copy of December 8, 2010 email to Reza Aslan:
To Mr. Aslan,
I just want to preface this email by stating that I do not wish to be your gay lover. I know you've written to other people with this type of reply, so let's get that out of the way up front.
I am writing to respond to your article at
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/harris_hitchens_dawkins_dennett_evangelical_atheists.html
where you state several things, but near the end you say the following: "...What the new atheists do not do, and what makes them so much like the religious fundamentalists they abhor, is admit that all metaphysical claims--be they about the possibility of a transcendent presence in the universe or the birth of the incarnate God on earth--are ultimately unknowable and, perhaps, beyond the purview of science. That may not be a slogan easily pasted on the side of a bus. But it is the hallmark of the scientific intellect..."
In college you learned very big words you could use. Harvard was useful for that, and so was the University of California.
Big words can be used to supplicate and provide pabulum to the audiences who enjoy your works & speeches very much, but they can also be used to hide your own lack of contextual knowledge about the subjects you claim to be a scholar of, and about subjects you're not an expert in but upon which you nevertheless speak.
If you are claiming that there is a multidimensional alien god who created the Universe, a giant alien termite who produces universes out of it's rear end, you are making a physical scientific claim.
If you are claiming that a bearded alien god creature visited Earth about 2000 years ago, you are making a physical scientific claim.
If you are claiming that there is a realm outside of the physical world we know of, you are making a claim about the physical nature of the universe, and thus a scientific claim.
The key aspect of science which your article failed to address is that science can address the issue of probabilities. What is the probability that an alien god creature came to Earth 2000 years ago (ie: Jesus)? What is the probability that that same alien also came to America (as is claimed by Mormons - that Jesus visited the Indians in America)? What is the probability that a different alien spoke to Mohammad (different than the one who came to America & so on)? And what is the probability that both the claims of Mormonism & Islam are simultaneously true? These are real concrete questions which can be addressed in a reasonable and thoughtful way. And they have pretty easy answers.
Is the Mormon God the same as the Catholic God? No. The Mormon God had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus (as per advanced Mormon doctrine). Whereas the such a concept in Catholicism would be considered sacrilege. Did the Mormon God dictate the Quran to Mohammad? No, not according to the Mormons. Did Allah, the god of Mohammad, dictate the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith? No, not according to Muslims worldwide. And so on.
You are correct in part, in your implication that religion is a natural phenomenon, and Daniel Dennett has spoken about this.
Your claims that religionists don't understand what religion is, yes, that may be true. They may be unable to take a step back.
But, religionists make real physical concrete claims about the nature of existence, about alien creatures who may or may not have created the Universe, visited Earth, had influence upon human affairs, and so on. Each religion has it's own specific real physical claims about the nature of existence, and many of their claims are mutually exclusive.
Your own "fundamentalism" is your claim that science cannot address these various claims of the various religions. You appear to claim that there is a non-overlapping magesteria.
There is a universality in that their claims (all religious claims about the nature of creation & their god creatures) are all mostly bogus, with the small exception of the few Unitarian Unviersalist types and defacto atheist types who are culturally religious (like reportedly the astronomer royal for Anglicanism) -- people who solely define god as either love, sex, or the Universe.
Most religionists do not make a direct equivalence between the word "god" and the universe, or the word "god" and love or the word "god" and sex. Krista Tippett in her banal public radio program previously known as Speaking of Faith talks about this type of god, where god = solely the universe, love, sex. But these types of definitions do not do justice nor do they accurately describe the gods that most religionists claim to believe in.
In the rather highly animated verbally aggressive tonalities that you use in discussions and debates with those with whom you disagree, you never really talk much about what your own views are, and you never really talk much about what exactly the views are of those you act as an apologist for.
It seems disingenuous and strange to simultaneously be an apologist for Islam while at the same time accusing your own Muslim religionists of not understanding what religion is.
Here are some key questions I have for you:
Are the mosques you support and calibrate gender equal? Do they engage in gender apartheid or not? Do the mosques you calibrate and support encourage or discourage the veil? These it seems to me are key questions.
And as to the nature of what you call god, you should provide a better definition of what you're talking about. Just solely have your god be a "sense of transcendence" is absolutely not the god that is described in the Quran, nor in the Bible, nor in the Book of Mormon. People who actually believe what these books say are engaged in the religious experience. And since not all religions are equal, some religious beliefs can be more damaging & abusive than others.
Just because people react in a naturally tribal & violent manner in response to cartoons of their prophet, just because their actions are explainable, does not mean their actions are justifiable. Reference the work of Steven Pinker regarding how the moral zeitgeist of humanity has progressed and improved over time. You should not be an apologist for those groups of humans who haven't quite caught up with the rest of us morally.
Islam is at a different point in it's history. Christianity had a Reformation & Enlightenment. Islam has not, or it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one if we are willing to be honest.
You have jumped into and have been accepted by a liberal consensus that seeks to engage in rather highfalutin doublespeek and doublethink regarding Islam, by trying to separate out the violence done in the name of Islam and because of Islam and calling that violence by other names instead - so as to apologize for Islam and to shield Islam.
The newly repetitious & disturbing nature of native born Islamic terrorists in the U.S. is one key trait you should examine, if you're willing to be truly scholarly. But to be an honest scholar, you need to learn to take a step back yourself, from the self-loathing self-hating liberal consensus, and from Ivory Tower infected with cultural & moral relativism.
High minded academics at ivy league divinity schools may view religion as a cultural and natural phenomenon, which it is (as per Dennett's book on the issue). But people IN the religions are living them on a real basis, day to day. You and your buddies at Harvard are not.
And since not all religions have an equal ability to help humanity thrive, it's worth making exact note of which aspects of all religions either help humans be happy or not, thrive or not, and so on.
You came to America from Iran. You encountered and dove into our Ivory Tower with glee. And now you jet set around the world and the county as a result. Good for you. But as you ask the religious to take a step back so should you from the institutions here that gave your career birth.
To conclude this email, allow me to state that I'm going to post this email on my own blog, so that it's content will be of value to others, and in the event that your own reply is lacking. Should you choose to reply in a flippant tone which belies your supposed scholarly credentials I will not be surprised.
Are you curious about what your critics say, or do you just dismiss all of what they say out of hand with crass over the top responses?
On a more serious note, the native born jihadies in America seeking to destroy do take some solace and succor from the self hating nature of the liberal consensus - and I say this as a left leaning person myself.
I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck or Fox News. But it is worth making note that Ayan Hirsi Ali has to find protection at a conservative think tank. She's a libertarian. I'm a socialist. But the subculture you have been embraced by (the American liberal Ivory Tower such as at Harvard and the University of California), it's main dogmatic mantras are self hatred and simultaneous cultural relativism.
Since you're not a native born American, it's disconcerting to see you act as an apologist for terrorists here & abroad. And the relativist atmosphere you learned in has not help. Just because you can name a reason or two for anger does not mean terrorist acts are justified. And it's worth noting that there are far more Islamic terrorists than Jainist ones. And within Islam, there are far more Sunni suicide bombers than Shia ones - because Sunni Islam is more sexually repressive as per ex-Islamic-Brotherhood men I have listened to on the issue. Have you listened to some of the key ex-extremists, such as those who're in videos on the Center For Inquiry website, or does your scholarly work not extend to actually hearing what other people are saying?
If we left Afghanistan what would happen to the rights of women there to have a secular education? For women there to be free from the veil? And so on?
What of having women Imams teaching men in Islam?
What of having boys & girls socialize in healthy ways in Islam so that boys learn how to please girls and are civilized as a result?
What of allowing men & women to sit together in mosques holding hands?
What of having mosques discouraging the veil, because in many Islamic countries women are taught to hate those who are not forced to wear the veil?
Where do you stand on these issues? Your answer or lack of an answer would be telling.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Hiking with the birds in the Uintahs
Ok, here's some lighter fare for you all - hiking with my birds in the Uintah mountains of Utah:
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
Copy of email sent on December 6, 2010:
To: "Paulson, Steve" <steve.paulson at wpr.org>, "Fleming, Jim" <jim.fleming at wpr.org>, Listener at wpr.org, gene.purcell at ecb.org, John Greene <jgreene at kuer.org>, jmcalpine at americanpublicmedia.org, esweeney at kcpw.org
This past weekend brought yet another unhappy experience of listening to nearly unbearable sections of what is not really the "best" of our knowledge, and also Krista Tippett's banal program. To the operators and broadcasters of these programs from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Utah, please make note of the following:
You all, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Utah (via KUER), and American Public Media are acting as Templeton's chumps, and I ask that you stop. Furthermore I am writing to let you know that I won't be a Templeton chump myself, and neither should the other secular and Enlightenment advocates who happen to also be public radio listeners and federal and state tax payers.
Lawrence Krauss on Templeton, as from
http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/14a08801.htm
"...Sir John Templeton, a multimillionaire financier, has decided that science and religion should be connected more closely, and he has the wherewithal to insure that that happens. First among the carrots he offers academics is the annual Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. At over $1.2-million dollars, it is the largest scholarly prize in the world -- the Nobel is worth $960,000 -- and it is awarded at Buckingham Palace, by Prince Philip."
"Templeton's program goes beyond the prize. As the World-Wide Web site of the John Templeton Foundation puts it, 'Sir John Templeton is deeply committed to fostering an expanded vision of God that is informed by recent discoveries of science about the nature of the universe.' He created the foundation to be a 'critical catalyst for progress, especially by supporting studies which demonstrate the benefits of an open, humble and progressive approach to learning.' In the belief that 'a path of cooperation between the sciences and all religions will lead humanity to a deeper understanding of the universe,' the foundation engages in a range of activities -- such as awarding grants and prizes to people and groups, encouraging them to explore the links between religion and science. For example, it gives prizes of $10,000 to academics and institutions that develop interdisciplinary courses in those areas..."
"...Templeton's overall program is ill conceived, and so is the field of study that he wants to promote in our colleges and universities. When faced with ready cash to support research and attend conferences, academics -- including this academic, to be fair -- often rush with too little thought to the trough. But it is significant that higher education did not broadly connect science and religion before Sir John's largesse -- and for a good reason: Combining the two fields is an intellectually uninteresting exercise."
"Science and religion are on opposite sides of the human experience. Science may enter into theological discussions, but I can attest -- after more than 20 years as a physicist -- that religion never enters into scientific discussions. That fact is reflected in the makeup of many of the Templeton-sponsored programs, which involve prominent theologians and historians, but very few scientists..."
"...Although there is nothing wrong with paying some scholarly attention to whatever marginal common ground science and religion may share, overemphasizing their commonality is dangerous -- especially when the driving force behind the effort is not the strength of ideas, but one man's money, compounded by the misplaced enthusiasm of some religious zealots..."
Dr. Krauss is the recipient of the following awards, which I would like you to contrast with your own degrees in public administration and/or journalism:
* Gravity Research Foundation First prize award (1984)
* Presidential Investigator Award (1986)
* American Association for the Advancement of Science's Award for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology (2000)
* Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize (2001)
* Andrew Gemant Award (2001)
* American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award (2002)
* Oersted Medal (2003)
* American Physical Society Joseph P. Burton Forum Award (2005)
* Center for Inquiry World Congress Science in the Public Interest Award (2009)
* Helen Sawyer Hogg Prize of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the Astronomical Society of Canada (2009)
Also Dr. Krauss is the only physicist ever to have received the highest awards from all three major physics societies in the USA: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics.
------
A link to info on the Templeton funded "Bible literacy project," and the camel's nose which I KNEW was there when I first heard Krista Tippett, the apparently preferred preacher on MY publicly funded radio station and from MY state's publicly funded university:
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article782.html
----
And I again refer you to a very detailed expose on Templeton in The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/god-science-and-philanthropy
And my own latest forum posting about the issue:
http://www.atheistforums.com/the-templeton-foundation-the-distortion-of-science-t25020.html?highlight=templeton
...which is available as the top result from the following google search: templeton distortion science
It's just great that your programs and stations take money directly or indirectly from an organization that viewed Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," as the most inspirational film of 2004. Isn't that special?
And while you all are engaged with Templeton in creating a new interdisciplinary science of Godly love, there are some key questions you have not answered:
Which God?
Whose God?
What God?
The god of which religion?
Let us make note of the new favored religious preacher of public radio, Krista Tippett, as fostered and paid for by public universities, and also the new public radio religious program "To the Best of our Knowledge." Both programs seek to dove tail up exactly with the goals of Templeton as per Templeton's recognition of the related programs and their hosts, to mix & conflate science & religion, and to misrepresent & distort science in the process (& to confuse listeners and to provide pabulum to the religious subset of listeners, to the alienation of those of us who had tougher times with religion) - this is what we have when you gleefully accept the largess of a conservative sugar daddy who wants to do what he wants to do. But since you all are helping to foist Templeton's God upon me and upon all your listeners, I'd like to know exactly who Templeton's god was. Since you all are His new representatives, I'd really like to know.
Maybe you should ask, since your Tippett and your Steve Paulson & the producers of all the related programs want us to believe in Templeton's god.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
To: "Paulson, Steve" <steve.paulson at wpr.org>, "Fleming, Jim" <jim.fleming at wpr.org>, Listener at wpr.org, gene.purcell at ecb.org, John Greene <jgreene at kuer.org>, jmcalpine at americanpublicmedia.org, esweeney at kcpw.org
This past weekend brought yet another unhappy experience of listening to nearly unbearable sections of what is not really the "best" of our knowledge, and also Krista Tippett's banal program. To the operators and broadcasters of these programs from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Utah, please make note of the following:
You all, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Utah (via KUER), and American Public Media are acting as Templeton's chumps, and I ask that you stop. Furthermore I am writing to let you know that I won't be a Templeton chump myself, and neither should the other secular and Enlightenment advocates who happen to also be public radio listeners and federal and state tax payers.
Lawrence Krauss on Templeton, as from
http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/14a08801.htm
"...Sir John Templeton, a multimillionaire financier, has decided that science and religion should be connected more closely, and he has the wherewithal to insure that that happens. First among the carrots he offers academics is the annual Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. At over $1.2-million dollars, it is the largest scholarly prize in the world -- the Nobel is worth $960,000 -- and it is awarded at Buckingham Palace, by Prince Philip."
"Templeton's program goes beyond the prize. As the World-Wide Web site of the John Templeton Foundation puts it, 'Sir John Templeton is deeply committed to fostering an expanded vision of God that is informed by recent discoveries of science about the nature of the universe.' He created the foundation to be a 'critical catalyst for progress, especially by supporting studies which demonstrate the benefits of an open, humble and progressive approach to learning.' In the belief that 'a path of cooperation between the sciences and all religions will lead humanity to a deeper understanding of the universe,' the foundation engages in a range of activities -- such as awarding grants and prizes to people and groups, encouraging them to explore the links between religion and science. For example, it gives prizes of $10,000 to academics and institutions that develop interdisciplinary courses in those areas..."
"...Templeton's overall program is ill conceived, and so is the field of study that he wants to promote in our colleges and universities. When faced with ready cash to support research and attend conferences, academics -- including this academic, to be fair -- often rush with too little thought to the trough. But it is significant that higher education did not broadly connect science and religion before Sir John's largesse -- and for a good reason: Combining the two fields is an intellectually uninteresting exercise."
"Science and religion are on opposite sides of the human experience. Science may enter into theological discussions, but I can attest -- after more than 20 years as a physicist -- that religion never enters into scientific discussions. That fact is reflected in the makeup of many of the Templeton-sponsored programs, which involve prominent theologians and historians, but very few scientists..."
"...Although there is nothing wrong with paying some scholarly attention to whatever marginal common ground science and religion may share, overemphasizing their commonality is dangerous -- especially when the driving force behind the effort is not the strength of ideas, but one man's money, compounded by the misplaced enthusiasm of some religious zealots..."
Dr. Krauss is the recipient of the following awards, which I would like you to contrast with your own degrees in public administration and/or journalism:
* Gravity Research Foundation First prize award (1984)
* Presidential Investigator Award (1986)
* American Association for the Advancement of Science's Award for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology (2000)
* Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize (2001)
* Andrew Gemant Award (2001)
* American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award (2002)
* Oersted Medal (2003)
* American Physical Society Joseph P. Burton Forum Award (2005)
* Center for Inquiry World Congress Science in the Public Interest Award (2009)
* Helen Sawyer Hogg Prize of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the Astronomical Society of Canada (2009)
Also Dr. Krauss is the only physicist ever to have received the highest awards from all three major physics societies in the USA: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics.
------
A link to info on the Templeton funded "Bible literacy project," and the camel's nose which I KNEW was there when I first heard Krista Tippett, the apparently preferred preacher on MY publicly funded radio station and from MY state's publicly funded university:
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article782.html
----
And I again refer you to a very detailed expose on Templeton in The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/god-science-and-philanthropy
And my own latest forum posting about the issue:
http://www.atheistforums.com/the-templeton-foundation-the-distortion-of-science-t25020.html?highlight=templeton
...which is available as the top result from the following google search: templeton distortion science
It's just great that your programs and stations take money directly or indirectly from an organization that viewed Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," as the most inspirational film of 2004. Isn't that special?
And while you all are engaged with Templeton in creating a new interdisciplinary science of Godly love, there are some key questions you have not answered:
Which God?
Whose God?
What God?
The god of which religion?
Let us make note of the new favored religious preacher of public radio, Krista Tippett, as fostered and paid for by public universities, and also the new public radio religious program "To the Best of our Knowledge." Both programs seek to dove tail up exactly with the goals of Templeton as per Templeton's recognition of the related programs and their hosts, to mix & conflate science & religion, and to misrepresent & distort science in the process (& to confuse listeners and to provide pabulum to the religious subset of listeners, to the alienation of those of us who had tougher times with religion) - this is what we have when you gleefully accept the largess of a conservative sugar daddy who wants to do what he wants to do. But since you all are helping to foist Templeton's God upon me and upon all your listeners, I'd like to know exactly who Templeton's god was. Since you all are His new representatives, I'd really like to know.
Maybe you should ask, since your Tippett and your Steve Paulson & the producers of all the related programs want us to believe in Templeton's god.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Templeton & the NCSE - December 3, 2010 letter
Copy of email to the NCSE (National Center for Science Education):
Hi,
I thought the NCSE was about promoting science, not religion.
If you're not promoting religion then why do you give a crap about who
gets the Templeton prize?
http://ncse.com/news/2010/03/ayala-wins-templeton-prize-005389
Here's an appropriate response from Richard Dawkins:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5304-shame-on-the-national-academy
And from Harry Kroto:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/national-academy-sciences-spiritual-award
And from Sam Harris:
http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/
And from Daniel Dennett and Anthony Grayling:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973
And from P.Z. Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/the_name_templeton_foundation.php
Anyway apparently I was under the misapprehension that the NCSE
promoted science. Does a spoonful of Jesus help the evolution go down?
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/truckling_to_the_faithful_a_spoonful_of_jesus_helps_darwin_go_down/
If so then you've gone off the rails, and can go to hell as far as I'm
concerned (since you'll also be advocating the teaching of hell to
students I'm sure).
Oh hey I just found another article about your traitorous useless group:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ncse-becomes-biologos/
So you love Templeton? How about Krista Tippett? Oh, and Templeton's
subversion of science and conflating science and religion? How's that
for a worthy goal NCSE? Tippett is a fluffy brained lame idiot. Is she
the future of science education in America? If so then the battle is
lost.
The main problem with having preachers heading up the NCSE is that
you're still a bunch of theists. You don't understand
science, and if you did you wouldn't be theists.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Hi,
I thought the NCSE was about promoting science, not religion.
If you're not promoting religion then why do you give a crap about who
gets the Templeton prize?
http://ncse.com/news/2010/03/ayala-wins-templeton-prize-005389
Here's an appropriate response from Richard Dawkins:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5304-shame-on-the-national-academy
And from Harry Kroto:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/national-academy-sciences-spiritual-award
And from Sam Harris:
http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/
And from Daniel Dennett and Anthony Grayling:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973
And from P.Z. Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/the_name_templeton_foundation.php
Anyway apparently I was under the misapprehension that the NCSE
promoted science. Does a spoonful of Jesus help the evolution go down?
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/truckling_to_the_faithful_a_spoonful_of_jesus_helps_darwin_go_down/
If so then you've gone off the rails, and can go to hell as far as I'm
concerned (since you'll also be advocating the teaching of hell to
students I'm sure).
Oh hey I just found another article about your traitorous useless group:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ncse-becomes-biologos/
So you love Templeton? How about Krista Tippett? Oh, and Templeton's
subversion of science and conflating science and religion? How's that
for a worthy goal NCSE? Tippett is a fluffy brained lame idiot. Is she
the future of science education in America? If so then the battle is
lost.
The main problem with having preachers heading up the NCSE is that
you're still a bunch of theists. You don't understand
science, and if you did you wouldn't be theists.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
the Templeton Foundation, religious propoganda, and the required separation of Church and State - December 3, 2010 message
Copy of December 3, 2010 message sent in reply to Steve Paulson...
---------------------------
Regarding "To the Best of our Knowledge" on Wisconsin Public Radio (and via the University of Wisconsin), and Krista Tippett as well.
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:34:41 -0600, "Paulson, Steve" <steve.paulson at wpr.org> wrote:
>Dr. Mr. Higbee,
>
>I'm sorry to hear that our funding from the Templeton Foundation bothers you so much. Of course, I disagree that this has tainted our coverage of science and religion.
<clip>
As a media darling of the Foundation I don't see how you can have coverage that is anything but tainted. Here's documentation of your darling status:
http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showfellow.php?fellow=6
As with Krista Tippett, you have joined with her in a new public radio chorus that apparently seeks to conflate science with religion, to apologize for and protect religion, to hide the truth about people's real lives with religion, and to promote the agenda of a now deceased conservative sugar daddy whose foundation lives on.
http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20100317/
Regarding the conflation, purposeful confusion, and smoke blowing, read over the tit for tat style the Foundation has on the following web page:
http://www.templeton.org/evolution/
And about their latest prize winner: http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
Notice how their prize happens to go to a man who says "…science is a way of knowing, but it is not the only way."
So there you go Mr. Paulson. You have your way out, as a "journalist." You can pretend that everything is equal when it's not. Templeton has given you permission. But here's a relevant response to worshiping at the alter of supposed objectivity from Keith Olbermann:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40202512/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
And also here's three related videos on the issue from Dr. Brian Cox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrdK4hWffo&feature=&p=C7F8740EA90180B2&index=0&playnext=1
In any case, with regard to religion, science, and spirituality, the devil is in the details.
Which god would you and Templeton have us believe in? Any of them? Whose religion? The traditional spirituality that is tied to mysticism? Tied to which religion? Which god?
If you cannot answer these questions you're not being honest.
But science is not JUST a way of knowing. It just so happens to be the MOST accurate method of separating fact from fiction humanity has developed thus far. Perhaps Templeton didn't realize this. And his big pockets are helping people like you and Tippett to confuse and conflate the issue. As a child of the Enlightenment, you really ought to know that your cell phone and your computer work because of science, not because the Mormon God had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus. Not because the Catholic God told the pope it was ok to hide pedophile priests. Not because Islamic African tribes believe they should mutilate the genitals of their little girls, and not because the outrageous mohels in Israel do the same to little boys - all in the name of obedience to their gods. And so on. So Templeton's ignorance of the history of science and religion is playing itself out on your little program and on Tippett's one sided obfuscational white washing program.
You don't have a Ph.D. or a Nobel prize.
What do you know about what these "scientists" know?
But when you get a scientist on who says he believes in god, ask him which one? The Mormon God? The Catholic God? The Islamic God? They are all very different. And using the word god to describe solely love or sex or whatever, without giving that caveat up front in the conversation, it's dishonest. We need to know which god and which type of spirituality you and Templeton would have us believe in.
Your fellow in the foundation Tippett is highly responsible for conflation and purposeful confusion, such as via her recent book about Einstein's supposed God, and her constant references to awe as being a religious feeling.
But you know, as someone who spent 25 years in a cult, I resent her and your use of the G-word without your stating just exactly which god you're referring to. The one that I believed in, who had sex with Mary, and who told me that masturbation was evil and needed to be confessed to many strange men at church, and who wants to micromanage the sex lives of all adults and children while allowing their founding prophets to sleep with 14 year olds and the wives of other men? Or the god of evangelical Christians, the ones who hate Mormons, a god I never really believed in when I was a Mormon? Or the gods of the other religions, and so on. It just so happens that Einstein believed in NONE of these gods. And so, Tippett's use of the G-word in this case is essentially a confusing conflating lie. Einstein's God was N-O-T the God of Mormonism, nor of 99 to 100% of the other religions present when Einstein was alive.
Now, maybe in the hippie influenced Unitarian Universalist religious education classrooms of today, you can get people to say their god is sex or love or the Universe. But those uses really aren't helpful relative to a "dialogue" between science and religion, because each religion has it's own unique definition of the G-word. And so the very use of the word in the first place, by people like Tippett on her program and in her book, and by your fund providing foundation & it's fellows and friends, it just confuses the issue and whitewashes over what is really inside of people's heads on all these issues. And it also whitewashes the problems that come when people believe in angry and abusive concepts of a god, as in Mormonism and as in Islam (especially Sunni Islam where young men are driven to suicide due to the gender apartheid).
And now to the issue of taint. Here are some key points showing how your program is tainted:
You are listed on one of the Templeton web sites. So that's a taint.
They did support Gibson's outrageously ghoulish and anti-Jewish film Passion of the Christ. So that's a taint.
Hitchens on the Gibson issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2096323/
and
http://www.slate.com/id/2260937/
And the connection between Templeton and Gibson's film Passion of the Christ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1352328/posts
The Foundation called Passion of the Christ "...the Most Inspirational Movie of 2004?" Mr. Paulson, what does this mean? It means your Foundation just loves a film by a Jew hating ultra right wing Catholic fascist.
Templeton was known as a "conservative sugar daddy," so that's a taint. Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation#Accusations_of_conservative_orientation
The wikipedia article on Templeton has several other key criticisms of inappropriate bias, and a bias which runs counter to the traditional public radio listenership (liberals, whereas the foundation is known for being conservative), so that's a taint.
Nobel prize winner Kroto has been highly critical of the Foundation, so that's a taint - since you've ignored his criticism. But I guess your journalism degree (if you have one) trumps his Nobel prize. And even the Foundation considers their own prize to be superior to the Nobel.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0ae046b8-576a-478f-8c39-e8d56d9036c7
Templeton established his prize to go toward "Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities," but that's a taint because, if you are a science journalist, you need to find out what is meant by the word spiritual in this case. Which heaven? Whose God? Which religion?
Pretty much none of the religions have an interest in science finding their heaven. Religion rejects science's ability to reach their god & their heaven, and they also reject science's ability to state that given religious views are bogus, unfounded, and probabilistically very very unlikely. And also science's ability to state that some religions are worse & more abusive than others - more damaging to human thriving & human happiness. So, since it's your paid job to "discover spiritual realities," how's that going with your job as a science reporter and a program which claims to be reporting on science? Which religion have you verified is true? Which god? How's the Foundation's efforts going as filtered through your own work at a part of the University of Wisconsin?
Also, as a darling of the Foundation you stand, as with other fellows and recipients of Templeton's largess, as someone who can help to further the key goal of the foundation, to establish "a new interdisciplinary science of Godly Love," as per
http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/1323/god,_science_and_philanthropy/
But you know, the Mormon God wasn't all that loving. He really wasn't. And Mohammad's God, he pretty much said that all unbelievers should be killed. And the Catholic God, well I never believed in a god who hides pedophiles.
So, which god will your program be helping to research? What's your definition of godly love? You don't have one? Well I guess you better get one because Templeton wants you to have one. That's why they exist. Again, they want to establish a new interdisciplinary science of Godly Love. And you're god's instrument in this holy purpose Mr. Paulson. And so is Tippett.
So anyway, it's true that I don't have a Nobel prize like Harry Kroto. I've not spent my life teaching children and adults about science like Richard Dawkins. I don't have a Ph.D. like P.Z. Myers. But since you don't have this background either, I suppose anything is up for grabs, right? What do you know of this complex sciencey-stuff? It's too complex to sift through, so you may as well present "all viewpoints" and let the listeners decide. Yep, that's the right course for you and the University of Wisconsin through you.
>Our approach is to feature many competing ideas
>- and to let listeners decide on their own views.
Templeton has a very specific agenda. Your claims of not having the same agenda don't ring true, since you're one of their media darlings (as per your presence on one of their websites), and since their clear aim is to confuse and obfuscate, as per Harris, Myers, Dawkins, Kroto, Dennett, Grayling, and others. But I'm sure your journalistic credentials trump the life work of all these men. What do they know? They're just possessors of that confusing knowledge known as "science," and like the Foundation wants you to say, science doesn't know everything.
Based on what I've heard on your show you are verging on having competing theories about what causes disease. Is it viruses & bacteria & DNA replication defects, or is it demons. Really from a few years of hearing your programs this is my honest general impression of how you present things.
So, I guess you could rightly ask, as a journalist "we'll let our listeners decide. We just present what's out there."
Why are children born with birth defects? Is it because their parents are evil, or because of what science shows?
Does muscle tension testing show why people have the problems they do? Since science doesn't know everything, and is only one way of knowing, I guess we can just present "both sides" and let our listeners decide.
And even within today's culture there are a bunch of people who still believe most if not all diseases results from states of the mind, and that the only way to cure whatever ails us is via positive thinking. There's very detailed books on the issue, and there's people much younger than I who're keyed into this whole bunch of balderdash.
Your indirect partner, NPR, regularly assumes that there are always two equally valid sides to all issues. But that's basically and fundamentally a lie.
You need to realize that with the advent of the Reformation & the Enlightenment, science showed that it was a much better method of truth finding than religion. In the past religion claimed to describe all aspects of physical reality. But as science has shown how it accurately describes point after point, the gods religion held on to reasonably described less and less.
So, your interviewing of the witch doctor on one hand, and the neuroscientist on the other (for journalistic balance of course), really doesn't do justice to how the history of science & religion has played out. And you cannot expect lay people, your listeners, in all cases, to separate which method of truth finding happens to be more accurate, if you yourself, in your coverage, ignore what the history of science & religion shows. You are lying by omission, and lying by purposefully choosing mis-weighted opinions so as to pretend that it's either too confusing to say, or that science can't find the answer - which is what Templeton WANTS you to say.
Templeton's involvement in this muddies the waters. They will draw you into a conflation and a muddying of the value of science.
They have a history of funding science which fits their religious purpose. And, when they present advertisements in major publications, their ads are rather like a cleaver game of deceit. Yes, they'll fund a given research program and "not interfere." But then they'll lump the results in with other studies that "show something different" - all as a means of confusing the issue, which is their main goal. All Templeton doors lead to one conclusion in their game: that science is either confusing, or that science supports the concept of there being a god.
Here's Harris's quote again about Templeton:
"The general effect of the page is to communicate the inadequacy of evolutionary theory and the perpetual incompleteness of science-and to encourage readers to draw the further the inference that one needs religion/faith to get all the way home to the Truth. It is an especially nice touch that the one unequivocal 'Yes' comes from the journalist Robert Wright, who has become a committed apologist for religion. (Leave it to Francis Collins to deliver the eminently reasonable, 'Not entirely.') Thus, whichever door one opens in this fun house of obfuscation, one finds a message that is comforting to religion. An earlier ad entitled 'Does the Universe Have a Purpose?' played the same game with a carefully picked sample of respondents. Out of 12 responses, only two were direct answers of 'No.' Glancing at the ad, one could only conclude that atheism must be a minority opinion in science. These ads amount to religious propaganda, pure and simple..."
Among several leading scientists, Templeton already has a bad reputation. And they are either directly or indirectly influencing your program in negative ways. This is not the first time I've noticed problems with your relativist approach to science & the physical world.
Just because science is "confusing and hard," doesn't mean it's still not a better method of truth finding than the mystical world view.
There are not "many ways of knowing," regarding chemistry & physics, and regarding other areas of inquiry about the nature of reality. Templeton WANTS you to conflate and muddy the issue. But when they use the word "god" and "spirituality" as they bring you under their umbrella as their media darling, you need to be honest with your listeners and state exactly which god, which religion, which spirituality you and they are talking about. If you don't know, then you pretty much have no right to even mention these issues in the first place.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
---------------------------
Regarding "To the Best of our Knowledge" on Wisconsin Public Radio (and via the University of Wisconsin), and Krista Tippett as well.
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:34:41 -0600, "Paulson, Steve" <steve.paulson at wpr.org> wrote:
>Dr. Mr. Higbee,
>
>I'm sorry to hear that our funding from the Templeton Foundation bothers you so much. Of course, I disagree that this has tainted our coverage of science and religion.
<clip>
As a media darling of the Foundation I don't see how you can have coverage that is anything but tainted. Here's documentation of your darling status:
http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showfellow.php?fellow=6
As with Krista Tippett, you have joined with her in a new public radio chorus that apparently seeks to conflate science with religion, to apologize for and protect religion, to hide the truth about people's real lives with religion, and to promote the agenda of a now deceased conservative sugar daddy whose foundation lives on.
http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20100317/
Regarding the conflation, purposeful confusion, and smoke blowing, read over the tit for tat style the Foundation has on the following web page:
http://www.templeton.org/evolution/
And about their latest prize winner: http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
Notice how their prize happens to go to a man who says "…science is a way of knowing, but it is not the only way."
So there you go Mr. Paulson. You have your way out, as a "journalist." You can pretend that everything is equal when it's not. Templeton has given you permission. But here's a relevant response to worshiping at the alter of supposed objectivity from Keith Olbermann:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40202512/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
And also here's three related videos on the issue from Dr. Brian Cox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrdK4hWffo&feature=&p=C7F8740EA90180B2&index=0&playnext=1
In any case, with regard to religion, science, and spirituality, the devil is in the details.
Which god would you and Templeton have us believe in? Any of them? Whose religion? The traditional spirituality that is tied to mysticism? Tied to which religion? Which god?
If you cannot answer these questions you're not being honest.
But science is not JUST a way of knowing. It just so happens to be the MOST accurate method of separating fact from fiction humanity has developed thus far. Perhaps Templeton didn't realize this. And his big pockets are helping people like you and Tippett to confuse and conflate the issue. As a child of the Enlightenment, you really ought to know that your cell phone and your computer work because of science, not because the Mormon God had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus. Not because the Catholic God told the pope it was ok to hide pedophile priests. Not because Islamic African tribes believe they should mutilate the genitals of their little girls, and not because the outrageous mohels in Israel do the same to little boys - all in the name of obedience to their gods. And so on. So Templeton's ignorance of the history of science and religion is playing itself out on your little program and on Tippett's one sided obfuscational white washing program.
You don't have a Ph.D. or a Nobel prize.
What do you know about what these "scientists" know?
But when you get a scientist on who says he believes in god, ask him which one? The Mormon God? The Catholic God? The Islamic God? They are all very different. And using the word god to describe solely love or sex or whatever, without giving that caveat up front in the conversation, it's dishonest. We need to know which god and which type of spirituality you and Templeton would have us believe in.
Your fellow in the foundation Tippett is highly responsible for conflation and purposeful confusion, such as via her recent book about Einstein's supposed God, and her constant references to awe as being a religious feeling.
But you know, as someone who spent 25 years in a cult, I resent her and your use of the G-word without your stating just exactly which god you're referring to. The one that I believed in, who had sex with Mary, and who told me that masturbation was evil and needed to be confessed to many strange men at church, and who wants to micromanage the sex lives of all adults and children while allowing their founding prophets to sleep with 14 year olds and the wives of other men? Or the god of evangelical Christians, the ones who hate Mormons, a god I never really believed in when I was a Mormon? Or the gods of the other religions, and so on. It just so happens that Einstein believed in NONE of these gods. And so, Tippett's use of the G-word in this case is essentially a confusing conflating lie. Einstein's God was N-O-T the God of Mormonism, nor of 99 to 100% of the other religions present when Einstein was alive.
Now, maybe in the hippie influenced Unitarian Universalist religious education classrooms of today, you can get people to say their god is sex or love or the Universe. But those uses really aren't helpful relative to a "dialogue" between science and religion, because each religion has it's own unique definition of the G-word. And so the very use of the word in the first place, by people like Tippett on her program and in her book, and by your fund providing foundation & it's fellows and friends, it just confuses the issue and whitewashes over what is really inside of people's heads on all these issues. And it also whitewashes the problems that come when people believe in angry and abusive concepts of a god, as in Mormonism and as in Islam (especially Sunni Islam where young men are driven to suicide due to the gender apartheid).
And now to the issue of taint. Here are some key points showing how your program is tainted:
You are listed on one of the Templeton web sites. So that's a taint.
They did support Gibson's outrageously ghoulish and anti-Jewish film Passion of the Christ. So that's a taint.
Hitchens on the Gibson issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2096323/
and
http://www.slate.com/id/2260937/
And the connection between Templeton and Gibson's film Passion of the Christ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1352328/posts
The Foundation called Passion of the Christ "...the Most Inspirational Movie of 2004?" Mr. Paulson, what does this mean? It means your Foundation just loves a film by a Jew hating ultra right wing Catholic fascist.
Templeton was known as a "conservative sugar daddy," so that's a taint. Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation#Accusations_of_conservative_orientation
The wikipedia article on Templeton has several other key criticisms of inappropriate bias, and a bias which runs counter to the traditional public radio listenership (liberals, whereas the foundation is known for being conservative), so that's a taint.
Nobel prize winner Kroto has been highly critical of the Foundation, so that's a taint - since you've ignored his criticism. But I guess your journalism degree (if you have one) trumps his Nobel prize. And even the Foundation considers their own prize to be superior to the Nobel.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0ae046b8-576a-478f-8c39-e8d56d9036c7
Templeton established his prize to go toward "Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities," but that's a taint because, if you are a science journalist, you need to find out what is meant by the word spiritual in this case. Which heaven? Whose God? Which religion?
Pretty much none of the religions have an interest in science finding their heaven. Religion rejects science's ability to reach their god & their heaven, and they also reject science's ability to state that given religious views are bogus, unfounded, and probabilistically very very unlikely. And also science's ability to state that some religions are worse & more abusive than others - more damaging to human thriving & human happiness. So, since it's your paid job to "discover spiritual realities," how's that going with your job as a science reporter and a program which claims to be reporting on science? Which religion have you verified is true? Which god? How's the Foundation's efforts going as filtered through your own work at a part of the University of Wisconsin?
Also, as a darling of the Foundation you stand, as with other fellows and recipients of Templeton's largess, as someone who can help to further the key goal of the foundation, to establish "a new interdisciplinary science of Godly Love," as per
http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/1323/god,_science_and_philanthropy/
But you know, the Mormon God wasn't all that loving. He really wasn't. And Mohammad's God, he pretty much said that all unbelievers should be killed. And the Catholic God, well I never believed in a god who hides pedophiles.
So, which god will your program be helping to research? What's your definition of godly love? You don't have one? Well I guess you better get one because Templeton wants you to have one. That's why they exist. Again, they want to establish a new interdisciplinary science of Godly Love. And you're god's instrument in this holy purpose Mr. Paulson. And so is Tippett.
So anyway, it's true that I don't have a Nobel prize like Harry Kroto. I've not spent my life teaching children and adults about science like Richard Dawkins. I don't have a Ph.D. like P.Z. Myers. But since you don't have this background either, I suppose anything is up for grabs, right? What do you know of this complex sciencey-stuff? It's too complex to sift through, so you may as well present "all viewpoints" and let the listeners decide. Yep, that's the right course for you and the University of Wisconsin through you.
>Our approach is to feature many competing ideas
>- and to let listeners decide on their own views.
Templeton has a very specific agenda. Your claims of not having the same agenda don't ring true, since you're one of their media darlings (as per your presence on one of their websites), and since their clear aim is to confuse and obfuscate, as per Harris, Myers, Dawkins, Kroto, Dennett, Grayling, and others. But I'm sure your journalistic credentials trump the life work of all these men. What do they know? They're just possessors of that confusing knowledge known as "science," and like the Foundation wants you to say, science doesn't know everything.
Based on what I've heard on your show you are verging on having competing theories about what causes disease. Is it viruses & bacteria & DNA replication defects, or is it demons. Really from a few years of hearing your programs this is my honest general impression of how you present things.
So, I guess you could rightly ask, as a journalist "we'll let our listeners decide. We just present what's out there."
Why are children born with birth defects? Is it because their parents are evil, or because of what science shows?
Does muscle tension testing show why people have the problems they do? Since science doesn't know everything, and is only one way of knowing, I guess we can just present "both sides" and let our listeners decide.
And even within today's culture there are a bunch of people who still believe most if not all diseases results from states of the mind, and that the only way to cure whatever ails us is via positive thinking. There's very detailed books on the issue, and there's people much younger than I who're keyed into this whole bunch of balderdash.
Your indirect partner, NPR, regularly assumes that there are always two equally valid sides to all issues. But that's basically and fundamentally a lie.
You need to realize that with the advent of the Reformation & the Enlightenment, science showed that it was a much better method of truth finding than religion. In the past religion claimed to describe all aspects of physical reality. But as science has shown how it accurately describes point after point, the gods religion held on to reasonably described less and less.
So, your interviewing of the witch doctor on one hand, and the neuroscientist on the other (for journalistic balance of course), really doesn't do justice to how the history of science & religion has played out. And you cannot expect lay people, your listeners, in all cases, to separate which method of truth finding happens to be more accurate, if you yourself, in your coverage, ignore what the history of science & religion shows. You are lying by omission, and lying by purposefully choosing mis-weighted opinions so as to pretend that it's either too confusing to say, or that science can't find the answer - which is what Templeton WANTS you to say.
Templeton's involvement in this muddies the waters. They will draw you into a conflation and a muddying of the value of science.
They have a history of funding science which fits their religious purpose. And, when they present advertisements in major publications, their ads are rather like a cleaver game of deceit. Yes, they'll fund a given research program and "not interfere." But then they'll lump the results in with other studies that "show something different" - all as a means of confusing the issue, which is their main goal. All Templeton doors lead to one conclusion in their game: that science is either confusing, or that science supports the concept of there being a god.
Here's Harris's quote again about Templeton:
"The general effect of the page is to communicate the inadequacy of evolutionary theory and the perpetual incompleteness of science-and to encourage readers to draw the further the inference that one needs religion/faith to get all the way home to the Truth. It is an especially nice touch that the one unequivocal 'Yes' comes from the journalist Robert Wright, who has become a committed apologist for religion. (Leave it to Francis Collins to deliver the eminently reasonable, 'Not entirely.') Thus, whichever door one opens in this fun house of obfuscation, one finds a message that is comforting to religion. An earlier ad entitled 'Does the Universe Have a Purpose?' played the same game with a carefully picked sample of respondents. Out of 12 responses, only two were direct answers of 'No.' Glancing at the ad, one could only conclude that atheism must be a minority opinion in science. These ads amount to religious propaganda, pure and simple..."
Among several leading scientists, Templeton already has a bad reputation. And they are either directly or indirectly influencing your program in negative ways. This is not the first time I've noticed problems with your relativist approach to science & the physical world.
Just because science is "confusing and hard," doesn't mean it's still not a better method of truth finding than the mystical world view.
There are not "many ways of knowing," regarding chemistry & physics, and regarding other areas of inquiry about the nature of reality. Templeton WANTS you to conflate and muddy the issue. But when they use the word "god" and "spirituality" as they bring you under their umbrella as their media darling, you need to be honest with your listeners and state exactly which god, which religion, which spirituality you and they are talking about. If you don't know, then you pretty much have no right to even mention these issues in the first place.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
the Templeton Foundation, religious propoganda, and the required separation of Church and State - December 2, 2010 message
Copy of December 2, 2010 email sent to Wisconsin Public Radio:
To: ttbook at wpr.org
Cc: Listener at wpr.org, gene.purcell at ecb.org, John Greene <jgreene at kuer.org>, jmcalpine at americanpublicmedia.org, esweeney at kcpw.org
Regarding the radio program "To the Best of Our Knowledge," and the Templeton Foundation: their subversion of State connected & supported public radio, science, and reason. And also regarding Krista Tippett & her program, as her program is also funded by Templeton.
To: Wisconsin Public Radio
Cc: To relevant stations playing Templeton Foundation funded programs including "To the Best of Our Knowledge," and Krista Tippett's faith program, whatever it's now called.
---------------------
Greetings,
I have had the misfortune to listen to some of your recent programs on science and religion. Toward the end of one show I was horrified to hear that you are allowing your show to be funded by the Templeton Foundation. You fawningly and glowingly boasted about this funding source.
For the past several days I've been listening to the unabridged audio book version of "The Moral Landscape" by Dr. Sam Harris. Dr. Harris says of Templeton that they fund people & groups like yours so that you will "split the difference between intellectual integrity and the fantasies of a prior age." And yet we see that you are tied to a public university. Are you not aware of the required separation of church and state?
Is your program really the BEST of human knowledge? If your ready to take money from Templeton, the answer must always be no, because they will pressure you to find ONE answer, the "answer" of non-overlapping magesteria. They will also require that you water down any criticism of religion, and that you conflate the separation between debunked & absurd mysticism and actual science & intellectually honest reason. What has the highest probability of being true? The mystical claims of religion, or the facts that science yields? Your program repeatedly burs the line and pretends that everything is equal.
Here are relevant quotes from Sam Harris's most recent book about the problem at hand:
"...Here is our situation: if the basic claims of religion are true, the scientific worldview is so blinkered and susceptible to supernatural modification as to be rendered nearly ridiculous; if the basic claims of religion are false, most people are profoundly confused about the nature of reality, confounded by irrational hopes and fears, and tending to waste precious time and attention -- often with tragic results. ... It makes no sense at all to have the most important features of our lives anchored to divisive claims about the unique sanctity of ancient books or to rumors of ancient miracles. There is simply no question that how we speak about human values -- and how we study or fail to study the relevant phenomena at the level of the brain -- will profoundly influence our collective future."
In "The Moral Landscape" Dr. Harris does rightly criticize the Templeton Foundation. Here's a related quote from a letter exchange he had with another science writer, as from http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/
From Dr. Harris:
"...Of course, intellectual apathy on the part of individual scientists and their leading journals would be a bad thing all on its own, but add to this the advocacy of organizations like the Templeton Foundation, which uses its 1.5 billion dollar endowment to carefully blur the line between reason and faith, and the effect is an almost a total ceding of the argument in favor of religion...
...The Templeton Foundation’s work is quite a bit more insidious (and clever) than funding marginal research, or even obscenely silly projects like Collins’ BioLogos Foundation. Two examples of their work should suffice:
1. http://www.templeton.org/evolution/
2. http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
Templeton’s recent advertisement about evolution (1. above), which appeared in almost every major newspaper and magazine in the United States, represents a very clever manipulation of scientific opinion. When faced with the question 'Does Evolution Explain Human Nature?' even I would have said something like 'Not entirely.' Of course, Templeton knows that most people will only read the titles of these essays. The general effect of the page is to communicate the inadequacy of evolutionary theory and the perpetual incompleteness of science—and to encourage readers to draw the further the inference that one needs religion/faith to get all the way home to the Truth. It is an especially nice touch that the one unequivocal 'Yes' comes from the journalist Robert Wright, who has become a committed apologist for religion. (Leave it to Francis Collins to deliver the eminently reasonable, 'Not entirely.') Thus, whichever door one opens in this fun house of obfuscation, one finds a message that is comforting to religion. An earlier ad entitled 'Does the Universe Have a Purpose?' played the same game with a carefully picked sample of respondents. Out of 12 responses, only two were direct answers of 'No.' Glancing at the ad, one could only conclude that atheism must be a minority opinion in science. These ads amount to religious propaganda, pure and simple..."
---end of quote from Harris
Further key notes about the problems with the Templeton Foundation come from letters by Anthony Grayling and Daniel Dennett, as from http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973
From Anthony Grayling:
"...Dear Mr Cartlidge
Thank you for your message. I hope you will understand that this is by no means directed at you personally, but I don't engage in Templeton-associated matters.
I cannot agree with the Templeton Foundation's project of trying to make religion respectable by conflating it with science; this is like mixing astrology with astronomy or voodoo with medical research, and I disapprove of
Templeton's use of its great wealth to bribe compliance with this project.
Templeton is to all intents and purposes a propaganda organisation for religious outlooks..."
From Daniel Dennett:
"...I have had my say about materialism and the persistent attempt by religious spokespeople to muddy the waters by claiming, without a shred of support, that materialism (in the sense I have defended for my entire career) is any obstacle to meaning, or to an ethical life—see, e.g., BREAKING THE SPELL, pp302-307."
"I see no reason to go over that ground again, and I particularly don't want to convey the impression, by participating in an interview with you, that this is, for me, a live issue. It is not. If you had said that you were studying the views of scientists, philosophers and, say, choreographers on this topic, I would at least be curious about what expertise choreographers could bring to it. If you had said scientists, philosophers, and astrologers, I would not even have replied to your invitation. The only reason I am replying is to let you know that I disapprove of the Templeton Foundation's attempt to tie theologians to the coat tails of scientists and philosophers who actually do have expertise on this topic..."
------ end of quote
Here's a related video by Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto where he criticizes Templeton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiUsINryY0
Also relevant interaction about Templeton between scientists starts at time index 1:24:00 on the video at http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-8-1
...and at time index 1:31:40 Richard Dawkins states that John Templeton is a billionaire who's used his billions to subvert science.
Is that what the University of Wisconsin is about? Subverting science?
And here's comments from P.Z. Myers about Templeton:
"...How about an institution that hands out large grants with the expectation that the work will help reconcile science and religion, or that it will actually find evidence of a deity? I'd class that with my third group, the funding source that wants a particular conclusion and can't be trusted to be scrupulous about following the evidence where ever it may lead. They have an agenda, and it is one of the most corrupting and untrustworthy causes of all, religion."
... as from
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_templeton_conundrum.php
So, we see that we do have, as per Dawkins, Harris, Kroto, Dennett, Grayling, and Myers: Religious propaganda from the Templeton Foundation, a subversion of science, and a promotion of religion via propaganda.
And yet you fawningly express your great appreciation for receiving money from very clever religious propagandists.
Did you forget though that your organization is directly associated with a State funded & run university? Did you forget the required separation of church and state?
Your program appears to be falling in line with a similarly corrosive program (which happens to also be Templeton funded), Krista Tippett's program Speak of Faith (or whatever she's calling it this week). But since Templeton does clearly engage in religious propaganda, as a U.S. citizen and tax payer, I request and require that you, an entity that is part of the American government via the State of Wisconsin, to stop taking money from religious propagandists.
Clearly those who fear the ground and progress science has made relative to it's description of reality, they now feel that it is necessary to subvert public discourse and reason via funding programs such as yours and that of Ms. Tippett, and attached to their funding is a key request & defacto requirement: That you tow their propagandistic line in favor of religion and which serves to muddy and subvert science. Or that your voice be joined to a chorus that Templeton will in the end CRAFT to show the message they WANT to show - a message they DEMAND to show: a view that subverts science & reason & which promotes religious whitewashing & dishonesty.
Not everything is equal.
Are the claims of religions factual or not? If you claim they are, then you are not stating what it is that is our "best" knowledge. To the "best" of our knowledge requires that science be allowed to delve and ask questions about and at least try to give answers to all aspects of the human endeavor. The Templeton Foundation wants to very strongly restrict what the scientific endeavor and scientific world view can comment on. It wants to subvert science & blur the line between science & religion. But by doing so they advocate for religion & for mysticism, and they subvert science.
A feeling of awe is not a "religious feeling," it's just a feeling. Religion has no special warrant to comment on moral truths. Witness what they do relative to protecting pedophile priests, bagging women from head to toe, genital mutilation, and patently false claims about the nature of reality. Here's some key claims of religion:
The Catholic claim that Mary was a virgin before giving birth to Jesus.
The advanced Mormon doctrinal claim that Mary had literal
sex with Elohim (God the Father).
The claim that Mohammad had a literal vision from his god, where his god told him to kill the unbeliever in his rather bloodthirsty Quran.
The claim that Joseph Smith had several literal visions, and that his Book of Mormon came from his god..
And on and on ad infinitum, with regard to countless religions and their charismatic and apparently often schizotypal leaders.
I don't listen to public radio to hear from religious wackjobs. The right wing already has their Bible-beater stations. But you are supposed to be a sanctuary from their lies and crap - and Templeton clearly wants to destroy the sanctuary.
Also and importantly, public radio which is directly connected to the government must not advocate for and on behalf of religion, nor act as a subverter of science & reason via the methods mentioned above, and as commented on at length by noted scientists and philosophers Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Anthony Grayling, Richard Dawkins, Harry Kroto, and P.Z. Myers.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
To: ttbook at wpr.org
Cc: Listener at wpr.org, gene.purcell at ecb.org, John Greene <jgreene at kuer.org>, jmcalpine at americanpublicmedia.org, esweeney at kcpw.org
Regarding the radio program "To the Best of Our Knowledge," and the Templeton Foundation: their subversion of State connected & supported public radio, science, and reason. And also regarding Krista Tippett & her program, as her program is also funded by Templeton.
To: Wisconsin Public Radio
Cc: To relevant stations playing Templeton Foundation funded programs including "To the Best of Our Knowledge," and Krista Tippett's faith program, whatever it's now called.
---------------------
Greetings,
I have had the misfortune to listen to some of your recent programs on science and religion. Toward the end of one show I was horrified to hear that you are allowing your show to be funded by the Templeton Foundation. You fawningly and glowingly boasted about this funding source.
For the past several days I've been listening to the unabridged audio book version of "The Moral Landscape" by Dr. Sam Harris. Dr. Harris says of Templeton that they fund people & groups like yours so that you will "split the difference between intellectual integrity and the fantasies of a prior age." And yet we see that you are tied to a public university. Are you not aware of the required separation of church and state?
Is your program really the BEST of human knowledge? If your ready to take money from Templeton, the answer must always be no, because they will pressure you to find ONE answer, the "answer" of non-overlapping magesteria. They will also require that you water down any criticism of religion, and that you conflate the separation between debunked & absurd mysticism and actual science & intellectually honest reason. What has the highest probability of being true? The mystical claims of religion, or the facts that science yields? Your program repeatedly burs the line and pretends that everything is equal.
Here are relevant quotes from Sam Harris's most recent book about the problem at hand:
"...Here is our situation: if the basic claims of religion are true, the scientific worldview is so blinkered and susceptible to supernatural modification as to be rendered nearly ridiculous; if the basic claims of religion are false, most people are profoundly confused about the nature of reality, confounded by irrational hopes and fears, and tending to waste precious time and attention -- often with tragic results. ... It makes no sense at all to have the most important features of our lives anchored to divisive claims about the unique sanctity of ancient books or to rumors of ancient miracles. There is simply no question that how we speak about human values -- and how we study or fail to study the relevant phenomena at the level of the brain -- will profoundly influence our collective future."
In "The Moral Landscape" Dr. Harris does rightly criticize the Templeton Foundation. Here's a related quote from a letter exchange he had with another science writer, as from http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/
From Dr. Harris:
"...Of course, intellectual apathy on the part of individual scientists and their leading journals would be a bad thing all on its own, but add to this the advocacy of organizations like the Templeton Foundation, which uses its 1.5 billion dollar endowment to carefully blur the line between reason and faith, and the effect is an almost a total ceding of the argument in favor of religion...
...The Templeton Foundation’s work is quite a bit more insidious (and clever) than funding marginal research, or even obscenely silly projects like Collins’ BioLogos Foundation. Two examples of their work should suffice:
1. http://www.templeton.org/evolution/
2. http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
Templeton’s recent advertisement about evolution (1. above), which appeared in almost every major newspaper and magazine in the United States, represents a very clever manipulation of scientific opinion. When faced with the question 'Does Evolution Explain Human Nature?' even I would have said something like 'Not entirely.' Of course, Templeton knows that most people will only read the titles of these essays. The general effect of the page is to communicate the inadequacy of evolutionary theory and the perpetual incompleteness of science—and to encourage readers to draw the further the inference that one needs religion/faith to get all the way home to the Truth. It is an especially nice touch that the one unequivocal 'Yes' comes from the journalist Robert Wright, who has become a committed apologist for religion. (Leave it to Francis Collins to deliver the eminently reasonable, 'Not entirely.') Thus, whichever door one opens in this fun house of obfuscation, one finds a message that is comforting to religion. An earlier ad entitled 'Does the Universe Have a Purpose?' played the same game with a carefully picked sample of respondents. Out of 12 responses, only two were direct answers of 'No.' Glancing at the ad, one could only conclude that atheism must be a minority opinion in science. These ads amount to religious propaganda, pure and simple..."
---end of quote from Harris
Further key notes about the problems with the Templeton Foundation come from letters by Anthony Grayling and Daniel Dennett, as from http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973
From Anthony Grayling:
"...Dear Mr Cartlidge
Thank you for your message. I hope you will understand that this is by no means directed at you personally, but I don't engage in Templeton-associated matters.
I cannot agree with the Templeton Foundation's project of trying to make religion respectable by conflating it with science; this is like mixing astrology with astronomy or voodoo with medical research, and I disapprove of
Templeton's use of its great wealth to bribe compliance with this project.
Templeton is to all intents and purposes a propaganda organisation for religious outlooks..."
From Daniel Dennett:
"...I have had my say about materialism and the persistent attempt by religious spokespeople to muddy the waters by claiming, without a shred of support, that materialism (in the sense I have defended for my entire career) is any obstacle to meaning, or to an ethical life—see, e.g., BREAKING THE SPELL, pp302-307."
"I see no reason to go over that ground again, and I particularly don't want to convey the impression, by participating in an interview with you, that this is, for me, a live issue. It is not. If you had said that you were studying the views of scientists, philosophers and, say, choreographers on this topic, I would at least be curious about what expertise choreographers could bring to it. If you had said scientists, philosophers, and astrologers, I would not even have replied to your invitation. The only reason I am replying is to let you know that I disapprove of the Templeton Foundation's attempt to tie theologians to the coat tails of scientists and philosophers who actually do have expertise on this topic..."
------ end of quote
Here's a related video by Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto where he criticizes Templeton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiUsINryY0
Also relevant interaction about Templeton between scientists starts at time index 1:24:00 on the video at http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-8-1
...and at time index 1:31:40 Richard Dawkins states that John Templeton is a billionaire who's used his billions to subvert science.
Is that what the University of Wisconsin is about? Subverting science?
And here's comments from P.Z. Myers about Templeton:
"...How about an institution that hands out large grants with the expectation that the work will help reconcile science and religion, or that it will actually find evidence of a deity? I'd class that with my third group, the funding source that wants a particular conclusion and can't be trusted to be scrupulous about following the evidence where ever it may lead. They have an agenda, and it is one of the most corrupting and untrustworthy causes of all, religion."
... as from
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_templeton_conundrum.php
So, we see that we do have, as per Dawkins, Harris, Kroto, Dennett, Grayling, and Myers: Religious propaganda from the Templeton Foundation, a subversion of science, and a promotion of religion via propaganda.
And yet you fawningly express your great appreciation for receiving money from very clever religious propagandists.
Did you forget though that your organization is directly associated with a State funded & run university? Did you forget the required separation of church and state?
Your program appears to be falling in line with a similarly corrosive program (which happens to also be Templeton funded), Krista Tippett's program Speak of Faith (or whatever she's calling it this week). But since Templeton does clearly engage in religious propaganda, as a U.S. citizen and tax payer, I request and require that you, an entity that is part of the American government via the State of Wisconsin, to stop taking money from religious propagandists.
Clearly those who fear the ground and progress science has made relative to it's description of reality, they now feel that it is necessary to subvert public discourse and reason via funding programs such as yours and that of Ms. Tippett, and attached to their funding is a key request & defacto requirement: That you tow their propagandistic line in favor of religion and which serves to muddy and subvert science. Or that your voice be joined to a chorus that Templeton will in the end CRAFT to show the message they WANT to show - a message they DEMAND to show: a view that subverts science & reason & which promotes religious whitewashing & dishonesty.
Not everything is equal.
Are the claims of religions factual or not? If you claim they are, then you are not stating what it is that is our "best" knowledge. To the "best" of our knowledge requires that science be allowed to delve and ask questions about and at least try to give answers to all aspects of the human endeavor. The Templeton Foundation wants to very strongly restrict what the scientific endeavor and scientific world view can comment on. It wants to subvert science & blur the line between science & religion. But by doing so they advocate for religion & for mysticism, and they subvert science.
A feeling of awe is not a "religious feeling," it's just a feeling. Religion has no special warrant to comment on moral truths. Witness what they do relative to protecting pedophile priests, bagging women from head to toe, genital mutilation, and patently false claims about the nature of reality. Here's some key claims of religion:
The Catholic claim that Mary was a virgin before giving birth to Jesus.
The advanced Mormon doctrinal claim that Mary had literal
sex with Elohim (God the Father).
The claim that Mohammad had a literal vision from his god, where his god told him to kill the unbeliever in his rather bloodthirsty Quran.
The claim that Joseph Smith had several literal visions, and that his Book of Mormon came from his god..
And on and on ad infinitum, with regard to countless religions and their charismatic and apparently often schizotypal leaders.
I don't listen to public radio to hear from religious wackjobs. The right wing already has their Bible-beater stations. But you are supposed to be a sanctuary from their lies and crap - and Templeton clearly wants to destroy the sanctuary.
Also and importantly, public radio which is directly connected to the government must not advocate for and on behalf of religion, nor act as a subverter of science & reason via the methods mentioned above, and as commented on at length by noted scientists and philosophers Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Anthony Grayling, Richard Dawkins, Harry Kroto, and P.Z. Myers.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Unitarian Universalist fawning appreciation of Mohammad and Islam
After hearing that a Salt Lake City, Utah based Unitarian Universalist congregation was going to teach a five week long course advocating the value of Mohammad and Islam to their teens, and after hearing them fawningly talk about Mohammad during a church meeting, I decided to investigate further the current status of UUism relative to Islam. I found that on a prominent website for American Unitarianism they have some highly pro-Islamic pro-Mohammad statements. So yesterday I drafted a 23 page letter in response. Here's quotes from the letter. Included in my letter are relevant links to the issues at hand.
This issue is especially relevant to some secular advocates (atheists/humanists/naturalists/etc.) as sometimes we sometimes show up to UU meetings for social support.
_____________________.
November 30, 2010
To the following parties:
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), 689 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-3302
Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), 25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108
South Valley Unitarian Universalist Society (SVUUS), 6876 South Highland Drive, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121
First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, 569 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Greetings,
This letter concerns Unitarian Universalism’s appreciation of and approach to Islam. Here is what I have observed:
Observation 1:
Children being told about Mohammad (the prophet of Islam) in glowing and appreciative terms, during the “children’s teaching time” at the service of the SVUUS.
Observation 2:
Being told at the SVUUS service that when Islam was first starting, women had more rights and they had a lot of freedoms. We were also told that Islam is a beautiful and peaceful religion, and that Mohammad was a great man. This declaration occurred just a few weeks ago at the SVUUS congregational meeting, when a special five week long religious education course on Islam was announced for teens.
Observation 3:
The UUSC having on their web site direct links to Islamic religious curricula, curricula which claims without question, that Mohammad received a revelation from a god. The following [now archived] UUSC website links directly to, without any disclaimer, religious education material offered by the American Islamic Congress.
Building Bridges Toolkit:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120519235021/http://www.uusc.org/buildingbridges/toolkit
Observation 4:
On the UUSC website there is a religious education document which states the following:
“…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…”
“…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…”
Also the document in question heavily references the work of Reza Aslan.
Document link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150322110533/http://www.isna.net/uploads/1/5/7/4/15744382/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf
previously at (http://www.uua.org/documents/washingtonoffice/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf)
Observation 5:
I requested from SVUUS, both via email and paper letter further information about the special five week course on Islam to be given to teens. No response was received.
Observation 6:
The UUA and the UUSC have issued a joint statement in support of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130130143726/http://www.uusc.org/content/uusc_uua_declare_support_lower_manhattan_mosque
Before I respond to each point, allow me to give you some background:
My name is on the member books of both Unitarian congregations in the Salt Lake valley, for what it’s worth. I am an ex-Mormon. I spent 25 years as a strong believing Mormon. I was a Mormon missionary, temple worker, and Sunday school president. After leaving Mormonism I have had strong associations with several people within the exmormon movement, such as Dr. Simon Southerton, a former Mormon Bishop from Australia and DNA scientist. Dr. Southerton wrote a book about how DNA evidence shows that the people of the Book of Mormon did not come from Israel in 600 BCE. I also frequently attend the yearly Exmormon Foundation conferences in Salt Lake City. And, as is common for many people who leave Mormonism I have drafted a lengthy exit journal, which is available at the following URLs:
http://tinyurl.com/5dbe36
or http://corvus.freeshell.org in the “life path” section.
When I first encountered Unitarianism I found that it tended to be a place where people who had left more conservative religions tended to congregate. UUism tended to serve as a social support system for people in that situation. Thus outside of Utah usually it’s the ex-Catholics and maybe ex-Baptists who go. But in Utah at both Salt Lake congregations there are many exmormons who go.
And now here is my response to each observational point noted earlier:
Response to observation 1, regarding children in UUism being taught about Mohammad in a glowing and fawning way:
Mohammad was not Jesus and he was not Buddha. Jesus may have been a mythical person or he may have been real. But regardless, and in general, the teachings of Jesus were indeed more peaceful than those of Mohammad.
Buddha’s teachings were also infinitely more peaceful than those of Mohammad.
It is simply inappropriate for a religion which prides itself on “social justice” and on “civil rights” to glowingly, fawningly, and uncritically advocate for and on behalf of the founding prophet of Islam.
It just so happens that not everything is equal. Not all religions are equal. Religion is like the word “sport.” Badminton is not very comparable to rugby for example, except that all of the players are breathing when they play. And the same goes for the word religion. Stating or claiming that “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” this type of view, when it is expressed by the UUSC, sounds very much like a creed for a supposedly creedless church. You are making a position statement, and a claim about facts & real people, and your claims have bearing on the ability of people to thrive and be happy.
No, not all paths to the “divine” are of equal value. The path of the suicide bomber is not as equally valid as the path of the Buddhist monk to goes into a cave for 5 years to meditate, nor to that of a Jainist who filters his water through cheese cloth so as to avoid eating insects. The path of the genitally mutilating African tribal Islamic mother or Jewish moil are not as equally valid as those who reject child mutilation. And so on. Is this question really so difficult for you?
Regarding Mohammad specifically, what did the man do?
He advocated for the death of people who refused to convert.
He married a six year old and consummated that marriage when she was nine. There are several references to this fact on the Wikipedia page about Mohammad. And while in the past the claim of Wikipedia being largely the work of inaccurate chaos when it was first starting, that claim is no longer valid as per the hordes of extremely fastidious people who now operate the site on a volunteer basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Wives_and_children
…and check out reference numbers 53 through 58 on that page.
Mohammad clearly did engage in polygamy. Is this a pro-woman stance?
Mohammad wrote a rather bloodthirsty book known as the Quran, which advocates death and torture for all sorts of people. References the Skeptics Annotated Quran for great detail on this point: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Because of the scope of Unitarian Universalism’s fawning and unquestioning support for Islam, I am going to quote in this letter directly from commentary notes about passages in Mohammad’s holy book the Quran. As you read the following notes about passages in his book, consider your claim that “all paths to the divine are equally valid.” And consider the validity of teaching children in a fawning way about just how great and wonderful Mohammad, the author of the following words, was and is:
From the Skeptics Annotated Quran website - notes about passages in the Quran
[in the letter I quote fully from
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
]
Response to observation 2, regarding the claim by the SVUUS special five week long course on Islam for teenagers, and in response to the course preparers who claimed that early Islam (during & shortly after Mohammad’s time) was more friendly to women:
Does polygamy and the rape of a nine year old represent a pro-woman stance? Ample and readily available documentation regarding the life of Mohammad shows that he not only engaged in polygamy he also raped his nine year “wife.”
Are these actions by Mohammad “pro-woman?”
Is the widespread practice of polygamy in Islam “pro-woman?”
Is forcing a six year old into an arranged marriage, and then raping her at age nine – are these actions “pro-woman?”
Haven’t you bothered to do your research? Has Unitarianism gone so far off the rails as to claim outright lies about the life of Mohammad, and what Islam stands for, in large part?
Response to observation 3, regarding the UUSC’s fawning and direct connection to the American Islamic Congress.
Is it common for Unitarianism to have direct weblinks to the religious curricula of other religions? Why not also link to Mormon and Catholic curricula?
For example, since “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” as you appear to plainly claim on the UUSC website, may I suggest that you link to pages regarding Mormon doctrine which states that oral sex is not ordained of god, and that masturbation is a sin akin to murder (and as is sex outside of marriage & homosexual sex), or that Elohim (god the father) had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus? Or to the Catholic doctrine stating that all forms of birth control are evil, and that Catholic priests who rape children en masse should be protected from the law and “pitied” rather than punished.
Or how about you start linking to the Scientology doctrine of alien influence over humankind influence which must be overcome through many payments to Scientology teachers over the course of several years, or their advocacy for locking away your family members so they can be part of the “Sea Org?”
You’re violating your principle of having a “creedless church” by having direct links to the religious education texts of another religion – where those other directly linked to pages (by the American Islamic Congress) claim unquestionably that Mohammad received a revelation from his god AKA the god of Islam.
You are now directly linking UUism with Islam, and making UUism essentially a sect of Islam. Will you be doing the same for Catholicism, Mormonism, and Scientology? If not, why not? What makes Islam so special that you would find it necessary to provide direct links to the religious education texts of another religion?
Response to observation 4, regarding the claims that “…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…” and “…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…,” and a strong unquestioning advocacy for the work of Reza Aslan.
Here we see again the Unitarian singularly unique appreciation for Islam above other religions. Do you also claim that Scientology is a complex & beautiful faith? How about Mormonism? How about Catholicism? How about the Branch Dividianism, or Hale-Bop-ism?
I have come to conclude that your incredibly one sided and uncritically fawning appreciation for Islam comes from one source: Your hatred for the war in Iraq, and a similar hatred which is now extending to the war in Afghanistan.
If you hate those wars, then the religion of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan must therefore be peaceful and beautiful, right?
But what do the founding texts of Islam say, about life, about women, about sex, about violence, and about those who refuse to believe? What do they plainly and clearly say?
Do you call the rape of a nine year old by Mohammad beautiful?
Do you consider the gender apartheid that is rampant and strongly advocated by countless Imams in Islam to be beautiful? A type of apartheid that warps the minds of the boys in Islam, so they have no idea how to properly socialize or to please women, & an apartheid drives the young men to suicide? Reference the videos made during the Secular Islam conference available on the website of the Center for Inquiry (www.centerforinquiry.net). Also is gender apartheid beautiful which warps girl’s minds, so they come to learn to love being bagged from head to toe Stockholm Syndrome style?
Is a faith (Islam) which drove well educated middle class men fly two airplanes into the twin towers in New York, resulting in the death of 3,000 Americans, and many thousands of collateral deaths in Iraq because of Bush’s reactions & possible overreactions? Is that faith beautiful, marvelous, and well worth fawning about to our children and to the UU church membership as a whole?
Is a faith which has as it’s founding text great advocacy for bloodthirsty violence beautiful?
And since you consider the “struggles of Islam” to be your struggle, or our struggle, do you include the struggles of the Taliban and of Hamas? How about the struggles of Osama Bin Ladin, or of the middle class Muslim adherents who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? How about the struggles of the road side bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they plant bombs to kill American soldiers? Are the struggles of these Islamic adherents yours also? Are you asking their struggles to be mine?
Let me say that your complete support for Mohammad and his church results in the following: You all have completely forsaken key Unitarian Universalist principles with this response of yours to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your hatred for Bush and his cohorts has driven you insane. When you heard from Bush’s Whitehouse the claim that “we make our own reality” – you poo pooed their claims as outrageous. But when you do the same by claiming that Islam is something it is not, you are doing the same. You are stating a lie, and then calling your lie the truth. That is doublespeak. And apparently liberals can engage in it just as much as conservatives can.
The bottom line is that it is most important to be honest.
Islam is both a religion of peace and a religion of human spirit destroying gender apartheid.
Islam is both a source of comfort for fluffy American women who convert to the extremely rare even in America non-veil-imposing non-gender-apartheid-imposing form of Islam, and a source of great and huge pain to the little girls in Afghanistan who get acid thrown in their face because they want to learn.
Islam is at very a different point in it’s history compared to Christianity. Christianity had a Reformation and an Enlightenment. Islam has not, or it’s having one or now – but only with our help. But it will only have a proper and true and full reformation if we are willing to be fully honest.
What you have on your websites is not honesty. It’s basically a bunch of lies about Islam. And it shows an inappropriate connection between Islam and Unitarian Universalism.
Since, traditionally, Unitarian Universalism has been a place where people could come for support when they leave other religions, consider how these actions of yours will hurt and damage those who leave Islam and want to come to UUism for support:
It will undercut them.
It will deny them a better path to recovery.
It will deny & seek to suppress the true & honest life experiences of those who have left Islam.
It will deny them a good opportunity to be intellectually and emotionally honest, and to be psychologically adult.
What if on your websites you made the same claims about Mormonism, and said that Mormonism was a complex and beautiful faith? You would subvert and undercut the path of exmormons who come to UUism to find solace and support - to find a way out of an oppressive cult.
So, as a member of two Unitarian Universalist congregations, and as a former Mormon with direct knowledge of exactly how conservative religions operate, I demand that you stop this strong advocacy for one single other religion. Stick to your own creedless church. But don’t try and dictate to me, as a UU member, what I should think or believe about Islam, their child raping prophet, or their violence advocating holy book.
A good place for you to start your recovery from strong advocacy for Islam would be via checking out the following key authors:
Dr. Sam Harris, who has debated Reza Aslan several times. Reza really becomes incredibly agitated and angry when he encounters Dr. Harris. Reza shows that he is not a very scholarly person when he does this. Also Mr. Aslan recently came to Utah and he spoke fawningly of Mormonism – showing that he knows nothing about nor the pain it causes people. And this type of response from Aslan shows one problem liberal religionists have with understanding exactly what conservative religion is like on the inside. You really have no concept of what really goes on in Islam nor in Mormonism nor in other conservative religions and your unquestioning support for Islam in this case and your fluffy claim that “all paths lead to the divine and are of equal value” is another. It’s a lie. Not all paths help humans thrive. Some paths are more abusive than others. Dr. Harris author of the recent book The Moral Landscape.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali – a woman who escaped an arranged marriage in Somalia. She worked with Theo Van Gogh on a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women. As a result she now is forced to live with constant security protection. She’s an author & she’s also spoken a lot about the problems with Islam. Note that she is an ex-Muslim. If she came to a UU Church would her experience as an ex-Muslim be honored, or would you try to silence her? I bet you’d do the latter, as per your inappropriately fawning statements in favor of Islam & it’s child raping prophet.
Key people on these points spoke at the Secular Islam Summit. Here's one key video with Tawfik Hamid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA
Here are some additional cutting edge thinkers on the issue of honesty, human well being & thriving, and the true nature of religion: Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins.
Response to observation 5, regarding a complete lack of response from the SVUUS about their five week religious education course for teens on Islam.
Apparently the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, deaths caused directly by well educated men who were infected with the widespread memetic virus of suicide-advocating-Islam, has caused some controversy, and fear on the left regarding a willingness to be honest and open. Not responding at all to my requests for information shows great fear about any desire to have honest and open discussions about the true nature of Islam.
Before 9/11 what did we know of the hijab or nijab, or of who was a kafir or not, or of what meat is halal or not? Nothing. And frankly I still don’t want to know, expect that I don’t want anyone to be oppressed. And clearly as per Afghanistan and 9/11, when people are allowed to wallow in misery, they will lash out. 9/11 was such a lashing out (and it was an indirect request for help), and our response should now be to stop the oppression that caused angry people to lash out and to do murderous things.
No country has an inherent right to oppress their own people. And Stockholm Syndrome gender apartheid warped men & women can not be trusted to properly evaluate their own situation, just as a girl kept in a basement for 20 years & raped by her father cannot either. When angry crazed people lash out and kill 3,000, that shows the folly of standing by while their lives are being destroyed, destroyed in this case by a highly prevalent & pervasive form of Islam.
In our connected world we can now see exactly how bronze age cultures operate, as they stone adulterers and gays, as they forcibly veil and bag women, and as they drive men to suicide because of gender apartheid. These key elements of Islamic culture are all Islamic. And yes, so is the very very small minority of liberal mosques in America that don’t force the veil, and which don’t force gender apartheid. It’s both. Not one.
Your key lie in this matter is that the whole of Islam is represented by the very small number of American mosques that don’t oppress women & men & which don’t engage in gender apartheid. But your claim is a lie. And the lack of a response on this issue from SVUUS shows that you, at the very least, suspect, you’re lying as a means of covering up your true motives: your hatred for Bush’s actions in Iraq and your attempt to make amends by repeating the UUSC/UUA lie that: Islam is beautiful, and that Islam is a religion of peace.
Response to observation 6, regarding your unwavering and unquestioning and uncritical support for the Ground Zero Mega Mosque.
Maybe the proposed mosque won’t enforce gender apartheid. Maybe they won’t force the veil. But it’s also true that in other Islamic countries, a big huge mosque so close to Ground Zero will be seen as a triumph – as a key victory.
Symbolism does matter. And when 9/11 families express their outrage on this issue, you, the UUA, and the UUSC are not being all that kind nor nice to the victims of 9/11. Your level of “respect” doesn’t seem to extend to victims of a terror attack, an attack directly caused by one very prominent form of Islam. Go and listen to the ex-Islamists I’ve referenced on the Center for Inquiry’s website. Listen to them for yourself. Read Ayan Hirsi Ali.
You, in your fluffy pseudo-religion have no concept of what life is like in a real hard core religion and it shows.
Here’s some quotes from cultural & religious Muslims who were against the mosque:
From Ibn Warraq, founder of the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, and fellow of the Center for Inquiry:
"Perhaps readers of the CFI Free Thinking Blog can help me out. At the time of the South Park Affair, and even earlier going right back to The Rushdie Affair, I was a staunch supporter of Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists and their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, and scoffed at the tender sensibilities of the Muslims. Now, with Imam Rauf's intention to build an Islamic Center just 600 feet from Ground Zero in Manhattan, I began by arguing that the feelings of the families and colleagues of those who lost their lives on 11 September, 2001 should be respected, and that the Islamic Center should be opposed, and then I realized that perhaps I was being inconsistent. Are the two cases similar? Am I being inconsistent? I have, since that realization, concentrated on gathering material against Imam Rauf, and have enough evidence- I had to wade through two of his books, one with 210 pages and the other with 314 page to gather it- to show that he is not a moderate at all. And still, moderate or not, Imam Rauf has the right to build his Islamic Center. For me far from being a symbol of tolerance, the Islamic center is a symbol of Islamic triumphalism. If Rauf truly wanted to build bridges, as he claimed, then he has failed in a spectacular way. If the Center is ever built, then I do not ever want to hear anyone talking about the hurt sensibilities of Muslims again." -quote ends
And here’s some quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Muslims
------------------------ quote begins
Another founding member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Zuhdi Jasser, who is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona, strongly opposed the mosque, saying:
"For us, a mosque was always a place to pray ... not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn't be about promoting Islam. It's the place where war was declared on us as Americans."
He in addition said:
"American freedom of religion is a right, but … it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero. … Islamists in 'moderate' disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims (as) separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam."
Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world."
Authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshipers. We Muslims know ... this mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as 'Fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making' that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."
Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, while noting that blaming all Muslims for 9/11 was "ridiculous", said:
"I don't think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open .... and when wounds are raw, an episode like constructing a house of worship ... even one protected by the Constitution, protected by law ... becomes like salt in the wounds."
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled "A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?" in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat, saying:
"Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery ... the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!"
Rima Fakih, the first Muslim-American crowned Miss USA as Miss USA 2010, opposed the mosque on the grounds of it being insensitive to families of 9/11 victims, telling Inside Edition:
"I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on the constitutional rights of freedom of religion. But it shouldn't be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion..."
------------------------ quote ends regarding Muslims who opposed the Ground Zero Mega Mosque
-------------------------------------------.
Perhaps at this point, the condescending relativist Ivory Tower enshrined fluffy highfalutin-speak-that-means-nothing type of response is about to come back to me from you, such as via saying “things were different back then in Mohammad’s day.” Yes they were, but how far are you willing to go with your relativism to justify rape & murder? Mohammad raped a 9 year old, and he wrote a ghoulish bloodthirsty “holy book” which has been a bane upon humanity ever since. Can you add these key facts to your fawning pages on Islam please?
There’s some similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith. Both claimed to receive revelation from their god. But Mohammad was directly responsible for a lot more deaths, and his holy book is more bloodthirsty than Joseph’s.
Not everything in life should be addressed in the type of anally retentive fluffy & condescending tonality that seems to infect quite a large number Unitarian Universalist ministers. Sometimes it’s more important to speak frankly, about life, and to frank and honest assessments about where things stand.
Does UUism stand with murders, rapists, conquerors, and sociopaths?
If you stand with Mohammad and his religion then this is where you stand.
Previously it was only within Islamic schools where people were to told that Mohammad was a great man in an unquestioning and fawning type way.
But now, thanks to your morally vacuous stance, a stance that is firmly rooted in the relativist cancer that infects the Ivory Tower, you’re now teaching the same unquestioning view of Mohammad & Islam in your churches, in my churches (if being a member of a UU church means anything).
Stick to what you know: A generally positive stance toward social justice and doing good.
But I do fear that you still cannot comprehend what I am saying.
When Islamists can subvert liberalism via having people like you considering Islam to be a human race when it’s not, and Islam to be of peace when it’s not, and Islam to be beautiful when it’s founder was a raping murderer, it shows you need to go back and do your homework.
I request and (rightly as a UU member) demand that you alter your websites and your religious curricula to accurately reflect what the true situation is, relative to what Mohammad really said in his bloodthirsty holy book, about women, about non-believers, and about everyone, and relative to what Mohammad did to a nine year old little girl. Maybe if you’re willing to be honest then the words “social justice” can really be ascribed to your groups again. But until then, you’re just saying a bunch of rather dangerous lies in response to and to apologize for the Unitarian-sins of Bush.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
-----------------end of quote of my letter
This issue is especially relevant to some secular advocates (atheists/humanists/naturalists/etc.) as sometimes we sometimes show up to UU meetings for social support.
_____________________.
November 30, 2010
To the following parties:
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), 689 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-3302
Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), 25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108
South Valley Unitarian Universalist Society (SVUUS), 6876 South Highland Drive, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121
First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, 569 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Greetings,
This letter concerns Unitarian Universalism’s appreciation of and approach to Islam. Here is what I have observed:
Observation 1:
Children being told about Mohammad (the prophet of Islam) in glowing and appreciative terms, during the “children’s teaching time” at the service of the SVUUS.
Observation 2:
Being told at the SVUUS service that when Islam was first starting, women had more rights and they had a lot of freedoms. We were also told that Islam is a beautiful and peaceful religion, and that Mohammad was a great man. This declaration occurred just a few weeks ago at the SVUUS congregational meeting, when a special five week long religious education course on Islam was announced for teens.
Observation 3:
The UUSC having on their web site direct links to Islamic religious curricula, curricula which claims without question, that Mohammad received a revelation from a god. The following [now archived] UUSC website links directly to, without any disclaimer, religious education material offered by the American Islamic Congress.
Building Bridges Toolkit:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120519235021/http://www.uusc.org/buildingbridges/toolkit
"When Society Seeks Unity: Religious Pluralism," by Rev. Paul Beckel:
https://web.archive.org/web/20041023005721/http://uuwausau.org/society.html
Hannah Petrie info: http://web.archive.org/web/20200409145025/https://www.cedarsuuchurch.org/?p=876
Observation 4:
On the UUSC website there is a religious education document which states the following:
“…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…”
“…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…”
Also the document in question heavily references the work of Reza Aslan.
Document link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150322110533/http://www.isna.net/uploads/1/5/7/4/15744382/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf
previously at (http://www.uua.org/documents/washingtonoffice/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf)
Observation 5:
I requested from SVUUS, both via email and paper letter further information about the special five week course on Islam to be given to teens. No response was received.
Observation 6:
The UUA and the UUSC have issued a joint statement in support of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130130143726/http://www.uusc.org/content/uusc_uua_declare_support_lower_manhattan_mosque
Before I respond to each point, allow me to give you some background:
My name is on the member books of both Unitarian congregations in the Salt Lake valley, for what it’s worth. I am an ex-Mormon. I spent 25 years as a strong believing Mormon. I was a Mormon missionary, temple worker, and Sunday school president. After leaving Mormonism I have had strong associations with several people within the exmormon movement, such as Dr. Simon Southerton, a former Mormon Bishop from Australia and DNA scientist. Dr. Southerton wrote a book about how DNA evidence shows that the people of the Book of Mormon did not come from Israel in 600 BCE. I also frequently attend the yearly Exmormon Foundation conferences in Salt Lake City. And, as is common for many people who leave Mormonism I have drafted a lengthy exit journal, which is available at the following URLs:
http://tinyurl.com/5dbe36
or http://corvus.freeshell.org in the “life path” section.
When I first encountered Unitarianism I found that it tended to be a place where people who had left more conservative religions tended to congregate. UUism tended to serve as a social support system for people in that situation. Thus outside of Utah usually it’s the ex-Catholics and maybe ex-Baptists who go. But in Utah at both Salt Lake congregations there are many exmormons who go.
And now here is my response to each observational point noted earlier:
Response to observation 1, regarding children in UUism being taught about Mohammad in a glowing and fawning way:
Mohammad was not Jesus and he was not Buddha. Jesus may have been a mythical person or he may have been real. But regardless, and in general, the teachings of Jesus were indeed more peaceful than those of Mohammad.
Buddha’s teachings were also infinitely more peaceful than those of Mohammad.
It is simply inappropriate for a religion which prides itself on “social justice” and on “civil rights” to glowingly, fawningly, and uncritically advocate for and on behalf of the founding prophet of Islam.
It just so happens that not everything is equal. Not all religions are equal. Religion is like the word “sport.” Badminton is not very comparable to rugby for example, except that all of the players are breathing when they play. And the same goes for the word religion. Stating or claiming that “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” this type of view, when it is expressed by the UUSC, sounds very much like a creed for a supposedly creedless church. You are making a position statement, and a claim about facts & real people, and your claims have bearing on the ability of people to thrive and be happy.
No, not all paths to the “divine” are of equal value. The path of the suicide bomber is not as equally valid as the path of the Buddhist monk to goes into a cave for 5 years to meditate, nor to that of a Jainist who filters his water through cheese cloth so as to avoid eating insects. The path of the genitally mutilating African tribal Islamic mother or Jewish moil are not as equally valid as those who reject child mutilation. And so on. Is this question really so difficult for you?
Regarding Mohammad specifically, what did the man do?
He advocated for the death of people who refused to convert.
He married a six year old and consummated that marriage when she was nine. There are several references to this fact on the Wikipedia page about Mohammad. And while in the past the claim of Wikipedia being largely the work of inaccurate chaos when it was first starting, that claim is no longer valid as per the hordes of extremely fastidious people who now operate the site on a volunteer basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Wives_and_children
…and check out reference numbers 53 through 58 on that page.
Mohammad clearly did engage in polygamy. Is this a pro-woman stance?
Mohammad wrote a rather bloodthirsty book known as the Quran, which advocates death and torture for all sorts of people. References the Skeptics Annotated Quran for great detail on this point: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Because of the scope of Unitarian Universalism’s fawning and unquestioning support for Islam, I am going to quote in this letter directly from commentary notes about passages in Mohammad’s holy book the Quran. As you read the following notes about passages in his book, consider your claim that “all paths to the divine are equally valid.” And consider the validity of teaching children in a fawning way about just how great and wonderful Mohammad, the author of the following words, was and is:
From the Skeptics Annotated Quran website - notes about passages in the Quran
[in the letter I quote fully from
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
]
Response to observation 2, regarding the claim by the SVUUS special five week long course on Islam for teenagers, and in response to the course preparers who claimed that early Islam (during & shortly after Mohammad’s time) was more friendly to women:
Does polygamy and the rape of a nine year old represent a pro-woman stance? Ample and readily available documentation regarding the life of Mohammad shows that he not only engaged in polygamy he also raped his nine year “wife.”
Are these actions by Mohammad “pro-woman?”
Is the widespread practice of polygamy in Islam “pro-woman?”
Is forcing a six year old into an arranged marriage, and then raping her at age nine – are these actions “pro-woman?”
Haven’t you bothered to do your research? Has Unitarianism gone so far off the rails as to claim outright lies about the life of Mohammad, and what Islam stands for, in large part?
Response to observation 3, regarding the UUSC’s fawning and direct connection to the American Islamic Congress.
Is it common for Unitarianism to have direct weblinks to the religious curricula of other religions? Why not also link to Mormon and Catholic curricula?
For example, since “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” as you appear to plainly claim on the UUSC website, may I suggest that you link to pages regarding Mormon doctrine which states that oral sex is not ordained of god, and that masturbation is a sin akin to murder (and as is sex outside of marriage & homosexual sex), or that Elohim (god the father) had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus? Or to the Catholic doctrine stating that all forms of birth control are evil, and that Catholic priests who rape children en masse should be protected from the law and “pitied” rather than punished.
Or how about you start linking to the Scientology doctrine of alien influence over humankind influence which must be overcome through many payments to Scientology teachers over the course of several years, or their advocacy for locking away your family members so they can be part of the “Sea Org?”
You’re violating your principle of having a “creedless church” by having direct links to the religious education texts of another religion – where those other directly linked to pages (by the American Islamic Congress) claim unquestionably that Mohammad received a revelation from his god AKA the god of Islam.
You are now directly linking UUism with Islam, and making UUism essentially a sect of Islam. Will you be doing the same for Catholicism, Mormonism, and Scientology? If not, why not? What makes Islam so special that you would find it necessary to provide direct links to the religious education texts of another religion?
Response to observation 4, regarding the claims that “…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…” and “…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…,” and a strong unquestioning advocacy for the work of Reza Aslan.
Here we see again the Unitarian singularly unique appreciation for Islam above other religions. Do you also claim that Scientology is a complex & beautiful faith? How about Mormonism? How about Catholicism? How about the Branch Dividianism, or Hale-Bop-ism?
I have come to conclude that your incredibly one sided and uncritically fawning appreciation for Islam comes from one source: Your hatred for the war in Iraq, and a similar hatred which is now extending to the war in Afghanistan.
If you hate those wars, then the religion of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan must therefore be peaceful and beautiful, right?
But what do the founding texts of Islam say, about life, about women, about sex, about violence, and about those who refuse to believe? What do they plainly and clearly say?
Do you call the rape of a nine year old by Mohammad beautiful?
Do you consider the gender apartheid that is rampant and strongly advocated by countless Imams in Islam to be beautiful? A type of apartheid that warps the minds of the boys in Islam, so they have no idea how to properly socialize or to please women, & an apartheid drives the young men to suicide? Reference the videos made during the Secular Islam conference available on the website of the Center for Inquiry (www.centerforinquiry.net). Also is gender apartheid beautiful which warps girl’s minds, so they come to learn to love being bagged from head to toe Stockholm Syndrome style?
Is a faith (Islam) which drove well educated middle class men fly two airplanes into the twin towers in New York, resulting in the death of 3,000 Americans, and many thousands of collateral deaths in Iraq because of Bush’s reactions & possible overreactions? Is that faith beautiful, marvelous, and well worth fawning about to our children and to the UU church membership as a whole?
Is a faith which has as it’s founding text great advocacy for bloodthirsty violence beautiful?
And since you consider the “struggles of Islam” to be your struggle, or our struggle, do you include the struggles of the Taliban and of Hamas? How about the struggles of Osama Bin Ladin, or of the middle class Muslim adherents who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? How about the struggles of the road side bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they plant bombs to kill American soldiers? Are the struggles of these Islamic adherents yours also? Are you asking their struggles to be mine?
Let me say that your complete support for Mohammad and his church results in the following: You all have completely forsaken key Unitarian Universalist principles with this response of yours to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your hatred for Bush and his cohorts has driven you insane. When you heard from Bush’s Whitehouse the claim that “we make our own reality” – you poo pooed their claims as outrageous. But when you do the same by claiming that Islam is something it is not, you are doing the same. You are stating a lie, and then calling your lie the truth. That is doublespeak. And apparently liberals can engage in it just as much as conservatives can.
The bottom line is that it is most important to be honest.
Islam is both a religion of peace and a religion of human spirit destroying gender apartheid.
Islam is both a source of comfort for fluffy American women who convert to the extremely rare even in America non-veil-imposing non-gender-apartheid-imposing form of Islam, and a source of great and huge pain to the little girls in Afghanistan who get acid thrown in their face because they want to learn.
Islam is at very a different point in it’s history compared to Christianity. Christianity had a Reformation and an Enlightenment. Islam has not, or it’s having one or now – but only with our help. But it will only have a proper and true and full reformation if we are willing to be fully honest.
What you have on your websites is not honesty. It’s basically a bunch of lies about Islam. And it shows an inappropriate connection between Islam and Unitarian Universalism.
Since, traditionally, Unitarian Universalism has been a place where people could come for support when they leave other religions, consider how these actions of yours will hurt and damage those who leave Islam and want to come to UUism for support:
It will undercut them.
It will deny them a better path to recovery.
It will deny & seek to suppress the true & honest life experiences of those who have left Islam.
It will deny them a good opportunity to be intellectually and emotionally honest, and to be psychologically adult.
What if on your websites you made the same claims about Mormonism, and said that Mormonism was a complex and beautiful faith? You would subvert and undercut the path of exmormons who come to UUism to find solace and support - to find a way out of an oppressive cult.
So, as a member of two Unitarian Universalist congregations, and as a former Mormon with direct knowledge of exactly how conservative religions operate, I demand that you stop this strong advocacy for one single other religion. Stick to your own creedless church. But don’t try and dictate to me, as a UU member, what I should think or believe about Islam, their child raping prophet, or their violence advocating holy book.
A good place for you to start your recovery from strong advocacy for Islam would be via checking out the following key authors:
Dr. Sam Harris, who has debated Reza Aslan several times. Reza really becomes incredibly agitated and angry when he encounters Dr. Harris. Reza shows that he is not a very scholarly person when he does this. Also Mr. Aslan recently came to Utah and he spoke fawningly of Mormonism – showing that he knows nothing about nor the pain it causes people. And this type of response from Aslan shows one problem liberal religionists have with understanding exactly what conservative religion is like on the inside. You really have no concept of what really goes on in Islam nor in Mormonism nor in other conservative religions and your unquestioning support for Islam in this case and your fluffy claim that “all paths lead to the divine and are of equal value” is another. It’s a lie. Not all paths help humans thrive. Some paths are more abusive than others. Dr. Harris author of the recent book The Moral Landscape.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali – a woman who escaped an arranged marriage in Somalia. She worked with Theo Van Gogh on a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women. As a result she now is forced to live with constant security protection. She’s an author & she’s also spoken a lot about the problems with Islam. Note that she is an ex-Muslim. If she came to a UU Church would her experience as an ex-Muslim be honored, or would you try to silence her? I bet you’d do the latter, as per your inappropriately fawning statements in favor of Islam & it’s child raping prophet.
Key people on these points spoke at the Secular Islam Summit. Here's one key video with Tawfik Hamid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA
Here are some additional cutting edge thinkers on the issue of honesty, human well being & thriving, and the true nature of religion: Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins.
Response to observation 5, regarding a complete lack of response from the SVUUS about their five week religious education course for teens on Islam.
Apparently the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, deaths caused directly by well educated men who were infected with the widespread memetic virus of suicide-advocating-Islam, has caused some controversy, and fear on the left regarding a willingness to be honest and open. Not responding at all to my requests for information shows great fear about any desire to have honest and open discussions about the true nature of Islam.
Before 9/11 what did we know of the hijab or nijab, or of who was a kafir or not, or of what meat is halal or not? Nothing. And frankly I still don’t want to know, expect that I don’t want anyone to be oppressed. And clearly as per Afghanistan and 9/11, when people are allowed to wallow in misery, they will lash out. 9/11 was such a lashing out (and it was an indirect request for help), and our response should now be to stop the oppression that caused angry people to lash out and to do murderous things.
No country has an inherent right to oppress their own people. And Stockholm Syndrome gender apartheid warped men & women can not be trusted to properly evaluate their own situation, just as a girl kept in a basement for 20 years & raped by her father cannot either. When angry crazed people lash out and kill 3,000, that shows the folly of standing by while their lives are being destroyed, destroyed in this case by a highly prevalent & pervasive form of Islam.
In our connected world we can now see exactly how bronze age cultures operate, as they stone adulterers and gays, as they forcibly veil and bag women, and as they drive men to suicide because of gender apartheid. These key elements of Islamic culture are all Islamic. And yes, so is the very very small minority of liberal mosques in America that don’t force the veil, and which don’t force gender apartheid. It’s both. Not one.
Your key lie in this matter is that the whole of Islam is represented by the very small number of American mosques that don’t oppress women & men & which don’t engage in gender apartheid. But your claim is a lie. And the lack of a response on this issue from SVUUS shows that you, at the very least, suspect, you’re lying as a means of covering up your true motives: your hatred for Bush’s actions in Iraq and your attempt to make amends by repeating the UUSC/UUA lie that: Islam is beautiful, and that Islam is a religion of peace.
Response to observation 6, regarding your unwavering and unquestioning and uncritical support for the Ground Zero Mega Mosque.
Maybe the proposed mosque won’t enforce gender apartheid. Maybe they won’t force the veil. But it’s also true that in other Islamic countries, a big huge mosque so close to Ground Zero will be seen as a triumph – as a key victory.
Symbolism does matter. And when 9/11 families express their outrage on this issue, you, the UUA, and the UUSC are not being all that kind nor nice to the victims of 9/11. Your level of “respect” doesn’t seem to extend to victims of a terror attack, an attack directly caused by one very prominent form of Islam. Go and listen to the ex-Islamists I’ve referenced on the Center for Inquiry’s website. Listen to them for yourself. Read Ayan Hirsi Ali.
You, in your fluffy pseudo-religion have no concept of what life is like in a real hard core religion and it shows.
Here’s some quotes from cultural & religious Muslims who were against the mosque:
From Ibn Warraq, founder of the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, and fellow of the Center for Inquiry:
"Perhaps readers of the CFI Free Thinking Blog can help me out. At the time of the South Park Affair, and even earlier going right back to The Rushdie Affair, I was a staunch supporter of Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists and their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, and scoffed at the tender sensibilities of the Muslims. Now, with Imam Rauf's intention to build an Islamic Center just 600 feet from Ground Zero in Manhattan, I began by arguing that the feelings of the families and colleagues of those who lost their lives on 11 September, 2001 should be respected, and that the Islamic Center should be opposed, and then I realized that perhaps I was being inconsistent. Are the two cases similar? Am I being inconsistent? I have, since that realization, concentrated on gathering material against Imam Rauf, and have enough evidence- I had to wade through two of his books, one with 210 pages and the other with 314 page to gather it- to show that he is not a moderate at all. And still, moderate or not, Imam Rauf has the right to build his Islamic Center. For me far from being a symbol of tolerance, the Islamic center is a symbol of Islamic triumphalism. If Rauf truly wanted to build bridges, as he claimed, then he has failed in a spectacular way. If the Center is ever built, then I do not ever want to hear anyone talking about the hurt sensibilities of Muslims again." -quote ends
And here’s some quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Muslims
------------------------ quote begins
Another founding member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Zuhdi Jasser, who is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona, strongly opposed the mosque, saying:
"For us, a mosque was always a place to pray ... not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn't be about promoting Islam. It's the place where war was declared on us as Americans."
He in addition said:
"American freedom of religion is a right, but … it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero. … Islamists in 'moderate' disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims (as) separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam."
Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world."
Authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshipers. We Muslims know ... this mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as 'Fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making' that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."
Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, while noting that blaming all Muslims for 9/11 was "ridiculous", said:
"I don't think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open .... and when wounds are raw, an episode like constructing a house of worship ... even one protected by the Constitution, protected by law ... becomes like salt in the wounds."
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled "A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?" in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat, saying:
"Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery ... the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!"
Rima Fakih, the first Muslim-American crowned Miss USA as Miss USA 2010, opposed the mosque on the grounds of it being insensitive to families of 9/11 victims, telling Inside Edition:
"I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on the constitutional rights of freedom of religion. But it shouldn't be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion..."
------------------------ quote ends regarding Muslims who opposed the Ground Zero Mega Mosque
-------------------------------------------.
Perhaps at this point, the condescending relativist Ivory Tower enshrined fluffy highfalutin-speak-that-means-nothing type of response is about to come back to me from you, such as via saying “things were different back then in Mohammad’s day.” Yes they were, but how far are you willing to go with your relativism to justify rape & murder? Mohammad raped a 9 year old, and he wrote a ghoulish bloodthirsty “holy book” which has been a bane upon humanity ever since. Can you add these key facts to your fawning pages on Islam please?
There’s some similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith. Both claimed to receive revelation from their god. But Mohammad was directly responsible for a lot more deaths, and his holy book is more bloodthirsty than Joseph’s.
Not everything in life should be addressed in the type of anally retentive fluffy & condescending tonality that seems to infect quite a large number Unitarian Universalist ministers. Sometimes it’s more important to speak frankly, about life, and to frank and honest assessments about where things stand.
Does UUism stand with murders, rapists, conquerors, and sociopaths?
If you stand with Mohammad and his religion then this is where you stand.
Previously it was only within Islamic schools where people were to told that Mohammad was a great man in an unquestioning and fawning type way.
But now, thanks to your morally vacuous stance, a stance that is firmly rooted in the relativist cancer that infects the Ivory Tower, you’re now teaching the same unquestioning view of Mohammad & Islam in your churches, in my churches (if being a member of a UU church means anything).
Stick to what you know: A generally positive stance toward social justice and doing good.
But I do fear that you still cannot comprehend what I am saying.
When Islamists can subvert liberalism via having people like you considering Islam to be a human race when it’s not, and Islam to be of peace when it’s not, and Islam to be beautiful when it’s founder was a raping murderer, it shows you need to go back and do your homework.
I request and (rightly as a UU member) demand that you alter your websites and your religious curricula to accurately reflect what the true situation is, relative to what Mohammad really said in his bloodthirsty holy book, about women, about non-believers, and about everyone, and relative to what Mohammad did to a nine year old little girl. Maybe if you’re willing to be honest then the words “social justice” can really be ascribed to your groups again. But until then, you’re just saying a bunch of rather dangerous lies in response to and to apologize for the Unitarian-sins of Bush.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
-----------------end of quote of my letter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)