So go ahead and arrest me then
Religious zealots annoy me on a regular basis, but it has been some time now since a bit of religious zeal has annoyed me as much as the bishops’ demand that carnival revellers be arrested and prosecuted for mocking their religion. The last time I felt moved to comment about this sort of behaviour was when it was widely put forward as incontrovertible fact that close contact with a magic shoelace can cause the blind to see and fatally diseased organs to heal themselves. But enough about that, and let’s stick to the carnival farce.
On Ash Wednesday, from his pulpit at the Victoria cathedral, the Bishop of Gozo found nothing more serious to condemn than a bunch of young men dressed as Jesus and his apostles. Gang rapes, sheep-shagging, murders, old women stuffed down wells, dogs strung up dead, boy-fondling priests who hide in their Victoria homes from armies of door-stepping American journalists while the CNN cameras roll, homemade porn with schoolgirls, lying, cheating, stealing, drug-dealing, chucking wives off cliffs, wearing carnival masks to murder aunts, warden-stabbing, keeping old men as sex slaves while taking their pensions, and gruesome contract murders of lawyers shot and dragged bleeding from their doorsteps – all of these local Gozo problems passed him by.
In the mind of the Bishop of Gozo, what brings his island into disrepute and shame, what undermines public decency and human dignity, is a group of 20-year-olds got up in frocks and beards “in an effort to make people laugh”.
Well, what a scandal. As if that were not enough, the Archbishop of Malta felt moved to issue a joint statement with his colleague on the other side of the channel. “It is good for society to defend the rights of minorities who have different views from the majority of the public. But no one should have the right to ridicule the belief of others in this way,” the bishops thundered.
If Malta wants a lesson in freedom of expression, the last people it should consult are those who speak from the throne of one religion or another. The last time this debate took the world by storm was not when somebody dressed himself down as Jesus in an obscure carnival parade in an obscure village on an obscure island, but when a Danish newspaper published a cartoon of Mohammed and somebody in a very oppressive society declared a religious war on the cartoonist, the editor, the newspaper, Denmark, Europe and the entire democratic west. The question was asked: should the democratic west, which had achieved its long-cherished tradition of freedom of expression through centuries of bloodshed and misery, through the soul-searching years of the Age of Enlightenment, allow that tradition to be sabotaged and returned to pre-Enlightenment years by people coming from a culture which had not yet attained its own enlightenment? The answer was no.
The same holds true for Malta and Catholicism. We are free to mock that religion as we deem fit and as we wish. If we are free to mock other religions, other belief systems, and those who have no religion at all, then we are free to mock the state religion. Those who counter this argument by saying that we should not be free to ridicule any religion at all do not understand the full, dangerous implications of their half-thought-through theory. Maltese society is still fairly primitive but one would have thought that by now we would have evolved to the point where we are no longer putting forward the sort of arguments which justified the Inquisition. Those who say that these arguments are more acceptable now than they were then because now we prosecute those who laugh at religion in an independent court and fine them, instead of torturing them on a rack and then giving them a jolly old burning, speak madness.
Under pressure from the bishops, the police arrested nine young men and prosecuted them. One wonders how they found them. Did they knock on Nadur doors asking for information on the villains who dressed as Christ? Unlikely, given that the average Gozitan will not even tell you that the person to whose home you have been invited for lunch lives next door, when you make your enquiries, or will send you off on a wild-goose chase when you ask for directions. So what did they do – track people down from the many photographs taken on the night? This brought back memories. My friends and I were tracked down by police inspector Anglu Farrugia, after a mass meeting in 1984, from photographs showing us sitting down in the road and refusing to move when police manhandled us. I didn’t like those Stasi tactics then and I like them even less now.
The nine men were prosecuted under Section 338 of the Criminal Code, which makes it a crime for people to dress up as priests, police officers, soldiers or sailors without official permission to do so. I can see why it would be illegal to impersonate a police officer, a soldier or a sailor with criminal or fraudulent intent, but I fail to see why no distinction is made between this behaviour and fooling around in a carnival parade while wearing bits of uniform borrowed from a brother or uncle. Or is it now a crime to mock a military uniform and bring the forces into shame and disrepute by wearing a cap at an indecently cocked angle? As for it being a crime to dress like a priest – oh please. If I were a man, I would be sorely tempted to spend a week running all my errands dressed as a priest, with a large sign on my back saying ‘Arrest me, you suckers.’ It’s not too difficult to dress up as a priest nowadays in any case, given that most of them wear normal clothes and not a soutane.
The bishops, of course, were thrilled. You would have thought that the police had arrested and arraigned all those bigots, zealots and racists polluting the ether with their condemnation and suspicion of anyone who is black, African, Muslim or has come off a rickety boat into paradise. And interestingly, the bishops haven’t breathed a word about all that, either. Going down on paper as Europe’s Bigotry Central does not bring the islands into shame and disrepute. No. Only dressing up as Jesus does.
Upset at having no courts of their own from which to perform the rituals of the Inquisition, the bishops were forced to content themselves with making sure that the police did their duty. They demanded that the police “defend the rights of the public” – that term The People again – and felt the need to add that this applied not only to religious beliefs but to “public decency”. If the bishops wish to see a true affront to public decency, they need go no further than the comments-board of an on-line newspaper, which is clogged with the verbal detritus of a thousand racists and bigots, suggesting that Malta is becoming the Planet of the Apes, that all Africans are machete-wielding, HIV-ridden savages, that any pregnant woman who risks the sea-trip is irresponsible and deserves all she gets, and that the invaders should be left to starve, drown or die of AIDS, but if they keep coming we can round up the hunters to help us shoot them down.
I don’t know what planet the bishops are living on – the planet of the apes, perhaps? – but that’s what the developed world would call an affront to public decency, and not a youth with a palpitating heart tacked onto the front of his frock.
The bishops continued to put pressure on the police by saying in their statement that what had happened at the Nadur carnival was in violation of the law, and that if no action is taken, the authorities would be “endorsing and approving such illegal behaviour”, adding for good measure that they were “sure this was not the case”. Not satisfied with this, they added that “this should not be allowed to happen again”.
It is purely out of respect for their office that I resist the urge to say to the bishops: “Oh b****r off and mind your own damned business.” Since when is carnival a religious festivity? The whole point of carnival is that it is not a religious festival and that all authorities, religious and secular, are kept right out of it. Carnival is by its very nature anarchic. Without that anarchy, there is no point to it. What you get is that ridiculous, deadbeat parade of fluorescent floats in Valletta’s sanitised spectacle – the most boring and pointless carnival in the history of the world. I laughed in despair when I read some of the comments on the internet, expressing shock and disgust at the transformation of the Nadur carnival into a bacchanalia. Somebody run quickly and tell these people that carnival is a bacchanalia and that is its entire raison d’etre.
A carnival is not a carnival without widespread drunkenness, disorderly conduct, rude behaviour, a shedding of inhibitions, much letting down of hair, obscenity, mockery of society’s sacred cows, pillorying of authority figures, and general letting off of steam. What Malta has today is not carnival but the antithesis of carnival. It wasn’t always this way, and Nadur has gone some considerable distance towards reminding us what carnival is all about. Meanwhile, the bishops and their variegated acolytes appear to have forgotten why Lascaris was the most unpopular and vilified grandmaster in 250 years of life under the military boot of the Order of St John.
Amusingly – for there is some fun to be had in all of this – the bishops, their lawyers, the chuntering fools on the internet and the suck-up police got it wrong: it is not illegal to dress up as Jesus and his apostles. If it were, whole contingents of special assignment police would have to be called out to every religious parade on the islands, every Good Friday procession, Last Supper tableau, and repetitively tedious performance by the village youth club of Jesus Christ Superstar. And while we’re at it, let’s arrest all those babies standing in for the infant Jesus at school nativity plays in every school in every town. God, how I laughed. That’s the trouble when you’re trained to think along religious lines, which demands the shelving of reason. You fail to think rationally.
So the only man found guilty was a 26-year-old dressed up as a priest. He was charged with offending Roman Catholics or the ministers of this religion, on the night between 21 and 22 February in Nadur, by wearing a sacred habit without permission and against the prohibition of the authorities. He pleaded guilty, was given a suspended sentence and now has a criminal record. Christ and the apostles got off scot free. Five of the apostles didn’t get arrested at all, given that only nine people were hauled before the Inquisition and one of them was Christ while the other was wearing a soutane and charged with doing his bidding.
Those who claim that because dressing up as a priest is against the law the police were right to prosecute miss the very important point that as times change, laws must come up for review. This is one of them. We cannot mock and denigrate Islam and regard it with contempt for prohibiting all depictions of Mohammed and then hold fast to a law that makes it a crime to dress as a minister of the Roman Catholic Church. But then I forgot for one moment that most people in Malta actually sought to justify the Muslim stance on coercing the secular west to comply with its religious rules.
If this country knows what’s good for it, there will be a hundred people dressed as Jesus, the apostles and Fr Anthony Mercieca at the Nadur carnival next year. And if there are not, then we deserve everything we get. Meanwhile, I shall have to remind the Bishop of Gozo and the Archbishop of Malta that a priest’s frock is not brought into disrepute when it is worn by a young man having fun during a carnival parade, but when it is worn by a real priest who has been defrocked in Miami for going after boys, only to cross the Atlantic and hide out in Gozo. Or when it is worn by another priest who does the reverse: flees from Gozo to the United States when reports that he has been fondling boys mount up to the point where the Gozo Bishopric can no longer pretend that they don’t exist. How hard it is to take the bishops seriously, which is why I don’t.
And if they demand that the police arrest me for mocking them and their religion, I should be so delighted. They are not, however, about to take on a grown woman capable of intelligent argument. They prefer to stick to the time-honoured Catholic tradition of preying on the vulnerable, hence the arrest of nine young men incapable of expressing themselves in any way other than by wearing outfits deemed offensive in the context of carnival when they are not offensive in the context of Jesus Christ Superstar or the Mosta Good Friday pageant.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
85 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“One wonders how they found them. Did they knock on Nadur doors asking for information on the villains who dressed as Christ?”
Judas. Again.
Absolutely brilliant unmasking of a society with dubious mores and a total lack of humour. Definitely the best local read this Sunday!
As a matter of interest Daphne, what did you think of the recent PN statement/condemnation on the recent MaltaToday cartoon? Personally I thought it was over the top and missed (or rather purported to miss) the point completely and was intended simply to garner some faux sympathy. Same goes for the Alfossa cartoon which some two years back got the PL so flustered, except that time I thought the PL realy, really did not get the point at all. Would love to hear your views.
[Daphne – I think the biggest problem with the cartoons in Malta Today is that they are so badly done. They are typically Maltese in concept: heavy, stating the obvious in an unsubtle way, and invariably devoid of wit. Oh, and they are badly drawn, too, which doesn’t help. The net result is that I don’t regard them as cartoons, but as the sort of drawings a schoolboy might do to while away the time laughing at his teachers. And so I ignore them and think others should do the same. On the other hand, there was, around 11 years ago, a really hilarious cartoon by Maurice Tanti Burlo, depicting Mintoff as a gnarled old lion with a full stomach, spitting out an instantly recognisable black wig. People were in fits of laughter, because it really was funny. But in those days you weren’t allowed to mention Sant’s wig, as though it was some kind of prosthesis or something, so the cartoon had the added shock value of bringing out into the open the kind of joke people made only in private. And the newspaper found itself forced to apologise for having published it, which was ridiculous. I imagine it would have been easier to publish a cartoon of Mohammed.]
Great article, Daphne. Amongst the happy-clappy Catholic emails I sometimes receive I recently received one that made a mockery of atheism (an atheist applied to a court in the US claiming he didn’t have a special day to celebrate…the court told him to celebrate April 1st…ha ha). Which just goes to show how Catholics think or fail to think. ‘Love others as I have loved you’ said Jesus, ready and willing to forgive his killers. I wonder why the bishop of Gozo insisted on prosecution for such a trivial crime when the founder of his religion told him to do the exact opposite?
Talking about Gozo, here in Vienna there’s a small free of charge newspaper which is distributed very widely, called Heute (‘today’). Page 3 features tits and bums (except on Wed when it’s pecs and 6 packs and buns of steel). About 2 years ago (very roughly) page 3 featured a lovely – totally naked – lass looking like she was caught between a large rock and the photographer, IN GOZO. The caption said something like (loosely translated) ‘When Monica (or whatever the name was) has had enough of studying law she pops over to Gozo for a break, there all laws are forgotten except the laws of nature’. What would the bishop say to that? Did any authority give permission for the shoot? How did the author of the caption know that Gozo is totally lawless (except when it comes to enforcing a dumb law that says you can’t dress as a priest)? I thought it was hilarious and scanned and sent the pic to a couple of friends (including the Times blogger and columnist k.a. Bocca) and onlyinmalta.com but I don’t believe it went around. Alas, I’ve deleted the scan since then.
One thing that nags me. How come Dr.John’s got away with it all these years?
[Daphne – I was just thinking that myself. If you visit his website – I can’t remember the link offhand – there are some really spooky videos of him quite obviously getting off on the thrill of wearing a white outfit, carrying a black cross, and ministering to the crowds while the real priest hangs about sheepishly in the background. And he wears make-up and seems to buy his wigs from the same shop as our former prime minister, to make the effect creepier still.]
@ Daphne “As for it being a crime to dress like a priest – oh please. If I were a man, I would be sorely tempted to spend a week running all my errands dressed as a priest, with a large sign on my back saying ‘Arrest me, you suckers”
Why can’t you dress as a priest anyway as a woman? It would be even funnier, or maybe as a nun? Go on, Daphne, I dare you. The other day I saw a priest dressed like a layman. As a layman I found this quite offensive. Is this also a criminal offence? I know we’re not allowed to dress up like them but why are they allowed to dress up like us?
[Daphne – Women dressing up as priests obviously cannot be charged with impersonating priests, at least not in the Catholic religion.]
Daphne,
Gawd, that was good. Afraid to say ‘God’ – could be banished from the ‘Rock’.
It’s rich, isn’t it? How is it that bishops have not managed to stop the lager louts with all their drunken pagan behaviour, obscene gestures and blasphemous language at the local village saint’s festa? Especially when ”their” saint’s statue is carried in front of the rival saint’s kazin?
How about a mega-party event where everyone dresses up as a priest, a nun, Jesus Christ, his apostles, or some other religious figure? A sort of “I am Spartacus” defiance right in their faces. I’m ready to fly over and organise things.
[Daphne – You know how it is: people don’t get exercised about these things because they don’t realise how dangerous they are. Look at the ban on the play Stitching, and the general reaction. If you want this event to take off, you are going to have to pull in the support of the gay community. They will definitely go for it.]
Could be that you got this wrong, I was not there and could not confirm this but was told that the Jesus and apostles impersonators had exposed paper-mache penises included.
[Daphne – And your point is? As we have seen, it is categorically not a crime to dress up as Jesus and the apostles, with or without a papier-mache penis. Incidentally, the penises, which had to be moved along on wheels as they were more like Swiss trombones, were not worn by people dressed as Christ and the apostles. This is just evil gossip, and if you were quick enough, you would have spotted the obvious flaw: fishermen’s frocks circa 2,000 years ago did not have flies, and a papier-mache penis strapped to a frock looks a little pointless, don’t you think? I wasn’t there, but one of my sons was, and I saw the photographs of this particular scene.]
I believe it’s not only the language that gives away our Arabic roots. Despite being Catholic, a number of people among us defend it with a fanaticism reminiscent of Islamic cultures.
[Daphne – It’s called protesting too much. We feel the need to prove that we’re more Christian than anyone else, lest anyone else think we are Muslims.]
I was hoping you’d write about this farce. Your writing puts everything into perspective. The previous bishops had an excellent excuse for being out of touch – their old age. But these guys! Especially the Gozitan of the pair…
Plays being banned, people being arrested for dressing up as the apostles. Archaic laws indeed! I would have been glad to participate in a peaceful protest outside the law courts on that same day these people where being tried, dressed up as Moses or St. Peter.
This “holier than thou” attitude by the Bishop is sickening. Malta is indeed run by the Catholic Church and not by politicians or the police. They control everything ..or want to anyway.
Daphne- I’m not so sure about the wig. A dye-job yes.
[Daphne – Possibly. On video in that white outfit, he looks like a cartoon.]
You hit the nail right on the head. Besides berating the antics of our bishops and their pathetic involvement in all this, we should also be holding the politicians and the law-makers to account. Why did the attorney-general allow this silly prosecution to proceed? Why have the political class and law-makers not promised to remove this archaic piece of legislation?
Brilliant article, Daphne! It is very telling that the police acted so swiftly when prompted by the archbishop for something so trivial but never feel the need to investigate further when serious allegations are made against real priests giving too much attention to little boys. Our police commissioner feels he is answerable to the archbishop and not the people. [Daphne – The police commissioner is not answerable to the people.]
In the past two months, we have had a series of events worthy of a true fundamentalist religious theocracy. To mention a few: the deputy prime minister stating that the part in government is ‘not liberal’; an elected MP suggesting we should tow immigrants back to open water, the censorship board banning a play, the police arresting people for dressing up as priests and the courts finding them guilty, the prime minister meeting in private with a the loony Gift of Life. Where is this country heading?
For once I agree with you. We are still not able to make fun of ourselves – a very closed mentality of persecution mania.
I propose that next year more people should dress like Jesus Christ. I will join in. Daphne, would you join?
[Daphne – No. I take great pride in always acting my age. That kind of thing is for people in their teens and 20s.]
The bishops said: “If no action was taken the authorities would be endorsing and approving such illegal behaviour.” Would the bishops kindly enlighten me whether they are referring to the Nadur carnival, or about child abuse by some members of the clergy?
What a brillaint article. I disagree with you so often and on so many different levels, but when it comes to saying it as it is when it counts most, nobody does it better than you do. I would like to draw your attention again, however, to your ‘No God, lots of fuss’ piece of 5 February, in which you criticised the atheist bus campaign and said that if you don’t believe in God you don’t need to get organised and preach about it. When you see things like this Nadur carnival episode happening, don’t you reconsider? [Daphne – No. My view of the Nadur carnival fuss is not informed by atheism, because I am not an atheist. Atheists, in fact, annoy me as much as religious zealots do, and for the same reason.] If anything atheists need to be vocal about what they believe so as not to leave the podium exclusively to this zealots. If no one challenges their world view, how much farther would they feel entitled to go?
Excellent article, Daphne!
This law is part of the British legacy. It was the British who made it illegal to dress up as a priest in carnival, to stop Maltese from dressing up as Anglican pastors.
[Daphne – Yes, that’s right – and I’m a flying turkey.]
Daphne, I follow your blog regularly and cannot say that I agree with you all the time (heqq, x’taghmel?!) but on this you’re spot on.
As I said in my contribution to the timesofmalta.com recently, the prosecuting inspectors must be some sort of puritans… they must be counting the days to Good Friday to have a field day… or better still they should go to the Philippines when the devout nail themselves to the cross. Just imagine: being brought down from a cross in agony (and I would presume deep Christian emotion) only to find a pulizija Malti ready with his handcuffs. [Daphne – The Philippines are not within the jurisdiction of Maltese law.]
“but if they keep coming we can round up the hunters to help us shoot them down.”
I refer to the sentence above. I do not know whether it refers to any of my writings in here and elsewhere, which was in the context of an armed invasion and “military action”, but most probably it is. I would have not cared for this twist if not to defend the on-line newspaper which is invoked here, the freedom of speech which many want to see suffocated. The editor and moderators there are responsible enough not to let any comments like the above quote go through.
[Daphne – They let a Planet of the Apes comment and worse go through.]
Tim, Gozo’s been used for quite a few, er, “glamour” photoshoots. There was even a calendar (2006 or so) showing “Gozitan Beauties”, produced and printed and distributed in Gozo.
And to think that everyone was gushing over the hip new Archbishop when he started off on his job. What was it they said…let me see… “Inti approwcabil u taf taghmilha maz-zaghzagh.”
Daphne, you are making a fuss regarding this issue. Last week, I posted a comment in your regard on timesofmalta.com. I considered it funny at most but it was edited out. My point is even on petty things censorship is everywhere.
[Daphne – Please distinguish between censorship and editing. The two are completely different.]
“People we are at WAR!!! There are daily attacks on our way of life from outside and now also we have attacks on our RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS from within. WE MUST NOT GIVE UP OUR TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN WAY OF LIFE WITHOUT A FIGHT!!!! Enough NOW. That is ENOUGH. It is time for the THE TRUE MALTESE PATRIOTS TO show their true colours and preserve our TRADTIONS!!”
– comment on timesofmalta.com
I must go now and clean my sword and dust off my ‘tarka’.
@Lino Cert “As a layman I found this quite offensive. Is this also a criminal offence? I know we’re not allowed to dress up like them but why are they allowed to dress up like us?”
Probably the same way that they are allowed to leave their priesthood and marry, if they find out that the holy order was not cut out for them, and we are not allowed to leave our husband/wife and marry someone else if the marriage does not work out. Correct me if I’m wrong but I have always been under the impression that the sacrament of entering the holy order represents ‘marriage to Christ’, and if I’m not mistaken, the nuns who join the order of cloistered nuns (in Malta), even enter the convent dressed in a wedding gown.
That Dr. John really does freak me out.
[Daphne – What freaks me out are the people who go to his events and faint. It’s all sublimated sexual hysteria.]
The Revolution has begun!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54245709617
It might be good for the bishops to watch some South Park episodes where Jesus is involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(South_Park)
Thank you for expressing everything that I’ve been ranting about over the past couple days. Some of my friends got their details taken down because they were dressed as nuns.
Maybe the 30-40,000 Maltese who flock to Gozo and spend an average of EUR150 each (EUR6 million) should seek other carnival destinations. I’m sure all restaurants,clubs, bars, landlords would beg them to come back. Ridiculous. I’m sure there are more important things to concentrate on, rather than something so trivial as a costume.
What about ‘vicars and tarts theme parties? Will we have the SAG crashing through our doors as though we are operating meth labs?
[Daphne – Vicars are Protestant, so the Catholics would be delighted.]
Excellent!
It’s good that you don’t let fundamenalists invade your blog, or maybe they don’t write to you. The Times is littered by comments from them. e.g.
Comments
J.Tonna (56 minutes ago)
@ vfarrugia – Yes, ypu are right, only just over a billion people care about what the Vatican says.
The Hon lady seems to be trying to put the Catholic Church in a bad light. Others have tried before her and after 2000 years the Catholic Church is still growing.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090309/opinion/women-are-worse-sinners
[Daphne – Fundamentalists, like racists, don’t come here on the whole, or they modify what they write before I modify it for them.]
Who is this Dr. John you’re all on about? Is he some kind of faith healer?
[Daphne – Yes, John Bonnici Mallia, who holds massive prayer meetings for his faithful, at which the real priest takes a back seat and he takes centre-stage.]
What about the annual “Sister Act” dance routine during “L-Istrina”? Someone call the police!
“Atheists, in fact, annoy me as much as religious zealots do, and for the same reason.”
Always glad to be of service.
@ Daphne “[Daphne – No. My view of the Nadur carnival fuss is not informed by atheism, because I am not an atheist. Atheists, in fact, annoy me as much as religious zealots do, and for the same reason.]”
If you’re not an atheist then what are you? Please don’t tell me you’re agnostic, because that’s a cop out. And why do you think all atheists are drama queens? Some atheists just keep their mouth shut and respect tradition. As for myself I am one of those atheists who get their kicks out of ridiculing believers, Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, whatever. Why should I have to respect beliefs I find ridiculous? And why should I go to jail for this? This is an absurd situation we are in. And how am I to explain to my kids that the next time they see grown men marching in dresses along a street with a large statue on their backs, they cannot laugh and ridicule without fear of persecution? The right to ridicule should be enshrined in the Constitution. It is a fundamental right, and a basis of democracy.
I missed the episodes of the sheep-shagging and homemade porn with schoolgirls, when did these happen?
[Daphne – Sheep-shagging is a long-cherished tradition. The homemade porn with schoolgirls was in the news some years ago, and there was another case recently.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt9Qs7P7h2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlP09x2kxrU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYW2xXxFVtU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmUvhKr9SPk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbxpfYIWIm8
Very entertaining. Is rationalist a more acceptable term than atheist? Are rationalists atheists with humour?
[Daphne – I posted those links because the way Bill Maher looks at it is the way I look at it. At one point he even says that he is not an atheist, and that atheists have just the kind of certainty that religious people do – only about the non-existence of God. His approach is: nobody knows. And that’s how I feel about it, too.]
Brilliant links.
In the US, like in Malta, there is a very strong and influential evangelical right-wing fundamentalist movement. However there are also countless critics and also a very strong and influential libertarian and secular movement. This blog and your twice-weekly columns seem to be the only dissenting voice against the widespread religious fundamentalism in Malta.
In the “God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins admits that on a scale from 1 to 7, 1 being absolute certainty of the existence of God, and 7 being absolute certainty of the non-existence of God, he considers himself as being somewhere between 6 and 7, meaning that he believes that the existence of God is highly improbable but does not absolutely commit himself for rational reasons explained in his book – Chapter 2: The Poverty of Agnosticism. Yet he comfortably professes himself to be an atheist.
I agree with you that atheists who do not leave space for the alternative hypothesis are as fundamentalist as those at the other end of the spectrum. However, the scale is not discrete, as in “believer”, “agnostic” or “atheist”. There’s a whole spectrum in between, and I’m sure most religious people are not even a 2, less likely a 1. Unfortunately, English vocabulary only provides a number of discrete words to profess one’s level of belief/disbelief, so I can come to understand that a 5, a 6 or a 7 may comfortably refer to themselves as atheists.
If you prefer the term rationalist, I guess that’s OK too, but don’t make the mistake thinking that all those who call themselves atheists are all fundamentalist 7s.
Thanks for the links by the way. They’re great to watch!
@ Daphne “atheists have just the kind of certainty that religious people do – only about the non-existence of God. His approach is: nobody knows. And that’s how I feel about it, too”
Gimme a break Daphne, nobody knows for certain if Santa Claus exists or not but we can be pretty much 99.9999% sure he doesn’t. We can never be 100% sure of anything in life but if we are over 99.9999% sure then we can assume we are right. What are you afraid of Daphne? Get out of your closet and stop sitting on the fence. or does it suit you to remain agnostic?
[Daphne – See what I mean? Exactly like a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim.]
Great article. Loved it.
Lino Cert, you cannot disprove or prove God. I hate this militant atheism brought about by Richard Dawkins. It’s what made me reconsider God.
I think fundamentalists go beyond the simplicity of being certain of something (or 99.9999% certain as a matter of fact). Fundumentalists negatively affect other people’s lives in all sorts of ways, including, but not limited to, incriminating people for offending their diety (say Malta) or lack thereof (say communist USSR), tying grenades round their waist and blowing up themselves and tens of innocent people, indoctrinating children through weird cerimonies where a dove is supposed to convert you into a soldier of some sort (child abuse in my opinion), and the list goes on.
I think most atheists in reality are quite at peace with their point of view, and limit themselves to written or spoken words. So I wouldn’t qualify Lino Cert as a fundamentalist, but I wouldn’t call him a rationalist either, since I think he is a bit too passionate about it (emotions get in the way of clear thought). Logically, unless something is completely and absolutely disproved without any trace of doubt, you can never be certain of it’s non-existence (this includes Santa Claus), and in my book 99.9999% is a bit way too close to certainty for someone who should think rationally and weigh arguments from both sides of the spectrum. So your “I don’t know” argument is probably the closest that one can get to being rationally (and politically) correct.
@Daphne – “See what I mean? Exactly like a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim”
Not fundamentalist at all – we atheists parade with loudspeakers around the streets, annoying people. And we don’t carry out suicide bombings in the name of our cause. We don’t imprison those who disagree with us or ridicule us. The reason that you and many other Maltese remain agnostic is that you want all the trappings that go with belonging to the Catholic faith, the pomp and ceremony at your children’s weddings, the burial in a Catholic cemetry, the annual visit from the local parish priest, etc. The same reason I pretend to believe in Santa at Christmas time, for the sake of amusing the kids once a year (even my older kids pretend to believe in Santa on this day, as long as they get the presents). But deep down we all know there is no Santa, and there is no God. What is fundamentalist about that, its just fact, and so very obvious.
[Daphne – I can do without the trappings, thank you.]
John / Daphne – I tried to find the link, but it looks like the video on the link you had posted here http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2008/06/11/joseph-saves/ has since been replaced by another one.
Meanwhile, maybe you’d want to see these photos http://www.catholichealing.com/?page_id=171&album=2&gallery=2 or this old video (where you’d almost expect them to do the full monty at the end) http://www.catholichealing.com/video/mdina03mime.php
John (sorry Daph – women are excluded, it seems) – If the above is not enough for you, you may wish to round it off with this, seeing that H.E. will also be present: http://www.christen-im-beruf.de/news/images/malta_br.pdf
@Daphne,
Most people who call themselves atheists, like myself, say they are atheists because they are rational people, and that one thing is the natural consequence of the other. For most of us, the terms are interchangeable. But non-believers come in many flavours, just like everything else, really.
Also, being an atheist, just like being a believer, can be a question of degree – there’s been around 10,000 gods worshipped so far, and most believers believe in one god and disbelieve in another 9999. So most believers are 99.99% atheist anyway. Some of us just go one God further.
Once you use rational thought processes to disbelieve in 9999 gods, logically, you cannot fail to use the same rational thought processes on the remaining god, whether its Yahweh, Odin, John Frum, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Unless of course one’s disbelief is not rational but is based on the fact that the sacred text of one’s religion tells you to believe in only YOUR god. But don’t they all?
For many atheists, Bill Maher, (who had one Catholic parent and one Jewish parent, and who therefore has licence to take the piss out of both religions) is something of a hero because he speaks out without restraint. I’ve watched all his stand-up DVDs and most episodes of his show “Real Time”, which airs every Friday on HBO and can be listened to as a podcast. Increasingly, he uses the terms atheist, rationalist and non-believer interchangeably. The term he chooses also depends on the audience he’s talking to.
Like others living in a predominantly religious culture, it’s been a gradual change. But I am glad to see that the numbers of public declarations of non-belief are increasing, or at least we’re beginning to make ourselves heard, irrespective of what we call ourselves, not always coherently, but it’s a start.
But what’s in a name? I suspect that Bill Maher’s description of a rationalist would fit most of us on this blog who claim to be atheists, anyway. And after all, whether we call ourselves rationalists or atheists we all think religion is a weird idea at best and an evil thing at worst.
Anyway, I’m not trying to claim ownership of Bill Maher. We can all share him – the atheists, the agnostics, the humanists, the secularists, the rationalists, the non-believers, the anti-theists, the brights, and why not, the open-minded believers (although for me, that’s an oxymoron) and anyone with a sense of humour, really.
For a more organised but more moderate version of Bill Maher’s thoughts on religion (as opposed to god), you can watch his documentary, Religulous, on:
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=LHVVBQ4K
To evernyone trying to justify their belief system: why bother doing it? Unless you’re trying to convert someone, what you believe is entirely your business.
Your view on outspoken atheists as fundamentalists is a great compliment to those same atheists. To be a fundamentalist theist you usually have to, at the very least, threaten with violence. To be a fundamentalist atheist all you need to do is publicly declare there is no god. If you think I’m a fundamentalist for declaring that I don’t believe there is a god, then so be it.
Speaking of Bill Maher I do really like the guy, but in regards to Religulous I was greatly disappointed. Sure, it was fun and entertaining, but as a documentary it was nothing short of atrocious.
[Daphne – I watched it last night and loved it. Of course it’s not a documentary – it’s a docu-comedy. He comes across well because he’s not earnest. Earnestness is incredibly irritating, in atheists as well as religious people.]
My problem with it is the same I have with Michael Moore “documentaries” (not to mention Expelled). Entertaining to watch, but they are disguised as documentaries, which makes them dishonest. I do like Bill Maher in general, especially as the topics and guests he has on his show becomes both entertaining and interesting, I just think he could have done so much more with his film.
@Mike C
“most believers believe in one god and disbelieve in another 9999. So most believers are 99.99% atheist anyway. Some of us just go one God further.”
I have serious problems with this theory. If you believe in a God, even if it turns out to be the wrong one, you still do not qualify as an atheist, because the definition of an atheist is that an atheist does not believe in any God. In addition, most agnostics are very vague as to what God they actually believe in, and many even make up there own “customised” God to suit them. You are either an atheist or you are not. Here I also disagree with Daphne: atheism cannot be labelled as a “belief” and lumped together with all other religions. It is the complete opposite of belief, and a very different concept. For example, labradors and alsations are types of dogs. A car, although not a labrador or an alsation, cannot be simply discounted as yet another type of dog, that is neither an alsation or a labrador. It’s completely different. You are either a dog, or you’re not a dog.
[Daphne – You’re wrong there. Atheism is definitely a belief system: the belief that god does not exist, and the need to convince others of it while convincing oneself.]
@Corinne Vella
“To everyone trying to justify their belief system: why bother doing it? Unless you’re trying to convert someone, what you believe is entirely your business.”
It becomes everyone’s business, including mine, if a single belief system starts imprisoning those who disagree or mock. Leave us alone and we won’t bite back.
In a December 2005 interview with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio Five Live, David Attenborough stated that he considers himself an agnostic. When asked whether his observation of the natural world has given him faith in a creator, he generally responds with some version of this story:
“My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, a worm that’s going to make him blind. And I ask them, ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy.'”
To all the spectrum from 1-7, these are the musings of a simple mind.
God or no God? Surely you first have to define the term before discussing the pros and cons of the existence of such an entity. Is this not an impossible task?
How can the limited human pea-brain even begin to have the slightest comprehension of what might or might not comprise such a proposed existence. Any definition would necessarily be couched in worthless non- applicable human concepts.
(By definition!) “God” is beyond definition. So what’s the discussion about?
[Daphne – Yes, that’s why my approach is roughly the same as Bill Maher’s. I don’t know, I have no way of knowing and so, and this bit is unlike Bill Maher, I am largely indifferent.]
This particular documentary does not relate to Malta as such, but well worth the time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD2Hyiitpys
Daphne,
You can always dress up as a nun – that’s illegal too apparently!
On a more serious note, as a Catholic I find dressing up as Christ for carnival in bad taste, but it certainly shouldn’t be illegal. As Voltaire said “I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
If the bishop wanted to condemn something he should have condemned the bastard who was dousing chicks (birds) in petrol and setting them on fire. I heard this second-hand so can’t be 100% sure of it, but the chap who told me is very reliable. Why didn’t the police arrest that jackass?
“You’re wrong there. Atheism is definitely a belief system: the belief that god does not exist, and the need to convince others of it while convincing oneself.”
In my book it’s not a belief system (to use a cliche, it’s like calling bald a hair colour), but it’s quite irrelevant. I don’t know why you take for granted that atheists all have a need to convince others as well. I’m married to a Catholic, I’m surrounded by Catholics, my own parents are Protestants, my daughter is soon being baptised, I still call, and define myself as, an atheist. I do challenge people’s belief, not because of what their core beliefs are, but for the irrationality in their arguments. That does not mean I actively go around converting people.
I think you have a fairly narrow view of atheists as being of just one single mindset, while in practice atheism is only a statement saying “I don’t believe in a god”. Sure, I could define myself as an agnostic as well, but somehow it doesn’t seem as suitable. I’m agnostic to way too many things to make it useful.
Amanda – Thanks for alerting me to the upcoming do. I’ve made my reservation. Sorry you can’t attend. But that’s the price you have to pay for deciding to be born female. Maybe that screeching woman I saw on Xarabank recently will organise a similar thrill for you lot.
@ John
No, these are musings of a rational mind. If there’s something other than rationality that will lead us forward, I cannot see it. You wrote: “I define God to be undefinable.” If you find meaning in this contradiction, please enlighten me.
[Daphne – You’re wrong there. Atheism is definitely a belief system: the belief that god does not exist, and the need to convince others of it while convincing oneself.]
I don’t know why I bother. You’re all going to rot in hell. Don’t come crying to me then.
@S.Calleja
I don’t think I can put it any clearer.
But let me try something else. Any definition of “God” must include attributes. On what rational grounds can one come to any conclusion that “God” is, say, just and merciful; or that “God” is, say, a bugger? None I believe. And if one cannot label “God” with human attributes (for naturally, that is all we are capable of doing) we are left with the undefinable. And “lead us forward” to what and to where? What are you aiming at?
@lino cert
What’s in a name? Substitute the word non-believer and the gist is the same. As I said, if you can go through the rational thought process to disbelieve in 9,999 gods, you should be able to do the same for the 10,000th. At which point you would pretty much fit the definition of an atheist, at least until the next god-myth came along. But I’m guessing it wouldn’t be very different from the other 10,000, and the same thought process will apply. Its a continous loop :)
It doesn’t exclude the idea that one will come along which DOES get through the rational thought process, so in that sense you’re right, but 10,000 is a pretty good sample……
If course if one’s disbelief in the ‘other’ gods is based on an edict from the best buddy of the one he/she DOES believe in, then what can I say? The vast majority of faiths claim to be the one true faith, but then they’re all equally irrational, give or take.
@John
I’m afraid your approach is a bit too much of a cop out for my liking. It sounds too much like an attempt at a more sophisticated version of ‘God works in mysterious ways’ and similar mental somersaults used to justify the irrational. Somersaults like this one:
1. We can’t define God precisely because we’re too simple
2. So we can’t say exactly what it is that doesn’t exist
3. Therefore he exists.
A god is defined by those who put him/her/it forward. The most basic definition and principal excuse for such a phenomenon is that of creator. And that definition is always wholly devoid of evidence and rational thought.
@Daphne/Corinne
Atheism is not a belief system itself, it’s one of many variants on the name one gives to the rational conclusion of at least one belief system, science. To quote the much plagiarised, abused and selectively mis-quoted wiki system (wiktionary this time), here’s a definition of the term ‘belief system’:
“The basis on which beliefs are based. For example a religious belief system is based on faith and dogma whereas a scientific belief system is based on observation and reason.”
My belief system is not atheism, but science.
As somebody mentioned before, we (or at least I) don’t feel the need to convert everybody, it’s just that religion should be a private thing and if when practicing it one infringes on other peoples’ rights, then it needs to be stopped. Not to mention if it is actually an obstacle to human progress and development.
Also, like politics, its one of the most interesting topics around, and simply discussing religion or the lack of it is interesting in itself and is not necessarily an effort to convert anyone else, although in the long term, exposure to rational thought generally breeds more rational thought.
But having said that, my view is that like sex, alcohol and tobacco, religion should have an age of consent, say, 21. Of course we’d be done with religion within one human lifespan, but hey, we’d have a moral code based on ethics alone rather than ethics distorted by dogma, ancient prejudices and misinterpretation of ancient texts.
We’d also still have a ton of great buildings and works of art. Unless, of course, we used dogma & faith rather than observation & reason to decide where to display them, but that’s another story. :)
I’ve been openly atheist for almost 30 years (having “come out” during a religous retreat in my school days) and my zeal for the conversion of others has generally been low, except when challenged by believers, for instance Christians having the cheek to chastise me for eating meat on Good Friday, when they’ve been busy breaking all the religious rules they don’t like for the remaining 364 days.
I find I’m a better Christian than most. Of course when I say that they have the further cheek to say its god working through me to test them and strengthen their faith!
In the early days of my atheism I found much more respect and tolerance than I do now, and I have to say that ironically the clergy were always more tolerant that the faithful, although most of my sampling was based on the Jesuits we have in common, and I’ve never been entirely sure they themselves are believers.
From around mid-term in Form IV up to my religion matric, I used to ignore the exam questions and simply write down my moral code. I never got an ‘A’ or a ‘1’, but I always passed. I actually got a 4 in my matric. I’ve always wondered whether it was a 4 for effort, or whether they thought my morals were generally acceptable but not of a high standard :)
But believers have now become far more aggressive and in some ways more dangerous than they were in my youth. Many of the racists on the times website claim to be defending their faith. I was happy to let religion fade away, much like measles, scarlet fever and tuberculosis, but as they make a comeback, for various reasons, so does religion (often for the same reasons), and often it has the same devastating effect on peoples lives.
For instance preaching that using condoms will send you to hell and is worse than dying of AIDS, as does the catholic church, for me borders on the genocidal, especially in areas where AIDS is taking such a toll on entire generations. It is indeed ironic that religious bigots and racists on the times now complaining that immigrants bring AIDS, fail to realise that it is their religion which is contributing in no small part to the spread of HIV.
I think I’ll stop my rant now, lest I become too earnest or irritating :)
@ John – My point is that the expression “God is undefinable” is a definition in itself, and it just happens to contradict itself. A classical example of such a predicate is: “this statement is false”, whereby no matter how hard I try, I cannot make that statement true. Of course, there might be alternative modes of reasoning other than logic with different axioms, in which that statement can be classified as true (or some other state in this new mode, such as “tralse”) but this is only postulation, and by my level of sanity such modes can then be used to justify anything. If we have to speak about right and wrong, at least we need a frame of reference to guide our thoughts, and I believe rationality is the best shot we’ve got. About my other statement, “leading forward”, I meant leading to a better, safer and more peaceful world, whereby people don’t justify their destructive acts behind the excuse of religion or indeed any personal belief system.
@S.Calleja, I might have missed your point. If I did, then the answer is no – and I am unable to enlighten you. Sorry about that.
Sometimes I wonder am I living on the same planet. I think we agree that there is no evidence of any god. Therefore if anyone has a “belief” in a god, that’s up to him to prove. I don’t need to do anything about it. The onus is on the believer. I cannot be accused of having a “belief” in the non-existence of a god. Because we have no evidence of a god. Isn’t this obvious? Or am I going crazy? The word “belief” implies a subjective feeling. You can “believe” that your hubby is faithful to you, but you cannot prove it. However you do not “believe” the world is round. You “know” it. I suppose what I am saying is that atheism is not “belief”; it is a “knowledge”. It is up to the believers to do all the hard work. We atheists can relax and watch in amusement as believers dig up bleeding statues, fables, dubious documents and build massive churches in their attempt to persuade us. As long as these believers don’t get too enthusiastic and start blowing up our earth they are nothing much more than a nuisance.
[Daphne – Sigh. You’ve just described exactly why atheism is a belief. Because just as you cannot prove that there is a god, so you cannot prove that there isn’t one. On the other hand, you can prove that the earth is round and that two plus two equals four. Atheism is a faith like any other, because it depends on faith and not on incontrovertible fact.]
@Daphne –
Groan. By your own reasoning Alfred Sant was right, the NO camp won the EU referendum, because anyone who didn’t vote YES can then be assumed to have voted NO.
Your reasoning in this case is bizarre and illogical.
If you had to claim there were green men living on the moon it would be up to you to prove it, I would have no responsibility at all to prove you wrong, it would be your problem to prove it. Double sigh.
[Daphne – It is you who are illogical. That the Yes camp won the referendum is something that could be proved by the simple expedient of counting the votes cast, as it was. That there is no god is something that cannot be proved or disproved, therefore we cannot claim as fact that there is a god or that there is no god. It is not only that we can’t prove the existence or non-existence of a god, but we can’t even say what a god is, so we don’t know where to begin looking to prove whether ‘it’ exists or doesn’t exist. Those who claim as fact that there is no god are using their imagination and their belief in the same way as those who claim as fact that there is a god. On the other hand, we know for a fact that there is no Father Christmas because we stay up half the night and stuff those damned stockings ourselves and the bastard never shows to give us a hand. If there is a Father Christmas, he’s not a stocking-stuffer, but sunbathing in Trinidad.]
@ Daphne
“On the other hand, we know for a fact that there is no Father Christmas because we stay up half the night and stuff those damned stockings ourselves ”
I hope there’s no kids visiting this forum because if so, you’ve just shattered their innocent little hearts.
I knew I shouldn’t have got involved with this one.
@MikeC
I’m not attempting to justify anything. Once you seem partial to posing somersaults, let’s rephrase yours.
1. ditto
2. So we can’t say exactly what it is that exists.
3. Therefore it doesn’t exist.
@S.Calleja
I think our last comments crossed. This is getting heavy. “God is undefinable” is good enough for me. I did warn you that I have a simple mind. As for your utopian world – I can’t see that happening. But I wish you luck with it.
Lino Cert, you already have with your militant atheism and I’m sick of it and you are starting to remind me why I decided that believing in God is more rational. You of all people should know that religion is an adults’ safety blanket. If adults are shocked at the prospect that there is no God watching their every step and helping them along the way …imagine what it would do to an innocent child.
I can’t stand those people who go around arguing that the world would be a better place with atheism instead of religion. [Daphne – The experience of the Soviet Union and China should have shown that it isn’t necessarily so.] The obvious thing is that atheists would fight amongst themselves, as happens when something is mainstream. Atheists are not necessarily peaceful. Take the communist system in which those who refused to agree that there was no God were persecuted by the state.
If Religion had to fall, militant atheism or some extreme form of secularism would take its place. It’s never ending; there is no point in trying to convince people that atheism rocks or that atheism is the way, because atheism won’t solve anything.
“If Religion had to fall, militant atheism or some extreme form of secularism would take its place.”
Yes, this is exactly what is happening in places like Scandinavia, Holland and Japan… right? Nations can function very well without religion, but the key is, obviously, to allow free expression of belief, rather than state enforced in one way or the other. I can still argue that the world would be better off without religion and fail to see why that makes me a fundamentalist.
(Daphne – That there is no god is something that cannot be proved or disproved, therefore we cannot claim as fact that there is a god or that there is no god)
This is the argument put forward by agnosticism and its adherents. But it presupposes that in any situation where something cannot be proved or disproved the fulcrum of possibility is exactly in the centre, with equal weight and balance being ascribed to both possibilities.
But this is clearly not so in most other imponderables, and the existence or otherwise of god should not be exempt from the same rational analysis, especially as our understanding of science and the universe inexorably shifts the pendulum and fulcrum of the weighing scale. In other words the point in the scale between the existence or non existence of some supernatural being is not equidistant, and becomes far less so as our knowledge base continues to grow.
I think it was Bertrand Russell who elegantly pointed this out, with his analogy of the celestial teapot, orbiting the sun. It IS possible for someone to postulate of such an orbiting teapot, and such a possibility is technically impossible to disprove, because of the sun’s luminance and cosmic energy, but the probability or otherwise of its existence should not be afforded equal weight, as most rational people would discount such a possibility, based on their analysis of probabilities.
Anyway that’s my two pennies worth. Probability theory is a fascinating subject in its own right, and I’m really not trying to convert any person over, just to point out the nuances of it all.
So Daphne, if I do a play commenting on religious hypocrisy, will you come? Unless it is banned, that is . . . oh OK, with you it’s especially if it’s banned. Sorry, couldn’t resist!
@Daphne
Just because YOU stuffed stockings it doesn’t mean Father Christmas doesn’t exist. I know for a fact he exists, and he always came to our house, except that one year when he got caught up and my father offered to fill in.
He just doesn’t come to YOUR house. In fact, it’s because like god, he is all powerful, can listen to everyone at the same time and act upon it. And precisely because he is all-seeing, he knows you’re going to stuff the stocking in the first place, so why bother?
Soviet Russia and China DID have a religion, as does North Korea today. There is a God, a high priest & an ecclesiastical structure – generally a founding revolutionary leader, his current successor, and a party. The worst dictatorships are all modelled on religious cults. Don’t try dumping that one on us. Stalin is firmly in the believers scorecard – AND he was educated in a seminary.
How about this for a definition of God: sentient controlling influence over the fortunes of the known universe, possibly including its creation (including its own), on both a macro and a micro level.”
Whats so difficult about that?
@lino cert
The onus thing? Spot on!
@John
Sure, but I’m not using it to support my point.
@Graham C
“and that’s why I decided believing in God is more rational”.
ROTFL
MikeC,
I would argue that Stalin is on neither “scorecard”. It’s true he was educated in a seminary, but what does that have to do with anything? To him, suppression of certain religions, as well as the support for others was a means of power and a means of reaching what he saw as his main goals. It had very little to do with either atheism nor religion.
While being largely inspired by the teachings of Marx, he diverted tremendously in this matter, as Marx very well recognised the need for religious belief and was simply trying to find something to replace it, not suppress it. Don’t make the mistake many others make and forget what came after his famously misquoted remark that “religion is the opium of the people”: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation”. In Stalin’s case religion was simply something that united people against his cause. It’s one of those cases where even I would argue that religious expression was not just a necessity, but probably the only real challenge to his oppression.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090312/opinion/smile-youre-arrested
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090312/opinion/carnival-of-reason
@Pat
My main point about Stalin was not that he was educated in a seminary, although the experience must have been helpful, but that the dictatorships of Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and raving mad North Korea, are basically modelled on theocracies and cannot be called atheist – the suppression of religion was simply the suppression of one religion in favour of another. Yahweh is not the only jealous god.
As to religion being the only real opposition to Stalin, not sure its the case, but even so, it does not weaken the main point that these dictatorships are simply theocracies with a different figure of worship from the established religions.
@Daphne
also http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090312/opinion/a-choice-limits-or-no-limits
Not strictly speaking related, but co-indidentally written by one of the Jesuits who accepted my unorthodox religion exam papers. I think he gave my declaration of atheism a 70%. But his outlook is a little more conservative, almost 30 years later….. but always measured and never hysterical, unlike the faithful. And I notice he refers to a bible story being a myth. I wonder how he picks the myths and the true stories.
A brilliant opinion letter to the times:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090312/letters/the-nadur-carnival-and-religious-fundamentalism/
Can’t say the same thing about most of the comments written below.
“As to religion being the only real opposition to Stalin, not sure its the case, but even so, it does not weaken the main point that these dictatorships are simply theocracies with a different figure of worship from the established religions.”
I think you could make the argument that theism and the despotism faced in these nations are both dictatorial, and/or autocratic, but it does not equate them. It might sound like a petty detail, but it makes a world of difference.
A duck is a bird, but a bird is not necessarily a duck (sorry, been watching Bebe TV too much lately).
@Pat
Sorry, but I don’t understand your point. Or at least I think I do but I’m not sure of its relevance to mine. If I understand yours, you’re saying theism and dictatorship are not equivalent, and although they sometimes are. I’m not saying they’re equivalent either. My original point was a response to a couple of comments by Graham C & Daphne, namely:
Graham – “I can’t stand those people who go around arguing that the world would be a better place with atheism instead of religion.”
Daphne – “The experience of the Soviet Union and China should have shown that it isn’t necessarily so.”
The Soviet Union and China cannot be used as examples of atheism because they were based on a religious model, i.e. there is a God, a high priest & an ecclesiastical structure – generally a founding revolutionary leader, his current successor, and a party.
What I – as a foreigner – really do not understand: Why is there no lawyer or an association of lawyers in Malta bringing that scandal to the European Court for Human Rights?
Either Malta is a member of the European Community – and therefore it participates at a society in which the freedom of expression is protected – or not. If it decides to leave the European Community, if it decides to treat refugees with shame, if it wants the conditions of the Middle Age back (concerning divorce, abortion, the fully missing separation of public and religious affairs, a censorship of arts etc.) – farewell, then it can leave Europe! But if not, next carnival hundreds of young men should be dressed as Jesus – and I will, too.
If this will happen, I will not lose my trust in a young generation which has understood that 150 years after enlightenment a modern country within Europe must not be chained and patronized by the hypocrisy of frozen conservative men of a frozen conservative catholic church like a baby that does not know the difference between good and evil. If not, it will probably be the time to leave this island.