Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?

Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 
'prejudice'

Wednesday, 28 January 2009

The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the 
world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to 
doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by 
belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been 
passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed 
to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him 
on the side of the religious censors.
Related articles

    * Dutch politician refused entry at Heathrow
    * Editor arrested for 'outraging Muslims'

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in 
which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest 
aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and 
loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship 
calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls 
it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – 
but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate 
standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.

Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, 
demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think 
and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the 
religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of 
Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the 
shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that 
which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".

In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the 
reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no 
equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the 
Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.

Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always 
been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including 
the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job 
description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free 
expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council 
agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the 
people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman 
Rushdie himself.

Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject 
of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown 
of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like 
the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian 
delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and 
"Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be 
silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam 
with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.

Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in 
countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely 
thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so 
a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police 
declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In 
Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was 
perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who 
disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel 
Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that 
does not enforce shariah.

To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim 
culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?

As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this 
effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal 
Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of 
internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."

Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.

Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies 
– that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief 
is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of 
"prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.

All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that 
a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't 
respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex 
with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews 
because they wouldn't follow him.

I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the 
Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect 
the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as 
woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there 
is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, 
and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.

When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much 
real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.

But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for 
censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of 
faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against 
reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon 
dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, 
I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.

But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to 
consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the 
absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; 
they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be 
confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on 
the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to 
demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.

But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is 
based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the 
price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set 
aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.

Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To 
the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it 
dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by 
religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea 
disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak 
freely.

An excellent blog that keeps you up to dates on secularist issues is 
Butterflies and Wheels, which you can read here.

If you want to get involved in fighting for secularism, join the National 
Secular Society here.

j.h...@independent.co.uk
...

 ---------------
Jusfiq Hadjar gelar Sutan Maradjo Lelo


Allah yang disembah orang Islam tipikal dan yang digambarkan oleh al-Mushaf itu 
dungu, buas, kejam, keji, ganas, zalim lagi biadab hanyalah Allah fiktif.



      

Kirim email ke