This page includes links to other sites, with comments about just how is it that, even today, religious belief can entail such barbarity and depravity -- beliefs that are state-subsidized, even in Canada!
My writings are in black. Plagiarized text is in maroon, sometimes highlighted by me in red.
Go Home. Go to Page contents near top of Page 10.
The Scientist - Theological Support of Stem Cell Research: http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2001/sep/comm1_010903.html The Scientist 15[17]:4, Sep. 3, 2001. By Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennett.
Pope John Paul II has stated that support of embryonic stem cell research evidences moral corruption. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have cast the debate surrounding this research as nothing but the next chapter in the abortion controversy. The ethical issues involved with this research, however, are far too complex to be reduced to such a simple assessment. Portraying the stem cell debate as the abortion controversy is at best intellectually misleading, at worst ethically negligent.
The stem cell debate has been framed by the wrong basic question: its moral heart lies not with abortion, but in its potential good. Stem cell research is morally significant first because it promises healing. Implanted stem cells, it appears, teach the body to heal itself, rejuvenating failing tissues, from organs to nerves. These therapies promise to ease the suffering of millions. . . .
It is our considered judgment that not only is this research morally permissible, there is an ethical and theological mandate to actively support it. To not support stem cell research, we have concluded, is unethical.
The principal grounding of our support is beneficence, a bioethical variant of the Christian understanding of agape love . . .
We human beings emulate God when we engage in our own ministry of healing. . . .
[I find this latter statement to be ridiculous. Who has this supposed God healed lately? What cancer has He cured? Which Holocaust victims did He help? I agree with the idea that we should support stem-cell research, because of beneficence. However, I do not agree with the idea that God is beneficent. He just passes by, without helping. Unlike God, the Good Samaritan does stop to help a person in need. God never does -- presumably, the Christian apologists say, because man has free will. The Good Samaritan did not use the excuse that, since the man in need had free will, he could not offer to help him. God seems to, though. Strange are these religious beliefs! Contradictory, too. For a bit more about this contradiction, see Proof that the God of Christianity cannot exist.]
Ted Peters, is professor of theology and director of the science and religion course program at the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley Calif. Gaymon Bennett is a theologian at the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.
Guardian Unlimited Special reports Don't leave morals to the madmen: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,182911,00.html Religious leaders have no role in ordering a just, modern society. A C Grayling, 22 Mar 00. The Guardian
Last week the government announced that it is to add a clause to its current education bill requiring that schools should promote marriage and "other stable relationships" as ideals, and should encourage pupils to delay engaging in sex until they are older. The proposal is a sop to those, chief among them the churches, who oppose repeal of the notorious section 28 which forbids "promotion of homosexuality" by public bodies.
Why are the churches given a privileged -- almost, indeed, an exclusive -- position in the social debate about morality, when they are arguably the least competent organisations to have it? . . .
But it can easily be shown that the churches are either largely irrelevant to genuine questions of morality, or are positively anti-moral. In modern, developed societies, personal autonomy, achievement in earning a living, providing for a family, saving against a rainy day, and being rewarded for success in one's career, are approved and enjoined.
Christian morality says the exact opposite. It tells people to consider the lilies of the field, which neither reap nor spin, and take no thought for the morrow. It tells believers to give all their possessions to the poor, warns that it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a well-off person to enter heaven, and preaches complete obedience to a deity. Such a morality is wholly opposed to the norms and practices of contemporary society. . . .
But religious morality is not merely irrelevant: it is anti-moral. The great moral questions of the present age are those about human rights, war, poverty, the vast disparities between rich and poor, the fact that somewhere in the third world a child dies every two-and-a-half seconds because of starvation or remediable disease. The churches' obsessions with pre-marital sex and whether divorced couples can remarry in church appears contemptible in the light of this mountain of human suffering and need. . . .
Religion can often be immoral, too. Elsewhere in the world, religious fundamentalists and fanatics incarcerate women, mutilate genitals, amputate hands, murder, bomb and terrorise in the name of their faith. It is a mistake to think that our own milk-and-water clerics would never conceive of doing likewise; it is not long in historical terms since Christian priests were burning people at the stake if they did not believe that wine turns to blood when a priest prays over it or -- more to the present point -- since they were whipping people and slitting their noses and ears for having sex outside marriage, or preaching that masturbation is worse than rape because at least the latter can result in pregnancy . . .
With such examples and contrasts, religion has very little to offer moral debate. . . .
Churchmen are people with avowedly ancient supernatural beliefs who rely on moral casuistry which is 2,000 years out of date; it is extraordinary that their views should be given precedence over those that could be drawn from the richness of thoughtful, educated, open-minded opinion otherwise available in society.
Dr Anthony Grayling lectures in philosophy at Birkbeck College, London.
For a critque of the slave morality of Christianity, see Emma Goldman and The Failure of Christianity.
Consider a major case closer to home. Canada publicly funds religious discrimination in its support of (Catholic-only) religious separate schools in Canada, in contravention of an international treaty signed with the United Nations. The UN has formally requested of Canada (for at least the last two years) that Canada end this obvious and blatant violation of human rights. Canada refuses to do so, based on its supposed inability to amend its own constitution, and on relationships with Ontario. Although several religious groups in Canada protest this arrangement, they do so primarily so that they can also obtain such subsidies - thus compounding the problem. I have not heard a single note of criticism of this obvious injustice from the Roman Catholic Church. There should be no public funding, nor endorsement of, religious indoctrination of any variety by the state.
To their credit (in my view, but not that of most church-goers) several major religious groups in Canada had presented the Prime Minister, in 1999, a request that the bombing of Yugoslavia be stopped, in the Canada and NATO war of aggression against Yugoslavia. It was established, at Nuremburg, that the most serious war crime is the starting of a war -- which is exactly what NATO did, in violation of its own Charter, and of international law. Yugoslavia had not attacked NATO, nor any other country.
A Roman Catholic bishop will appear in the dock today for the first time in modern French history, accused of knowingly covering up the crimes of a paedophile priest who had been telling his Church superiors of his sexual relations with young boys for more than 25 years.
Monsignor Pierre Pican, the bishop of Bayeux in Normandy, faces up to three years in jail in a landmark case that pits one of the essential tenets of Catholicism, the secrecy of the confessional, against the moral requirements of a secular justice system.
Mgr Pican will be asked to explain why he failed to report to the police the activities of Father René Bissey, sentenced to 18 years in jail last year for repeatedly raping one boy and sexually abusing 10 others between 1989 and 1996. . . .
This is one more case of the Church as an institution perverting the superior standards of a secular justice system.
Dawkins Leads Atheist Revolt Against 'Evil' Church Schools. [Free Republic]: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a7bba46cd.htm From: FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum". Source: Independent (UK) Published: 2/24/01 Author: Ben Russell.
Government plans to expand the number of Church secondary schools are "evil", the eminent scientist Richard Dawkins said yesterday. He is leading a growing intellectual revolt against plans to reform comprehensives, which include a clear commitment to single-faith schools.
Another academic, Anthony Grayling, a reader in philosophy at Birkbeck College, London, warned that young children were being "brainwashed" into accepting religious dogma which they could not evaluate for themselves.
Professor Dawkins, the Oxford University professor of the public understanding of science, attacked church schools as divisive, and Dr Grayling called for legislation preventing local authorities from promoting any organised faith. But Church leaders dismissed the arguments as "tired" and said they simply wanted to cater for demand among parents for a religious education.
Tony Blair has signalled support for more Church secondary schools as part of his drive to reform the comprehensive system outlined in a Green Paper this month. Religious schools were praised as were specialist secondaries which will be expanded as part of the biggest reform of secondary education for 50 years. . . .
Guardian Unlimited Special reports These myopic fools: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,190661,00.html Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim leaders queueing up to attack homosexuality are using the same emotional bigotry that they so readily condemn when it is used against their own religions.
. . . This tale starts when Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, complained at the 1987 Conservative conference that children 'are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'. The inescapable conclusion, that they don't have a right to be gay, formed the basis of her party's Section 28 ban on councils promoting homosexuality. (Since people can't be talked into becoming homosexual, 'promoting' seems merely to mean 'talking about'.) . . .
Guardian Unlimited Special reports Agnostic becomes BBC religious chief: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,520376,00.html Stephen Bates, Religious affairs correspondent, 12 July 01. The Guardian . . . Mr Bookbinder's appointment means that both he and Channel 4's head of religion, Elizabeth Clough, are non-believers. . . .
Then, 12 years later, we have Cardinal Thomas Winning: 'It pains me to use the word perverted when discussing the homosexual act but that's what it is -- I will not stand for this sort of behaviour.'
He went on in a later speech in Malta to compare gay campaigners to the fascist threat in 1940: 'In the place of the bombs of 50 years ago you find yourselves bombarded with images and ideas which are utterly alien.' Winning later denied he meant to compare gays with Nazis, though quite what else he could have meant is unclear.
. . . In their campaign against an unused but symbolic piece of legislation, a law which essentially says that gay people are lesser, all these leaders have offended not only homosexuals but also the liberal order which is everyone's main protection in a plural Britain. They are using their enemies' sword, arguing in ways which, if turned against their own lifestyles, they would find jaw-droppingly offensive. They are silly fools.
wfn.org The Suicide of a Catholic Bishop: http://www.wfn.org/1998/06/msg00128.html From the Worldwide Faith News archives www.wfn.org. 12 Jun 98. The Suicide of a Catholic Bishop May Result in New Efforts to Repeal Pakistan's Blasphemy Law. . . . protest a law that imposes death on anyone convicted of insulting Islam or its prophet, Mohammed, just days after the Catholic Bishop of Faisalabad, John Joseph, shot himself to protest the sentencing of a young Catholic man under the blasphemy law April 27. Joseph, 66, the chair of the Pakistani Catholic Bishops' Human Rights Commission, committed suicide in front of the courthouse where Ayub Masih was sentenced to death. Masih's case is currently on appeal to a higher court, though it was reportedly difficult to find a lawyer to file the appeal because of threats from extremist groups. . . .
Parts of Pakistan's blasphemy code date back to the 1860s, when it was put in place by British colonizers ** to curb Hindu-Muslim violence.
A judge who publicly criticized sections of the blasphemy code also was killed. . . .
** What an irony it is that the Christian being sentenced to death for violating a law against blasphemy was in violation of a law instituted by British colonizers (presumably Christians)!
It apears that the Dark Ages (when religion ruled the world) are not quite over yet. Lest we get too self-righteous, the Christian Bible also calls for the death penalty (usually with small stones) for violating any eight of the Ten Commandments, including worshipping any of the other gods except one. Or is it three in one?
The Secular Web - infidels.org: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=135 Dr. Younis Shaikh Has Been Sentenced to Death for Blasphemy. The Secular Web. The following is the text of an action alert from the International Humanist and Ethical Union Executive director Babu Gogineni.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is shocked by the conviction for blasphemy, and the award of the death penalty, to Dr. Yunis Shaikh on 18 August 2001 in Pakistan. Peace Activist and founder of the Progressive group 'Enlightenment', Dr. Yunis Shaikh has also been fined an equivalent of US Dollars 1500 by the Additional Sesions Judge, Islamabad, Mr. Safdar Hussain Malik. While a group of murderous and menacing fundamentalist clergy was present throughout the open court trial, thus intimidating the udge and the defence, the last two sittings of the Court itself were held in camera, and conducted in the premises of the Adiala jail itself where Dr. Shaikh has been lodged since his arrest in October 2000.
The civilised world should shudder at the news that in this Century a human being can be tried and eventually be killed by Pakistan's brutal Islamic State for merely saying that neither Prophet Mohammed nor his Parents could logically have been Muslims before Islam was revealed to the Prophet. *** The other charges of blasphemy against Dr. Shaikh's remarks - supposedly made in the course of a routine lecture he gave in a Medical college where he was a lecturer in Physiology - are equally ridiculous and malicious.
None of the complainants to the police were eyewitnesses to the alleged offence: the complaint was lodged by leaders of the Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-i-Nabuwat (Committee for the Protection of the Finality of the Prophethood), a conservative organization that is known to have harassed and attacked non-orthodox Muslims in the past. In the course of the trial, one of the witnesses to the prosecution was completely discredited, as it was shown that he was not present in class on the day Dr. Shaikh supposedly made his 'blasphemous remarks'. . . .
*** How does this differ from asserting that Moses was not a Christian? Or that the God of Christianity is not a Christian either! (Does God worship Christ?) It is not enough for apologists for Islam to say that this action is not Islamic. The Koran, as does the Bible, spells out the death penalty for such offences as blasphemy -- and for others. For more about these penalties, see Spare Not The Rod below.
Why do we in Ontario tolerate the state susidization of the indoctrination of such ridiculous religious superstition in our (Catholic) separate schools of Ontario -- in violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- rights which Canada is too timid tor impotent to enforce?
ON TARGET with Mr. G -- Post The Ten Commandments - Spare Not The Rod: http://www.americanatheist.org/columns/ontar5-28-01.html A Not-So-Modest Proposal -- POST THE COMMANDMENTS, SPARE NOT THE ROD! by Conrad F. Goeringer. American Atheist, A Journal of Atheist News and Thought. 27 May 01.
“It’s the Ten Commandments -- not the 10 Suggestions ... When God says it, it has the moral authority of the creator of the Universe. ..” -- Pat Robertson
Ever since a series of Supreme Court cases ended the practice of compelling youngsters to recite prayers or verses from the Bible during the school day, a debate has raged throughout American culture over the role of sacred texts and symbols in the public square.
Much of the acrimony in recent years has focused on the volatile issue of displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms, courthouses and other buildings identified with the power and authority of the state. The Decalogue is cited as reminders of the alleged “religious origins” of American society, or a prophylaxis against a rising tide of juvenile lawlessness and social disfunction. No sooner had the shootings at Columbine High School ended than Rep. Bob Barr (R- GA.) suggested that posting the Commandments may have stopped the teenage gunmen from their bloody killing spree. In Alabama, former Etowah County Judge Roy Moore belligerently defended his decision to display a hand-carved plaque representing the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, and parleyed his image as a sort of religious populist into successfully being elected as the state’s Chief Justice.
Congress has gotten into the act as well. Those “conservatives” who boast of their skepticism regarding big government and the intrusive powers of the state display a penchant for abandoning any ideological consistency when religious groups and practices are involved. In 1999, the House of Representative passed a measure encouraging states to promote the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. The measure was grandly dubbed “The Ten Commandments Defense Act,” and sponsored by a vocal supporter of Judge Moore, Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-ALA). Arguing passionately for the legislation, Aderholt took to the Congressional floor and blustered that the nation “was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles.”** He reminded those of us questioning the constitutionality of such state-sponsored religious cheerleading, “We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.” [** This is a popular myth. See , however, Founding fathers and early presidents were not pro-Christian, contrary to popular belief.]
While display of the Commandments has been cited as a potent instrument in fostering respect for legal and moral values, this seems not to be the case with a number of school districts and Decalogue display supporters who have become defiant, even rabble-rousing over the issue.
Five public schools in eastern Kentucky thought they might circumvent a Supreme Court ruling concerning the display of the Commandments by allowing “volunteers” to post and maintain copies of the Decalogue in school classrooms. This was their way of attempting a shabby legal end-run around the historic STONE v. GRAHAM decision rendered by the high court in 1980, which coincidentally found a Kentucky statute mandating display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms to be blatantly unconstitutional. The justices, seeming to anticipate many of the arguments floated by Commandments supporters, noted that they were “an undeniably sacred text” and “do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder...”
Pat Robertson, the man who founded the Christian Coalition and has declared America’s need to install a Christian government founded upon his version of godly religious principles [A frightening thought; maybe the Taliban can help give him advice on how they do it!] , is also a blustery supporter of displaying the Commandments. He compares the culture war over displaying the Decalogue to a populist revolution, and during an broadcast of his popular “700 Club” program informed viewers:
“Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say this very clearly. If the people of the United States -- all across America, in their churches and in their civic groups and in their legislatures -- decide that they’re not going to allow the Supreme Court to dominate their lives in the fashion that it has been in this nation, the Supreme Court does not have the power to change that. They are not going to be able to overturn the will of a hundred million American people. And I think the time has come that we throw off the shackles of this dictatorship that’s been imposed upon us.
“We had a war in 1776 that set us free from the shackles of the arbitrary rule of the British crown, and I think what’s going on in Corbin, Kentucky, boy, those people like to live free. And I think the time has come that we do that...”
Rallying around the public display of the Ten Commandments or other religious symbols has become de riguer for many religious causes, and politicians who see the issue as one which appeals to a consistent and energized voting block of sectarian supporters. The congressional representative, senator, mayor, school board member or other official who dares vote against displaying the Decalogue is portrayed as unwholesome, un-American, or some kind of secular humanist (or, “God” forbid, an Atheist!).
There may be a solution lurking here, though, that might appease any and all sides of this contentious issue.
Let’s post the Ten Commandments -- proudly, prominently and conspicuously -- along with the Godly penalties for disobeying them! Why do anything with anemic half-measure? If we wish to remind youngsters in schools, defendants in court or public officials contemplating issues of the Commandments’ true worth, let us also caution those who stray from the path of righteousness of the severe wrath they might risk.
We first, of course, must settle on which version of the Commandments to display.
Frank Zindler examined this predicament in an American Atheist Magazine article aptly entitled “The Ten Commandments -- Hang ’Em All!” There are not only competing versions of the list which has become known as “The Ten Commandments,” there may be even more to display, a third-set of cultic instructions found in Exodus. It contains orders to the faithful in how to deal with heretics, unbelievers and those of other religions, instructing the righteous, “But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down thy groves.”
Another one of these “other” Commandments reminds us: “Every first birth of the womb is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.”
The precise numerical sequence of the Commandments is even in question, a point made by Cliff Walker, Editor of Positive Atheism Magazine, in a delightful article, “Which Ten Commandments?” Protestants, Roman Catholics and Hebrews all differ over the number, sequence and content of their respective instructions from God.
But why let that stop us? Pick a set of Commandments -- any version -- and let’s get ’em up like Frank says with a list of the penalties. . . . And let us not hesitate to post with these divine instructions the god-decreed punishments for transgressions!
Praise Jehovah, and pass the stones, whips and hanging ropes! [Small stones are the best -- for killing you slowly. They are delivered by half-ton truckfulls to the appreciative crowds in at least one country today. I will add the precise reference (re Nigeria, among oythers). And you thought that pitching minor-league baseball was the most thrilling way to pitch!]
Let us also appreciate the fact that the God of the Ten Commandments and the Old Testament is not the whimpy, all-loving, pencil-necked savior who most people like to envision, and who ostensibly preached a doctrine of forgiveness and compassion. This deity is a Promise Keepers kinda’ guy -- strict, authoritarian, stern, and demanding allegiance and unconditional worship. From the very start of his to-do list passed on to Moses -- and this includes the fist set which Moses smashed in a fit of rage because his fellow Israelites chose instead the sybaritic lifestyle and worship of pagan images -- Jehovah says that he, and he alone is to be the one, true object of uncritical human adoration. This becomes clear in both the Protestant and Catholic versions of the Commandments, although in the Hebrew edition, God saves the “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” diktat as the second point.
Taking the standard Ten Commandments though as Pat Robertson or the local Archbishop might have them posted, death and destruction await those who disobey eight of them.
The billions of Moslems, Hindus, Shintoists and various pagans and heretics, for instance, worship other deities “save unto the Lord,” and in Exodus 22:20 are given the fate of being “utterly destroyed.” Blasphemy against the Lord means that the transgressor “shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 31:15), and those uppity youngsters who refuse to obey the instructions of parents “shall be surely put to death” as well. Even cursing an abusive parent, or striking a parent (perhaps in self defense?) warrants the penalty of death as well, proscribed in Exodus 21: 17-19. . . .
There seems to be no penalty, however, for killing, which surely is a serious affair if even done in the service of preservation or just cause. It could be that this absence is explained by the fact that killing is a penalty for disobeying so many of the Commandments. Was Jehovah immersed in his own personal rage when he handed Moses this instruction, that He missed the inconsistency?
Two other violations of Biblical law, homosexuality and adultery follow next in the various tables and Commandments provided to Moses, and both of these warrant death as well. It has become fashionable in some denominations to explain away the prohibition in Leviticus 20:13:
“If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall purely be put to death.”
It really requires some verbal gymnastics and doctrinal legerdemain to explain this, how Christianity -- presumably the inspired word of the God of the Universe -- does not condemn homosexuals, and the issue has divided denominations throughout the country. The spectacles of gays and lesbians worshipping in the confines of a church, or being ordained in some “inclusive” ministry puzzles me to this day. Wasn’t it W.C. Fields who said that he would never join a group that did not want him? [It is equally puzzling to me why women think that they should be able to become priests in the Catholic Church, when its basic tenets absolutely forbid this. Why don't they join another church? Maybe they are under the false impression that the Church is a democracy! When you possess the Absolute Truth, the last thing that you want is a democracy! You need an absolute dictatorship. Appropriately, that is what the Church is -- in doctrinal matters, at the very least.]
What a sequel it would make for “Cheaters” or “Fatal Attraction” if a godly society carried out the instructions of the sixth or seventh Commandment . . . ! No sooner is Divorce Court concluded than the will of Jehovah is executed in accordance with Leviticus 20:10. “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” . . .
Many Christians fret over the “morality of the death penalty,” despite the fact that as a punishment, it is replete throughout the Old Testament. Ideological consistency requires that if we acknowledge the legitimacy and power of the Ten Commandments in our society, we also pay heed to the punishments. . . .
I personally think that the Commandments are not inspired by any God, that they serve no humane purpose, and their display in the public square is clearly religious and violates the separation of church and state. If we are going to display them, however, do so blatantly and unabashedly! Many churches and political groups, and not a few elected officials, have endorsed the “Hang Ten” campaign sponsored by the Family Research Council. Any Ten Commandments tableau should also include, in equally large type with citation from the “good book,” the specified penalties for those who transgress and disobey.
After all, if we hang the Ten Commandments, shouldn’t we also advise those who disobey that they, too, may end up hanging?
[I am not sure which 'sacred' book -- and the religions*** upon which they are founded -- is more barbaric and depraved -- the Bible or the Koran. Do you? *** Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.]
http--www.atheists.org-flash.line-koran1.htm: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/koran1.htm American Atheists Flashline. KORAN PARODY WEB SITE UP AND RUNNING IN THE U.K. -- NEW PROVIDER PROMISES (FOR NOW) TO REFRAIN FROM CENSORSHIP. Islamic bullies intimidated America OnLine into shutting down a web site which "insulted" the Koran. Now, the SuraLikeit pages are operating in Britain. Muslim authoritarians have protested to that ISP as well. Will Islamists permit any critical discussion of their intolerant faith?
End of part 95 of 60 of Religion Page 95.
Go to Links: more current abuses near top of this Page 95.
Go Home. Go to Page contents or Articles by Wayne near top of Page 10.
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca