HumanistLife

Discussing atheism in highly religious countries

by

With the news replete with stories of humanists and freethinkers killed and persecuted for ‘blasphemy’ around the world, Alex Sinclair-Lack asks ‘How candid can I be about my beliefs’?

Amman’s Citadel in Jordan. Photo by Alex Sinclair-Lack.

All humanists must grapple with the question of when it is appropriate to tell people that you don’t believe in their god, and when, if ever, you might choose to hide your beliefs for fear of causing offence. Across the atheist spectrum there is strong disagreement about how to approach these issues. At one extreme, there are those who keep their beliefs completely hidden. At the other, we have keyboard warriors with an uncanny ability to turn the YouTube comment sections of pop videos and cookery guides into pseudo-theological, venomous outpourings about the failings of the Catholic Church. Frankly, I have a little sympathy for both. However, the dilemma I describe becomes more apparent and important in highly religious countries. During a six-month stay in Amman, Jordan, I discovered my own answer to the question.

Having found comfort and confidence in
shared values of compassion. I made the conscious
decision to tell people of my lack of faith.

As a liberal and a humanist, I had reservations about moving to a Middle Eastern country. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Jordan does not share many of the intolerances of the surrounding nations. In fact, it blows many perceptions of the region out of the water. Surrounded by Iraq, Israel, Syria and Saudi Arabia; Jordan has remained peaceful, safe, and welcoming. While the UK Parliament pats itself on the back for having voted to let in a couple of hundred child refugees, Jordan was taking them in by the million. It is worth noting that King Abdullah II does this in spite of a devastating water shortage because he considers it Jordan’s moral duty to help refugees regardless of nationality and religion.

Having found comfort and confidence in shared values of compassion, I made the conscious decision to tell people of my lack of faith. At first to Jordanian friends, and then to colleagues, and eventually to inquiring strangers. The inquiry comes up more often than you might expect. Reactions ranged from sheer horror, to intrigue, to nonchalance. My personal favourite occurred during filming for an unfinished pet project, a documentary short: Syrian Santa. It was centred on a young Muslim refugee working as Father Christmas in a mall, who when I asked him if my non-belief offended him, replied: ‘Oh please, all of my friends are atheists!’

A multi-faith mural in Jordan. Photo by Alex Sinclair-Lack.

Questions usually followed, and I was happy to answer. Each Q&A session reassured me that these conversations were valuable. This is not because I had any intention of ‘proselytising’ or ‘converting’ or whatever the non-religious equivalent is (de-proselytising, perhaps). Any attempts to convert Muslims or hurt ‘Muslim feelings’ would have landed me a three-year prison sentence. But far more importantly, because it is not my business as a guest of the country to even be considering such an act. I have as little desire to proselytise as I do to be proselytised. My interest lies in conversation not conversion.

Any discussions of faith should be treated with sensitivity and cultural awareness, otherwise they are not only disrespectful and neo-colonial, but counter-productive. I will never preach my beliefs, but I will happily engage with those who are willing. When my admission was met with a grimace, I would follow up with, ‘I realise that atheists do not have a good reputation, but I welcome any questions about my beliefs, if you are interested’.

Reasonable people from all belief systems are keen to understand how non-believers come to ethical decisions and agree that discussion is valuable

The very act of having a friendly conversation…
goes a long way to combating prejudice.

Firstly, the discussion counters widespread misconceptions about what it means to be an atheist. For most people, I was the first openly atheistic person they had encountered. Although my ex-partner might disagree, I like to think that I don’t match up to the idea of an atheist as a nihilistic, ethically reprehensible sinner with a black hole where my heart is meant to be. The very act of having a friendly conversation with a well-meaning, open, and non-pushy non-believer goes a long way to combating prejudice.

Secondly, just by opening a dialogue you create a safe space for other people to explore their own doubt or scepticism, but who are unlikely to have had the same freedoms you have had. This is more likely than you might think. According to a 2012 WIN/Gallup poll, 18% of people in the Arab world consider themselves ‘not a religious person’. That is the equivalent of 75 million people. The percentage rises to as high as 33% in Lebanon and perhaps even more surprisingly, 19% in Saudi Arabia. Even if you do not meet these people directly, you may indirectly inspire tolerance towards them. And there is a reasonable chance you will have enough influence on someone to make them consider before jumping to harsh judgement and disownment. Atheists and agnostics within highly religious countries have one hell of a trail to blaze. What I am advocating is recognising your privilege and using it to help their journey run a little smoother.

I’m not supporting walking around the holy land with an ‘I love Richard Dawkins’ t-shirt. I only had this conversation when I was somewhat confident that I was safe. I would not be so brave as to openly discuss it in Bangladesh or Saudi Arabia, where the price of standing up for non-belief has been such a tragic one. In at least thirteen countries, atheism is punishable by death. And in these countries, the bravery and dangers faced by activists fighting to protect their right to non-belief is not to be compared with anything I will ever encounter. Nor would I be naive enough to claim that everyone has the luxury to speak so openly about non-belief. But it is recognition of that privilege that motivates me. I have been lucky enough to grow up in a society where I am free from these dangers; most people are not.

Use your wits and your intuition, when you feel unsafe, keep your views to yourself. Check the Freedom of Thought Report before you visit any religious country and only do what you feel comfortable with. Given an opportunity, atheists who live with the privilege of safety have a responsibility to detoxify the debate for those that don’t. For me, it is a risk worth taking. Some of my most humbling experiences were when Jordanian people were telling me that I had helped them combat their prejudices. All humanists have a small part to play.

Alex Sinclair-Lack is a writer with an appetite for travel. You can follow his writing and his exploits on Twitter at @alexsinclair.

Opinion: The humanist case for staying in the EU

by

This blog is part of a series of perspectives on the EU referendum from prominent humanists on either side of the debate. Each puts forward a humanist case for the United Kingdom either remaining a member of, or leaving, the European Union. All six perspectives are linked in the image below.

2016-06-16-LW-v1-EU-blogs-headerComplete-board

Joan Smith Mary Honeyball David Pollock Matt Ridley Crispin Blunt Kelvin Hopkins Default

Joan Smith: The humanist case for staying in the EU

Ideas know no boundaries. For at least two-and-a-half thousand years, Europe has been the testing ground of ideas about who we are, why we are here and the best way to live. From Greek philosophers to French anti-theists and the English and Scots thinkers who played a key role in the Enlightenment, European thinkers have driven forward the march of progressive ideas. They’ve done it against a tragic background of internecine warfare, pitting neighbours against each other in some of the most terrible conflicts to disfigure the planet.

Against the odds, the EU has persuaded huge numbers of people to focus on what unites us rather than old divisions – just look at all the individuals and institutions outside the UK pleading with us to stay. As I write, we are part of a community of more than 500 million people living in countries with a commitment to shared values and universal human rights. Those values are vital to humanists, creating a legal framework in which we are protected from age-old demands from religious and other extremists who would like to impose their beliefs on people who don’t share them.

I love living in a European community where my right not to have a religion is protected by law. I love the fact that no member state of the EU can use barbaric punishments like the death penalty. I love the fact that equality is at the heart of the European ideal, challenging centuries of bigotry (much of it sanctioned by church and state) towards women, the disabled and LGBT people. Of course individual countries could do this on their own but it’s easier – and our hard-won rights are easier to protect – when we are part of a larger whole.

I am proud of what Europe has become since the Second World War. I don’t think for one moment that it has destroyed the nasty side of human nature, and I have watched the rise of xenophobic forms of nationalism in some European countries with horror. But I think we are stronger when our political leaders recognise that they are part of project based on universal values and respect, drawing strength from each other. That is more important for me than the economic arguments, which are in any case a no-brainer.

I live in a continent influenced by Plato, Galileo, Voltaire, Simone de Beauvoir, people with inventive minds who shaped what it means to be modern. As a humanist, I don’t want to return to the petty nationalisms and squabbles which have torn Europeans apart so many times in the past. The EU isn’t perfect but I want to remain part of a community with a commitment to equality that’s made the lives of so many people immeasurably better.

Opinion: Remain in the EU for peace, security, women, and our economy

by

This blog is part of a series of perspectives on the EU referendum from prominent humanists on either side of the debate. Each puts forward a humanist case for the United Kingdom either remaining a member of, or leaving, the European Union. All six perspectives are linked in the image below.

2016-06-16-LW-v1-EU-blogs-headerComplete-board

Joan Smith Mary Honeyball David Pollock Matt Ridley Crispin Blunt Kelvin Hopkins Default

Mary Honeyball: Remain in the EU for peace, security, women, and our economy

We must never forget where and how the European Union was born: It followed two devastating World Wars and great anticipation and significant expectation followed. Nothing like those atrocities could ever or would ever happen again. And so the European Union was born.

And let us not forget that a fundamental principle of the European project is to secure common shared European values and to protect people’s fundamental and human rights.

Today, we must not seek to isolate ourselves from 27 of our nearest neighbours; instead we must work in collaboration with others to fight the threat of terrorism, to tackle climate change, to trade freely and simply and to protect the most vulnerable in society.

When our neighbours face serious terrorist attacks like the recent atrocities in France and Belgium we must stand side-by-side in solidarity and neither turn our backs or run away.

Part of what makes us safer as a nation is our ability to cooperate with other member states to exchange and share information. Being part of the European Union and having access to institutions such as Europol is a huge benefit to all member states security.

Of course the European Union, like all organisations, is imperfect and there are things we must improve. We must not run away from the European project but embrace it, work with it and continue to be at the heart of it. We are better and stronger together.

Meanwhile while myself and colleagues continue to fight for it, the Brexit campaign has played on people’s fear of immigration. I’m not dismissing those fears, but the truth is that whether we remain in the European Union or vote to leave, immigration will continue.

Official figures from the Office of National Statistics reveal that immigration from outside the EU is higher than from those within the EU. So for those who have a problem with immigration- it simply will not go away by voting to leave.

‘Much of my work since I entered the European Parliament has concerned women and gender equality. I know that some parts of the Europe have anti-gender mobilisations and the European Union is an important safeguard against such far-right beliefs.’

An Australian points based system has been floated among euro sceptics as an answer to the ‘problem’, but closer examination of the model reveals that immigration has increased in Australia since the introduction of the system. In the UK we rely on immigration, just look at the care sector where one in five of those people working this industry is from outside the UK. We are living and working for longer we need enough people within the sector to support us.

If people come to the UK, pay taxes and contribute more to the economy than they take out then surely it is a good thing?

But the question is not and should not be confined to immigration. The IMF, the OECD, the World Bank the Governor of the Bank of England all warn of the consequences to our economy if we leave. How often does such a varied and learned group of people agree on such a huge issue? If you believe all of these world experts are wrong, then cast your vote as you wish, but do so with great caution.

And what happens in the event we do vote to leave. Our economy may not collapse overnight but we will be under huge strain. The clock starts ticking on negotiations immediately. There will be a period of around two years to negotiate with 27 countries. If we fail to reach a suitable negotiation in that time, then we revert to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms. An example of the consequences if we are forced to abide by the WTO terms is clear immediately. Currently the UK exports some 2000 cars a day to Europe and because we are members of the European Union they enter tariff free. Under the WTO terms, the UK will be forced to pay a 10% tariff like The United States and Japan.

There are also concerns over our continued loss of sovereignty from the Brexit campaign who claim we relinquish our ability to be sovereign to the European Union. We are and remain sovereign state and two clear examples show unambiguously how we have maintained our sovereignty: We decided not to be part of the Eurozone or part of the Schengen free zone either.

Much of my work since I entered the European Parliament has concerned women and gender equality. I know that some parts of the Europe have anti-gender mobilisations and the European Union is an important safeguard against such far-right beliefs.

Those who have a traditional view of the family, gender and reproductive rights are launching anti gender mobilisations. This isn’t an abstract or baseless fear- it’s happening across Europe, now.

Such groups claim that the European Union is promoting a gender ideology and that it is trying to break down traditional gender roles. In fact, the European Union is progressive in all of these areas.

It has been influential in starting to change women’s position in the workplace, family and society as a whole. It promotes gender parity for women on boards and advocates a system of quotas to redress the imbalance. We need to be part of the European Union to encourage the UK to drive forward progressive change for women and gender equality. In addition, EU laws ensure that women are guaranteed the right to at least 14 weeks’ maternity leave as well as protection from maternity related discrimination.

It’s not just within the workplace that the European Union is working to improve the lives of women, it also seeks to protect them against violent individuals, abusive criminal gangs, traffickers and other areas of organised crime. The Victims Directive guarantees specialist support and protection from repeat victimisation. In addition, the European Protection Order and the Mutual Recognition in Civil Matters both protect women from perpetrators when they travel to any part of the European Union. And the Anti Trafficking Directive is a comprehensive framework which supports victims of this crime- 80% of which are women.

The European Union is progressive. It seeks to promote peace over hate and fairness over discrimination. It is something we must continue to be part of for our own sake and for that of future generations.

Opinion: Lead a more democratic Europe from outside the EU

by

This blog is part of a series of perspectives on the EU referendum from prominent humanists on either side of the debate. Each puts forward a humanist case for the United Kingdom either remaining a member of, or leaving, the European Union. All six perspectives are linked in the image below.

2016-06-16-LW-v1-EU-blogs-headerComplete-board

Joan Smith Mary Honeyball David Pollock Matt Ridley Crispin Blunt Kelvin Hopkins Default

Kelvin Hopkins: Lead a more democratic Europe from outside the EU

The European Union is anti-democratic, anti-socialist, and failing economically.  With low and negative economic growth, 25% unemployment and 50% youth unemployment in some member states, living standards cut by a quarter in Greece, forced privatisations and restrictions on collective bargaining rights as conditions of bailouts, the true nature of the EU is now plain to see.

Free movement of labour is designed simply to reduce wages and reduce wage bargaining strength.  The Laval and Viking Line cases where the European Court ruled in favour of employers and against trade unions made a nonsense of the supposed EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and were a clear indication of the direction of travel being steered by the EU’s masters.  Raising up the market and market forces against elective democracy was evident from the start in its original name, the Common Market, and was opposed at the time by British socialists including Hugh Gaitskell, Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan.

In a Commons debate in 1989, Tony Benn MP said, ‘I was brought up to believe, and I still believe, that when people vote in an election they must be entitled to know that the party for which they vote, if it has a majority, will be able to enact laws under which they will be governed. That is no longer true. Any party elected, whether it is the Conservative party or the Labour party can no longer say to the electorate, “Vote for me and if I have a majority I shall pass that law,” because if that law is contrary to Common Market law, British judges will apply Community law.’

Labour’s policies of public ownership such as returning the railways to the public sector will not be possible if EU free-market rules are applied.  The franchising of Britain’s railway operations as supposed ‘privatisation’ is especially bizarre when Deutsche Bahn, the German state railway owns much of Britain’s public transport services, with British passengers effectively subsidising Berlin commuters.

The recent EU Fourth Railway package will soon be forcing continental EU state railways into the same mould as that in Britain.

Some people of faith say that membership of the EU is primarily a matter of values not economics.  I say that does not cut much ice if you have no home, if you have no job, or if the government is forced to close down or sell off public services at the behest of the European Central Bank.  The reality is that the EU is an arm of neo-liberal capitalism which is and has failed across the world and which even the IMF has now concluded.  By remaining in the EU the UK will find itself dragged down in a sinking vessel.

The European Union project moved slowly and by stealth at first, later accelerating following the 1980s Single European Act.  It was clearly intended to promote the dismantling over time of the post-war social democratic structures which brought such massive benefits to millions of working people across Western Europe.

The current secretive negotiations to impose TTIP, the proposed EU/USA trade deal which would give massive power to the giant private corporations to be able to prosecute democratically elected member state governments is conclusive proof – if further proof were needed – about the true nature of the EU.

It is time for democratic member state governments once again to stand up for their peoples and to reject the EU.  The United Kingdom has an opportunity to take the lead in that process by voting ‘Leave’ in the coming referendum.

That being said, I always emphasise that the European Union is not Europe.  The European Union is simply a political construct covering many of the countries of Europe.   Europe is a sub-continent of great peoples, beautiful countries and superb culture.  Democracy, socialism and trade unionism were all created in Europe.  We can have a great Europe without the EU, a Europe of international friendship and solidarity which will not sell out working people to the global corporations.  Britain can lead the way to that different Europe as other countries in the EU see the advantages of independence and a renaissance of democracy.

Opinion: Reject Europe’s claims of a Christian identity, reject the EU

by

This blog is part of a series of perspectives on the EU referendum from prominent humanists on either side of the debate. Each puts forward a humanist case for the United Kingdom either remaining a member of, or leaving, the European Union. All six perspectives are linked in the image below.

2016-06-16-LW-v1-EU-blogs-headerComplete-board

Joan Smith Mary Honeyball David Pollock Matt Ridley Crispin Blunt Kelvin Hopkins Default

Crispin Blunt: Reject Europe’s claims of a Christian identity, reject the EU

Today we find ourselves locked in much deeper integration with Europe than was presented to the British people when they endorsed our membership in the 1975 referendum.  European judges can overwrite British law and direct our legal regulations.  Those many aspects of the acquis subject to QMV leave our own government and Parliament frequently and controversially overridden by the competing interests of our partners and even more frequently our government’s position quietly compromised to achieve unanimity.

The truth is the geo-politics of our island and its history means the British position on Europe is hopelessly compromised.  The integration required to make this great idealistic project work is disguised from the British people, because they don’t really get it.

For British humanists, the debate over Turkish accession is instructive.  It brings out, not least from our central European partners, talk of Europe’s Christian identity.  That a large Muslim country would be an unacceptable departure from this.  Just at the moment it seems polls indicate we are now formally a majority nation of non-believers we are being asked to check back in for a particular ethnic religious identity within the EU.  The UK’s situation reflects our global internationalist outlook, where all religions, and now mostly none, all rub along relatively happily together.  In the same way our multi-ethnic population reflects that global cultural and historic legacy.  That’s what makes the European project so much more conflicted for the UK.

The central European response to the prospect of Turkish accession doesn’t sit easily with us.  The UK is formally still a strong supporter of Turkish accession. That reflects our much more relaxed view of religion and identity and the strategic need to secure Turkey within the European sphere of influence.  But the practical consequences today of our economically marginal citizens being competed out of work and the prospect of progress in their own country by professionally qualified east Europeans would be made dramatically worse by Turkish accession. Their plight is going to become even more marked when the living wage kicks in by the end of this Parliament, whether or not Turkey accedes.

Our own society’s cohesion and stability should be of interest to humanists.  With formal control of immigration we may just about sustain the pressures of global migration patterns.  The challenges that will inevitably bring, difficult outside the EU but much more so inside, would at least produce politicians who can be directly held to account if we are outside the EU.  Britain has produced a society with a very global outlook, and perhaps as a consequence it’s no surprise organised religion is now a distinctly minority sport.  I believe we are best able to protect this outside the EU, but with the rights of all our minorities and identities still sustained by the wholly different treaty base of the European Convention on Human Rights.    

The UK is a problem for the EU.  Our lack of commitment to the institutions is being paid by our partners and us on security.  Outside the EU we can and would continue to cooperate on security issues much as we do now.  Inside the EU we actively prevent our partners achieving the kind of integration required to make the EU a really effective security and defence player in the world.  It is absolutely in our interest that the EU sharing our values, becomes a more effective partner.

26 of our partners are either Euro or pre-Euro countries.  They must move towards some kind of United States of Europe or the Euro area will collapse.  An accountable body will have to vote the common tax and benefits across Europe to support the common currency area.  Unsurprisingly many of our partners also want a common defence capability, which makes complete sense if your interests are so closely aligned that it’s bizarre that you should not defend them together.

And it’s us, the UK that actively seeks to prevent this.  It’s toxic to promote this in the British body politic because most of us Britons are simply not checked in for the European ideal and are not prepared to make the sovereignty sacrifices involved.  It’s why this kind of narrative has been completely missing from the Remain campaign.

We have the luxury of the option of a perfectly sustainable global role outside the EU, rather more attuned to our people, economic strengths, history and culture.  We should take it and help our partners resolve their need for further political and security integration rather than obstruct them.

The evolution vs creationism debate, like you’ve never encountered it before

by

April saw the launch of Goodbye God?, a graphic novel that explores evolution vs creation and calls for an end to the teaching of creationism in schools. Written by me, Sean Michael Wilson, and illustrated by long time luminary of the British comic book world, Hunt Emerson, it’s a 120-page book published by New Internationalist and made with the help of both the British Humanist Association (BHA) and the American Humanist Association (AHA). The book demonstrates how a concern for humanism, science, and reasoned logical thinking is crucial for the development of society.

The BHA's own Richy Thompson is featured as a character in Goodbye God.

The BHA’s own Richy Thompson is featured as a character in Goodbye God.

What is a graphic novel, I hear you ask? Or perhaps not, as the term, introduced in the late 70s, has become quite well known by now. Essentially its a word coined to get over the image of comics being just for kids. Which they never have been, that was just a silly cliche. And we humanists should be all about overcoming miss-information and cliches, yes? So, in the last 30 years or so the medium of the graphic novel has come to mean comic books for adults. And no, that does not mean pornography! It just means stories using text and visuals, on sophisticated themes, that adult readers can enjoy.

Why do this as a comic book? Well, actually the Goodbye God? book is more like an illustrated guide, rather than a traditional comic book or graphic novel. There are very good reasons to have the illustrated format. In recent years there has been quite a bit of research into how the visual and text mixture we find in comic books is a more effective way of conveying complicated information than text alone. For example,  Kobayashi’s 2011 study in Sophia University concluded that: ‘The findings indicated that the visual aid reduced the learners’ cognitive load in reading and promoted the retention of the text…’ So, comic books, graphic novels, whatever you want to call them are both an enjoyable way of taking in complicated information, and probably a more effective one.

No...

Sean Michael Wilson: What book on critical of religion could be complete without a few appearances from Christopher Hitchens?

In part one of Goodbye God?, we look at creationism vs evolution. We consider some of the key aspects of what both are. We have a list of key claims from creationists and a cartoon version of the BHA’s very own Richy Thompson goes through them, one by one, noting the faults in argument and the mistakes in conclusions.

Later in the chapter Richy also takes us through the situation as regards the teaching of creationism in UK schools and the significant campaigns of the BHA in this area, the successes, but further work that needs to be done in the independent school sector. We also look at the situation in the US education system, with a cartoon Roy Speckhardt, of the AHA, making an appearance, as we consider the twists of terminology of US creationists reframing their approach as ‘intelligent design’ or ‘teaching the debate’.  Philosopher Stephen Law of the University of London and the Centre for Inquiry UK is in chapter one also, as we begin to broaden the focus to look at some of the ways that irrational belief systems are introduced and promoted.

In part two, the book pans out yet further to consider several aspects the negative impact of religion, with several well known humanist’s making an ‘appearance’, in illustrated form, to tell us about various related points. These include Richard Dawkins’ key points from his ‘letter to my daughter’ noting that we should be suspicious of reasons for believing things that rely on mostly on authority, tradition or revelation. We also have Democrat and author Sean Faircloth’s ‘10 points for a secular America’ shown in illustrated format for the first time.

We have some wise words from the BHA Chief Executive, Andrew Copson, regarding the important place played by humanists in the national cultures of the UK and USA. Then, what book on critical of religion could be complete without a few appearances from Christopher Hitchens? In Goodbye God?, we see him complaining about the horrendous idea of ‘compulsory love’ for god, laying down his infamous challenge regarding the question of morals and ethics, and of course, throwing in a few of his jokes! Hitchens, indeed, was keen on graphic novels, having recommended them in a couple of his own books. He also wrote the introduction to Joe Sacco’s graphic novel about the Bosnian war.

The book is designed to mix the serious points with humour, and the excellent illustrations of Hunt Emerson balance up the considerable textual parts with their artistic charm. It also includes back text sections by the BHA and the AHA, telling us more about the kind of work they do, and more about the issue of teaching evolution in schools. We also have an introduction by Professor Lawrence Krauss, who comments there that: ‘If our society is to function at its best, no notions should be sacred, beyond questioning, including religious notions. That is why we need books like Goodbye God? to help expose both religious and scientific nonsense that can get in the way of sound thinking, and to help produce a healthier and happier world with public policies that properly address the challenges of the 21st century. ‘

So, if you are interested in a unique way of presenting various issues of concern to humanism, in a way that is visually appealing yet still sophisticated, check out the Goodbye God? book.  More can be seen at seanmichaelwilson.weebly.com/goodbye-god.html.

Righteous anger and the death of Leelah Alcorn

by

In death, Leelah (pictured above) plead for better treatment of transgender people

In death, Leelah (pictured above) plead for better treatment of transgender people

The recent suicide of a transgender teenager in Ohio is a painful reminder of the worst that can happen when empathy fails us.

In a distressing suicide note, scheduled to appear on her blog within hours of her death, Leelah Alcorn outlined a litany of failings by her parents, most of which appear to have been driven by religious dogma, ignorance and prejudice. In an interview with CNN, the teenager’s mother asserted that she and her husband loved ‘unconditionally’ the dead child that she still insists was her confused and troubled son. As for the gender dysphoria, described so harrowingly in her child’s own suicide note? ‘We don’t support that, religiously,’ she said.

The angry responses to Leelah’s death have been powerful and unsurprising. LGBT activist Dan Savage called for Leelah’s parents to be prosecuted: ‘[they] threw her in front of that truck. They should be ashamed—but first they need to be shamed. Charges should be brought.’ Leelah’s family postponed her funeral and wake due to threats, and hundreds of people have sent enraged messages to the teenager’s mother, accusing her of driving her child to suicide. Online rallying calls urge others to send messages too, providing links to the mother’s Facebook profile and advice on how to contact her and her husband. ‘Let’s all message that woman on Facebook,’ one tweeter exhorts; another has even published what he claims to be the family’s home address. In an ever-growing barrage of furious tweets, Leelah’s parents have been called everything from ‘murderers’ and ‘monsters’ through to ‘demons.’ It makes for horrifying reading, and while I understand the anger, I am disquieted by the lack of humanity shown.

Most people seem to take it for granted that Leelah’s parents feel neither grief nor guilt as a result of their child’s suicide, and some state this supposition as a fact. Others appear to assume that the family’s sorrow and remorse will have been triggered by the actions of online crusaders, and gloat that Leelah’s mother has now blocked all outside messages: ‘Carla Alcorn locked her FB profile. Good. Fuck you. I hope the fear and guilt plagues you and your husband for the rest of your lives.’  The messages are abundant, and increasingly violent: ‘I hope the entire world gives Carla Alcorn hell;’ ‘I hope you wake up every morning and vomit over the guilt you must feel from torturing your beautiful daughter;’ ‘you’ve got blood on your hands, … bitch.’ Most striking of all are the catalogue of self-satisfied statements, in which the authors crow about the lengthy and vitriolic messages they claim to have sent to Leelah’s family: one example reads, ‘sent carla wood alcorn a really long message i basically told her she was going to hell but said it eloquently (kinda).’ One can only imagine its hideous content.

So here’s a thought experiment for those online accusers, safely ensconced behind their keyboards and so confident in the apparent rectitude of their vitriol. Shunned by her community, guilt-ridden, grieving for the child that she clearly failed and confused by the clash between her inherited religious beliefs, the closeted nature of a conservative state and the caustic self-righteousness of her accusers, Carla Wood Alcorn also commits suicide. What would her accusers think then? While some of them, I am prepared to admit, might think ‘good riddance,’ others I am sure would feel responsible. Would they be responsible? Well, partly. This is the power and the danger of social media – we can say anything to anyone, at any time – no time for reflection, no time for regret. It is out there – for better or for worse – just as Leelah’s anguished suicide note is out there, despite her family’s attempts to remove it. Leelah’s own rage at her parents is palpable – ‘Mom and Dad: fuck you.’ She had a right to feel angry, and her parents will have to live with that painful legacy; it is not for the rest of us to hijack those emotions and claim them as our own.

Now I am the first to understand anger. Believe me, I get it. I am someone who rants – I rant and I rave. My favourite topics are all the ones that you’re supposed to avoid at dinnertime. I have risked embarrassment for my husband by calling other men out on sexist remarks, rather than just laugh along like you’re supposed to when a chap engages in ‘jovial banter’ over drinks. I have fought with colleagues over numerous issues, most recently equal marriage, and provoked mortified silences and awkward relations as a result. I will do it again. I have a reputation for speaking out – or shouting out – whatever the social situation and trust me, I am not always popular for it. Thanks to all this, I have lost a few friends into the bargain.

Aristotle believed that there is such a thing as righteous anger: there are times, he said, when not only is it right to be angry, it would be wrong not to be so; the trick, however, is knowing what to be angry about, when to express it, how to express it, and to whom – that’s what is difficult. Blind rage is wrong, he argued, and it is particularly dangerous when it arises from pure emotion, as opposed to reason. Now I reserve the right to embarrass someone at the dinner table, most especially when the table is my own; and with all due respect to Aristotle, I believe that everyone has the right to feel however they wish to, and to express those feelings, within certain parameters. It is entirely natural and understandable that some people have felt unbridled rage towards Leelah’s parents, especially those members of the trans community who have experienced the kind of ignorance and gross misunderstanding that she found herself exposed to. But is it someone’s right to express that anger towards Leelah’s family, so directly and so viciously? Tragic and preventable as her death clearly was, I think it is not.

So where should we direct our righteous anger? Tragically, Leelah’s suicide is anything but unusual. A recent survey indicated that almost half of young transgender people attempt suicide here in the UK, and this shocking statistic is borne out by other recent studies in the USA. Wouldn’t we be better to focus our energies on making things better, to ‘fix society’ as Leelah herself exhorts us to do? In her note, Leelah lays blame very clearly on her parents, but also on the church they belonged to and the Christian counsellors she was forced to see. Shouldn’t our anger be directed at the ignorant self-appointed moralists, those who try to dictate to others how they should live, the pastors keen to say that Leelah did not exist and that Josh was a confused boy who was somehow abused and corrupted by the LGBT community, despite limited access to their support? Instead of sending hateful messages to Leelah’s own family, people should sign the petition to ban transgender conversion therapy, a change in the law that could have a direct impact on improving the lives and prospects of young people like Leelah, and lead a change of hearts and minds in the process.

By all means, be angry at Leelah’s death. But when someone directs their anger at the parents of a child who has just committed suicide? That’s a very bold stance to take. It’s the stance of someone so confident that they have never erred as to be spectacularly foolish in my eyes. A young person is dead. Blame religion. Blame suburban small-mindedness and ignorance. Blame us all for not fighting hard enough and acting swiftly enough to bring the changes that Leelah herself could have benefitted from. And let’s stand together to make those changes: in our schools, in our communities and in our families. Let’s make things better.

The last words belong to Leelah, and her instructions are clear: ‘the only way I will rest in peace is if one day transgender people aren’t treated the way I was, they’re treated like humans, with valid feelings and human rights. Gender needs to be taught about in schools, the earlier the better. My death needs to mean something. My death needs to be counted in the number of transgender people who commit suicide this year. I want someone to look at that number and say ‘that’s fucked up’ and fix it. Fix society. Please.’

Remembering our common humanity: a story from Afghanistan

by

‘Although in some things we are opposed, we share an irreducible humanity.’ Julian Sheather reflects on a touching tale of human compassion. 

SONY DSC

Afghanistan. Photo: Ricymar Photography.

A friend recently sent me a news story from Afghanistan. As a slanting light can show hidden dips and lines in a landscape, so the story gradually revealed the knots and burrs of some of my half-buried prejudices. The story was about an Afghan psychiatrist, Nader Alemi, who practices in Mazar-e-Sharif, a major trading city in the north of the country. The city was taken by the Taliban in 1998 and they overran much of the surrounding countryside. At the time, Alemi was the only psychiatrist in the north of Afghanistan who spoke Pashto, the language of the majority of Taliban. For more than three years, with at least the tacit agreement of their commanders, thousands of Taliban fighters made their way to his consulting rooms. And what they bought to him during those years was the terrible psychological fall-out of war. The minds of these men were broken by it: lonely, scared and depressed, many of them admitted to a longing for death.

As I read about the damaged minds of those Taliban fighters I sensed the falling of that oblique light. The image of the Taliban I had absorbed – abbreviated and buckled by the media – did not have room for such ordinary human vulnerability. If I thought of them at all then it was as men trained from birth, like mountain Spartans, to be a warrior caste – inured to hardship and brutality, not degraded by warfare but born to it, nurtured by it. And to this I added, from out the ever-present stock of received ideas, the impregnable shield of a fundamentalist Islamism: for me the Taliban were the militarised dervishes of an orientalising fantasy.

But despite the furious and repellent ideology of the Taliban, the men that found their way to Alemi’s neutral and forgiving consulting rooms were suffering from the ordinary human consequences of combat. Mullah Akhtar, second in command to the Taliban’s spiritual leader, Mullah Omar, habituated to the horrors of front-line combat, was delusional and hallucinating. Powerlessness fed depression: men had given over their fates entirely to their commanding officers and had no idea whether they would see the day out. Despite being depicted as men with medieval minds intent on burying the modern world, and despite seldom having seen a doctor before, they had no problem with modern psychiatry. Perhaps they reached for it as if it were a lifeline.

No doubt there were times when Alemi struggled with the men who were ravaging his country, but he held to the humane dictates of his professional codes:

I used to treat the Taliban as human beings, same as I would treat my other patients…even though I knew they had caused all the problems in our society…Sometimes they would weep and I would comfort them.

Taliban orthodoxy prohibits the education of girls, but while Alemi tried to heal the minds of Taliban fighters, his wife, Parvin, ran an underground school designed to do precisely that, for up to a hundred girls at a time. Given that Alemi was trying to hold the minds of their fighters together, the Taliban turning a blind eye to a modern psychiatrist in their midst is understandable. Parvin’s was maybe the greater risk. But somehow both she and the school survived. Some of her pupils have gone on to become doctors and engineers. There was that slanting light again.

When I read that news report, along with the slight unknotting of a prejudice or two came a strange shuffle of thoughts that revealed to me some of my deepest commitments. It is commonplace that ideas and beliefs rigidly gripped will divide us. The ways of the Taliban are about as remote from mine as I figure contemporaries can get. But one can condemn a regime, an inhuman ideology, while still acknowledging the humanity of those who promote it, or who are held, one way or another, physically or mentally captive by it. Although in some things we are opposed, we share an irreducible humanity. And so that oblique light came from somewhere. It had its origins in a set of humane practices that all humanists can celebrate: in the scientific medicine that can distance itself from conflict and quietly focus on a suffering human being; in the feeding and forming of young and growing minds through educating the whole human being. And in the belief, or call it a hope, integral to journalism at its best, that a news story set down in northern Afghanistan can open the mind, however slightly, of someone sitting at his desk in a very different city several thousands of miles away.

The Epicurean revival

by

Hiram Crespo writes for HumanistLife about the philosophy of Epicureanism, and argues that is has made a resurgence in modern works of positive psychology. 

Stumbling upon happiness in the garden of Epicurus? Flowers: Tim Daniels.

Stumbling upon happiness in the garden of Epicurus? Flowers: Tim Daniels.

As the annals of history have it, in the sixth century Emperor Justinian had all the schools of philosophy that competed with Christianity finally closed. This was the last we heard of the Epicurean School, whose tradition had remained culturally vibrant for seven centuries. Epicurus had been among the first to propose the atom—2,300 years ago—the social contract as a foundation for the rule of law, and the possibility of an empirical process of pursuit of happiness: a science of happiness. These progressive schools were oases of tranquility, reason and pleasure known as Gardens, where the ideals of civilized friendship flourished and men, women and even slaves engaged in philosophical discourse as equals.

If any set of doctrines can be considered the foundation of the Epicurean philosophy, it would be the Tetrapharmakon: the Four Remedies. For didactic purposes, the teachings were imparted in the form of short, easy to memorize adages. There are, to be fair, many more than four remedies in Epicureanism. However, these are known to be the core of the teaching out of which the rest of the philosophy flows:

Do not fear the gods
Do not fear death
What is pleasant is easy to attain
What is painful is easy to endure

In his Principal Doctrines 11-12, Epicurus argued for the study of science as a way to emancipate ourselves from irrational fears. For naturalists who don’t believe in gods or spirits, the first two negative statements may be translated as ‘Do not fear chance or blind luck, for it is pointless to battle that which we have no control over. It generates unnecessary suffering’.

Roman Epicurean poet Lucretius, in his De Rerum Natura, dedicates long portions of the philosophical poem to explaining how natural phenomena such as lightning and the movements of heavenly bodies are not the work of the Gods and that fear of the Gods is inconsistent with civilized life. Since he was unable in those days to produce a fully scientific theory to explain all these phenomena, he provided several possible theories for many of them without officially endorsing one, and humbly acknowledged that future thinkers would prove the main points of his naturalist and scientific cosmology, which they eventually did. And so we can say that his basic attitude was a sound one, and also that he respected our intelligence enough to not exhibit arrogance and certainty where he did not have conclusive theories. He allowed time to prove him right … and sincere.

That the prohibition against fearing the Gods, and against fear-based religion in general, is the first and main taboo in Epicurean philosophy, remains refreshing to this day.

The second remedy is elaborated in a series of teachings and aphorisms which serve as a form of cognitive therapy to deal with the trauma of death. Among them, the most memorable is the purely hedonistic one. It is summed up thusly:

Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not

There is also the symmetry argument, which compares the time after our death to the time before our birth of which we have no memory. Since there is nothing there, why fear it? It is as unintelligent to be needlessly tormented about the afterlife as it is to be tormented about the state prior to birth. I frequently argue that it wasn’t just the teachings, but the manner in which they were imparted –within the context of a loving community of philosopher friends– that served as a consolation and that it is impossible to replicate the peace and conviction that Epicurus gave humanity without this sense of community.

The latter two positive statements in the Tetrapharmakon lead to Epicurean teachings on how we should evaluate our desires and discern which ones are unnecessary versus which ones are necessary, which ones carry pain when satisfied or ignored versus which ones don’t. By this analytic process, one learns to be content with the simple pleasures in life, those easiest to attain and which carry little to no pain. It is here that the real fruits of Epicurean insight begin to be reaped. The best things in life are free.

One of the first psychological tasks of every Epicurean is to become mindful of his/her desires and whatever pain or anxiety they may be generating. Another task is to learn to relish and appreciate the simple things when they’re in front of us. The good friends, the good foods and the refreshing beverages, the family, the good music, our proximity to nature, even our view of the sky which (as Carl Sagan advised us) should always humble us.

The good news, according to Epicurus, is that happiness is easily attained if we cultivate philosophy. He cites the need for thankfulness and for robust friendships as fundamental ingredients for the good life, and not only categorizes desires but also discerns between kinetic (active) pleasures that happen when we satisfy a desire, and katastemic (inert) pleasures that happen when we have no desires to satisfy, which he labeled as superior.

Harvard psychologist and happiness researcher Dan Gilbert confirms Epicurus’ insights, including how meaningful relations significantly increase the amount of pleasure and of memorable experiences that we gather throughout our lifetime. He uses different verbiage: natural happiness is that attained when we satisfy a desire (kinetic pleasure, in Epicurean parlance) whereas synthetic happiness is that which we enjoy regardless of attaining desires (katastemic pleasure).

Because synthetic happiness requires no externals, it is therefore superior, it is a sign of a liberated being. He argues the case for synthetic happiness by citing the example of the lottery winner and the paraplegic who exhibit similar levels of happiness one year after winning the lottery and losing the lower limbs, respectively. These cases had been studied by happiness researchers Brickman et al.

This, in positive psychology, is being called the hedonic treadmill or hedonic adaptation: the habitual happy state that we always return to. Methods are being researched to increase the heights that are normal for each individual.

Gilbert’s theories, as far as I’m concerned, are Epicureanism by another name. One of the elements of Epicurean teaching that philosophers have struggled with the most throughout history is the idea of katastemic pleasure. It is often argued that lack of pain is not a definition of pleasure, but this is the art of happiness that Epicurus taught: that we must learn to be happy regardless of external factors and that it’s possible and desirable to cultivate katastemic pleasures via the philosophical disciplines. In fact, Epicurus argues that the very purpose of philosophy is to ensure an end to suffering and to create a beautiful, happy, pleasant life.

Gilbert’s research upholds katastemic pleasure as a necessary ingredient in human happiness and is beginning to reinvigorate the discourse on the philosophy of happiness that Epicurus had begun, and which was interrupted by Justinian 1,500 years ago. He also adds new concepts to our science of happiness and even proposes that we have a psychological immune system that fights unhappy moods.

Gilbert’s findings, along with research dealing with wellbeing in fields such as neuroscience and diet, point modern Epicureans in the direction of an interdisciplinary, practical reinvention of philosophy, which is just what we need if philosophy is to become once again the revolutionary, emancipatory cultural engine that it once was.

As to the Fourth Remedy, Epicurus reminded us of the temporal nature of bodily pain. We may get a fever, or a stomach ache, but within days our immune system fights it. In the case of more chronic pains, one gets used to them after some time. In nature, no condition lasts forever. The impermanence of all conditions is a consolation when we consider whatever pain they generate. A dismissive attitude towards pain takes discipline but it can be cultivated if we are mindful, disciplined, and develop a resolve to protect our minds.

Then there are mental pains and anxiety. These are systematically worked through via cognitive therapy. The resolution to follow Epicurus is a resolution to protect one’s mind. It’s impossible to be happy if we can’t control our anger and other strong emotions: we will go from one perturbed state to the next and never taste the stability of ataraxia, which translates as imperturbability and is the ultimate maturity that a philosopher can reach.

We live in a dysfunctional consumerist society filled with anxiety and neuroses, where few people analyse their life, most have a short attention span and are usually uninterested in disciplining their minds and curbing mindless desires. If philosophy is understood as the Epicureans understand it, then it becomes evident that people desperately need philosophy today.

Many more things could be said about the consolations of Epicurean philosophy. I leave my readers with an invitation to study Epicurus and engage themselves and others in philosophical discourse. I promise that your life will be enriched.

Hiram Crespo is the founder of societyofepicurus.com and the author of Tending the Epicurean Garden (Humanist Press, 2014).

Freedom of expression under threat: freedom of expression and preventing attacks on journalists

by

When journalists can't speak freely.

When journalists can’t speak freely. Freedom of expression: ‘one of our most abused civil liberties’.

“Freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly are rights that enable people to share ideas, form new thinking, and join together with others to claim their rights. It is through the exercise of these public freedoms that we make informed, considered and intelligent decisions about our development. To restrict them undermines progress…I take this opportunity to echo the Secretary-General’s condemnation of acts of reprisal against individuals by reason of their engagement with the United Nations.”

Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein, High Commissioner for Human Rights

Freedom of expression is the indispensable condition for the full realization of the spectrum of human rights covered by UN covenants and resolutions. However, it is also one of our most abused civil liberties.

During this session, the need to prevent impunity for attacks against journalists has been raised a number of times, in conjunction with the tabling and passage of two resolutions: the first specifically targeting the issue (and builds on UNGA’s 2013 landmark resolution), while the second seeks to protect civil society space.

Such attention is well warranted. Not only does an attack on a journalist represent an attack on the whole of society’s right to freely seek and impart information, but the level of impunity enjoyed by perpetrators – 9 out of 10 attacks on journalists goes unpunished – sets a precedent for censorship and recurrence. In a side event hosted by Article 19, Guy Berger, Head of Freedom of Expression and Media Development at UNESCO, noted that due to the societal role of journalists as representatives of free expression, ending impunity for attacks against them demonstrates that impunity in any form is simply unacceptable.

While intimidation and violence against journalists is not always carried out by state actors, institutionalized censorship and attempts to limit freedom of expression for journalists and whistleblowers remains a modern day scourge, both outside and within the Council. Externally, blasphemy, offence and defamation laws, typically used to protect religious sensitivities and consistently denounced as inconsistent with international human rights law, are increasingly being used as a sweeping term to silence debate or dissent on politics. Inside the Human Rights Council, states are interrupting statements made by NGOs with alarming frequency, calling for the speaker to be silenced, often citing spurious procedural grounds.

The case of Raif Badawi serves to illustrate both the external and internal challenges to freedom of expression. His case has been well publicized, no doubt due to the shocking sentence of 10 years, 1000 lashes and a fine of 1 million riyals that he received for establishing a liberal website, and has been duly raised numerous times at the Human Rights Council. The repeated references to his case and the international pressure to #FreeRaif has been much to the distaste of the Saudi Arabian delegation, who last week made the audacious claim that ‘the right to freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed in the Kingdom’, and that there are no political prisoners in the country. Showing their respect for freedom of expression, the delegation proceeded to interrupt Badawi’s sister, Samar, who had flown to Geneva to raise the case of her brother and his lawyer – her husband, Waleed Abu Al-khair, who has also been arbitrarily detained – throughout the course of her speech, in a scene reminiscent of their attempt to silence Center for Inquiry representative Josephine Macintosh in June.

However, as Badawi’s case as a victim of blasphemy or defamation laws is by no means unique, Saudi Arabia is not the only delegation to interrupt NGOs. The number of points of order has been steadily creeping upwards, yet skyrocketed this session with almost 100 made this Session by a range of states (for further information, see here). Verbal attempts to silence NGOs within the UN, frustrating though they may be, are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of reprisals faced by activists who appear before the Council. In a side event, the International Service for Human Rights emphasized the extent of reprisals faced by human rights defenders who engage with UN mechanisms, citing, among others, the case of Cao Shunli. Shunli took part in the Universal Periodic Review of China, was imprisoned on her return, and subsequently died in prison following the authorities’ denial of her access to medical care, paying the ultimate price for engaging in human rights advocacy.

Just yesterday, Nabeel Rajab, Head of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and Deputy Secretary General of FIDH, was arrested following his European advocacy trip, during which he attended the Human Rights Council and met with various representatives of state missions and NGOs. Rajab was in prison from 2012 until May this year, on protest-related charges and for ‘insulting Bahrainis’; his current interrogation is based on ‘insulting a public institution’ on Twitter. Today, he will be transferred to the Public Prosecution Office. I had the pleasure of meeting Nabeel in September, and encourage anyone reading this to join the call for his immediate release.

In the words of Phil Lynch, Director of ISHR, ‘the Human Rights Council should be a place where NGOs are safe and free to advocate, agitate and, at times, irritate. That is our role, our responsibility, and our right.’

Ensuring this right necessitates the practical implementation of the existing resolutions on the protection of journalists and on Civil Society Space: theoretical adoption does not suffice.

While adopting a resolution by no means ensures protection in practice for the work of civil society organisations and human rights defenders, it contributes to the establishment of a legal framework that can be used in their defence, and will ensure that the issue is raised in a formal discussion before the Council in an upcoming session. However, it is important to emphasise that protecting journalists, human rights defenders and civil society space is not a matter of creating new rights: it is ensuring that the democratic and participatory space for the full realization of human rights is secured for all.