Irish parliament passes Blasphemy Bill

It’s sad day today. The Irish parliament has just passed a Blasphemy Bill, making it a criminal offence to ‘offend’ religious belief. It’s still to go to the Irish senate before the President of Ireland signs it into law. But don`t get your hopes up. The vote in the Irish senate is scheduled for tomorrow morning. Apparently, someone is in a real hurry to destroy free speech… 

Non-religionists are once again second-class citizens in Ireland and superstitions of every ilk will soon be protected by law.

If I were a drinking man, today I would attempt to find solace in the bottle. It is exasperating that this is happening in 2009. Follow the latest developments here.

Early Christian Church a Minor Cult until the 4th Century

This article appeared today in the Reformed Daily , a newspaper mostly read by the ultra-orthodox Calvinists in the Netherlands. I read it online because occasionally, just occasionally. It gives the game away.

The translation (of part of the article) is mine & I make no claim to any copyright, my comments in bold.

ALPHEN – The idea that the Early Church quickly conquered the world during a period of permanent persecution is erroneous. There was little persecution in the early years, and Christianity only grew very slowly.  Well into the third century, it was much smaller than Judaism. which means it was minor. As in very minor.  

Dr. E. P. Meijering, Reader Emeritus at Leyden University and visiting professor at the Free University of Amsterdam said so this Tuesday on the first day of the national summer-conference of the Reformed Student Society CSFR. He held a lecture to an audience of about a hundred students in Alphen concerning the historical context of the Early Church, titled: ”In the beginning”. Cute

He illustrated the growth of early Christianity with some statistics. With the total population of the Roman Empire being roughly around 60 million, the number of Christians around the year 100 AD totalled no more than 10,000.  (1 in 6,000) Around the year 200,  there are 200.000 (0.33%) and only around the year 300 there are as many Christians as Jews – around 6 to 9 million (10 to 15%). The number of Christians increases to 50% of the population during the 4th century, but Dr, Meyering questioned the sincerity of many of these conversions. (which, dr. Meyering, may have something to do with the fact that Christianity, when it was spreading ‘peacefully’ was spread at the tip of the sword by Theodosius I – who turned Nicene Christianity into a State Religion. But a nice touch of you to malign the ‘sincerity’ of those who were with brutal violence forced to convert to your creed.)

The Reader Emeritus has also researched the development of doctrine in the Church. “Small groups of Christians lived, spread out over the entire Roman Empire, often quite ignorant of each other’s existence.” (In other words, there was no such thing as a Church for many centuries!) They also did not have the same writings as what we would now call the New Testament. (There was no Church, there was no Bible, Christians made up both as they went along!)  Different congregations could therefore come to vast differences in doctrine. (There was no Church, there was no Bible, there was no Theology) They had to come together to come to shared norms – and lay down what was really part of the Christian life (because they had no clue, really)

The article goes on to say that the first time Christians came together to agree upon books, some organizational consistency, and some kind of doctrinal agreement was under the pressure of Gnosticism. This didn`t happen until well into the fourth century. And it was only under pressure from Gnostics that the Church, according to dr. Meyering: “accepted those Scriptures which assumed Christ - being God – had a human body”, for only in this way could Gnosticism be condemned as ‘heresy’.  In other words: the Christian faith was invented well into the fourth century, there were christians, but no christianity.  

All in all, the following conclusions can be made:

For almost three centuries, Christianity barely existed, it was just one of many ‘dying and ressurected god’ cults coming from the East. It probably wasn`t until late in the thrid century that they even managed to get over the half-million adherents – 1% of all Romans. Even in the fourth century it was pretty marginal – and had some pretty fierce competition. When it manipulated its way into being a State Religion all bets were off and the competition was put to the sword. Judaism was formally repressed within a century, when the last Patriarch of the Sanhedrin, Gamaliel VI, was executed by Emperor Theodosius II. Easy-going Paganism, too, was proscribed, and finally, a hundred years after the death of Gamaliel VI, Christianity managed to snuff out the last remaining light in Europe when it closed the Platonic Academy – and Europe entered a period of darkness that was to last almost a thousand years. A small, marginal, faintly ridiculous death cult believing in talking snakes, forbidden apples and magic fun places in the sky, as well as dying gods - animated by the fanatical love for martyrdom and an irredeemable hatred of knowledge, light, love and life, raised itself up as an enduring monument to the gullibility of man – and we’re still paying the price.

LOL

Charity and Love? Not for Atheists!

Apparently, the Romanists have taken a little break from magicking their God into biscuits or aiding and abetting child rape by drafting yet another document telling the world how to behave. It’s called Caritas in Veritate and so-called progressives have been drooling over it already, wishing to enlist the pomp and circumstance of Rome in their own struggles against greedy bankers.

Upon closer reading the document is nothing of that but in effect claims that charity and love are the exclusive domain of those who have the Truth (that is:  truth as understood by someone who believes cookies magically change in the flesh and blood of their god if their shaman, who can`t have sex, speaks special magic words over them). The Grand Poobah says so  himself:

“Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite.”

In other words, non-believers can`t love, and can`t do good. If they love, they only love by accident – but more likely out of a deranged emotion. If they do good, it is out of mere sentimentalism. This is a calculated insult. But that’s not all, if only that were all:

Development, social well-being, the search for a satisfactory solution to the grave socio-economic problems besetting humanity, all need this truth. What they need even more is that this truth should be loved and demonstrated. Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation, especially in a globalized society at difficult times like the present.

 Non-believers are incapable of love and charity, so do not have a social conscience either. Only those who have the ‘truth’ have a social conscience. Non-believers are therefore the enemies of society, understood as to their meaning, these words are a direct call to freeze non-believers out of the public sphere. Because only believers can possibly know what is good for society. But don`t wait here. There’s worse to come:

Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have.

By so many words, a Christian vote is ‘hence’ worth more than a secular vote. Confessional parties are morally superior over secular parties. There is no level playing field. There’s no talk of equal rights. The meek and mild Catholic here unveils himself as an uebermensch who, by right, must be obeyed. He, after all, has a privileged access to ‘the truth’ as if he were a Guardian of Plato’s Republic. If only it stopped here. But no.

Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it.

Truth, therefore, has nothing to do with knowledge. Blind faith is extolled, and the Pope says in so many words that non-believers apart from not loving, not knowing any justice and being by definition, inferior citizens, cannot even know any values. The non-believer is not a fellow human being, he is little more than an animal, to be controlled for his own good. 

. A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism.

And humanists therefore inhuman.

Only a humanism open to the Absolute can guide us in the promotion and building of forms of social and civic life — structures, institutions, culture and ethos — without exposing us to the risk of becoming ensnared by the fashions of the moment.

Such institutions as the Crusades, and the Inquisition, and the Index of Forbidden Books, and the Papal States, and those homes for orphans where those Irish children were so well taken care off … oh no wait…

All things put together it is unsuprising that top priority should be given to fighting non-believers, because they are the first and foremost enemy of ‘the truth’:

Yet it should be added that, as well as religious fanaticism that in some contexts impedes the exercise of the right to religious freedom, so too the deliberate promotion of religious indifference or practical atheism on the part of many countries obstructs the requirements for the development of peoples, depriving them of spiritual and human resources.

Mind that in Rome ‘promotion’ means bare toleration. Lawmakers which fail to bring to bear enough Hate for the Gay are accused of ‘promoting’ homosexuality. So too laws which serve to curb religionists’ privileges, or laws that simply seek to guarantee equal rights for non believers are in the selfsame sense ‘promotions’ of ‘inhuman humanism’ which is apparently at the same level of religious extremism. Failing to pass a Blasphemy Law is then the same thing as ramming a few Boeings into the Twin Towers. Or maybe even worse.

The Catholic Church therefore is now calling for an end to toleration of non-believers. This is an extreme and hateful document. It tells us non-believers (and by extension non-Catholics) are inhuman, are incapable of doing any good, or if accidentally doing some good, doing it out of ignorance or sentimentality, do not love, nor know any values. It tells us that scepticism and empiricism – the two guides of any reasonable person – are the sworn enemies of any Christian. It tells us that humanists are inferior citizens to confessionalists. It tells us that any law which even tolerates non-belief is an intrinsic evil. It tells us humanists aren`t really human. It’s therefore easy to see why humanists shouldn`t be granted freedom of conscience: they don`t have a conscience!

And there you were thinking that this was about a renewed ethical impetus for the financial world. And there you were thinking the Catholic Church was a milk-and-water affair that was quite harmless really. The conclusion is inescapable: The only reason the Catholic church is harmless is because it is powerless. It has not dropped any of its old claims to be the sole judge of right and wrong, it would be a great mistake for humanists of any colour to have any truck with it, or appreciation for it.

New Blasphemy Law Imminent

If you thought Ireland was a modern country: think again. The Irish Government is working hard at banning “blasphemous libel”. The original bill envisaged a maximum punishment of fines of up to €100,000 and a custodial sentence. Apparently they have now ‘compromised’ and insulting a non-existent God cannow be punished with a fine of a mere €25,000.

The proposal is so extreme that even the Roman Catholic Church claims to have no knowledge of the Bill’s preparation, and are refusing to say whether they support it. The only ones who applaud it are the fundamentalists behind the so-called Muslim Political Action Committee – who are now openly planning to use this new law to have skeptics and critics of their delusional and false religion persecuted. Time and again we hear the lie that organised religion is a good thing, or at most harmless. Organized religions will use their organized clout again and again to curry favour, influence legislation, carve out privileges for themselves and attempt to control the body politic: to the detriment of non-believers. 

Only a few days ago I felt like moderation, not rocking the boat and the like. Now I`m just disgusted by this naked power-grab that the cowards in the Irish parliament are allowing to pass. But one bit of comfort may be derived from the fact that is implied in every Blasphemy Law. Organized Religion being essentially based on blind faith, blind habit and metaphysical intimidation, cannot stand on its own two feet.  It will need to be backed up by violence, intimidation,  punitive laws or hate speech. Blasphemy Laws prove the philosophical and moral bankruptcy of organized religion.

I for my sake have donated a few euros to our Irish humanist friends. They need all the help they can get. Please join them in this struggle.

Amsterdam Alderman discusses ‘HIV-healings’ in churches

And the interesting thing is that the Christian parties aren`t crying foul, apparently it is too embarassing to pull the ‘government has no business interfering with the churches’ card. In Amsterdam there are quite a few evangelical churches, mostly attended by Carribeans and Nigerians, who are up to their neck in faith-healing. Over the last year or so a number of ‘pastors’ are now going round saying they can heal people of HIV/Aids and pretty much order them to stop going to the doctor.

Alderman Ossel is now going to talk to the churches in question in an effort to mend their way. I’d prefer it if he just barged in with an order closing down those cesspits as directly endangering the public’s health. But I guess that’s just me.

On a lighter note – the Amsterdam area where these healings take place is also home to a viciously anti-gay evangelical ex-prostitute who has now started her own political party. As it is, she is married to someone who claims to have been faith-healed of HIV/Aids. True the commandments of her god I take it that he and her are hard at work at being fruitful and multiplying, without the use of the Condoms of Wickedness.

So yeah, one more problem is quite busy solving itself. I hope she finds ‘consolation’ in the religion that she is using to destroy both herself and others.

On the reading list.

I have ordered a copy of the above book: Alister McGrath’s Twilight of Atheism. Back in the day, I thought his Anti-Dawkins book rather good – but then I hadn`t crossed the floor yet. Alister McGrath has a sharp intellect – and for anyone interested in the field his Introduction to Christian Theology  remains one of the best primers in that field. I wanted to study theology actually. I am now quite glad I didn`t. A faithless theologian – though not very rare – does make for a sorry site.

Anyway, I`m quite keen to read what McGrath makes of atheism, and whether or not his arguments stand up. I hope to analyze the above in the coming weeks in a series of posts.

Also, I saw I got two readers on this blog yesterday. That makes one of you the first to set eyes on it. Congratulations!

I`m Impressed

I mean, seriously. How cool is that?

Evangelical Broadcasting Society loses members

Well, the figures are out – and they’re clear as can be. the Dutch Evangelical Broadcasting Society (Evangelische Omroep) has haemmorhaged 36,876 members and is hence the biggest loser among confessional broadcasting societies.

This is important because in the Netherlands  membership numbers determine the amount and quality of broadcasting slots a society gets. Fewer members – less hours of evangelical broadcasting! It suggests the mass support among conservative churchlets for the ‘EO’ has reached its peak – and is now slipping away.

Also the Catholic Broadcasting Society KRO has lost 20,000 members and is no longer the largest society in the Netherlands - that position now being taken up by the non-confessional TROS society.  The KRO’s losses are, I suppose, mostly to do with the fact that their membership is relatively high among the aged.  

Biggest loser, though, is the VARA (formerly social-democratic, now just mostly toe-curlingly politically correct) which has lost almost 60.000 members. Tough for them. But I`ll raise my glass tonight to the fact that regardless of all the slick moves the EO had been pulling to convince the masses that Christianity is the coolest faith around – it hasn`t worked. Secularism just keeps biting them in the behind!

So cheers to that!

How I got here

I remember having been very unpleasant at one point to dr. PZ Myers of the Pharyngula blog. Roughly about the time when he dissed the Holy Cracker – I still believed in Holy Crackers back then and the Magic with which priests were embued. Looking back it’s all very amusing, and strange. And I wonder how ever I managed to believe the absurdities I was fanatically devoted to. The psychology behind it must be fascinating.

Part of it was perhaps I didn`t appreciate his style. Dr. Myers can often be very abrasive and his sarcasm is not always a very attractive trait. I still have many religious friends – most have figured out I`m no longer as active as I was and don`t appreciate being interrogated as to whether I still actually believe Doctrine X or Dogma Y with the fervour of which I once did. I can still appreciate some liturgical actions rather as one can admire a beautiful soliloquy – the music of Bach did no become less beautiful because I no longer subscribe to the sentiments which they express.  I`m not one for rudeness, much. I think Dawkins’ work actually put me off atheism. I still think it a quite overrated book in many regards. Maybe I`ll write a better one someday. Maybe

At the same time I`m weary of this automatical respect that faith traditions seem to have acquired – regardless of the substantive content of  their creed and practice. Without going so far as to say religion cannot possibly do any good – a kind of poison-well argument – I have grown very sceptical about the use and morality of religious traditions. Although I don`t care for abrasiveness I`m not one for disingenious pussyfooting either.

Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we’ll see what this blog will turn out to be like.