To the Muslims insulted by depictions of their Prophet

I greet you as someone who was once involved in your faith. I studied it adamantly for many years of my life, under as many Islamic scholars as my city had to offer. My parents, in an attempt at conveying a sense of morality and meaning, believed that drowning me in faith would force me to swallow some watered down version of religion. Parents continue to force religion on their children – often not in an attempt at maliciousness but in an attempt at cosmic protection, in an attempt of sublimating metaphysical casuistry, some certainty that the child’s ‘soul’ will be safe. Parents’ duties often are about protecting their child. To those terrified of a godless life – which probably rests more in the fear of life being meaningless rather than the soul condemned to hellfire – dunking children’s heads in water, whispering Arabic phrases in their ear, and severing parts of their genitalia could be equivocated to strapping on their seatbelt or holding their hand across the road.

You might think I am mocking your beliefs but I do not doubt a parent’s sincerity in protecting his or her child. It is no fault that our society views the so-called ‘great questions’ – what is my purpose? Who am I? How am I to live? What is good? – as falling strictly within the domain of the religious, when it should be for all and any who care to participate, using rational arguments and an open approach to dialogue. I received engagement with these ideas only after my secular schooling day ended, as the sun passed into dusk, with the haunting melodies of the imams as their long shadows stretched before me in the afternoon sun. I learnt about my life’s meaning in the words of the Prophet; I learnt about right and wrong from what Allah said to the Prophet through the angel Gibreel (Gabriel to the Christians); I was moved to tears by the beauty of the Prophet’s visions and his attempt at making the world a better place.

But I no longer see Islam that way. I see only flaws in answering any moral questions with religion. Many continue to talk about how beautiful Islam is or, more insultingly, that Islam is about peace. From my first days of Islamic scholarship, its history whispers its blood-trail as often as it does its conquest. Muslims will tell you with pride that Islam grew at an unprecedented rate, as great armies fell to the Muslims. But, like a boxer, they quickly switch feet and eloquently reprise the history of Islam’s peaceful blooming. Islam is premised on war, on conquering. The world is bifurcated between the lands of Islam and lands yet to be conquered. And, now, in these places the Muslims would consider yet to be conquered, the inhabitants have begun expressing their opinions about the Prophet, using monochromatic exclamations marks of deliberate offense.

You, my Muslim friends, see this as those of us who ‘worship manmade’ world-views tracing deep borders. You see us, like ballerinas with one foot deep in the sand, encircling you. You see us as we separate ourselves and you, as we give in to the war-mongering of ‘us and them’. You imagine that this border creation is exactly what to expect from us lovers of ‘freedom’ above ‘god’s laws’, idolisers of manmade values over ‘god’s word’, fornicators, masturbators, child molesters, Satanists, feminists, womanisers, prostitutes, homosexuals. I have been called some of these terms by Muslims before – many of them blatantly not true (homosexual, Satanist, child molester, etc.) and some which I am not ashamed though would not call myself (feminist, womaniser, fornicator, etc.).

To think that those cartoonists who depict caricatures of Muhammad, that writers who depict their version of the Prophet’s early life, are doing so to deliberately incite violence is to miss the point. Many of these people – some are my colleagues – are beyond bullying, beyond name-calling. Most of them are against violence of any kind, instead trying for peace in a world that rejects it. Some of us, like myself, have given up fighting for peace or a good world, realising that this will never happen; instead opting for amelioration over utopianism. Why even attempt this letter? For two reasons: firstly, if it can help push one person over the precipice of dogma into reason, then my job would be complete. Secondly, it serves to raise consciousness for this very important matter concerning a free, open world, in which we are able engage with our most important ability: freedom of expression. Freedom of expression, not violence, not bullying, not ‘incitement of religious hatred’ (what a horrific, arrogant notion) – but the ability to express our thoughts and minds without being killed for it.

We fight battles of every kind – individual and societal, subjective and global, familial and governmental. In order to bring light to those areas canvassed by the shadow of oppression, we must and can only use our free expression, our opinion and our passion. This ability has helped not millions but billions of people; since freedom of expression is the cornerstone of science, our longer and healthier lives are a result of it. And how many lives have changed, because enough expressed their dissent at being marginalised as a result of their sex, sexual orientation and ethnicity? And not just biological well-being but philosophical, too: how do we view the world, what are our opinions on the good life? The conversation of humanity is temporal as well as spatial, as we reach back in time to Plato for answers just as we would like to reach across the veils to our Muslim sisters. You are human. The circle you imagine we draw is not to separate you but to include you; as we come to realise the shortness and horror of life, the vivid transience that occurs with a subtle reflection on what it means to be human, we all wonder what can be done to at least make this little life better for all. The circle is an attempt at enclosing all of humanity in a single conversation, using free expression, without threats of violence. In a pluralised, adult world, there will be things we do not want to hear. But that is the cost of being in the adult circle, the adult world.

The conversation of humanity is also a tapestry, filled with vivid colours from multiple minds. You are part of that tapestry. By drawing your Prophet we confirm that you are grown up enough to realise you live with other fallible humans. Sure, we might be wrong. But by virtue of being human, this is the chance we take and why we must be allowed to offend. There is always the chance that what you hold to be sacred will in fact come to be considered absurd. Humanity is known as much for its brilliant ideas as for its very stupid ones, and both have probably been held with equally strong convictions. But by not being able to express our opinions on them – whether right or wrong – we will not discover our faults, our failures and our inconsistencies; we might all burn (especially people like me, who should be hunted and murdered according to your hadith, which also is mainly where the directives to oppose blasphemous depictions come from). But right now we are all struggling. We want you to laugh with us at the absurdity of stupid drawings, we want you to draw our leading thinkers with giant noses and turban-bombs. We want you to tell us about your secretive lives, your thoughts, your beliefs. I am interested as I am interested in this species as a whole. I do not have to like you – I do not like most people – and you do not have to like me. But liking does not preclude tolerance. We tolerate many things. And toleration leads to information as we glean much from the things we encounter every day.

Many Muslims say it is insulting and offensive to draw Muhammad. What point does it serve? As I have said, if we cannot express ourselves – within limits – we have nothing to show for freedom. Freedom is not licence; but your offense and hurt feelings are no reasons to limit the expression. This ability is not restricted to us: it involves your participation too. Freedom is not freedom if it is only the hands of one group; it is not freedom if it is not being defended; it is not freedom if it is not being displayed. People might get hurt, innocents might suffer because some cartoonists wanted to have a laugh. But many would risk their lives for freedom rather than sit as silent robots tuned to the dictates of religious bullying.

A cartoonist should not have to apologise because Muslims are not grown up enough to be insulted. Everyone deserves to be insulted. Muslims are not special, they do not deserve kid-gloves. More insulting to Muslims are those who believe they cannot act as adults and ignore books and cartoons that insult their Prophet, or laugh it off as heathen ignorance. And those who deeply insult you are yourselves, as you abdicate your moral resolve to stupid councils and ignorant imams, whose talk is bloodthirsty and pumped for fighting. Who are these fools who tell you what to eat and take offense with? Decide for yourselves, you are adults and you should be proud of your rational abilities.

Remember, above all else, you are not special. If you mess up, if you believe silly things, if you create theological mazes which justify violence, the oppression of women but also somehow world-peace – if you do these things, don’t expect us to nod and smile and pat your heads. Others might treat you like children, passing you the candy-cane of patronising indulgence, but I will not. Your religion is not special, your beliefs are silly to me, but you are human. I am not perfect, I am not special. Scorn me with words, draw pictures of my giant nose. I have not raised a weapon to you, save my words. I only ask one thing: can you be adult enough to do the same?

Ireland’s Blasphemy Debacle (aka “Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes”)

Ireland has made it possible to be charged with “blasphemy” (offending my, or your, or her, or his god even though they might not be the same and I might’ve just made up a god now to claim for the charge, etc.) If it was not so troubling, it would be funny. Yet, within a secular democracy, seeing the rise of blasphemy laws must gives the rest of us reason for concern. Seeing as I am preparing an essay on free-speech, I found this to be an important point of focus. I won’t comment on this for now, but I would appreciate comments from you. I reprint this page in full, to show my support to see this silly law banished back to the foggy drainage-ditch of history’s bad ideas (along with medical quackery, belief in witches, and tonsils).

Please copy and paste it, to show your support.

****

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

Publication of 25 blasphemous quotes

In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

Campaign begins to repeal the Irish blasphemy law

We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.

We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President of Ireland or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.

If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish this statement and the list of quotes yourself, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.

List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland

1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

****

Thanks to Russell Blackford at Metamagician for pointing this out.

Trappings from the Past – Ireland’s Blasphemy Laws

Critical reasoning and clear thinking are not synonymous with politics, but this is taking it a bit far. It seems that this arose out of reforming the libel laws. The reason that it suddenly arose seems that within the Bunreacht na hÉireann, it must by law be legal to prosecute for blasphemy. Another reason that it has happened so suddenly has apparently to do with the current explanation for everything we don’t like: the recession. See, the only alternative to filling the void of the blasphemy law appears to be a referendum. But, according to justice minister, Dermot Ahern, that would be costly.

But, as Padraig Reidy has stated in the Guardian: “no one ever bothered to formulate what the exact [blasphemy] offence might be, and we muddled on for quite a long time without anyone worrying about this.” But now suddenly, to make do they are pandering to religious sentiments for no good reason.

It is also difficult to say whether there was religious pressure – isn’t there always that feeling of the Bible pushing against the neck of politics, or Islam collecting stones on the way to the glass-house of politics? – but it does not repudiate the claim that this is a limitation on free-speech.

Blasphemy is a human right, part of free-speech and is in its purest form an extension of the maturity who give each other. By limiting us on what we can and can not say or do, a government or those who have put themselves on higher moral planes, have decided what is best for us. Instead, to be a good government, it should be a show of trusting the people, treating them like adults to decide for themselves how to deal with having their feelings hurt. It is terribly childish to be told “You can’t say that or you will hurt their feelings”. I know little about Irish politics and politics in general, but I do know and fight for freedom of speech and thought – even if I do not agree with it.

In order to progress we need freedom not wishy-washy mewling noises from paternalist regimes. We are living in an age of (ideal) freedom for all men. This is an idea that would’ve shocked many in the Dark Ages and this is exactly the reason that blasphemy is such an extension of thought. We can respect each other without bowing down before our ideas and beliefs. This last thought seems to be terribly difficult for most people to understand and indeed took me many years to comprehend. But with enough vigour and clear-thinking, I hope that more of us will come to see the separation of person and ideas, of religion and the religious, of ignorance and the brotherhood of Man. It is possible but we need to start by getting rid of this thing called blasphemy.

In Defense of Blasphemy

This is a transcript of a talk I gave on the 17 March 2009, at the University of Cape Town.

This is a two part discussion – as a welcome to members and an outline of the society; followed by the focus of the major topic: The defense of blasphemy amidst the smoke of recent religious obfuscation, pertaining to the latest issue of Sax Appeal, UCT’s RAG magazine.

1. The Flight from Reason

Firstly, there is currently no other society – within UCT and its surrounding sphere – that represents a naturalistic world-view, defends reason as opposed to the proliferation of “faith”, and stands up for secularism, freedom of speech and thought amidst the clamouring of clerical bullies. Indeed, last year when religious lobbies at UCT demanded the exam time-table be changed to cater for their holidays, mostly religious students were given a voice, since they had one in the solidarity of a society. For the first time, the unification of those who stand for reason must coagulate their disproportionate views into a coherent stream of civilised, open criticism of a surrounding environment, filled with a plethora of faith-based initiatives. Francis Goya’s eminent painting, in 1799, encapsulates our drive, entitled “the sleep of reason brings forth monsters.”

Secondly, the society will dispel myths surrounding nonbelief: such as atheists are drunkards who have sexually immoral lives. That is not true. That is only me. Not everyone is like me, however. Other myths that we will dispel are: atheists are unhappy, atheists can not be good, atheists are arrogant, atheism is another religion, atheism requires more faith. All these – and more – is as a result of ignorance on the part of the faithful, who would certainly find us to be happy, fulfilled and loving life. We find beauty in this wonderful life – and it really is full of wonder – because it is all we have. The society will debunk the myths by raising consciousness and visibility of nonbelievers, in UCT, South Africa and internationally. Our extensive links to top societies, such as CFI, Skeptic and the International Ethical and Humanist Union, as well as to top intellectuals, such as Daniel Dennett (who spoke at UCT), Johann Hari, Richard Dawkins, Simon Blackburn and Julian Baggini, allows us to be in a position to do just that.

We have done our homework, people.

We will also achieve this by having various events: from talks and lectures, to screenings and debates, and even social drunken orgies where we praise Satan and slaughter a few babies. We only ask that you provide your own towels. But in all seriousness, these social gatherings allow non-believers to connect via reason as opposed to faith. This solidarity, from a rejection of superstition, supernaturalism and a heightened awareness of recent backlashes of religious fundamentalists, is a recent solidarity but one that is ultimately fulfilling. Many people find this to be the best aspect of societies like ours, since it allows them to be more free than before. They no longer are in an environment where they have to believe in celestial dictatorships, a god that cares about your diet, and an illiterate businessman in Arabia who rode on flying horses.

We also want to foster inter-group dialogues, between religious groups. Some of you last year may have attended a small debate between myself and the theologian Jordan Pickering. We hope to hold more events of a similar nature, such as panel-discussions with religious leaders. Clerics are given a high-standing on our society, to comment on critical developments in the political, public and private spheres. We think that secularists and those who defend reason should also have a say, when it comes to such matters. Instead of denigrating these cultural leaders, we simply wish that those who do not belief be allowed to have the same platform.

We believe that this life is filled with – as I said – wonder, beauty and endless places for personal growth. I believe we are suspended between two poles, existing on a trajectory from a high pole of “birth”, which glides down to join the lower one of “death”. We are a tiny droplet of water snaking down from the first pole to the last, reflecting the images surrounding us from the environment, yet distorting it with the refraction of subjectivity.

What a waste it would be to slide down that suspension, from one pole to the other, as a blinkered drop. How distasteful to clamour for despair because there is no celestial hand holding the string to cater for your every snaking move. It would be better to never have been if you take no comfort in being a reflecting drop, in celebrating your movement and your awareness and the “kingdom of infinite space” – as Raymond Tallis calls it – in between your ears. We do not know everything, nor will we. Our knowledge is various lit lanterns placed on the precipice of the external world, which show the extent where the border into ignorance rests. Crossing into that land is exhilarating, since it requires that only place we know which is endless: Our imaginations.

Imagine can be traced to the Greek phainesthai, which means “to appear”, which itself is related to phaos and phos meaning “light.” Thus, our imaginations light the way for knowledge, which is made tentatively and by incremental snaking – though from a pole of ignorance to one of further ignorance. I have always thought it is better to proclaim the extent of ones ignorance over the extent of ones knowledge, since we can change our ignorance but there is nothing much we can do to our knowledge. This might be translated into Confucius’s better phrasing: “Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.”

And reason as I said, is the light which shows our ignorance. The AAS believes we must defend reason, as it is fragile and often silenced in the name of religious sentimentality. Reason is under constant threat from extremes: the absolutist dogmatic religious zealots on the right; and the torrid relativists who eschew universal human rights to cater for subjective feelings on the left. And flitting like a mosquito on these open wounds of reason, are those who forgo science in the name of private, personal experience to exonerate psychics, mediums and other monsters from Goya’s painting. The society defends science and public verifiable claims, as always, when these are ignored, suffering is caused. Suffering that could be alleviated if people take in evidence as opposed to basing their lives on that vice called faith.

We also are a base for those who are struggling with very real problems dealing with faith: that is, being expelled from a family or community, or facing threats of a similar nature. We hope to arm them intellectually, to be able to hold discussions with family and friends in a non-argumentative way. Also, many will find support from others who they will meet through our social events and functions. The incredible healing power of human solidarity can not be lost – even by people like me who see nothing spiritual or “sacred” in the world.

Finally, the society defends human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) – not absolutely, but as an excellent outline of a collaboration of many minds, after much thought and open debate.

I urge you all to at least have a copy of the UDHR printed, somewhere in your homes. It is these goals every thinking person should aim for in his and her society. A society of equality, justice, compassion, respect for persons over ideas, and one that is blind to social distinctions based on anything other than a person’s intellectual and moral character. These are the liberties we have, in a liberal democracy – but one that is becoming less liberal and less democratic. We will solve all social ills not through feelings and an appeal to gods or bronze-aged myths, but through critical thought, analysis, scepticism and its sister reason. As Bertrand Russell said, and I will quote extensively from him:

Our dealings with those whom we love may be safely left to instinct; it is our dealings with those whom we hate that ought to be brought under the dominion of reason. … [W]e could begin to build a new morality, not based on envy and restriction, but on the wish for a full life and the realization that other human beings are a help and not a hindrance when once the madness of envy has been cured. This is not a Utopian hope; it was partially realized in Elizabethan England. It could be realized tomorrow if men would learn to pursue their own happiness rather than the misery of others. This is no impossibly austere morality, yet its adoption would turn our earth into a paradise.

Thus, I hope you have noticed there is nothing to do with attacking religious people- but much to do with religious ideas, mocking religious fundies like someone called Taryn Hodgson – Ill get to her in the second part -, we are not arrogantly forcing our views into and above those who disagree with us. We have our own formulated view of the world, based on reason and compassion without any divine ordinances or permission. We require no permission to be good, no celestial dictatorship to govern our morals, no propitiation to imaginary beings, no regurgitated myths to find beauty – anyone who thinks that a talking burning bush is more beautiful than the horse-head Nebula needs a lesson in aesthetics – and we, finally, require no magic book to seek meaning, beauty, love, life, and fulfilment within this life as it stands.

We say keep your views if you believe in a god, but we only ask that you do not force it and its tributaries of thought to seep into the society we live in. Since that is not possible given the very definition of religion, we who stand for reason feel it high time to usurp the gnarled hands of religious bullies, steering the reins of our societal future. We have begun to realise too late that reason is fragile, but now we must protect it. Myths, legends, feelings are not going to help. If I offend anyone by saying any of these things, so be it. But if the society manages to better one life, recalibrate one mind, and offer help to even one person – your feelings will be lost as someone is able to take greater steps into a life fully realised, without the blinkers of religion and myths and the death-wish longing for the better world that “awaits” them after.

Though you may get angel wings in heaven, there is no reason why you can’t use this life to soar.

That is our society, that is what we stand for.

Members vary in the supposed “degree of militancy”. I am erroneously known as the “militant wing” of the society. I do not know why. Yet, though I do not call myself an atheist – I find that term unhelpful – nor a humanist – I find that term superfluous – I am not averse to proclaiming myself an antitheist. Other members on the committee call themselves “agnostics” or simply “atheists”. Whatever you want to call yourself, this is a society where all views pertaining to the good life, reason and solidarity of our world comes before wishful-thinking, emotions and belief without evidence. We will not oust you if you believe in a deity, but we certainly will – in the spirit of reason – demand evidence, proof or logic. The only people we currently do not accept are those who think Elvis Presley is still alive: not just because there is no evidence to back you up, but because most of us hate Elvis.

The nature of open dialogue and discourse is enscribed in the nature of freedom of speech. The AAS, as I said, will not silence those who mock atheists or defame science and draw cartoons of philosophers (if anyone has seen what most philosophers look like, there is a lot to make fun of). Freedom of speech means that I can say what I want about your ideas and you can say what you want about mine. That is why we would defend deniers of all kinds to write and speak of their views: from those who deny evolution, the Holocaust and the, latest, germ-theory. Because the ideas of science are so firm and strong, they can stand up to criticism. Afterall, this is the basis for Karl Popper’s notion of falsification: We do not believe in things that are True, but things which have faced an onslaught of counter-ideas and theories. We accept an idea only after it has been “boldly put forward on trial”. We may say that we accept ideas only after they have gone through a Gauntlet of Criticism. The ideas we hold are all bloody and injured from an onslaught of attacks, but they have survived nonetheless due to their inner-strength and logical appeal. But it does not make them true – it simply means they have survived where others have failed.

Thus, we could be wrong and we accept that. But the self-correcting method of reason, the overarching principle of science, will show our faults. Thus astrology became astronomy, alchemy became chemistry. Now religion will become, I suppose, common sense and decency. Whilst I do not believe in absolute truth, I certainly believe that which has not yet been disproven, for example: cosmology, evolution, and a universe without a celestial dietician worried over whether women are wearing a piece of cloth (isn’t he omnipotent anyway?). The same can not be said for the deniers of evolution and cosmology. Though we see no evidence to support their views, that does not mean we want to shut them up.

But to the faithful it does not work both ways. For the faithful, freedom of speech is a two way-street where they have closed off the oncoming lane, with deliberate obfuscation and vitriol. They have shattered the street-lights, cordoned off the pavement and dragged tolerance to one side, biting and screaming.

This leads us into the second part of my talk, namely The Defense of Blasphemy

2. In Defense of Blasphemy

Blasphemy, it has been said, is a victimless crime. Blasphemy however is neutrally defined as:

1. impious utterance or action concerning the God of the theists or sacred things.
2. Judaism.
a. an act of cursing or reviling God.
b. pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia, however, defines blasphemy as an “etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem”. Now, how are we to contemplate these various definitions, all churning within a pot of miasmatic confusion. Since, the very absurdity of a talking ape offending an omniscient, omnipotent being should immediately calm the joke that offense has become.

Does anyone feel hurt when I say: “Zeus is a bastard?”. Well, if there are any classics lecturers I imagine I have – but aside from them, most of us do not believe in Zeus. “Odin is a bully, a mysogynist, a bounder and poltroon that deserves nothing but scorn for his treatment of people.” Or how about: “Fidi Mikullu is an abhorrent, horrble and unpleasant character.” Or “I know what Thor can do with his hammer.” Shocking, I know (excuse the pun). “Tezcatlipoca is a pestilential, arrogant and malevolant idiot.”

In all these cases, I – a talking ape – have taking a deity’s name in vane. But… what happens if we had to replace all those insults, and denigrations with the the name Yahweh, capital G god, or Jesus. These separate or the same being – the microdiscipline of theology has yet to figure this out – is somehow, by today’s standard, not allowed to receive such treatment.

But why? Why can’t I say the following, “I think the god of the theists is an unpleasant, mysogynistic, pestilential bully filled with hubris enough to ignite the fires of a dictators mind”.

I am not taking the theistic god out for special scorn. It is not like we have lined up all the gods and said this god is more likely to exist than that, or that this god is worse than that (though, I do think that Venus is much better than Yahweh). To those of us who do not believe, the theists must address this question: Why is it when we blaspheme against Tezcatlipoca – who is a deity – there is no reprise to be silent; but when it comes to their deity, cages are opened and freedom forced inside. What is so special about the theist’s deity above others that have existed? In and of himself, he is not special – it is only that large proportions of the world’s population (claim to) believe in him.

Even before they get on to his existence – for which there is not a single good philosophical reason – they must ask themselves why we can all scorn Fidi Mikullu but not Yahweh. Offense is taken in and of itself as an argument. You have hurt my feelings, it states, therefore you must be silenced or censored. But, as I highlighted above, we who are offended by the idiocy if creationist and Holocaust deniers’ claims, do not ask them for silence – even if it “offends” us. Open dialogue, the nature of a stable society, means that we have an agora – or market place of ideas – to which all are allowed to contribute. Naturally, being an open environment there are things we will not like. But whether we like something or not does not tell us whether it is true or helpful. It must be subjected to criticism from both sides, for and against. It if it hurts your feelings, well, that is really just too bad.

We can not simply dismiss an idea because one side is “hurt”. Defenders of reason do not use offense in and of itself as an argument. That is simply bad reasoning and terrible logic. To quote JM Coetzee:

Convictions that are not backed by reason … are not strong but weak; it is the mark of a weak position, not a strong position, that its holder, when challenged, takes offense. All viewpoints deserve a hearing; debate, according to the rules of reason, will decide which deserves to triumph.

Note again: All ideas, even those of the religious, are given voice. We must hear all viewpoints since they all are worthy of being heard or audi alteram partem. Otherwise, one side is given preferential treatment whilst bullying the other into silence. That is neither mature, grown-up nor the sign of civilized discourse. Such treatment of opposing ideas should be left in the infancy of the school-yard and those who take offense can go bully some child for their lunch-money. It is simply unhelpful in the grown-up, adult sphere in which we all must live.

But why do so many people take offense so easily? It is enshrined in John Stuart Mill’s notion of the “tyranny of majority opinion”. Most people in the world do perhaps believe in a god. The reasons are not intellectual or philosophical, but purely based on the heritage of ideas, passed down by blood like eye-colour or myopia. And like myopia, the ancestoral conveyance of belief prevents the descendant from seeing the world clearly. I was 7 years old when I realised that I could not see properly with my left eye. I thought everyone was short-sighted in their left eye: It was obvious to me, since I was the only template or litmus-paper to test by. But when my idea of “everyone is short sighted in their left eye” was tested with the same procedures as given everyone else – a kind of Gauntlet of Criticism as I mentioned before – my idea was shown to be wrong. Thus, when I finally acquired spectacles, to cure me of my bad idea, the world opened up its glory and its wings unfurled, allowing my previously cloistered imagination, of this blurry world, to be enraptured purely based on the beauty of clear vision.

And the myopic ideas of religion are much the same. Many people believe it to be true since most people are unfortunately not very self-reflective people. When their ideas, which have been passed down via heritage, are subjected to the same criticism as any other ideas, they immediately retreat under the guise of offense. This is a personal thing, you are not allowed to talk about it. If it was not the fact that so many people believe in a god and so many people responded to open criticism of religious ideas in this way, we would all agree it is absurd. It really is absurd to say that one’s feelings are hurt because of someone else’s mockery of one’s metaphysical beliefs. But society, fuelled by the emotions and responses of the majority, has deemed it acceptable to respond as such. Most people do it, so it must be OK. Thus, when we atheists criticise we are told we are being offensive, arrogant and disrespectful. The faithful could afford this response in the past, given the powerful position of the Church and clergy in all spheres in society. With the ideas of science and humanism hailing from the Enlightenment challenging religious ideas, all the faithful had was strong emotion. They could afford to use it then; they can afford to wield it now. That is one part of why offense is used.

Yet, as one of modern Catholicism’s tough-minded zealots, Arnold Lunn, has said: “The theory that you should always treat the religious convictions of other people with respect finds no support in the Gospels.” I will highlight later what the Old Testament says, though.

In many cases, the fence of “offense” is why religious dialogue has simply ceased continuing. The dialogue is closed off by the brackets of emotions. Thomas Paine highlighted this in 1776 – an important year when the incredible US Declaration of Independence was written – when he wrote in the appropriately titled “Common Sense”:

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom.

No doubt many here who are religious have been offended by my portayal of your god. I do not apologise since I am not mocking you, I am mocking your ideas. I am mocking your deity that you believe in. If this was a more public sphere, in most societies, I would not be allowed to be so fruitful with my scorn. This was brought home recently in relation to Sax Appeal.

Sax appeal has been around for 76 years. It was banned and burnt by Christians, during the apartheid era. It is also the largest student magazine in the world, in terms of distribution.

The article in question is entitled “Top Ten Atheist Retorts to Fundamentalist Christians”. This is no high-brow stuff, simply student toilet humour. Black and white pictures, with blurbs above them saying things like “Jesus died for our sins” and a response “I bet he feels like a tool now.” But it was discovered by Christian watchdog, Errol Naidoo, from the Family Policy Institute. Naidoo had the gall to say: “If UCT attempted this dispicable act against any other faith group there would have been a major outcry by now and perhaps even violence.”

Who could he possibly mean?

Perhaps he means the followers of the Greek gods: one can almost picture those vitriolic followers of the god Ares, donning their armour and marching down our streets. Maybe Naidoo meant the Druids, who would no doubt fetch their robes and run to the forest to send an army of rabid, red-eyed squirrels against UCT. The absurdity was not lost on the brilliant Hayibo.com, whose satire of the Sax Appeal debacle had an Amnish protest, using horse-drawn carrages and 12 barrels of women, to protest against the magazine Popular Mechanics. For those of you who do not know, the Amnist are small highly orthodox sect of Christianity in America, that forgo any modern technology and still dress in 17th century clothes.

Yet, I find it hard, as should you, to worry about the Amnish at night. I do not lose sleep over offending Ares. Is he refering to orthodox Jews? Maybe. But I think we all know he is talking about many Muslim responses. Many of you will remember in 2005, the publication of some cartoons by the conservative Danish newspaper, Jyllends-Posten. 139 people will killed as a result of this “offense”. But because Naidoo was speaking for Christian groups, he attempted to compound his own response by saying: “look we are not marching or killing anyone. We are so much better than those crazy Islamists.” To a certain degree this is true, but just because one group reacts to offense less violently than another, does not make the former group’s ideas any better. Naidoo still has no good reasons for being so angry and making his demands of curbing freedom of expression.

Naidoo however was not prescient, as soon, members from UCT’s staff were receiving death-threats. Not very Christian, you might think. I, however, think why not: Why do we not consult what their god says about blasphemy (see Leviticus 24:16). It seems pretty in line with their Bible to issue death-threats, does it not? Their Bible does advise them to kill a woman on her wedding night if she is not a virgin; their Bible, in a verse just below the previous in Deuteronomy, does says we should stone a child to death (Deut. 21:18-19), if he is disobedient to his children.

The Bible has told Christians how to deal with offense – whilst it also says something completely different later. This shows how unhelpful it is to derive ones morality from one of these magic books.

As Isaac Asimov once said: “Read correctly, the Bible is most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” The morality that we read from the Bible should be offensive to all thinking people: But are we asking for the Bible to be burned, not read? On the contrary, more people should read the Bible to understand that it is not as amazing as Christians believe it to be (the same goes for the Quran and the Book of Mormon).

How did other Christian’s respond? Well, here is one reply from a Christian, called Taryn Hodgson. After going through rehashed theistic arguments, Taryn Hodgon, in the last VARSITY, says: “[atheists] continue in their blasphemy, SEXUAL IMMORALITY AND DRUNKENNESS.” She then, helpfully, informs us that we must abandon sin. That is very offensive to atheists. I know many atheists who don’t care about religion, aren’t “getting any”, and hate alcohol. This generalisation is unhelpful since by “immoral” she means “goes against her particular brand of Christianity”. Presumably she eats pork or drinks wine – which, by Islam’s model, is immoral. But would this make her change her stance to make another group feel happy? HL Mencken correctly defined puritanism as “The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Such is the case here.

Someone called Lugisani Nefale from the Student Christian Fellowship says: the following (read entire letter). Excuse me? “Those loose Atheist believers” (which translates as “those loose non-believing believers” – an oxymoron) “are running wild on campus”? What on earth does this mean? Nefale also says “atheism is a form of faith”. Presumably this is meant to be an insult, but that means he is insulting himself twice:

1. “Faith” used as an insult shows he views it just as we do. Namely as something silly.
2. He means that those of us who do not believe in his god have a faith. Fine, but that means that his nonbelief in Tezcatlipoca, Quetzquoatl, and Thor are 3 faiths. But this is madness. If the very disbelief in faith is a faith, the dialogue stops.

Responses like these two, out of a collection of even more dispicable affronts to human sensibility, highlight the pernicious right that the faithful have to claim such knowledge of a great being. They claim to know that he feels offended by this and that, to know that nonbelief leads to corruption of the person, to generalise that those who do not agree with my particular brand of faith are deluded. They give no evidence and are simply asserting their right that such affronts to their ideas must not be published.

This was taken even further down the rabbit-role of madness. The Christian Democratic Alliance took the matter to none other than the SA Human Rights’ Commission. This is a commission premised on the foundations I highlighted before: regarding people blindly, without recourse to creeds, races and so on. And the name says it all: human rights. Human beings have rights not their ideas. Have a look at the article and try to consider the admirable men and women at the Human Rights’ Commission staring at it and wondering where the violence or exclusion is coming from. A student magazine?

Ideas are there, in the market place of an open democracy to be viewed and scorned as we deem fit. They are not immune to criticism and it certainly exhibits no property dispicable enough to warrant attention from the human rights’ commission. If you bring religious ideas into a secular society, you must expected to be scorned.

Jesus himself says, in Matthew, that his followers must expect to be mocked for their faith. Saint Augustine said: “We must be on our guard against giving interpretations that are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to ridicule of unbelievers.” Yet because of reactions by Naidoo and his cronies, we have people like RAG’s Cameron Arendse forced to grovel at the feet of the faithful. Our vice-chancellor, Max Price, had to issue an apology – something I do not agree with. (Though perhaps, if I was in his position, I might’ve done the same.)

Christian Democratic Alliance spokesman, Colin Fibiger, said:

We consider the content of the UCT magazine to be a deliberate and planned, discriminatory attack on Christianity and will seek full restitutional measures.

This includes the immediate removal of the Executive Director of Student Affairs, as well as the Project manager and all editorial staff.

Now here is the bottom line. There was no instigation for violence or discrimination against Christian people; therefore it does not warrant a violation of human rights. It was mocking religious belief in general and as Professor Benatar highlighted, only two of the pictures target Christians. The other 8 pictures are aimed at religious belief in general.

Why should Christians not be treated this way, as other religious beliefs are? We so-called sceptics should not have to adjust our lives, which includes looking at ideas critically and unemotionally, just because one group says their ideas are beyond criticism. As I highlighted before about Taryn Hodgson, if Muslims came out saying they are offended by all the non-halal places, people drinking alcohol, and women wearing short skirts, would the Christians adjust to suit them? It seems unlikely – though perhaps some guys would like some of the female drivers off the road, but for different reasons.

Why then should we nonbelievers adjust for Christians?

Naidoo, seeing his views further mocked because we hurt his feelings by highlighting his errors, wrote a strongly-worded letter to Cape Times. Naidoo once again tried to place two target groups together, to highlight why his was better: This time he highlighted that the so-called liberal media elite (whatever that is) has no time for views against homosexuality but plenty that mocks his faith.

To quote him:

I can almost guarantee that if the object of Sax Appeal’s mockery and ‘satire’ were directed at homosexuals and homosexuality, the liberal media would be singing a very different tune. Predictably, the liberal media elite have taken it upon themselves to determine the limitations of free speech – if any – for the rest of us.  In other words, they decide who can be mocked, derided, ridiculed and humiliated. And according to their warped definition, Jesus Christ and Christianity are fair game. However, homosexuals and any expression of homosexuality are strictly off-limits …

This is a sneaky but fallacious move. Does not freedom of speech mean we can say what we want about ideas, yet we refrane from mocking homosexuals. Surely this is a double-standard as Naidoo highlights?

No. It is not. Firstly, if Naidoo is so oppressed and downtrodden by the liberal media, why does he write letters to them, and get published? Why is he getting his 15 minutes on Carte Blanche and Special Assignment? That does not seem very “limiting” from the media’s point of view. In fact, it seems rather in keeping in line with the principle: audi alteram parte. That is, remember: all views deserve a hearing.

And, secondly, freedom of speech does not mean we can say and express whatever we want. This is common mistake from those who bash secularism, liberalism and freedom of speech and thought.

My co-contributor to Butterflies and Wheels, Nigel Warburton, highlights:

Defenders of free speech almost without exception recognize the need for some limits to the freedom they advocate. In other words, liberty should not be confused with licence. Complete freedom of speech would permit freedom to slander, freedom to engage in false and highly misleading advertising, freedom to publish sexual material about children, freedom to reveal state secrets, and so on … The kind of freedom of speech worth wanting is freedom to express your views at appropriate times in appropriate places, not freedom to speak at any time that suits you. Nor should it be freedom to express any view whatsoever: there are limits.

Those limits are then premised on what constitutes encitment to violence and intolerance, hence, homosexuality and so on.

Homosexuality, unlike religion, is not a set of ideas, which are designed to cater for explaining, exculpating, and excluding based on the word of a deity – himself designed as arbiter of the weather, the creation of the world and the dealer of death.

Religion then, which admits no doubt and treats scepticism, derision and apostasy with the loving care of a sociopath with a poisoned knife, can not be equated with homosexuality. Homosexuality, firstly, is not a set of ideas. It is either “erotic activity with another of the same sex” or engaging in being a homosexual.

It is simply focused on relations with the same sex: there are no ideas here, it simply is a group of people – it is who they are. Religion, however, deals with what you believe.

Homosexuality makes no pretensions toward supernatural and untested claims. It is simply a position – ignore the pun – one takes in and of sex. What is there to say about it? It is a personal choice that, for the most part, harms no one – unlike religious beliefs. However, religion to those of us who studied literature, is a fertile ground for humour. It is so ludicirous in so many areas, it is begging for mockery. Homosexuality on the other hand, is not that funny by any standards. What is their to mock and deride, in any case? Perhaps it is not as deep – ignore the pun – as Naidoo thinks: Maybe, those seeking to make humour are just leaping on the most popular source of silly ideas. “The religion of one age,” RW Emerson said, “is the literary entertainment of the next.”

Naidoo spoke out against homosexuality based on nothing but assertion: It offended him as a Christian that SA tourism’s Cheryl Ozinsky attempted to make Cape Town Pink. To most of you, that would not matter, since there were no homosexuals knocking at your door wondering if you had accepted Elton John as your lord and saviour. Why should Ozinsky not try to make Cape Town Pink? Naidoo could give no good reasons for his views and that was why he was ousted and chided by the liberal media – not because we do not want to offend homosexuals. We want good, strong reasons for saying something – not simply assertion or because your “magic” book says so. Naidoo is propping up his faith as some sort of justification for his assertions, because society does not fiti into his narrow view of Christianity. This reminds me of a famous quotation of the great Heinrich Heine: “Christ rode on an ass, but now asses ride on Christ.”

Finally, we can focus on one last point – a question that we as a society were asked by VARSITY Newspaper: Should the editors have published the article? Yes. Though most of us found it distasteful, we support the editors’ right to publish whatever they like (within the bounds of non-violence and decency). They could’ve mocked atheists and nonbelievers. They could’ve mocked physicists and so on – I mean, if you think philosophers dress badly, just look at physcists. You all saw what Gareth looks like. I’m joking, love – you’re gorgeous.

From many angry Christian groups writing strongly-worded letters, to appealing to the human right’s commission, to death-threats and irrational reactions, the Sax Appeal Debacle highlights an important aspect of the current standing of freedom. As Noam Chomsky said: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” So Naidoo can not claim derision toward mockery on the one hand, whilst invoking freedom of speech on the other hand. These two hands can not come together in a handshake of tolerance, they are split apart by opposing notions.

The Sax Appeal Debacle highlights an important movement, tenured toward respecting religious sentiments in the broader sphere. Some of you may know that the UN is slowly transmuting the defense of freedom of speech, into limiting it against religion. The incitement to religious hatred is slowly becoming recognised as a crime worthy of prosecution in the upper echelons of our only universal peace-keeping body.

But, blasphemy, as I have defended it here, is a right for everyone because everyone will be offended by some view, in this open market place of ideas. This is the deal we sign up for when entering a secular society, premised on freedom of speech and equal human rights. If a view upsets you, you must be able to give good reasons aside from simply assertion. If it crosses over into simply poor taste, at the least, or incitement to violence against persons, at worst, then we would also be defending freedom of speech – since freedom, remember, does not mean free-reign. Freedom, like reason, has limits. But that does not mean they are restricted. Even the limits are made with the same tools of reason and freedom. It is when the limits are constructed out of dogmatic assertion and emotion that we have a problem.

So, yes, I believe in limiting freedom of speech and focusing on the limits of reason – but using reason to discover those borders. I do not believe in setting up arbitrary boundaries based on emotion and magic books. We must eliminate the arbitrary boundaries which made life so difficult in our history. As Denis Diderot once said: “With the bowels of the last priest, let us strangle the last king.”

Reason will decide the victor, as ideas emerge bloody and bleeding from the Gauntlet of Criticism. Raising their fingers, they mark the next point in our trajectory of thought, as we glide slowly down the path of ignorance. Faith is unhelpful and deserves the same treatment as astrology, alchemy and phlogiston theory. As this Sax Appeal debacle has highlighed, we need to be clearer in our defense of reason. We must highlight the idiocy of any idea – all ideas are open to criticism. We can maintain respect for each other as human beings, yet have absolutely no respect for our beliefs and ideas. I do not want anyone, no matter how heretical you are, to think my ideas are sacred or beyond criticism.

Even my ideas on equality of the genders, human rights, compassion are not beyond criticism. I do not hold them absolutely, nor would I die for them. Because, as reason states, I could be wrong.

The tiny light of reason in this path of darkness, marked with the blanket of superstition, is our guiding light in this world. We progress through joined hands, not through raised fists. I believe we can all unite in our efforts to better the world, because our ideas about god, Jesus and Thor are not important to protecting our freedom. I, personally, think, along with AC Grayling, that “if the world is to have a future, it rests in the hands of women.” Yet, what major religion has not been oppressive to the rights of women, and, therefore, against the progress of our modern world?

So let us shake of these shackles of offense and being hurt by someones mockery and derision. There is work to be done: It wil start with being united in our thoughts of the good life sans gods. It will continue by emancipating reason from the shrouds of religion. And, finally, it will lie within the hands of the better sex, the freedom of women.

Let’s ignore petty student magazines that offend us and focus on the real world. The question of god’s existence is one of the stupidest, yet people trouble themselves with this more than helping promote reason and freedom to all peoples. Let us not fight over the shadows in the corner when an actual darkness looms ahead.

The darkness will be banished with the light of truth ignited by the fires of reason, raising the torch of knowledge to this cave of ignorance, with our backs to supersition. Which way are you facing?

I’ve Been Asked to Debate

Due to my recent activities defending freedom of speech against the hypersensitive theists, I have faced an absence of writing. The responses I have received have been of a cordial nature, in keeping with open discussion and civil debate. The first to contact me was someone from a church close to UCT, asking to hold open discussions in the central plaza. Coordinating such an event given the infamous lax nature of UCT humanities’ admin is something I am, I suppose, sceptical about. I would go as far as to say I am a nonbeliever in the effectiveness of the administrations. I have to be shown proof of its efficacy.

Nonetheless, I then had an extended piece published in VARISTY, UCT’s official newspaper. It was read by one of the pastors by the Campus for Christ, who has since asked if I would have discussions in the main hall, Jameson Hall, on campus. He is attempting to gather around him such people as Errol Naidoo and Lugisane Nefale, both of whom I have severely critiqued. It will be interesting then – if this does occur – to see their real-time responses to my objections.

What will Nefale say when I point out his flaw that atheism requires faith, if our disbelief in his god is a faith, then his disbelief in Thor is a faith, too. What will Naidoo say to the false juxtaposition between homosexuality and Christianity? It will be interesting to discover their responses, since there is no time to pull bad reasoning out the air. Instead, we can watch it subsume into an amalgam of chaos, ripped from the veins of unreason, and threaded into some form of an English sentence. Thus, we will not have the final product before us in black-and-white, but watch the growth of this poisoned beast from its gestational phases.

What is the point of debate? Surely I see no hope in changing Naidoo’s mind? Of course not. But the point of debate is to allow for many opposing views to be aired. The many ears that will hopefully be quenched of their thirst for a flux of voices will be exponentionally larger than ears prepped for choir-preaching (of the theist and nontheist side). It will mean those who would never listen to someone like me – who will be godbashing as I always do, and not just capital “g” god – will be forced to. They will be forced to listen to me blaspheme against gods long since forgotten except to archeologists and small tribes.

This can only be a good thing since it raises awareness. Even if those who do not agree are still forced to lay out logically the points we raise. Since theistic arguments – by definition – do not fit logically or reasonably into any scheme, those who do believe can see why we find theistic arguments unappealing and rather mundance, if not completely flawed. I hopefully will be debating with my “partner in crime”, Jacques Rousseau, who has just written an extended piece I urge you all to read.

However, what could be their reasoning for wanting to debate me? Any thoughts? I do not exactly come across as very friendly in my writings, though in person I am gentle and fairly placid. At least, um, I think so.