism and organised crime. We will also defend our freedom and civil rights against their enemies. Racism and xenophobia must never again be given their chance. We will act to ensure that conflicts in the world are solved peacefully and that people do not become victims of war, terrorism or violence.

The European Union will promote freedom and development in the world. We want to push back poverty, hunger and disease. In doing so, we will continue to play a leading role. In energy policy and protection of the climate we want to go forward together and make our contribution to heading off the global threat of climate change.

Section 3

The European Union will continue to live in the future on the basis of its openness and the will of its members to strengthen together the inner development of the European Union. The European Union will continue to promote democracy, stability and prosperity beyond its frontiers. European unity has made reality out of a dream nurtured by earlier generations. Our history warns us that we have to protect this good fortune for future generations. We must continue to renew and update the political shape of Europe. That is why, 50 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, we are today united in the goal of achieving a renewed common foundation for the European Union before the elections to the European Parliament in 2009.

Because we know: Europe is our common future.

Click here to sign the Brussels Declaration