Summer of loving, fall of segregation

I'm a little late to the story, but it's a story that many of my readers should pay attention to. A judge in Louisiana has refused to many a couple of different races.

The judge, Keith Bardwell, is willing to marry couples of any race so long as they are of the same race.

He might have a rationale for his decision, but it isn't supported by American law. I am not sure if Loving V Virginia acts as a precedent in his state - I thought it would because it went to the supreme court, but am neither American nor a lawyer.

His rationale is that children of mixed-race will have more difficulty in growing up than pure blooded children. This is such a weak argument and I would love to see any evidence for it. Who amongst us is exclusively of one race? How many marriages of single race couples are perfect?

It's upsetting and it is well-covered in the K-blogosphere and beyond. ROK Drop, Dispatches, Pharyngula, CNN.

Perhaps this will bring the hows and why of getting married to the public's consciousness and might even get people to rethink gay marriage. If you have good arguments for allowing mixed race couples to marry, those arguments all apply to gay marriage as well.

---

UPDATED November 4, 2009:

The judge has resigned. His resignation letter contained one sentence and did not detail why.

News article here.

Blasphemy Day -September 30

As my reader(s) know, I am not a legal scholar and although I have thought about free speech and its limits, I have not done so to any great degree.

I certainly feel, though, that people have, or should have some protections that things or ideas do.

Ideas, like religious ideas, do not deserve whatever protection we might agree that people do. Blasphemy; making the insulting of someone's idea of God a crime, is a ridiculous law or concept.

My understanding is that people cannot libel the dead; they are not protected.

From the Facebook page "Blasphemy Day International":

Free speech is the foundation on which all other liberties rest. Without having the right to express our opinions, however unpopular, those willing to use political clout, violence, and threats will stifle dissent, and we must all suffer the consequences of this. As George Bernard Shaw quipped, "Every great truth begins as a blasphemy."

The UN, rather than standing up for free speech, has given in to pressure from Islamic nations and has proposed a resolution to essentially ban criticism of religion. In its pursuit of "tolerance" for religion, this resolution wants to strip everyone, everywhere, of their freedom, even their obligation, to criticize what they oppose. Unlike one’s political affiliation or favorite sports team, religion demands – and has been granted – unique immunity from criticism since its very inception. Labeling anything deemed critical "blasphemy", religions have effectively defined the boundaries for what can and can’t be said about them. We propose we knock down this barrier and break this spell. Religion is no more undeserving of criticism than anything else, and if people’s insecurities are upheld as a reason to stifle the expression of the equally sincere feelings of others, and indeed, the pursuit of truth itself, we will have forsaken our ideals in favor of one-sided and entirely undeserved sympathy. As Richard Dawkins noted,

"Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities but not to other kinds of sensibilities. If I say something offensive to religious people, I'll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for too long."

Blasphemy Day International is a day of protest against this UN Resolution, and against any attempt to stifle free speech. Please join this group. Whatever your beliefs – unless you're a raging, pro-censorship fundamentalist – the UN resolution, and laws against blasphemy, are an offense to humankind.

With that over with, allow me to repeat Jussi Halla-aho. The words below were judged by Finland's blasphemy laws to be illegal.

Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and islam revers pedophilia as a religion. Islam is a religion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is Allah’s will.

Are these statements illegal? They certainly insult muslim’s religious feelings. Let’s approach the issue logically:

As a 50 year-old man Muhammad was engaged to six or seven year old Aisha. Their marriage was “consummated” when Aisha was nine years old. It is possible to think that they were living in another age and Muhammad’s deeds must not be judged according to today’s standards, but as we have learned during the last few years, schoolbooks from the 50’s were racist when they spoke about ”negroes” (even if ”negro” was not a racist term at the time by anybody’s standards), it’s equally justified to call a child rapist who lived 1400 years ago a child rapist .´

What has to be done so that the bolded statements were not true? You must insist that

a) … Quran is not literally true (i.e Muhammad did not have sexual relations with a nine year old girl). This will not do, since according to Islamic doctrine and muslims’ opinion Quran is a literal word of Allah. Consummation and Aisha’s age cannot be denied without insulting muslims.

b) …Muhammad’s actions were not always acceptable. This will not do either, since according to muslims (and Tampere district court) criticizing Muhammad is the same as criticizing Allah and therefore blasphemy. The penalty is death. Muslim’s believe that Muhammad’s actions were the will of Allah. Because Muhammad had sexual relations with a child, that was Allah’s will as well.

As we see, all the argumentative ways to disprove the bolded statements have been theologically exhausted. The fact that Muhammad was a pedophile and Allah supported pedophilia can only be denied either by denying the literal truthfulness of Quran or Muhammad’s status as a messenger of Allah whose actions are according to the will of Allah.

Therefore I repeat my claim:

Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and islam revers pedophilia as a religion. Islam is a religion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is Allah’s will.

If Muhammad had sex with a nine year old, he was a pedophile. Apparently what I have just written is blasphemy. Happy Blasphemy Day!

First, I was a little athy...

Then I became athier. After some time, I was the athiest!



Also, in unrelated news, I am an atheist and today is apparently Atheist Pride Day.
-----

Wow, a whole lot of special days this spring. We've had White Day/ Pi Day, and Atheist Pride Day. Coming up are World Water Day (focusing on Transnational waters) and one of my favourite special days, April Fools Day. I'm having trouble coming up with a good prank.

I thought it was the non-Buddhists who were upset about the hiking fees.

The title is awkward or misleading, but "Buddhists angry again over temple entrance fees" in the Korea Times describes a problem that began two years ago.

Starting January 1, 2007, National Parks dropped their entrance fees but entry did not become free. Temples on the park grounds continued their fees (which had been about half of the original fee) and often increased them.

People have been upset about paying the fees to the temples when they visit the parks exclusively to hike and do not even go near the temples. More (actually, not much more, but..the same?) from this website at the time.

Finally, a group sued.

A provincial court’s ruling banning temples from collecting fees from mountain hikers has drawn strong protest from Buddhists.

The Jogye Order, the largest Buddhist sect in Korea, is even considering shutting down gateways to mountains owned by Buddhist temples.

The reaction came out after the Uijeongbu District Court ruled Tuesday that Jajaeam, a small temple on a mountain in Dongducheon, northeastern Gyeonggi Province, should return the entrance fee of 1,000 won ($0.65) each it had imposed on 22 climbers, who jointly filed a suit last August.

Commenters at the Korea Times are disgusted that the hikers are upset about such a small amount of money. I understand their (the commenter's) feelings but wonder if the hikers are more concerned about supporting Buddhism.

As a foreigner, Buddhism, even after ten years in-country, is novel and exciting for me. I don't mind giving them a little support.

At the same time, I am an atheist and unwilling to support religion in general and would not be eager to pay the fee if it supported a Christian church, for example. I understand that my viewpoint is contradictory but I hope it is not hypocritical. I am for supporting the temples for purely cultural reasons, even though I do not want to support any religion.

If the weather is good, I'll be hiking tomorrow at Seoraksan and I'll let you know about the fees there.

Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism and, uh, Manitou-ism, are all crazy-ass religious choices!

I may be in trouble.

UNITED NATIONS - Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.
...while the draft’s sponsors say it and earlier similar measures are aimed at preventing violence against worshippers regardless of religion, religious tolerance advocates warn the resolutions are being accumulated for a more sinister goal.

“It provides international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, and there are a number of people who are in prison today because they have been accused of committing blasphemy,” said Bennett Graham, international program director with the Becket Fund, a think tank aimed at promoting religious liberty.

“Those arrests are made legitimate by the UN body’s (effective) stamp of approval.”

I can still get away with titling a post as I did because "the current resolution is non-binding, Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan reminded the UN’s Human Rights Council this year that the OIC ultimately seeks a “new instrument or convention” on the issue. Such a measure would impose its terms on signatory states."

I am proud of Canada's response:

“Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings,” said Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.

“The focus (here) should not be on protecting religions, but rather on protecting the rights of the adherents of religions, including of people belonging to religious minorities, or people who may choose to change their religion, or not to practice religion at all."

From Canada.com and via Pharyngula

A counter-view

As an atheist, I would prefer a secular society. Most media I consume supports that preference.

It is refreshing to challenge myself with an alternative viewpoint that is well-thought-out.

Allow me to present Jean Bethke Elshtain on TVO's Big Ideas and her views on a middle ground between an entirely secular society and a theocracy.

A New Brunswick school decision has me facing my own prejudices

I've been following news stories about the removal of official prayer times from schools and the like for quite a while. Atheists do not work in a group with an established hierarchy but I followed the semblance of the party line in feeling that students are entirely welcome to pray at school, but that leaders -teachers, coaches and administration - should not lead such prayer.

My reason for this, again following the party line, is either the individual him/herself or that individual's parents should make decisions about religion. Even in a hypothetical town where everyone is Christian, it is unlikely that all will follow the same type of Christianity.

So, I'm for the removal of prayer from school.

A school in New Brunswick has removed the national anthem from opening announcements.

The principal's explanation doesn't really explain that much:

Whether to sing the national anthem appears to be a delicate matter in the small southern New Brunswick community.

Erik Millett, the school's principal, said he made the decision partly to accommodate parents who didn't want their children taking part in the daily anthem.

"We try to balance the needs of every student, and we want every student to feel welcome in our school," Millett said.

"And part of our school and included in that and if we need to make some accommodations or exceptions then we'll try to put those in place regardless of what the issue is."

At first, I thought the disapproving parents might be from foreign countries and not want their children to sing our anthem. To these, entirely hypothetical, parents, I quickly thought up a counter argument: that religious choice should exist everywhere but nations are not abstract, intangible creations. Well, they are partly, but even more, they are huge block of entirely tangible land. In most places in the world, you can choose your religion, you can even choose your nationality to some extent, but you are standing where you are standing. If you don't want our anthem, you should move.

Man, I've heard the latter bit of that argument stated against me many times (well, against atheists, not me directly that much).

I am confused. If I don't want prayer in school and I have reasons that seem quite solid to me, can I really complain about others not wanting the anthem?

No matter how patriotic you are, you have to admit that the anthem is not exactly part of the core reasons schools exist. O Canada isn't really "readin', ritin', 'rithmatic" (and I hate the way we dumb down the fundamentals of teaching to the three "R"s), is it? If the dissenting parents agreed to allow O Canada to be taught in music class, would that be so bad? Maybe I should have had it in a formal class setting because I now would likely sing it as poorly as Roseanne Barr sang her anthem in 1990 (I really recommend against listening to that clip, but she seemed to remember all the words, which I don't).

I gave a rebuttal to a reason that might not exist but I am having trouble thinking of any other reason and the principal was (admirably?) discrete on the subject. I recall some Jehovah's Witnesses in my elementary school class leaving the room during morning announcements - were they avoiding the national anthem? Are there possible religious reasons? Can I, personally, accept having the anthem taught only in music class and not required of all students (or require students to opt-out)?

I've got some thinking to do.

Two hobbies coming together

I have made a bit of a hobby of commenting on problems with religious practises and another hobby of commenting about Korean hiking fashions. Let's see if I can connect them.

"In recent years doctors and researchers have confronted an alarming consensus that billions of people, starting in infancy, are lacking Vitamin D and thus at risk for a host of health problems, including a shorter lifespan plagued with aches and pains. Women suffer from the deficiency more than men."

This is an excerpt from an article about the Burkhas that some Muslim women wear limiting the amount of Vitamin D that they produce.

I have already compared the clothes Korean women wear for hiking to Burkhas and I have also noticed that urban Koreans go out of their way to stay out of the way of the sun.

Anecdotally, it appears that more Korean women suffer from osteoporosis than do sun-loving Westerners. I wonder if there is a connection.

Article via Dododreams.

D&D players - lowest of the low

The Christian Children's Fund refused a donation of $17 000 as it came from D&D players- and therefore must be tainted with E~vil! (Via Pharyngula.)

This post is mostly a warning for an, um, acquaintance - surely I couldn't be friends with someone as anti-Christian as a D&D player. I mean, I don't believe in god; I am not Anti-god.

And to think that I had been so impressed with his petty vandalism!

Church of England apologizes to Charles Darwin

The Daily Mail uses the word ludicrous in the title of its article. The Vatican apologized to Galileo some time ago so it may be ludicrous but not unique. I might use the word ludicrous when describing the actions of religious groups but this is at least a step in the right direction.

Dr Brown writes: ‘People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches are no exception. When a big new idea emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights.

‘The Church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy and has since realised its error. Some Church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

'So it is important to think again about Darwin’s impact on religious thinking, then and now.’

Dr Brown argues that there is nothing incompatible between the scientific theories adopted by Darwin and Christian teaching.

In using "the Church" to describe the offender with regards to Galileo and Darwin, does the Church of England trace RC history as it's own until they split?

In reading the article, I think the goal of the apology was not to make Mathhew Chapman or the other descendents of Darwin feel better (although the Church would not be displeased with that outcome) but to show opposition to creationist Christians. Possibly after being an upstart youngster, the Anglicans want to be an elder statesmen to the modern anti-science upstarts.

If I had a soul, it would be filling with terror!

I learned a new word last week.

Somewhat before class, a student asked if we could have a "Yahweh" class.

Here is an approximation of my stream of consciousness:
Did she just say, "Yahweh"? Does she want a religion class; a Christianity class? What has she heard about me? Am I expected to discuss religion? This is a Christian university.uh, uh, what do I do? What do I do?

Turns out, the Korean word for 'outdoor' sounds similar to to the Christian word for God. It was a beautiful day and she wanted to slack off. Not willing to ask for the hour off, she did the next best thing and asked to go outside for class.
---___---
I am an atheist but that doesn't affect anything I teach. I have never bad mouthed religion, of any sort, in class.
---___---
Has anyone ever had a successful outdoor class - not one based on sports or relevant material, but simply generic material with the class held outside? If so, please give me advice on how to do that. I suspect I could give a good class outside but to do so takes a lot prep and good weather days are unpredictable -except this year when it is easiest to predict bad weather.

Does Buddhism get a free pass?

Hong-ryeon Am, part of Naksan Temple Complex

As an atheist, I am generally against religion but I would say I mostly condemn Christianity. I have stronger feelings about (and against) Islam but there are few Muslims around.

There are many Buddhists however.

In a recent blog post, Pharyngula's Paul Myers described listening to a Christian Radio Station discussing Atheism and one of the points brought up was Atheist's attacks on Christianity. Myers gave an appropriate response:

Aikman [on the radio] claims the atheists are bringing "pestilence", and claims that we only pick on Christians (what? What about Hitchens?) because Christians are so good and kind and generous and won't blow them up. We're already in stupid territory: the atheists criticize Christians because they are the dominant element in our culture.

Today, just naturally, I visited Naksan Temple and had a great time. We ate Bibim Rice and visited a few shrines where KwandongWife prayed (reason one for not attacking Buddhism - my wife is a small 'b' Buddhist).

I understand only the basics of Buddhism and approve of most of them. They don't exactly have a god (well, if you squint right). They believe in moderation, non-violence and the impermanence of things. So far I'm satisfied.

Buddhism has a thick outer shell of things I like, but it also has an small but integral core of, well, garbage. Reincarnation. You will be reborn and your actions in this life determine your starting point in the next life.

This might be a useful lie, encouraging good behaviour, but I wonder why I do not rail against it, as I have against the foolishness I have occasionally encountered from Christians?

Perhaps because most of the Buddhists I have met have been quiet about their religion; completely willing to discuss their faith but unwilling to volunteer. They answer questions happily but do not evangelize. Well, the ones I have met.

I wonder, am I being hypocritical by not inspecting the claims of Buddhists more closely?

Um, Happy Buddha's Birthday?