Category: Religion

Actor Jim Caviezel has been struck by lightning while playing Jesus in Mel Gibson’s controversial film The Passion Of Christ.
The lightning bolt hit Caviezel and the film’s assistant director Jan Michelini while they were filming in a remote location a few hours from Rome.

It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot.

And the chances of a Michelini being hit twice on the same set? God must not be happy! LOL

Top Stories – Reuters

Catholic Churches Say Condoms Don’t Stop AIDS – BBC

LONDON (Reuters) – The lives of Roman Catholics in some of the countries worst hit by HIV (news – web sites)/AIDS (news – web sites) are being put at even greater risk by advice from their churches that the use of condoms does not prevent transmission of the disease, according to a British television program.

If condoms cannot be absolutely guaranteed to block sperm, they stand even less chance of stopping the much smaller virus, the churches’ argument runs.

The Roman Catholic church opposes any form of artificial contraception — particularly condoms, which it says promote promiscuity.

But the traditional opposition is now being reinforced by arguments over their efficacy.

“The moral argument against the use of condoms is being superseded by a clinical argument which is flawed,” said Steve Bradshaw, reporter on the BBC Panorama program “Sex and the Holy City” that will be aired in Britain on Sunday night.

“The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon,” Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican (news – web sites)’s Pontifical Council for the Family, told the program.

“The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.”

He said that just as health authorities warned about dangers like tobacco, so they had an obligation to issue similar warnings about condoms.

The Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki told the program: “AIDS…has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms.”

While in Luak near Lake Victoria, Gordon Wambi, director of an AIDS testing center, said he had been prevented from distributing condoms because of church opposition.

Bradshaw told Reuters the program team did not go out looking for the story, but stumbled across it during research.

“We heard the same line so many times from different people in different places that we decided to approach the Vatican,” he said.

The World Health Organization (news – web sites), guardian watchdog of global wellbeing, rejected the Vatican view.

“These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million,” the WHO told the program.

It conceded condoms could break or be damaged and permit passage of semen, but said they reduced the risk of infection by 90 percent and were certainly secure enough to prevent passage of the virus if not torn.

Panorama said scientific research had found intact condoms were impermeable to particles as small as sexually transmitted infection pathogens — a view rejected by Trujillo.

“They are wrong about that…this is an easily recognizable fact,” he told the program.

From Nicaragua to Kenya and the Philippines, the Panorama team found the same tale from the Catholic church — that condoms can kill.

No official comment from the Vatican was immediately available on Thursday.
Continue reading “Catholics against condoms”

Janet Dubé on religion, and prayer in US politics

In President Bush’s now notorious phrase “axis of evil”, it is obviously the word evil that suggests he was using a religious idea for political purposes. Axis has scientific meanings in a way evil cannot. Some meanings of axis suggest the phrase axis of evil is nonsense: others amplify its vague menace.

…

But it is not just because they’re politicians that many find the idea of Bush and Blair in private prayer creepy or frightening. It is because they have power and we don’t want a holy war. Use religious language to pray for reconciliation, forgiveness and peace says Professor Pagels, and keep political discourse open to everyone

George Monbiot with a subject debated at great length by myself and Frank over the last week. Worth a look.

Just to clarify, I meant there are two types only who are still fighting. Those baathists who have no future because of their actions under the old regime and foreigners.The mercenary tag is meant in a very broad sense, no-one is fighting Coalition (note: not just American) forces for money. It is clear that there are non-Iraqi muslims fighting, as there were non-Aghans fighting for the Taleban and non-Bosnians (albeit more nobly) fighting in former Yugoslavia and there have been several reports, I’ll see if I can find you a few links. To answer your question, it is only western style projection” that leads you to assume that there Iraqis sufficiently resentful of the presence of foreign troops to fight against them. there’s a huge difference between common-or-garden anti-american sentiment (as is found throughout Europe) and the motivation to kill and risk death. It is easy to understand the notion of “the resistance” and it is sloppy reporting to characterise what is happening in Iraq as some kind of spontaneous “resistance to occupation” like the mythical, false French “resistance” to the Nazis.

Im not so sure Frank. I was at a debate on Saturday and had the pleasure to meet Lindsey Hilsum from Channel 4 News. She characterized the feeling in Iraq for me.

From her experiences in Iraq she believed that the Iraqis “resent the Americans, they believe they are being colonised”. She noted a piece of graffitti scrawled on the plinth of the famous statue that was pulled down by the Americans, written now: “All done, go home”.

I dont think there is evidence either way to support a claim that it is a “Western style projection”, nor would I say that the anti-Americanism present in Arab nations is entirely the same thing as anti-Americanism found in Western European nations, I think they are perhaps two different kettles of fish.

Here’s a thought for you Gavin: Do you think the US army is composed entirely of practicing Christians? There are Muslim, Jewish and atheist soldiers too.

No i don’t. But let me throw it back, do you think a majority or a minority of soldiers in the US army would claim to be Christian? I don’t doubt the existence of other religions in the US armed forces. But like my original point, it is Christianity that would be associated with Amercian invaders/liberators more than any other – not least in the eyes of Iraqis.

By referring to the use of religion in such a broad context (different methods, different extremes) you dilute the point until it is almost meaningless. What will have a tangible effect is if religion is used coercively and to extreme, that is more relevant and interesting than a statement that the leader (or some of the soldiers) of one country prays to God as does the leader (or soldiers) of another country pray to Allah. What matters is if that country places a sanction on you because you don’t conform to the majority religious practice. I couldn’t give a stuff if Bertie Ahern and the whole Dail prayed to Satan as long as they don’t require me to join their rituals

How do I dilute the point? My point is a meaningful one. The observation of religious belief and practice is fascinating. The upsurdity in many ways, the contradictions, the sheer hypocricy of religion.

Now for my reply to Franks second post.

Ok, I think there’s a little bit of “quagmiring” going on here. The original post was about Private Jessica Lynch so I inferred that Gavin was talking about Iraqi soldiers fighting before Baghdad fell. In that case, the “regular” Iraqi army was largely composed of conscripts who showed little interest in fighting and allowed Coalition forces a clear run at Baghdad. After Baghdad fell and to date the only ones still fighting Coalition forces are “irregulars” composed of Al-Qaeda mercenaries (paid in “glory” rather than money) and die-hard Saddam loyalists who are so inextricably linked with the old regime that there is no future for them in a post-Saddam Iraq. The latter selection are fighting for ideological reasons.

Hmm. Im glad you brought that up, as I think it is important to draw the distinction between ‘soldiers’ before the regime fell, and after.

So you appear to be saying there are three kinds of assailants in Iraq presently:

1. Al-Qaeda operatives.
2. People that kill for the money.
2. Die hard Saddam loyalists. (no pun intended)

I find it incredibly hard to make assumptions like this. Dont get me wrong here Frank, im not disputing that these two scenarios are likely. But like any ‘war’ so much information and disinformation is bandied about that its hard to know what to think.

I never came across any news reports that mentioned Al-Qaeda actively at work in Iraq in the last 3 months, but I might have missed that. Perhaps their attacks took the form of the couple of suicide attacks that occured early in the occupation/liberation?

I guess people killing for money happens in any state.

Saddam loyalists must exist as you rightly point out.

But could there be people who want to kill Americans, because they dont like them? Do Arabs generally like American soldiers walking down their street? Its hard to judge the situation in Iraq, some news reports suggest that Iraqis hate the American presence, mass rallies etc, while other reports suggest that Iraqis are happy to see Americans, and hope the Saddam loyalists would just die – hard.

What do people think about this? Comments are welcome.

Ok, and my point is nothing to do with the relative merits of either religion but a simple observation that a juxtaposition of the Religious Right in the US with Wahaabism obscures more than it reveals. They are emphatically not the same sort of thing

Again with the moral relativism, the “invaders” as Gavin tendentiously describes Coalition forces (why not liberators?) are not motivated by religion. They are a disciplined force carrying out the orders of democratic leaders.

I think you are missing my point again here. I am not talking about the religious right in the US or Wahaabism, I am talking about religion in the broadest possible context. I am not talking about the religious left either (if there is such a thing)! LOL.

I am not talking about any particular sect – my point is something that as an atheist I would imagine you find interesting. That on two sides of a battlefield in any war, not particularly Iraq, it is an interesting observation that both armies might be praying to the same god, or different gods and believe their path to be divine. When one is victorious they believe that god was on their side, and when defeated the believe they have done something to displease the god(s). The broadest appliction of observing religion in society. It points to what I see as a ridiculous part of religious belief.

In relation to Iraq; no, the war is not being fought by the US on religious grounds. But tell me that no single American soldier does not pray to god and believe god to be on their side, and I will call you a liar! LOL. Tell me that no Iraqi man who is a muslim, no matter how extreme or not, who goes to kill American soldiers that he does not believe allah to be with him then so too I call you a liar!

Ultimately my point is a philosophical one, not political.

If you really think that religion is used by the state in the same way by USA and Saudi Arabia (note: not the more liberal UAE) I refer you back to my invitation: Consider the relative merits of living in, say, Riyadh, where all sorts of freedoms from minor to major are denied, to any equivalent-sized American city where you can live more or less as you please.

I dont, and I didnt say it did. I mentioned the UAE because I have visited there on three occasions and have more experience with that regime than that in Saudi. I also made it clear here:

how religion is used by the state, in both cases and to different methods and extremes, as a method or tool of nationalism and patriotism, and as a method of control.

In both cases to different methods and different extremes. Religion has been used for centuries in different ways, and as an atheist you admit earlier that religion helps people because it is”comforting to believe that there is a grand design and that there is life after death. Thus we shouldn’t be surprised that religion has “evolved” to tell people what they want to hear.”

So too has religion been used, no less in catholic Ireland, to make people think and believe in certain ways, and to be subservient to the state in others. Would you agree?

So your second putting of the question of Riyadh versus Rhode Island is null. I never said religion was used in the same way, only that religion can and is used, to varying degress, in similar ways all over the world.

Frank has responded to my little piece on religion. He has raised some interesting points, with which I will attempt to deal with.

To be honest I dont have a problem with the agnostic tag. I have met people who are theists, and I have met people who are atheists. Lots of them. All very interesting people with very interesting ideas. I have read atheistic literature like say, Ludovic Kennedy and some theistic stuff while studying philosophy.

Perhaps it would be helpful to the debate if I considered some definitions, that is my definitions.

To me at least, a theist is someone that ‘believes’ a greater being, entity or god to exist. ‘god does exist’

An atheist is someone who does not ‘believe’ such an entity exists. ‘god does not exist’

An agnostic is someone who does not know whether god exists or not. ‘I dont know’.

‘Chickenshit sadoes’ doesn’t really cut it with me I’m afraid.

“This idea that “atheism requires as much of a leap of faith as theism” will not stand; any atheist might be converted in an afternoon if God came over to his house and started wonder-working, but few convinced believers seem inclined to switch sides just because of the invisibility, silence, and apparent indifference of God. I call myself an atheist, since I’m an unbeliever”

I think what we are talking about here are the possibilities. Is it possible that god exists. However remote, is it possible? Is it possible that the majority are right; that most of the people on this planet are right about a greater entity? Is it logical, and rational to accept the possibility?

I would say yes. It is reasonable to accept the possibility that god does indeed exist. There is no evidence in my view, but I must accept that I could be wrong. I must accept that the other 5.5 billion (or whatever the number is) people might just be right. Im not trying to cover my ass here, im trying to look at this logically.

I remain sceptical, I will weigh the evidence and make a judgement. As of yet I have come across no evidence to support god’s existence. There are some pointers that he might, just might, exist, but these are flimsy at best, and are argued exhaustively among philosophers.

But the honest truth, is that humans are a limited species. We simply don’t know, I don’t think anyone knows whether god exists or not. The possibility remains open, I just don’t know. I dont think im sitting on the fence here. I dont know, nor do the theists, nor the atheists.

I think Colbycosh is working off different definitions than I, and therefore we disagree on definition, not on substance.

Now to deal directly with Franks comments:

You are making a huge assumption here, which is that the Iraqi soldiers were motivated to fight for idealogical reasons, Sure, national pride might have been involved to a certain extent, but, in contrast to Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, few Iraqi soldiers were “mujaheddin” motivated to fight “the infidel” never mind for Saddam’s glory. One good explanation for the conventional army’s derisory defence is that they were by an large conscripts and their loyalty to Saddam was “enforced”

Frank, in talking about religion I used an example from the Iraq war. I never made an assumption that they were motivated to fight solely for ideological reasons. The point about Iraq is going slightly offtopic in relation to the subject of religion. But I’ll deal with it briefly.

What you seem to be saying is that American soldiers are being killed because Iraqi conscripts are being forced to kill Americans. In every case? Are you denying that Americans are somewhat disliked by Iraqis, Arabs or indeed Muslims in general? Maybe American soldiers were killed because Iraqis wanted to kill them? Just a thought.

I guess its ‘derisory’ defence against the most advanced army in the world is a matter for debate among military historians. How long could any army withstand such an invasion? Anyway thats another debate.

Touch of the old moral relativism there Gavin, there is a huge qualitative difference between seeing terrorism as evil and seeing death and destruction as “glorification” of Allah. Bush doesn’t insult Christianity by describing Saddam or Al-Qaeda as evil, Wahaabist clerics do insult Islam by using it to justify terrorism. Note that the point of 9/11 was the death and destruction and nothing else, the point of the coalition attack on Iraq was to remove from power a brutal dictator. If you really think there is little to choose between these two try to imagine whether you’d prefer to live in the US or Saudi Arabia. That should clarify things

Again the subject is religion, and its effect on society, not the rights and wrongs of Christianity versus Islam. An example of religion in society is the rightousness prevalent in Bush’s speeches with references to god, in god we trust, god save America, may god continue to bless America, etc.

Further, an example of religion in an Islamic society, is well a very mixed potion of religion and state, but ultimately the same belief that ‘allah’ or ‘god’ is on the side of them, as oppose to the invaders, who also happen to believe god to be on their side.

Whats at issue is not whether I would prefer to live in a state like say the UAE as oppose to America, but how religion is used by the state, in both cases and to different methods and extremes, as a method or tool of nationalism and patriotism, and as a method of control.

Again my using if Iraq was merely as example, there are many other precedents throughout history, I just chose the most recent.

Jessica Lynch has returned to her home town in Virginia. She mourns the loss of her best friend Lori. What I found interesting was what the Governor had to say:

“Our entire state has worn a yellow ribbon around our hearts, God is still in the business of making miracles. One of his miracles came home to the mountains today.”

I find the subject of religion fascinating, both socially and personally. It is something of an enigma to me, and one with which I have long taken an interest.

God is still in the business of making miracles? Ok let me nail my colours to the mast here. I am agnostic, I find the idea of a god to be an interesting idea, and even a possibility, but it something I do not ‘believe’ in.

I am sure the Iraqi soldiers that killed Jessica’s friend felt that ‘god’ was on their side too. In fact they are probably still praising him for the fact that they were able to ‘off’ one of the infidels.

And equally in the US the idea that god is on the side of America is ingrained. He is invoked in practically every speech I have seen Bush make. It is truly amazing to watch. I sit watching it dumbfounded, fundamentalist Muslims talking about Allah saving them, fundamentalist Christians talking about God saving them, can they both be right?

I was stopped on the street here in the UK by a Mormon from Ohio. She interrupted my Mozart listening to ask me directly whether or not I believe in God. To which I replied a resounding no.

She was prepared for that answer it seemed. She continued:

“Have you thought about letting God into your life?”

“Yes I have, but I do not believe in god, I have no evidence for his existence”

“Have you ever asked him?”

“What, you mean directly? Out loud?”

“Yes”

“Yes I have. I accept there is a possibility that god exists, or a god, so one day I asked, with an open mind. I looked up to the sky, and asked honestly, do you exist? No reply”

“You asked and got no reply?”

“No – none”

“Oh”

She was shell shocked. The look on her face was one of not comprehending how this could happen.

“Has he responded to you?” I asked.

“Yes, he has spoken to me”

“Really? Why you and not me?”

“I dont know” she replied.

“Well unless I have some evidence of a god existing, I am not going to spend my whole life either arguing for or against his existence. I have places to visit, and things to get done before I die, and I’m not going to spend my life wondering whether something with the same metaphysical properties as Santa Claus exists, or does not exist”

Cue more shell shock.

“But…but…”

“I live a moral life, I dont need an entity to give me morals”

“But what about Jesus?” she asked

“What about him? Yeah he was an interesting guy, recycled some old ideas and said he was the son of god. But loving ones neighbour was not a new idea, read Confucius or Aristotle”

“But the bible…”

“I would prefer a document that tries some way to be unbiased or historically accurate”

“Now I have to get to work, and get back listening to Mozart”

“No problem” she replied, still looking a bit stunned.

Now that might sound like a heavy exchange but it was spoken in smiles and in very polite tones. No harsh words, merely an exchange of thoughts and ideas, she did make some interesting points, but they had little impact.

I think she might have found it strange that I was without ‘her’ god, and yet was perfectly happy and polite. And so too do I find it strange that she was standing in the rain on her own trying to convince people to believe what she believes.

She is entitled to believe, as am I to not believe. She has a right to stand in the rain, as do I. She has a right to try to convert people on the street, I could stand in the rain and try to tell people that they should weigh the evidence, but in my experience most people don’t like the idea of their being nothing greater than us, and that there might be no ultimate reason for human existence.

I guess I am in a minority, a very small minority.

Alok Jha and Oliver Burkeman write a lengthy piece in the Guardian’s new Life section today. And they write it on the very interesting subject of creationism. Some interesting goings-on in Atlanta at the moment with the so-called ‘mouse trap argument’.

It appears to be a bastardised version of Paley’s Watch argument.

I really do not see the logic, nor have I ever, in the argument from intelligent design. A mouse-trap exists therefore an all-poweful super being created the universe? – a bit of a leap there. I studied the argument in detail while at university, and had a passionate argument with my Jesuit lecturer on the issue.

The article has some good quotes:

“We’d all like to have the answers. Suppose you drove someone who’d never seen Mount Rushmore to look at it. They would immediately apprehend that the mountain had been designed, formed by intelligent activity. Now, most people would think that designer would be God … but where the designer came from is a separate question.” (Most scientists point out, among many criticisms of ID, that it assumes the function of an organism to be a given: true of a mousetrap, but not necessarily of living things – ends themselves can change.)

And Ken Miller points out, with my full backing –

“But there’s something called the scientific process, you know – involving open publication, criticism, and rejection of things that aren’t convincing. We don’t teach both sides of the germ theory of disease and faith-healing. Evolution isn’t in the classroom because of political action or court decisions. It’s in the classroom because it made it through, it stood up to scrutiny and became the scientific consensus. It fought the battle and won.”

Ian Black writes an amusing piece as usual in his Inside Europe article. The now long running issue of whether to put a god, or the God, in the European constitution is the subject of his article this week. Of couse, as he says, the ‘F’ stands for Federal, and no that other word as some of you out there may think. God or gods should not be put in any constitution. Europe should not even be writing a constitution nevermind having one to put God into in the first place.