Daughter of Destiny
Christopher Hitchens reminds us in this short article that he once had a real job. Falling back to his roots as an investigative journalist, Hitchens recalls an interview he did with Benazir Bhutto in 1988 and comments on her recent death. It's a good read, especially for those of you who aren't familiar with Pakistani history.
I've been a little wary of the media coverage on Pakistan over the last year since they seem to always paint Bhutto as a revolutionary bent on saving Pakistan from military rule when I always saw her as a politician bent on reclaiming power through populist means. In his tradmark style, Hitchens doesn't hesitate to criticise Bhutto but offers some well deserved praise.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
An evangelical's Christmas....
'Twas the night before Christmas in the old religious house,
Not a synapse was stirring, more brains in a mouse.
No teachings of science, no paying of tax,
They promote their own ignorance to shield them from facts.
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of false gods implant in their heads.
Then mamma and her bible and I with my gun,
Set out to find heathens to have some good fun.
When out in the street there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my crouch to silence the matter.
Through the window I heard the heretic speak,
Of a world without God but a future not bleak.
He spoke without reverance and a complete lack of fear,
As he attacked each and all things I've always held dear.
Away from the window I flew like a flash,
Unsheathing my blade, I started to slash.
But the little old humanist was lively and quick.
I knew at that moment it must be a trick.
Why doesn't my god in his own righteous desire,
Strike down this old heathen with a huge ball of fire.
But it's not up to me to question my Lord,
Even though his dumb teachings leave me tired and bored.
After all it is useless to ignore what is taught.
In this life who needs to use critical thought?
But I pause for a moment to consider the truth.
Should my god exist without any proof?
Does the belief in old fables written ages ago,
Have all the answers to all I should know?
Perhaps religion is a colossal mistake,
Or a tool uses by tyrants to take and to take.
An excuse for my laziness and my own feeble mind,
So that I can act without conscience and walk like I'm blind.
Maybe it's time to give God a rest,
And to use my own brain to decide what is best.
Now I can claim to have truly seen the light,
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
Not a synapse was stirring, more brains in a mouse.
No teachings of science, no paying of tax,
They promote their own ignorance to shield them from facts.
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of false gods implant in their heads.
Then mamma and her bible and I with my gun,
Set out to find heathens to have some good fun.
When out in the street there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my crouch to silence the matter.
Through the window I heard the heretic speak,
Of a world without God but a future not bleak.
He spoke without reverance and a complete lack of fear,
As he attacked each and all things I've always held dear.
Away from the window I flew like a flash,
Unsheathing my blade, I started to slash.
But the little old humanist was lively and quick.
I knew at that moment it must be a trick.
Why doesn't my god in his own righteous desire,
Strike down this old heathen with a huge ball of fire.
But it's not up to me to question my Lord,
Even though his dumb teachings leave me tired and bored.
After all it is useless to ignore what is taught.
In this life who needs to use critical thought?
But I pause for a moment to consider the truth.
Should my god exist without any proof?
Does the belief in old fables written ages ago,
Have all the answers to all I should know?
Perhaps religion is a colossal mistake,
Or a tool uses by tyrants to take and to take.
An excuse for my laziness and my own feeble mind,
So that I can act without conscience and walk like I'm blind.
Maybe it's time to give God a rest,
And to use my own brain to decide what is best.
Now I can claim to have truly seen the light,
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Dr. Nader Hashemi speaks at CFI: Ontario
On Friday, December 23, 2007, CFI:Ontario hosted Dr Nader Hashemi who gave a talk entitled "Reflections on Religion and Politics in the Islamic World: Why Muslim Skepticism of Secularism is Warranted" .
I found the topic to be unclear as the event was being advertised and I had never heard of the speaker, so naturally I was unsure what to expect as the talk began. However, I found it to be far more informative than I had expected and was glad I had attended.
Dr Hashemi has a PhD in political science from the University of Toronto and has spent the last few years researching comparative politics of the Middle East. His talk focussed on why we can't expect Muslim societies to embrace secularism in the same way as western societies define them. His main point was that because secularism in the Middle East has always accompanied brutal dictatorships, it is entirely rational that Muslim societies will continue to oppose reforms.
Cultural problems seem to be apparent since there is no translation for the word 'secularism' in Muslim societies. Therefore it is difficult to convince the average citizen of its advantages. Like in Canada, people in the Middle East incorrectly define secularism as atheism even though every secular activist on the planet defines it as a simple separation of religion and government, so any attempts at reforms anywhere are met with hostility by the people who are afraid they will lose the ability to practice their religion. However, Dr Hashemi argues that the problems surrounding secularism in Muslim societies is not a question of definition, but rather of the actual experiences of the average citizen living under previous secular regimes.
While I do find it annoying when my opponents point to brutal dictatorships as a consequence of atheism, I can understand this justification in the context of the Middle East. The history of secularism in the Middle East includes colonialism, imperialism, and an elite class of rulers who lived a separate life away from its citizens. Thus, secularism was a product of the state and not of the individual choices of the people and the brutal secular regimes (like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, for example) are how people interpret secularism today.
Dr Hashemi concludes that secular liberal democracies cannot be imposed by force or extortion but must be created the citizens themselves who live under the oppression of religious totalitarianism. Secular democracies of the West were only created by the victims of centuries of religious oppression so we shouldn't expect Muslims to secularize until they have had the opportunity to live under tyranical rule. I have always advocated that the best way to teach someone something was to let them figure it out for themselves and I prefer not to interfere in other people's learning process so I was surprised to finally hear a speaker at CFI who had similar thoughts. Dr Hashemi was saying that we should leave the Muslim societies alone at let themselves be ruled by oppressive and brutal religions as this is the only way they can learn to appreciate the merits of a secular democracy. This is counter to the socialist/humanist philosophy of most of the audience who generally favour intervention on the basis of human rights and it was nice to have a speaker who was actually promoting less government involvement instead of more.
Overall, Dr Hashemi was a clear speaker and projected confidence and knowledge throughout the presentation. I found that he relied too heavily on historical facts, so the average listener who wasn't very well read on Middle Eastern history would have had a hard time following the topics being discussed and I noted his frustration during the QandA when he was trying to explain certain historical events to people who don't understand the complexities of the Middle East. Although he may have only been playing to the crowd, he did make a few jabs at Bush and Harper that were trivial and out of place given the broader context of the presentation and his direct praise for Dalton McGuinty and his endorsement of Barack Obama highlighted his political bias towards partisan liberals that soured an otherwise objective lecture. However, he promotes realistic solutions (as opposed to the perfection and idealism supported by some of the more vocal secular activists) so he has my support and I hope that, someday, his message will be understood by everyone. I look forward to his book to be released next year.
I found the topic to be unclear as the event was being advertised and I had never heard of the speaker, so naturally I was unsure what to expect as the talk began. However, I found it to be far more informative than I had expected and was glad I had attended.
Dr Hashemi has a PhD in political science from the University of Toronto and has spent the last few years researching comparative politics of the Middle East. His talk focussed on why we can't expect Muslim societies to embrace secularism in the same way as western societies define them. His main point was that because secularism in the Middle East has always accompanied brutal dictatorships, it is entirely rational that Muslim societies will continue to oppose reforms.
Cultural problems seem to be apparent since there is no translation for the word 'secularism' in Muslim societies. Therefore it is difficult to convince the average citizen of its advantages. Like in Canada, people in the Middle East incorrectly define secularism as atheism even though every secular activist on the planet defines it as a simple separation of religion and government, so any attempts at reforms anywhere are met with hostility by the people who are afraid they will lose the ability to practice their religion. However, Dr Hashemi argues that the problems surrounding secularism in Muslim societies is not a question of definition, but rather of the actual experiences of the average citizen living under previous secular regimes.
While I do find it annoying when my opponents point to brutal dictatorships as a consequence of atheism, I can understand this justification in the context of the Middle East. The history of secularism in the Middle East includes colonialism, imperialism, and an elite class of rulers who lived a separate life away from its citizens. Thus, secularism was a product of the state and not of the individual choices of the people and the brutal secular regimes (like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, for example) are how people interpret secularism today.
Dr Hashemi concludes that secular liberal democracies cannot be imposed by force or extortion but must be created the citizens themselves who live under the oppression of religious totalitarianism. Secular democracies of the West were only created by the victims of centuries of religious oppression so we shouldn't expect Muslims to secularize until they have had the opportunity to live under tyranical rule. I have always advocated that the best way to teach someone something was to let them figure it out for themselves and I prefer not to interfere in other people's learning process so I was surprised to finally hear a speaker at CFI who had similar thoughts. Dr Hashemi was saying that we should leave the Muslim societies alone at let themselves be ruled by oppressive and brutal religions as this is the only way they can learn to appreciate the merits of a secular democracy. This is counter to the socialist/humanist philosophy of most of the audience who generally favour intervention on the basis of human rights and it was nice to have a speaker who was actually promoting less government involvement instead of more.
Overall, Dr Hashemi was a clear speaker and projected confidence and knowledge throughout the presentation. I found that he relied too heavily on historical facts, so the average listener who wasn't very well read on Middle Eastern history would have had a hard time following the topics being discussed and I noted his frustration during the QandA when he was trying to explain certain historical events to people who don't understand the complexities of the Middle East. Although he may have only been playing to the crowd, he did make a few jabs at Bush and Harper that were trivial and out of place given the broader context of the presentation and his direct praise for Dalton McGuinty and his endorsement of Barack Obama highlighted his political bias towards partisan liberals that soured an otherwise objective lecture. However, he promotes realistic solutions (as opposed to the perfection and idealism supported by some of the more vocal secular activists) so he has my support and I hope that, someday, his message will be understood by everyone. I look forward to his book to be released next year.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Philip Pullman Gets More Free Press
It's official. The Halton Catholic School board has pulled "The Golden Compass" from its shelves. Apparently it's "not in line with our governing values", says the board. Perhaps they decided that there's enough fantasy and immorality in the Bible that it wouldn't be in the children's best interest to read anymore.
the Star
CBC
The real problem is, of course, that the Catholic schools are funded by taxpayers and I hate the notion that a government bureaucracy, rather than the parents, is deciding what's best for our children.
Oh well, like everyone else,kids get their information from the internet anyway, so the big fuss only highlights their backwardness and adds another entry to the ever-increasing list to eliminate this archaic bureaucracy. As fellow heretic blogger Ron Brown notes, "Your spineless insecurity and Big Brotherish ways are a continuing source of inspiration" Amen.
the Star
CBC
The real problem is, of course, that the Catholic schools are funded by taxpayers and I hate the notion that a government bureaucracy, rather than the parents, is deciding what's best for our children.
Oh well, like everyone else,kids get their information from the internet anyway, so the big fuss only highlights their backwardness and adds another entry to the ever-increasing list to eliminate this archaic bureaucracy. As fellow heretic blogger Ron Brown notes, "Your spineless insecurity and Big Brotherish ways are a continuing source of inspiration" Amen.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
"Like the Jesuits, the CBC likes to get 'em while they're young"
Yesterday morning I was listening to CBC Radio One in the car on my way to work and was amazed (although not surprised) to hear the host, Andy Barrie, utter the title phrase when talking to a young child who was attending the radio broadcast (the CBC was hosting an annual fundraiser yesterday for the Daily Bread Foodbank by hosting the entire day's programming in public).
Obviously the statement was a joke but I couldn't help thinking about the irony of the statement. Is the CBC a religious organization? Given its ability to ignore facts and its reluctance to debate the reasons for its existence, the CBC behaves much like a religious organization.
Which is odd since Andy Barrie is an atheist, but some atheists tend to replace theistic religions with political equivalents. They may not believe that gods rule our lives, but they have no problems believing that governments should.
Which is why I hope that someday, when Canada becomes a secular nation, I stop funding the CBC. I have no problems with its existence, but I do have problems using my money to fund religious beliefs so I hope that our government funded propaganda machine is privatized alongside every other religious belief so that those who support such an initiative can fund it out of their own pockets.
Obviously the statement was a joke but I couldn't help thinking about the irony of the statement. Is the CBC a religious organization? Given its ability to ignore facts and its reluctance to debate the reasons for its existence, the CBC behaves much like a religious organization.
Which is odd since Andy Barrie is an atheist, but some atheists tend to replace theistic religions with political equivalents. They may not believe that gods rule our lives, but they have no problems believing that governments should.
Which is why I hope that someday, when Canada becomes a secular nation, I stop funding the CBC. I have no problems with its existence, but I do have problems using my money to fund religious beliefs so I hope that our government funded propaganda machine is privatized alongside every other religious belief so that those who support such an initiative can fund it out of their own pockets.
Introduction
After about a year of berating by friends and colleagues, I have finally gotten around to starting a blog. Thanks to everyone and I hope I don't disappoint.
I hope to use this blog to link and comment on Canadian politics with a sense of positivism that most political bloggers lack. I will attempt to highlight the hypocrisy and dogma inherent in today's system, whether it is from politicians, the media, pundits, or activists.
I am not sure why I chose to use 'Iconoclast' in my title. Most likely it was because I am late entering the blogosphere all the good names are taken. However, the term aptly suits my outlook in life since I think that most traditions and beliefs deserve to be criticized, although I always hope their adherents are given the opportunity to defend themselves. I love to point out the logical flaws in people's reasoning, whatever their topics or beliefs are and hope that in doing so, people can rethink some of their beliefs (or at least come up with better reasons for believing what they do).
I find Canadian liberals to be the most hypocritical and bigoted people on this planet. Perhaps this sounds harsh but living in the city surrounded by socialists who want to tell me how I should live and spend my money doing it, I tend to get overtly annoyed and defensive. I hope this blog can give comfort to Canadians knowing that somewhere in the collectivist cesspool we call Toronto; there are people who are working at dismantling the statist attitude that is holding back society.
Although I am often accused of being a militant atheist, I generally believe that people should have the ability to think and act for themselves. Keeping that in mind I classify myself as a militant secularist, since I will advocate for people’s ability to believe in whatever they want, as long as those beliefs are not forced upon others through government support. Since I spend most of my spare time with atheist activists, I hope to use this blog to link and comment on the new atheist movement and how I hope it moves forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)