Will We Abandon The Enlightenment? by Les May

ON the first Easter Sunday we were together my wife rushed into the garden to tell me that the Pope was just about to give his address ‘Urbi et Orbi’, to the city and the world. I was baffled at her enthusiasm. Our mutual lack of understanding was because she had been brought up in the Roman Catholic tradition and I in the Anglican. It has not stopped us living in peace and harmony for 46 years. Nor has it meant that our ideas have remained fossilised in the past. But it’s a difference that had people imprisoned, tortured or burned at the stake 500 years ago.

The Reformation*, when Henry VIII broke with Rome and established himself as the head of the Anglican church, is seen by some as one of the most significant events in English history. But at this distance a more realistic appraisal is that it merely exchanged one form of intolerance for another; an insistence that one set of beliefs was the one true way, for another.

For the next 150 years the insistence that they, and they alone, knew the truth about how to worship their God drove those who happened to be in power at the time to impose their beliefs on the populace. Burning at the stake was in vogue during the reign of ‘Bloody Mary’, as she was called in my history book, but not that of my wife. During the heyday of Puritanism in the mid 17th century dancing and Christmas celebrations were forbidden, a bit like Jehovah’s Witnesses refusal to celebrate today, or the Taliban’s ban on pigeon flying.

And then it stopped; not all at once, not everywhere in the world, not even everywhere in Europe, but slowly this thing we call ‘The Enlightenment’ came into being. It wasn’t a single thing, but included a range of ideas centred on, sovereignty of reason, empirical investigation and the evidence of the senses as the primary sources of knowledge. It advanced ideals such as individual liberty, constitutional government, separation of religion and state, and toleration, including religious toleration. The countries where these conditions still do not exist are too well known for me to need to enumerate all of them; three will suffice, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Although The Enlightenment has dethroned religion as the sole arbiter of truth and knowledge its ideals of individual liberty and of religious tolerance has ensured that those so inclined can hold and practice their beliefs without persecution by the state, and the state will act to ensure that they are able to do so. It is no coincidence that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said; ‘We have to speak freely, I’m much more towards the US end of the spectrum on freedom of speech than I am elsewhere towards the other end. I think we have to be open to hearing things we really dislike’.

Even if many of a religious persuasion do not, Welby is aware that his Anglican faith benefits from that ideal of tolerance which those of us who do not share his beliefs attempt to give meaning to. Tolerance of other peoples’ beliefs and their practice of them does not mean that they should be immune to critical analysis or criticism. I believe that any claims about the existence or non-existence of transcendental beings or deities have no meaning in the absence of any empirical test to determine their veracity. But it does not stop me defending the rights of Christians to express their views on God’s opinion on homosexuality, even though I think they are nonsense, or defending Asia Bibi against persecution in Pakistan.

In other words the freedom that the followers of Islam, including those who reside in Batley and are demanding that the teacher who did something they dislike should be sacked, have to practice their beliefs in this country rests firmly upon ideals of The Enlightenment. Insisting that we in the UK abandon those ideals and adopt their own stance of intolerance towards those whose views we disapprove of will not serve them well. Anyone for banning Halal slaughter?

*****************************************************************

EDITOR'S FOOTNOTE:

* Dating the Reformation

Historians usually date the start of the Protestant Reformation to the 1517 publication of Martin Luther’s “95 Theses.” Its ending can be placed anywhere from the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, which allowed for the coexistence of Catholicism and Lutheranism in Germany, to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War. The key ideas of the Reformation—a call to purify the church and a belief that the Bible, not tradition, should be the sole source of spiritual authority—were not themselves novel. However, Luther and the other reformers became the first to skillfully use the power of the printing press to give their ideas a wide audience.

ASIA BIBI LEAVES PAKISTAN

ASIA BIBI, a Pakistani Christian woman who spent years on death row after being convicted of blasphemy, has left the country, officials have confirmed.

Her conviction was overturned last year by the Supreme Court.  She was originally convicted in 2010 after being accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad in a row with her neighbours.

Asia Bibi has always maintained her innocence in a case that has polarised Pakistan.
Pakistani government officials did not reveal her destination, or say when she left.

But her lawyer Saif ul Malook told the BBC she had already arrived in Canada, where two of her daughters are understood to have been granted asylum.

Asia Noreen - commonly known as Asia Bibi - was kept at a secret location while arrangements were made for her to leave the country.

The Supreme Court's quashing of her sentence last October led to violent protests by religious hardliners who support strong blasphemy laws, while more liberal sections of society urged her release.

The trial stemed from an argument Asia Bibi had with a group of women in June 2009.  They were harvesting fruit when a row broke out about a bucket of water. The women said that because she had used a cup, they could no longer touch it, as her faith had made it unclean.

Prosecutors alleged that in the row which followed, the women said Asia Bibi should convert to Islam and that she made offensive comments about the Prophet Muhammad in response.
She was later beaten up at her home, during which her accusers say she confessed to blasphemy. She was arrested after a police investigation.

Acquitting her, the Supreme Court said that the case was based on unreliable evidence and her confession was delivered in front of a crowd "threatening to kill her".

*******

Back To The Dark Ages?

by Les May

A WEEK or so ago Imran Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan said that his government was spearheading efforts to get countries to sign upto an ‘International Convention on Preventing the Defamation of Religions’. Given that he is the head of a country which has perhaps the vaguest and most draconian blasphemy laws in the world, this is not good news.

The depth of Pakistan’s commitment to religions other than Islam can perhaps best be judged from the fact that in May the Punjab assembly passed legislation with the title Compulsory Teaching of the Holy Qur’an Bill, which makes it mandatory for children to learn the Muslim religious text in schools. The bill incudes the passage ‘Being an Islamic country, the free and the compulsory teaching of Holy Qur’an will definitely be a source of the establishment of a society based on the teachings of Islam’.

No alternative programme has been announced for non-Muslim students of Punjab.

Khan’s real intention seems to be to protect both religious and political Islam from criticism in an effort to maintain peace in his country where rioters have taken to the streets to demand that a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, be hanged for blasphemy.

The notion that his words ‘There were prophets of Allah other [than Muhammad], but there is no mention of them in human history.  There is negligible mention of them. Moses is mentioned, but there is no mention of Jesus in history.  But the entire life of Muhammad, who was Allah's last prophet, is part of history.’ might be offensive to Christians and indeed to anyone who, to paraphrase Tom Paine, ‘refuses to have their lives willed away by the manuscript authority of the dead’, does not seem to have occurred to him. (If you are offended you’ll just have to do as I have had to do, ‘get over it’.)

Modern scholarship has a different view of the origins of Islam which throws doubt on Khan’s claim that Muhammad is ‘part of history’.  This is what Amazon has to say about the book The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History;

Despite Muhammad's exalted place in Islam, even today there is still surprisingly little actually known about this shadowy figure and the origins of the Qur'an because of an astounding lack of verifiable biographical material.  Furthermore, most of the existing biographical traditions that can be used to substantiate the life of Muhammad date to nearly two centuries after his death, a time when a powerful, expansive, and idealized empire had become synonymous with his name and vision - thus resulting in an exaggerated and often artificial characterization of the prophetic figure coupled with many questionable interpretations of the holy book of Islam.

On the basis of datable and localizable artifacts from the seventh and eighth centuries of the Christian era, many of the historical developments, misconceptions, and fallacies of Islam can now be seen in a different light.  Excavated coins that predate Islam and the old inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem utilize symbols used in a documented Syrian Arabic theology - a theology with Christian roots.

Interpreting traditional contexts of historical evidence and rereading passages of the Qur'an, the researchers in this thought-provoking volume unveil a surprising - and highly unconventional - picture of the very foundations of Islamic religious history.

https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Origins-Islam-Research-History/dp/1591026342?tag=firstthings20-20#customerReviews

This book would undoubtedly fall foul of any international convention which enacted what Imran Khan is proposing, because it strikes at the beliefs of many Muslims, by questioning the origin of their faith.  That would mean that the authors and the publishers would be liable to prosecution.  The answer is not to ban it, but to provide the evidence that it’s conclusions are wrong.

Sadly Khan is only takIng to its logical conclusion a trend which is already well established in the West.   Increasingly we have people trying to grab the moral high ground by claiming that something they read or hear, and do not like, is racist, anti-semitic, islamo-phobic, mysoginistic, trans-phobic, homo-phobic, patriarchal or in the latest catch all phrase, ‘hate speech’, and should not be said.

These terms have become the first response of people who seem to think they have the right never to be offended, but are seemingly unwilling to engage in any kind of debate which might change their perceptions. It is not just ‘activist’ groups which behave like this, it is the default position of many columnists in the mainstream press.

*********

Islamo-phobia or Fear of Political Islam?

by Les May

ACCORDING to 'Pakistan Today (PT)', Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, said at a conference a few days ago, “Moses got some mention, but Jesus Christ has no mention in history”, which may not be the most tactful thing to say in a country where mobs wander the streets demanding that Asia Bibi, who is a Christian, should be hanged for blasphemy even though the countrie’s Supreme Court has declared her innocent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXufFc-kAsc

Perhaps a little ‘tongue in cheek’ PT went on to say:

‘It merits a mention here that the two-day conference titled, "Finality of Prophethood and responsibilities of Muslims in light of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)", is the 43rd conference aimed at promoting religious harmony, tolerance, brotherhood and equality, respect for humanity, non-violence, unity, reconciliation and culture of dialogue’

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/11/21/video-pm-khan-draws-ire-over-controversial-remarks-about-jesus-christ/

What PT did not mention was that according to the 'Times of Israel', Imran Khan has also called for an international convention banning speech deemed insulting to Muslims.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/pakistani-pm-west-using-muslim-anger-over-blasphemy-to-spread-propaganda/

There is a direct translation of the relevant parts of his speech here;

https://www.memri.org/tv/pakistani-pm-imran-khan-no-mention-jesus-history-anti-free-speech-love-muhammad/transcript

What Khan is saying here is that the price for civil peace in Pakistan is our freedom of speech.  The people who have rioted and are demanding that Asia Bibi be hanged are by any reasonable measure on the extreme right wing politically. They make Tommy Robinson and his ilk look like babes in arms. Yet the Asia Bibi case has been largely ignored by the Left which seems more interested in building up Robinson’s profile.

One blog which claims to be ‘of liberal stance and independent mind’ has had a story about Robinson ever day this week, but has not found time to campaign on behalf of a woman who spent eight years in a cell with a death sentence hanging over her.

So far Robinson has not spotted the political capital to be made out of the Bibi case. If he ever does he’ll find that the Left has been too busy burnishing its anti-racist credentials to make any credible response to why it has not taken up the case for Asia Bibi and her family being offered asylum in the UK.

There is an alternative perspective on the Bibi story here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg-fJp_Lkts

Let Them Eat Cake

by Les May

A panel of five judges sitting as the Supreme Court yesterday gave a ruling which reinforces our right to free speech and ensures that we cannot be forced to express views that we disagree with.

The case revolved around a case where a Gareth Lee had placed an order for a cake decorated with the words ‘Support Gay Marriage’.  The owners of the bakery, Daniel and Amy McArthur declined the order because as Christians they were being expected to express a view that they disagreed with.

Lee argued that they were discriminating against him because he is a homosexual. Two lower courts accepted this argument but the Supreme Court did not.

The president of the Court Lady Hale said:

‘It is deeply humiliating to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief’.

‘But that is not what happened in this case. As to Mr Lee’s claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation’.

The court accepted the argument of the McArthur’s lawyer that forcing them to bake the cake would be forcing them to go against their religious beliefs.

Commenting on this ruling the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

‘Freedom of expression – including the right not to express a view – and freedom of belief are rightfully protected in a democratic society and this case demonstrates the need for a more nuanced debate about how we balance competing rights’.

Lee was trying to use the Courts to force the McArthur’s to accept his view of the world. It was the action of a bully. His mistake was to argue that the couple were being ‘homophobic’ when they simply had a different view about the world.   A view to which he took exception.

But as I have argued in another publication Lee’s approach is far from uncommon.

https://peacenews.info/node/9175/no-right-not-be-offended

Increasingly we see people who express a view which the listener or reader does not like being labelled as antisemitic, homophobic, islamophobic, mysoginistic or some similar pejorative epithet.

The courts ruling means that provided we do not discriminate against someone because of what they ARE, we will not find ourselves in court for expressing our dissent from the views they hold. Mr Lee should be happy about this. He can criticise the views about homosexuality held by some Christians to his heart’s content safe in the knowledge that he will not find himself in court for being Christianophobic.

I should say that I have always been a bit puzzled how some Christians know what God thinks about homosexuals as to the best of my knowledge he has never written an autobiography. Perhaps they have just read the wrong sort of biographies..

Russian supreme court bans Jehovah's Witnesses and orders seizure of group's property!

Russian courtroom April 2017: Photograph - Ivan Sekretarev /AP

The Russian supreme court has banned the religious group the Jehovah's Witnesses from operating in Russia by ordering the closure of its HQ and 395 local chapters. The order also calls for the seizure of the group's property including its religious literature.

The ban came after the justice ministry denounced the Jehovah's Witnesses as an extremist group. Svetlana Borisova, an attorney for the justice ministry, told the court that the Jehovah's Witnesses, "pose a threat to the rights of citizens, public order and public security." She also added that the group's opposition to blood transfusions violated Russian healthcare.

The Witnesses believe that the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church lies behind their persecution by the Russian authorities. The organisation claims to have around 170,000 adherents throughout Russia and they have said, that they will appeal against the ruling of the supreme court. If the ruling takes effect, Witnesses could face criminal prosecutions including fines and imprisonment.

Andrew Brown, a Guardian journalist, has pointed out that the persecution of the Jehovah's Witnesses by the Russian authorities, has been going on since at least 2004. Using anti-terror legislation, the Witnesses, a virulently pacifist and non-violent group, have been treated as though they were a group of violent religious fundamentalists who plant bombs and sever heads. Their meeting places, kingdom Halls, have been raided and their members threatened with imprisonment for refusing military service. Unlike many Christians, the Witnesses adhere to the 6th Commandment - "thou shalt not kill" and this adherence to non-violence, has made them one of the most persecuted Christian sects of the 20th century.

Under Hitler, Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany, were incarcerated in the Nazi death camps and were executed for refusing to serve in the military. They refused to swear loyalty to Hitler or any worldly government. As they wouldn't say "Heil Hitler", the Gestapo ransacked their meetings, made them wear a purple triangle and took their children off them, so they could receive "a proper patriotic German education." In 1942, Wolfgang Kusserow, a German Jehovah's Witness, was beheaded in Brandenburg prison by the Nazis for refusing to fight - "You must not kill", he said at his trial. "Did our creator have all this written down for the trees?" By the end of the war, half of all witnesses in Germany were in concentration camps and a quarter of them had died. They were also imprisoned in both Britain and the U.S.

Earlier this year, the Russian police stormed a meeting of Witnesses in the small town of 'Birobidzhan' in Siberia. They later claimed to have discovered 'extremists' literature. However, eyewitnesses who were present at the meeting, say the police were seen planiting the literature under a chair. The authorities then ordered that the building be closed. Other congregations in Belgorod, Stary Oskol and Elista, have also been closed down.and the organization has been told to disclose information on all of its 2,277 Russian congregations.

In April 1951, Joe Stalin exiled more than 9,000 Jehovah's Witnesses to Birobidzhan, a mosquito infested swampland in Siberia. They were only allowed to take 150kg of possession with them and everthying else, was confiscated by the Russian state.

Religious persecution is not something that is new in Russia. Baptists, Catholics, Proteststant, Dukhobors (spirit wrestlers') and even members of the Russian Orthodox Church, have all been persecuted at one time or another. However, the latest crackdown on the Jehovah's Witnesses, is seen by some as evidence of the resurgent power of the Orthodox Church and the increasing authoritarianism, of the kleptocratic, mafia-style Putin regime, which is seen to be behind the murders of many of the regimes political opponents, including Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned with polonium 210 in London in November 2006.

Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at Yale and author of 'On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century', notes how many European nationalists are eager to overturn the widespread view of the 1930's as a period of shame. In particular, he refers to Vladimir Putin's, rehabilitation of the philosopher of Russian fascism, 'Ivan Ilyin', who was influential eighty-years ago. Although he spent the 1930's exiled from the Soviet Union and was buried in Switzerland, Putin had him dug up, and his remains moved to Russia, where he layed flowers on his grave. In his speeches, Putin frequently quotes the Russian nationalist and fascist.

Russia prosecutors claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses destroy families, foster hatred and threaten lives, which is entirely refuted by the Witnesses themselves. Human Rights Watch, has denounced the supreme court decision as an impediment to religious freedom and association in Russia.