| atheism.davidrand.ca: Living Without Religion | |
|---|---|
| > Table of Contents | |
| > > News Archive | en français |
| Previous page | Next page |
| |
The Sun — Bremerton, Washington State, USA, 2002-10-29
The 19-year-old Port Orchard resident [Darrell Lambert], an atheist and a leader in Port Orchard's Troop 1531,
has been given a week by the Boy Scout's regional governing executive to declare belief in a supreme being and
comply with Scout policy, or quit being a Scout leader.
"We've asked him to search his heart, to confer with family members to give this great thought
before any decision is made," said Brad Farmer, council Scout executive of Chief Seattle Council,
Boy Scouts of America. "If he says he's an avowed atheist, he does not meet the standards of
membership of our traditional programs and as such cannot participate. We would return his registration
fee to him and wish him the best."
Lambert can give them his answer: No. If he professed belief in a supreme being, it would be a lie.
"I wouldn't be a good Scout then, would I?" he said.
At a meeting of his troop Monday at the chapel of the Washington Veterans Home in Retsil, about a
dozen moms and dads agreed to support Lambert, even if it meant risking their troop's association
with the Boy Scouts of America.
"He's willing to take care of our boys, our country, our land. What more could we ask?"
said Tina Nau of Port Orchard. "I don't see where religious beliefs come into play."
...
Scott Cozza, an organizer of Scouting For All, a California-based organization advocating for gay
and atheist Scouts, said he gets hundreds of phone calls each year from Scouts who have been
expelled. About 60 percent are from gay Scouts; 40 percent from atheists.
See also:
Webmaster's comment:
The Boy Scouts of America, an organization notorious for its religious bigotry and homophobia,
promotes the big lie which religious institutions continue to peddle: that to be a good person
you have to believe in a supreme ghost.
Biblical Archaeology Review, 2002-10-22
After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.
Webmaster's comment:
There was a time when Christians attempted, in vain, to convince us of the existence of their "God".
Now they would be very happy to be able to convince us merely of the existence of their messiah Jesus.
It is quite possible that a man named Jesus did indeed exist. It is also possible that he did not.
Whatever. It is a matter of historical curiosity.
Everyone accepts the historicity of Plato, Marx and Hitler, but that does not constitute a proof of platonism, nor
of marxism, nor of naziism, and it confirms nothing about anyone's messianic pretentions.
CBC News — Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2002-10-24
CALGARY - The Anglican Church of Canada can't be sued over alleged physical and sexual abuse at several residential schools,
an Alberta judge ruled Thursday. Only the organization's Missionary Society can be named in the case, he said, because it
signed contracts with Ottawa to run the schools in Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
"There is no evidence of direct involvement in the schools by the General Synod (of the Anglican Church of Canada) at
any time," Court of Queen's Bench Justice Terrence McMahon ruled.
The society has few assets, which could limit the amount of money victims can expect to get in any court-ordered settlement
with the church. The decision affects more than 500 people who attended seven Anglican schools.
Despite Thursday's decision, the church has said it's willing to pay its fair share of any compensation to victims.
The federal government and Anglican leaders have been trying to negotiate an acceptable formula for sharing the cost of
compensation.
Ottawa is being sued for billions of dollars by former aboriginal students who say they were abused. The crimes allegedly
took place from the First World War to the mid-1980s. The Anglican and Catholic churches, which ran the federal government
schools, are also cited in the suits.
McMahon is overseeing 50 lawsuits filed in Alberta -- a province that has the largest number of individual claims alleging
abuse at residential schools: 4,000. Saskatchewan has the second-highest number, with just over 3,000. Federal officials
have estimated that the suits could cost it more than $1 billion in legal fees and settlements. A national class-action
lawsuit is seeking more than $12.5 billion for about 91,000 ex-students. Some others have settled privately, with average
compensation of about $100,000.
Webmaster's comment:
A disturbing decision. Because the Missionary Society has few assets compared to the Anglican Church itself, this
effectively protects the Church from major lawsuits of which it was expected to be the target. Let us hope that this
decision will be overturned. The Anglican Church should pay a significant share of the costs resulting from an abusive
educational policy for which it bears a large part of the moral responsibility. The Catholic Church is similarly responsible.
It must not be left up to the Canadian taxpayer to foot the entire bill, especially given the tax advantages which churches
already enjoy.
Newsday.com, 2002-10-06
To 85,000 disciples around the world, Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was a man ahead of his time. The Spanish priest said
that ordinary people could achieve lives of holiness by doing the everyday work of the world, and he created Opus Dei - or
"work of God" - dedicated to that ideal.
To his critics, he was an arrogant, ill-tempered cleric who built a zealous and secretive organization around the cult of his
own personality. Opus Dei's highest-echelon members promise celibacy, turn over their paychecks to the group and in some cases,
wear spiked chains and flagellate themselves.
Today, after one of the shortest waiting times in church history, Escriva will be declared a saint in a Vatican ceremony expected
to draw at least 250,000 people.
To the delight of theological conservatives and the dismay of some progressives, the man who created the most controversial
organization in the Roman Catholic Church has been on a fast track to canonization since he died in 1975, largely due to the
overt patronage of Pope John Paul II, who has vigorously promoted the group's work.
...
But Tammy DiNicola, 34, of Pittsfield, Mass., who joined the group's elite echelon of celibate members after being lobbied
heavily as a student at Boston College, said Opus Dei operates like a cult.
"I see this as a black day in the history of the church," she said of Escriva's canonization. "I really
think that Opus Dei is a cancer on the church."
See also:
Washington Post, 2002-10-02
Rushdie denounces the legal attacks by several Islamic organisations against French author Michel Houellebecq.
Their attempts to muzzle Houellebecq constitute a serious threat to free speech and, if successful, would effectively
criminalize blasphemy.
I have been trying not to write about Michel Houellebecq if only because, these days, just about every writer who comes into
conflict with the thin-skinned guardians of Islamic sanctities is forced to wear the "new Rushdie" cap, which is
doubly depressing, first for me, because I detest having my name sloganized, as if I had become some sort of bad-mouthing
literary category, and second for the writers in question -- the "Bangladeshi Rushdie," the "Chinese
Rushdie" and shortly, no doubt, the "first Rushdie in space" -- who rightly resent having the darkest
chapter of my story superimposed upon their own difficulties.
Now, however, Houellebecq has been brought to court in France by four Muslim bodies -- the largest mosques in Paris and Lyon,
the National Federation of French Muslims and the World Islamic League -- accused of "making a racial insult"
and of "inciting religious hatred."
The gravity of this suit against a multi-award-winning writer widely acknowledged as one of Europe's finest, if least
comfortable, newer talents obliges all good men, as the saying goes, to come to the aid of the party.
Or so you'd think. And indeed several French intellectuals and publishers have defended Houellebecq. But many others have
signally failed to do so. The prestigious Human Rights League has accused him of Islamophobia and sided with his accusers;
leftist French writers, we are told, consider him too vulgar to be worth standing up for; even his own publisher, Flammarion,
has distanced itself from him.
...
The accusations against him turn out to be ridiculously slight. Last year, in an interview published in Lire magazine,
Houellebecq called Islam "the dumbest religion" and compared the Koran unfavorably with the Bible, which
"at least is beautifully written because the Jews have a heck of a literary talent." This generalization may
raise one or two non-Muslim hackles: What, all Jews? And are the Christian authors of the New Testament deliberately excluded
from this ungainly compliment?
But if an individual in a free society no longer has the right to say openly that he prefers one book to another, then that
society no longer has the right to call itself free. Presumably any Muslim who said that the Koran was much better than the
Bible would then also be guilty of an insult, and absurdity would rule.
As to "the dumbest religion," well, it's a point of view. And Houellebecq, in court, made the simple but essential
observation that to attack people's ideologies or belief systems is not to attack the people themselves.
This is surely one of the foundation principles of an open society.
Citizens have the right to complain about discrimination against themselves but not about dissent, even strongly worded,
impolite dissent, from their thoughts. Fences cannot be erected around ideas, philosophies, attitudes or beliefs.
...
His accusers claim to be acting in part out of their concern that in the post-9/11 atmosphere, Houellebecq's utterances and
writings will increase antagonism to Muslims in the West. In this they have miscalculated badly. It is not Houellebecq but
their assault upon the writer that runs the risk of creating that backlash in these sensitive times. So this is a case that
both sides have already lost.
Michel Houellebecq's reputation has been damaged, and his Islamic adversaries have shown themselves, yet again, to be
opponents of the rough-and-tumble world of free speech. Houellebecq's lawyers argued with considerable force that were
the judgment to go against their client, the law of blasphemy would have effectively been reintroduced. As we await
the judge's ruling, we can only hope that he does not take so dreadfully retrograde a step.
Webmaster's comment:
Let us reiterate the essential lesson here:
"to attack people's ideologies or belief systems is not to attack the people themselves.
This is surely one of the foundation principles of an open society."
If this fundamental principle is not respected, if Houellebecq does not win this case, then no one is safe.
| XHTML CSS |