Humanism, atheism and other freedoms

Pope John Paul II - not a well man

According to a new book, Pope John Paul II regularly whipped himself. At other times, and in spite of illness, he slept on a bare floor. This, apparently, makes him eligible for sainthood.

To the faithful, the self-flagellation and hardship, in emulation of Christ’s suffering, are heroic. But outside the warped logic of faith, is there any other context in which this kind of behaviour wouldn’t be regarded as unbalanced?

The details of the late Pope’s masochism come in a new book, Why He Is a Saint: the Real John Paul II. It’s by Vatican official Monsignor Slawomir Oder who will be in charge of the process that will probably end in John Paul II’s canonisation (so it’s probably not a very balanced view of the erstwhile Pontiff).

There could be no clearer illustration of how religious and real-world perspectives do not align.

To the faithful Roman Catholic, John Paul II’s actions demonstrate devotion and courage.

To the ordinary human being, such behaviour seems suspiciously deviant. Indulging in such masochism suggests mental disorder, perhaps with sexual overtones. Masochism, after all, frequently has sexual implications, and in a sect that imposes lifelong celibacy (in theory) on its priests, one might expect many different manifestations of aberrant psychosexual pathology.

Even without such dark overtones, this behaviour still seems odd. To deliberately hurt oneself in emulation of a character in a fictional story is hardly normal, is it? What would we make, for example, of a teenager who chose to live in a wardrobe to honour the story of Narnia? That’s right – we’d get them help. And that’s without them self-harming – a sure sign of psychological issues.

This wouldn’t be the first time that behaviour which would seem odd or unacceptable to society at large is excused by religious adherence. There is a broad spectrum ranging from violent jihad to the Church of England’s recent fight to protect its ‘right’ to discriminate against homosexuals. Right now, in Kansas, a man is claiming that his religious beliefs left him no choice but to murder a doctor.

It’s also worth remembering that, when he wasn’t enjoying a sound self-whipping, Pope John Paul II lived in an environment of fantastic wealth and privilege.

Still, the Roman Catholic church has elevated people to sainthood on any number of feeble premises. It’s a form of marketing. By making people saints, you’re saying, ‘See how our church contains so many good and righteous people’. It helps counter the bad press the church gets for its paedophile priests and its effective genocide-by-AIDS in Africa.

Most organised religions are fundamentally bizarre. They involve a wholesale acceptance of strange and improbable ideas. Most of the time, we let this slide, because many of these ideas have become entrenched as part of the whole patchwork that is our mythological and historical landscape.

But occasionally, something crops up that makes you step back and think, “wow, now that’s weird”. This is one of those occasions, and it’s the clearest sign you could ask for of the gulf between faith and the real world.

In May 2009, Scott Roeder shot dead Dr George Tiller in the vestibule of a church. It was a deliberate killing. But according to some people, including Roeder’s defence attorney, it wasn’t murder. Why? Because Roeder considered Tiller’s death a ‘necessity’.

The killing took place in Kansas. Dr Tiller died because he had performed (perfectly legal) abortions. And Roeder’s religious convictions led him to believe he had the right – even a duty – to end the doctor’s life.

As I write, the judge has yet to rule on whether Roeder will be convicted of murder or the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. The latter is normally reserved for cases where the killer believes his or her actions to be necessary – the so-called ‘necessity defence’.

I have to admit that I was under the impression that ‘thou shalt not kill’ was a non-negotiable proposition. Apparently not.

You see, the thing is that the definition of ‘necessary’ here is Roeder’s own. This is not a definition most of society would share. It is the twisted logic of an extremist and should find no support in law.

By the same logic, the 9/11 terrorists were not murderers (even though every sane and reasonable person would conclude that they were). There is no doubt that they considered their actions ‘necessary’. They too were driven and endorsed by faith. So necessary were these attacks, in fact, that the terrorists were willing to give their lives – a price Roeder wasn’t willing to pay. In fact, he’s not even willing to pay the price of a murder conviction. So one can’t say he has the courage of his convictions: there was no courage involved in his actions, when he pulled the trigger or since.

Psychopaths have often claimed that their actions were ‘necessary’ – to rid the world of trash, say, or because the voices in their heads demanded that they kill. And what is god except a voice in the head?

The fact that certain religious people and organisations believe that the necessity defence can apply here simply highlights the profound hypocrisy and moral corruption at the heart of extreme faiths. It also underlines that they believe their warped and archaic beliefs – held only by a tiny minority of Christians, let alone the population in general – take precedence over the laws of the land and the consensual moral standpoints they enshrine.

Religious extremists in the US are praying for a voluntary manslaughter conviction. It would endorse their radical viewpoints and set them apart from the population at large. It would be another example of the privileging of religion. It would say that being driven to kill by faith is different to being driven to kill by a warped psychopathology, even though, in fact, there is no demonstrable difference.

This being Kansas, one’s hopes aren’t high. It’s a state heavily infested with creationists. We can only hope that Judge Wilbert, who is trying this case, returns a decision that identifies Roeder as what he is – a common murderer.

The case of the British muslim who forced his children to flog themselves has rightly caused outrage – including among many in the muslim community. But are we in danger of missing a more important point?

The Ashura ceremony, part of the month-long period of ‘mourning’ known as Muharram, is an important part of the Shia calendar. It calls for blood. To commemorate the slaughter of Muhammed’s grandson and his family, many men indulge themselves in self-flagellation – a ritual they apparently call ‘zanjeer zani’.

Syed Zaidi, who was brought up in Pakistan, has long been one of them. But he went further. In a ceremony at a community centre in Levenshulme, near Manchester, he first ensured his own blood was flowing before passing his zanjeer – a chained whip with five blades – to two young boys, aged 13 and 15.

In court, the boys said they were ‘forced’ to whip themselves. Zaidi claims they were willing (though presumably under intense peer pressure to join in). Under the law it makes no difference. Adults have a duty to ensure that children under the age of 16 do not come to harm – which includes harming themselves.

Christopher Hitchens has famously condemned the religous indoctrination of children as child abuse. There could be no more graphic illustration than this bloody ritual. Allowing this to happen to these young boys was an act of both primitive savagery and callous stupidity.

Many in the muslim community agree. Some are organising blood donations as a way of partaking in the commemoration in a more civilised fashion. It seems that having young boys flog themselves is taking religious zealotry beyond the theshold of acceptable behaviour for most in our society.

What none of this addresses is the damage already done to these boys. One needs to ask if, once they achieve the age of 16, it would be perfectly acceptable for these boys – who would, indeed, still be boys – to indulge in tearing their own flesh. The Early Christians used to partake in similar self-mortification which the Romans considered disgustingly uncivilised. They were right. That was 2,000 years ago and Christianity, at least in that respect, has grown up a little.

What kind of damage must be done to the psyche, to one’s moral framework, to one’s grip on civilisation, to accept this kind of behaviour from anyone of any age as admirable, worthwhile or even sensible?

In order to reach that point where the boys would even consider taking the whip in hand, they had to pass through a process of religious indoctrination. Childhood should be a period of learning, of opening the mind. But religious education is all about closing it, narrowing the possibilities and outlook, shutting off avenues of thought, conforming to a blinkered – and frequently archaic and bizarre – worldview.

The fact that anyone could consider these boys as ‘muslims’ is an indication that child abuse had taken place long before the blades tore into their skin. It’s not the whip from which they need to be protected – it’s the path that leads to it.

Enforced conformity is the lynch pin of totalitarian regimes. We have just had yet another example of how religions try to enforce their narrow world views on others when a Christian radio station got its panties in a bunch over some schoolkids dressing up.

The Associated Press report, ‘Kids’ Dress-Up Day Draws Christian Ire’, explains how children at Pineview Elementary in Reedsburg, Wisconsin were enjoying ‘Wacky Week’, where they could choose to dress as either senior citizens or as members of the opposite sex. Note the word ‘choose’. The kids themselves chose this event and were, by all accounts, having fun.

Until, that is, word got to the right-wing Christian radio station Voice of Christian Youth America (VCY America). It seems that Jim Schneider, one of the hosts of the station’s Crosstalk programme, was so incensed by children enjoying themselves that he felt compelled to interrupt regular programming to condemn it. This resulted in the inevitable deluge of complaints to the school from his flock.

What was it that upset Schneider?

“We believe it’s the wrong message to send to elementary students,” said Jim Schneider, the network’s program director. “Our station is one that promotes traditional family values. It concerns us when a school district strikes at the heart and core of the Biblical values. To promote this to elementary-school students is a great error.”

Those are very revealing comments. First, he has assumed that there is any kind of ‘message’ being sent. Schneider seems incapable of understanding that people, even kids, sometimes just have fun. But then religious extremists are often of a profoundly paranoid bent, seeing secret agenda everywhere.

We move on to ‘traditional family values’. Would this be where Jesus told would-be disciples to ditch their families to follow him? No, must be some other kind of values. It’s interesting that when traditional values are invoked, they are so rarely explained. Who gets to decide what constitutes ‘traditional’. We used to send children up chimneys as sweeps – is that traditional? We used to keep slaves (the Bible even tells us how to go about it). Is that traditional?

This is another facet of the argument about who decides what is ‘Christian’ (see: The wrong religion). Each group, each sect, gets to decide what it considers ‘traditional’. Rationality, intellect, common sense and logic need play no part in this. A tradition is whatever each group decides matches its core values or ideas. Thus, one wacko offshoot of Mormonism might decide that polygamy – and possibly child abuse – is still a traditional value, while the rest of the church has somehow decided that there are some traditions that are no longer traditional.

The point of this is that these values are not in any way inherent – they are chosen. Schneider is invoking vague ‘traditional family values’ as if these are fixed, beyond debate and shared by all. And then he is condemning others for not complying with these values.

This is profoundly dishonest language and arrogant behaviour. Schneider is attempting to impose his ideas on the rest of us – effectively condemning anyone who does not share his narrow world view.

This is how totalitarianism operates. You must conform to its way of thinking. It is not about external rules – though there are always plenty of those in any repressive regime (religion included). It is about how you think, that matters. Why? Because totalitarian regimes – and especially religions – are intrinsically absurd. You must swallow the entire mindset otherwise there is a danger that, by rejecting one aspect, you come to perceive the stupidity of the whole system. It’s important, then, that everyone is brought around to the same way of thinking, that no dissent is permitted at any level.

And that’s the nub of what’s going on here. For what this kind of religion cannot abide is difference. The right-wing end of the religious spectrum, which is what we see at work here, constantly attacks ‘alternative’ lifestyles. They are dangerous. Thinking or behaving differently puts people outside the constrictive mindset on which this fascist form of religion depends.

This particular controversy illustrates just how intolerant these religious fanatics are when it comes to non-conformance. For heaven’s sake, this was a bunch of kids playing dress-up. That’s it. No agenda, no attempt to coerce children into depraved lifestyles. It’s the sort of thing kids do naturally, with a wonderful and admirable lack of self-consciousness. But the religious extremists cannot allow this to happen. These children must be controlled.

And then there’s that striking ‘at the heart of Biblical values’. Oh come on. Get a grip, Schneider. I would have thought the heart of biblical values would be more along the lines of ‘thou shalt not kill’ rather than ‘thou shalt not cross-dress’.

There is also the not so small point that schools are under no obligation to uphold what Schneider might decide are biblical values. And there’s the matter of the separation of church and state. Schneider probably thinks this separation is invalid. But that’s tough, because that separation is something that does happen to be a shared value – the Constitution and the law make it so.

The sad thing is that the bullying by Schneider and the sheep who obeyed him – his radio-listening flock – has succeeded in forcing the submission of the school into not having this event in future. These children have certainly learned a lesson: Thou shalt not be different.

A website promoting a short film by Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-immigration politician, has been taken offline by the Internet services company hosting it. This was not a judgment on the quality, morality or intellectual worth of the film: it was an act of fear.

(more…)

Mike Huckabee’s failed bid for the Republican nomination might seem to consign him to the list of also-rans. Yet the fact that he was ever in the running has profound and dark implications for America’s future.

[photopress:huckabee.jpg,full,alignright]At the time of writing, Mike Huckabee’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination looks all but over. Many will breathe a sigh of relief, but that may be premature. The significance of Huckabee’s run for the most powerful job in the world is not that he lost, but that he was taken seriously. That should be a matter of deep concern to anyone who truly values freedom.

(more…)