Kardinal Schönborn beklagt sich in der heutigen Ausgabe (19.12.2010) der „Presse am Sonntag“ über die „Austrittswelle“ in dem österreichischen Teil der Katholischen Kirche. Nicht weniger als 80,000 Mitglieder sollen auf Grund der in 2010 entdeckten sexuellen Missbrauchsfälle ausgetreten sein.
Schönborn zieht Parallelle mit der Situation in der Nazizeit, als damals auch viele Kirchenmitglieder aus der Kirche austraten.
Weiss man aus welchen Gründen die Kirchenmitglieder damals der Kirche den Rücken zeigten? Wollten sie dadurch als „bessere“ Nazis dastehen oder war es hauptsächlich, weil sie mit dem fehlenden oder zumindest sehr schwachen Widerstand des damaligen Papstes Pius des XII gegen die Nazisten enttäuscht waren?
Wenn das letztere der Fall wäre, kann man den vom Kardinal Schönborn gemachten Vergleich vielleicht verstehen, weil dann könnte man ja die vielen Kirchenaustritte auf innerkirchliche Probleme zurückführen, wie auch heute.
Wenn dies nicht der Fall war, sondern die Kirchenaustritte mehr aus Angst vor den Nazis stattfanden, dann muss man wohl Herrn Hans Peter Hurka, dem Vertreter der Laien-Platform „Wir sind Kirche“, Recht geben, dass dieser Vergleich „unpassend“ sei.
Die Frage, die Kardinal Schönborn indirekt und wahrsscheinlich auch ungewollt hervorgehoben hat, wäre aber interessant zu klären. Vielleicht kann jemand dabei behilflich sein.
Den Zeitungsartikel gibt es hier zu lesen:
http://trovettvanvettbilagor.blogspot.com/2010/12/artikel-aus-presse-am-sonntag-19122010.html
söndag 19 december 2010
fredag 17 december 2010
Wenn Menschen wegen religiöser Überzeugungen sterben müssen
Laut eines Artikels in „Die Presse“ vom 17.12.2010 sterben jährlich 150 Personen, weil sie auf ein lebenswichtiges Organ vergebens warten müssen.
Die Zahl der Organspenden steigt, aber ebenso die Nachfrage. In Österreich gelten als potenzielle Organspender alle, die sich nicht dagegen schriftlich ausgesprochen haben und dessen Namen in ein Sonderregister eingetragen wurden. Allen anderen dürfen nach dem Tod Organe für Transplantationszwecke entnommen werden.
So soll es eigentlich nach Gesetz geschehen aber in der Praxis fragen die Ärzte die Verwandten ob sie gegen eine Organtransplantation vielleicht irgendwelche Einsprüche hätten, etwa religiöser Art.
Die Schlussfolgerung ist also, dass Menschen mit besonderen religiösen Überzeugungen verhindern können, dass Leben anderer Menschen gerettet werden, weil manche Ärzte denken, dass sie solche Überzeugungen respektieren müssen. Religiöse Vorstellungen über die Unantastberkeit der Organe bereits toter Menschen sollen also mehr wert sein als die Rettung derjenigen todkranken Menschen, die auf ein lebensrettendes Organ noch warten und hoffen?
Meiner Meinung nach müssen die letzteren Vorrang haben. Ärzte sollen die engsten Verwandten zwar informieren aber nicht nach deren eventuellen Einsprüchen fragen.
Wenn ein Verstorbener vor seinem Tod keine Einwände zur Organdonation bekanntgegeben hat, dann ist diese Tatsache und die Bedürfnisse todkranker Menschen an erster Stelle zu respektieren.
Auszug aus dem oben erwähnten Artikel:
http://trovettvanvettbilagor.blogspot.com/2010/12/warten-auf-spenderorgane-jahrlich-150.html
Die Zahl der Organspenden steigt, aber ebenso die Nachfrage. In Österreich gelten als potenzielle Organspender alle, die sich nicht dagegen schriftlich ausgesprochen haben und dessen Namen in ein Sonderregister eingetragen wurden. Allen anderen dürfen nach dem Tod Organe für Transplantationszwecke entnommen werden.
So soll es eigentlich nach Gesetz geschehen aber in der Praxis fragen die Ärzte die Verwandten ob sie gegen eine Organtransplantation vielleicht irgendwelche Einsprüche hätten, etwa religiöser Art.
Die Schlussfolgerung ist also, dass Menschen mit besonderen religiösen Überzeugungen verhindern können, dass Leben anderer Menschen gerettet werden, weil manche Ärzte denken, dass sie solche Überzeugungen respektieren müssen. Religiöse Vorstellungen über die Unantastberkeit der Organe bereits toter Menschen sollen also mehr wert sein als die Rettung derjenigen todkranken Menschen, die auf ein lebensrettendes Organ noch warten und hoffen?
Meiner Meinung nach müssen die letzteren Vorrang haben. Ärzte sollen die engsten Verwandten zwar informieren aber nicht nach deren eventuellen Einsprüchen fragen.
Wenn ein Verstorbener vor seinem Tod keine Einwände zur Organdonation bekanntgegeben hat, dann ist diese Tatsache und die Bedürfnisse todkranker Menschen an erster Stelle zu respektieren.
Auszug aus dem oben erwähnten Artikel:
http://trovettvanvettbilagor.blogspot.com/2010/12/warten-auf-spenderorgane-jahrlich-150.html
torsdag 16 december 2010
Islam, islamism och svenska muslimer
I en artikel i DN av Ole Rothenborg kan man läsa om Bejzat Becirovs klagan över att muslimerna i Sverige och övriga Europa ska behöva känna sig utpekade av den muslimske attentatsmannens bombsprängning på Bryggargatan för ett par dagar sedan. Alla muslimer känner sig ”skuldbelagda” av det som hänt, säger Becirov som är chef för Islamic Center i Malmö. För varje sådan här händelse drabbas muslimerna av en kollektiv skuldbeläggelse, säger han.
”Guilt by association” är inget okänt fenomen och många som gärna skulle utvisa muslimska invandrare har säkert stärkts i sina övertygelser. Vad gör då de svenska muslimerna för att motverka detta?
• Protesterar de med kraft mot muslimska ”fatwor” med uppdrag om att mörda för Islam misshagliga personer som exempelvis Salman Rushdie?
• Tar de avstånd från det våld som utövas av muslimska våldsorganisationer som Al Qaida, Hisbollah och Hamas?
• Protesterar de mot att flertalet muslimska länder styrs av religiösa diktatorer?
• Kritiserar de den föråldrade och förnedrande kvinnosyn som är vanlig i flera muslimska samhällen och som också finns bland muslimska män i Sverige?
• Uttalar de sig unisont mot s.k. ”hedersmord”, mot könsstympning av unga pojkar och flickor, mot unga kvinnors/flickors tvångsäktenskap med män de knappast känner eller mot att kvinnor ska kunna tvingas bära burka?
• Brukar opinionsbildande muslimer propagera för att muslimska kvinnor ska ha rätt till samma goda skolutbildning, universitetsstudier och yrkeskarriärer som muslimska män?
• Håller flertalet muslimska män med om detta?
• Tar muslimerna i Sverige öppet avstånd från varje tanke på att i Sverige tillämpa den muslimska ”rättsordningen” Shariah, alltså inte bara den del som som innehåller bestämmelser om att kvinnor (!) som begår s.k. äktenskapsbrott kan dömas till att stenas till döds?
• Uttalar sig svenska muslimer för att länder där Shariah praktiseras bör modernisera denna typ av lag eller i vart fall dess tillämpning så att män och kvinnor behandlas lika?
• Har man protesterat mot de aktuella dödsdomarna i Pakistan och Iran?
• Har man krävt att man ska sluta förfölja och avrätta homosexuella?
• Bekänner sig muslimerna i Sverige till allmänt accepterade mänskliga rättigheter om religions- och trosfrihet, vilka innebär att var och en har rätt att utan tvång välja sin religion, att lämna den och gå över till en annan religion eller att inte ha någon religion alls?
Hur många av dessa frågor kan i dagsläget besvaras med ett ”ja”? Ju fler, desto bättre, särskilt med tanke på Becirovs oro för att muslimerna i Sverige ska drabbas av någon slags kollektivskuld. Ju mer de distanserar sig från odemokratiska värderingar, från våldets, ojämlikhetens och terrorns apostlar, desto mindre blir ju risken att associeras med extrema religiösa fanatiker och våldsverkare som utför och ligger bakom terrordåd likt det som häromdagen inträffade i Stockholm.
Med framväxten av en extrem och främlingsfientlig rörelse typ Sverigedemokraterna har risken för våldsbrott mot muslimer i Sverige antagligen ökat, men detta ursäktar verkligen inte Becirovs påstående om att utvecklingen i Europa skulle vara på väg mot en situation liknande den då judarna tvingades bära en stjärna på bröstet men med den skillnaden att detta skulle komma att gälla för muslimerna. Sådana självömkande och osmakliga jämförelser gör ingen nytta men klarhet från ledande muslimer beträffande deras inställning till grundläggande svenska värderingar som demokrati, jämlikhet mellan könen och religionsfrihet skulle säkert kunna hjälpa.
Klarhet kan också efterlysas från regeringens, myndigheternas och de politiska partiernas sida om vad de förväntar sig ifråga om anpassning till det svenska samhället av de invandrare som kommer till Sverige med grundläggande värderingar som är för oss främmande och ej heller acceptabla.
”Guilt by association” är inget okänt fenomen och många som gärna skulle utvisa muslimska invandrare har säkert stärkts i sina övertygelser. Vad gör då de svenska muslimerna för att motverka detta?
• Protesterar de med kraft mot muslimska ”fatwor” med uppdrag om att mörda för Islam misshagliga personer som exempelvis Salman Rushdie?
• Tar de avstånd från det våld som utövas av muslimska våldsorganisationer som Al Qaida, Hisbollah och Hamas?
• Protesterar de mot att flertalet muslimska länder styrs av religiösa diktatorer?
• Kritiserar de den föråldrade och förnedrande kvinnosyn som är vanlig i flera muslimska samhällen och som också finns bland muslimska män i Sverige?
• Uttalar de sig unisont mot s.k. ”hedersmord”, mot könsstympning av unga pojkar och flickor, mot unga kvinnors/flickors tvångsäktenskap med män de knappast känner eller mot att kvinnor ska kunna tvingas bära burka?
• Brukar opinionsbildande muslimer propagera för att muslimska kvinnor ska ha rätt till samma goda skolutbildning, universitetsstudier och yrkeskarriärer som muslimska män?
• Håller flertalet muslimska män med om detta?
• Tar muslimerna i Sverige öppet avstånd från varje tanke på att i Sverige tillämpa den muslimska ”rättsordningen” Shariah, alltså inte bara den del som som innehåller bestämmelser om att kvinnor (!) som begår s.k. äktenskapsbrott kan dömas till att stenas till döds?
• Uttalar sig svenska muslimer för att länder där Shariah praktiseras bör modernisera denna typ av lag eller i vart fall dess tillämpning så att män och kvinnor behandlas lika?
• Har man protesterat mot de aktuella dödsdomarna i Pakistan och Iran?
• Har man krävt att man ska sluta förfölja och avrätta homosexuella?
• Bekänner sig muslimerna i Sverige till allmänt accepterade mänskliga rättigheter om religions- och trosfrihet, vilka innebär att var och en har rätt att utan tvång välja sin religion, att lämna den och gå över till en annan religion eller att inte ha någon religion alls?
Hur många av dessa frågor kan i dagsläget besvaras med ett ”ja”? Ju fler, desto bättre, särskilt med tanke på Becirovs oro för att muslimerna i Sverige ska drabbas av någon slags kollektivskuld. Ju mer de distanserar sig från odemokratiska värderingar, från våldets, ojämlikhetens och terrorns apostlar, desto mindre blir ju risken att associeras med extrema religiösa fanatiker och våldsverkare som utför och ligger bakom terrordåd likt det som häromdagen inträffade i Stockholm.
Med framväxten av en extrem och främlingsfientlig rörelse typ Sverigedemokraterna har risken för våldsbrott mot muslimer i Sverige antagligen ökat, men detta ursäktar verkligen inte Becirovs påstående om att utvecklingen i Europa skulle vara på väg mot en situation liknande den då judarna tvingades bära en stjärna på bröstet men med den skillnaden att detta skulle komma att gälla för muslimerna. Sådana självömkande och osmakliga jämförelser gör ingen nytta men klarhet från ledande muslimer beträffande deras inställning till grundläggande svenska värderingar som demokrati, jämlikhet mellan könen och religionsfrihet skulle säkert kunna hjälpa.
Klarhet kan också efterlysas från regeringens, myndigheternas och de politiska partiernas sida om vad de förväntar sig ifråga om anpassning till det svenska samhället av de invandrare som kommer till Sverige med grundläggande värderingar som är för oss främmande och ej heller acceptabla.
OSCE meeting on "Freedom of Religion and Belief"
Freedom of religion and belief was discussed at length at a meeting organised on 9-10 December by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). OSCE member states, missions and institutions were represented at the meeting plus a few international organisations and more than 100 non-governmental organisations(NGOs).
The discussions took place in three sessions devoted to the following three topics:
I OSCE Commitments on Freedom of Religion and Belief: Emerging Issues and Challenges.
II Education and Religion or Belief.
III Religious Symbols and Expression.
Here are some brief and personal impressions from the meeting:
Although the list of participants included a fairly large number of human rights and other not typically religious NGOs, the debate in the plenary was overwhelmingly dominated by the religious ones, mainly pursuing their own individual interests rather than defending the freedom of religion and belief as a matter of principle.
The same pattern was followed in session II where focus was on the rights of parents to have their children educated in the religion of their choice. The possibility of opting out from religious instruction was generally recognised but there was little or no discussion on the negative consequences of this kind of discrimination of children who opt out. The fact that they may get a feeling of being somehow different and not belonging to the majority and also that they would not get any real education about their own or any other religions did not attract much attention. The humanist opinion that all children - irrespective of the life stance of their parents - should receive an unbiased education about religions was not supported by any of the other NGOs.
Concerning religious symbols the emphasis centered on the need to facilitate rather than to limit the display of such symbols and the Holy See condemned the removal of crucifixes from public buildings as an expression of “false secularism”.
The European Humanist Federation submitted the following written statements, one for each of the three sessions:
Pluralism, relativism and the rule-of-law
http://trovettvanvettbilagor.blogspot.com/2010/12/pluralism-relativism-and-rule-of-law.html
Education about religions but not religious indoctrination
http://trovettvanvettbilagor.blogspot.com/2010/12/education-about-religions-but-not.html
Display of crucifixes in public buildings
http://trovettvanvettbilagor.blogspot.com/2010/12/display-of-crucifixes-in-public.html
The discussions took place in three sessions devoted to the following three topics:
I OSCE Commitments on Freedom of Religion and Belief: Emerging Issues and Challenges.
II Education and Religion or Belief.
III Religious Symbols and Expression.
Here are some brief and personal impressions from the meeting:
Although the list of participants included a fairly large number of human rights and other not typically religious NGOs, the debate in the plenary was overwhelmingly dominated by the religious ones, mainly pursuing their own individual interests rather than defending the freedom of religion and belief as a matter of principle.
The same pattern was followed in session II where focus was on the rights of parents to have their children educated in the religion of their choice. The possibility of opting out from religious instruction was generally recognised but there was little or no discussion on the negative consequences of this kind of discrimination of children who opt out. The fact that they may get a feeling of being somehow different and not belonging to the majority and also that they would not get any real education about their own or any other religions did not attract much attention. The humanist opinion that all children - irrespective of the life stance of their parents - should receive an unbiased education about religions was not supported by any of the other NGOs.
Concerning religious symbols the emphasis centered on the need to facilitate rather than to limit the display of such symbols and the Holy See condemned the removal of crucifixes from public buildings as an expression of “false secularism”.
The European Humanist Federation submitted the following written statements, one for each of the three sessions:
Pluralism, relativism and the rule-of-law
http://trovettvanvettbilagor.blogspot.com/2010/12/pluralism-relativism-and-rule-of-law.html
Education about religions but not religious indoctrination
http://trovettvanvettbilagor.blogspot.com/2010/12/education-about-religions-but-not.html
Display of crucifixes in public buildings
http://trovettvanvettbilagor.blogspot.com/2010/12/display-of-crucifixes-in-public.html
tisdag 30 november 2010
The Teaching of Religion
According to the Irish newspaper the Belfast Telegraph, Ireland's record on religion in schools will come under scrutiny next year during a review by the United Nations Human Rights Council.
The reason is that the way in which religion is taught in the overwhelming majority of schools in the Republic of Ireland may be a breach of the human rights of children.
The Government has been told it is time for it to reconsider the role of religion and how it is taught in Irish classrooms.
The Irish Human Rights Commission (IHCR) has in a discussion paper pointed out that parents have the right to withdraw their children from any instruction that conflicts with their own convictions. This may, however, not be enough considering the very prominent role played by religious orders in Irish education.
While most people in Ireland define themselves as belonging to the Roman Catholic Church or Church of Ireland, a significant number now define themselves as being of no belief or of Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or other beliefs.
By the end of January, recommendations will be made to the Government on the measures required for the State to meet its human rights obligations in this area.
Although the Irish situation may be seen as “somewhat unique internationally”, the IHCR also pointed to the fact that all countries were grappling with the issue regarding the role of religion and its teaching in their national school systems.
Source: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/religion-in-schools-may-be-breach-of-human-rights-15016751.html#ixzz16mfO6Cu0
- - - -
For my own part I welcome the initiative taken by the UN Human Rights Council and would hope that it will also apply to other countries such as Austria, where the teaching of religion is organised in conformity with a long-standing agreement with the Catholic church, which, for instance, may object to the appointment of teachers not acceptable to them.
In my view, religion should not be taught in any schools but students should be taught about religions in an unbiased and non-confessional way by teachers who are no preachers and also be taught about alternative life stances, such as humanism. In connection with that, students should also learn about ethical standards and human rights.
This subject should not be optional but treated in the same manner as other sucbjects, such as history, literature, philosophy and geography.
Religion may be taught and practised in churches, mosques, synagoges and temples and taught privately to students by their parents or others, but not in schools. To teach small children how to pray is not education. It is indoctrination.
The reason is that the way in which religion is taught in the overwhelming majority of schools in the Republic of Ireland may be a breach of the human rights of children.
The Government has been told it is time for it to reconsider the role of religion and how it is taught in Irish classrooms.
The Irish Human Rights Commission (IHCR) has in a discussion paper pointed out that parents have the right to withdraw their children from any instruction that conflicts with their own convictions. This may, however, not be enough considering the very prominent role played by religious orders in Irish education.
While most people in Ireland define themselves as belonging to the Roman Catholic Church or Church of Ireland, a significant number now define themselves as being of no belief or of Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or other beliefs.
By the end of January, recommendations will be made to the Government on the measures required for the State to meet its human rights obligations in this area.
Although the Irish situation may be seen as “somewhat unique internationally”, the IHCR also pointed to the fact that all countries were grappling with the issue regarding the role of religion and its teaching in their national school systems.
Source: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/religion-in-schools-may-be-breach-of-human-rights-15016751.html#ixzz16mfO6Cu0
- - - -
For my own part I welcome the initiative taken by the UN Human Rights Council and would hope that it will also apply to other countries such as Austria, where the teaching of religion is organised in conformity with a long-standing agreement with the Catholic church, which, for instance, may object to the appointment of teachers not acceptable to them.
In my view, religion should not be taught in any schools but students should be taught about religions in an unbiased and non-confessional way by teachers who are no preachers and also be taught about alternative life stances, such as humanism. In connection with that, students should also learn about ethical standards and human rights.
This subject should not be optional but treated in the same manner as other sucbjects, such as history, literature, philosophy and geography.
Religion may be taught and practised in churches, mosques, synagoges and temples and taught privately to students by their parents or others, but not in schools. To teach small children how to pray is not education. It is indoctrination.
måndag 29 november 2010
Kommentar zum Interview mit Herrn Peter L. Berger
http://diepresse.com/home/kultur/literatur/613643/Am-zweitliebsten-waere-ich-ein-Muslim?from=suche.intern.portal
In einem Zeitungsinterview wies der renommierte Religionssoziologe Peter L. Berger darauf hin, dass „eine neue Gruppe von Atheisten“ die Religionen beschuldigen, dass es so viel Gewalt in der Welt gibt. Das hält er für „Unsinn“ und meint, dass die grössten Schrecklichkeiten im 20. Jahrhundert von nicht religiösen Regimen ausgelöst wurden.
Es ist sicherlich wahr, dass die Ermordung von Juden durch die Nazis hauptsächlich andere als religiöse Beweggründe hatten, wie zum Beispiel machtpolitische und rassistische, aber wie kann man wissen, dass der nazistische Hass gegen die Juden nicht auch durch religiöse Gegensätze verstärkt wurde. Schliesslich waren es ja hauptsächlich nazistische Christen oder christliche Nazisten die Angehörige eines anderen Glaubens verfolgten.
Auch der Balkankrieg der 90-iger Jahre hatte sicherlich teilweise rein machtpolitische Hintergründe, aber gewiss wurden die Gegensätze dadurch verschärft, dass die Kriegführenden Parteien unterschiedlichen Glaubensrichtungen angehörten.
Sicherlich glaubt keiner, dass die Gewalt nur von Religionen verursacht wurde, doch dass diese sehrwohl öfter dazu beitragend waren.
Im Laufe unserer Geschichte gibt es eine grosse Zahl ähnlicher und vielleicht auch noch überzeugenderer Beispiele dafür, dass religiöse Auseinandersetzungen zum Krieg beitrugen oder sogar Anlässe zum Krieg waren, die auch von grosser Graumsamkeit geprägt waren.
Es ist deshalb kein Unsinn, wie Herr Berger meint, der Auffassung zu sein, dass Religionen dazu beigetragen haben, die Gewalt in der Welt zu verschärfen und zu vermehren.
Wenn Herr Berger kein Christ mehr wäre, dann würde er wohl kaum zum Hinduismus oder Buddhismus übertreten. Nein, sagt er, dann wäre ich am liebsten ein Muslim.
Für eine tief gläubige Person wie Herrn Berger ist es wohl kaum vorstellbar, dass man auch ohne eine Religion leben kann. Aber genau so wie man zwischen verschiedenen Religionen wählen kann, kann man sich auch für eine nicht-religöse Lebensanschauung entscheiden. Diejenigen, die sich von uralten oder neuerfundenen und heute gängigen religiösen Vorstellungen immer mehr entfremdet fühlen, können beispielsweise im Humanismus eine attraktive nicht-religiöse Alternative finden.
In einem Zeitungsinterview wies der renommierte Religionssoziologe Peter L. Berger darauf hin, dass „eine neue Gruppe von Atheisten“ die Religionen beschuldigen, dass es so viel Gewalt in der Welt gibt. Das hält er für „Unsinn“ und meint, dass die grössten Schrecklichkeiten im 20. Jahrhundert von nicht religiösen Regimen ausgelöst wurden.
Es ist sicherlich wahr, dass die Ermordung von Juden durch die Nazis hauptsächlich andere als religiöse Beweggründe hatten, wie zum Beispiel machtpolitische und rassistische, aber wie kann man wissen, dass der nazistische Hass gegen die Juden nicht auch durch religiöse Gegensätze verstärkt wurde. Schliesslich waren es ja hauptsächlich nazistische Christen oder christliche Nazisten die Angehörige eines anderen Glaubens verfolgten.
Auch der Balkankrieg der 90-iger Jahre hatte sicherlich teilweise rein machtpolitische Hintergründe, aber gewiss wurden die Gegensätze dadurch verschärft, dass die Kriegführenden Parteien unterschiedlichen Glaubensrichtungen angehörten.
Sicherlich glaubt keiner, dass die Gewalt nur von Religionen verursacht wurde, doch dass diese sehrwohl öfter dazu beitragend waren.
Im Laufe unserer Geschichte gibt es eine grosse Zahl ähnlicher und vielleicht auch noch überzeugenderer Beispiele dafür, dass religiöse Auseinandersetzungen zum Krieg beitrugen oder sogar Anlässe zum Krieg waren, die auch von grosser Graumsamkeit geprägt waren.
Es ist deshalb kein Unsinn, wie Herr Berger meint, der Auffassung zu sein, dass Religionen dazu beigetragen haben, die Gewalt in der Welt zu verschärfen und zu vermehren.
Wenn Herr Berger kein Christ mehr wäre, dann würde er wohl kaum zum Hinduismus oder Buddhismus übertreten. Nein, sagt er, dann wäre ich am liebsten ein Muslim.
Für eine tief gläubige Person wie Herrn Berger ist es wohl kaum vorstellbar, dass man auch ohne eine Religion leben kann. Aber genau so wie man zwischen verschiedenen Religionen wählen kann, kann man sich auch für eine nicht-religöse Lebensanschauung entscheiden. Diejenigen, die sich von uralten oder neuerfundenen und heute gängigen religiösen Vorstellungen immer mehr entfremdet fühlen, können beispielsweise im Humanismus eine attraktive nicht-religiöse Alternative finden.
lördag 27 november 2010
The Holy See – the Catholic church as state
The Holy See, which is defined as the Pope and the curia, has managed to acquire the international status of a national state. As such it is, inter alia, accepted as a non-member state of the United Nations and as a regular member state of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
This internationally recognised statehood gives the Catholic church several advantages not given to other religious or belief organisations that can only act in their roles as non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Thus, in relation to these, the Catholic church has acquired excellent platforms to propagate its religious message and politico-ethical values.
This inequitable situation has been severely criticised by the British Queen’s Counsel and human rights lawyer and judge Geoffrey Robertson. In his recently published book “The Case of the Pope” he delivers a sharp analysis of the way in which the Catholic church has - through its own secretly applied legal system based on the so called Canon Law – protected criminal members of their staff from legal prosecution through the secular law enforcement systems of their respective countries.
This Canon Law system, which is promoted and defended by the Pope himself, has been instrumental in concealing large numbers of cases of sexual abuse of minors committed by Catholic priests and other servants of that church. Robertson reveals with great precision how this obsolete and non-transparent system has been used to conceal a widespread sexual eploitation and oppression of minors. He demonstrates that a lacking regard for their integrity and rehabilitation needs and an astonishing lack of accountability prevail at all levels of the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church.
Nobody should be above the law and no state should be allowed to interfere with the legal system of any other state. The Catholic church, however, still insists on applying their own Canon Law, even in cases where their staff are suspected of serious crimes and in doing so the church is deliberately acting to circumvent the rule of law of several countries.
Why is this disregard for the national sovereignty of other states and interference with their law enforcement systems tolerated by these states?
It is also unclear why a state that has neither a permanent population nor a territory of its own, why a state that shows little respect for the rule of law of other states, why a state that is not a democracy and which is, in fact, not even a state but a religion or a church, why such an entity should be a non-member state of the United Nations and a regular member of the OSCE.
Why is the Catholic church not simply treated as an NGO amongst others and accepted as such – no more, no less?
PS. Mr. Robertson’s book “The Case of the Pope” can be found at
http://www.amazon.de/Case-Pope-Vatican-Accountability-Rights/dp/0241953847
This internationally recognised statehood gives the Catholic church several advantages not given to other religious or belief organisations that can only act in their roles as non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Thus, in relation to these, the Catholic church has acquired excellent platforms to propagate its religious message and politico-ethical values.
This inequitable situation has been severely criticised by the British Queen’s Counsel and human rights lawyer and judge Geoffrey Robertson. In his recently published book “The Case of the Pope” he delivers a sharp analysis of the way in which the Catholic church has - through its own secretly applied legal system based on the so called Canon Law – protected criminal members of their staff from legal prosecution through the secular law enforcement systems of their respective countries.
This Canon Law system, which is promoted and defended by the Pope himself, has been instrumental in concealing large numbers of cases of sexual abuse of minors committed by Catholic priests and other servants of that church. Robertson reveals with great precision how this obsolete and non-transparent system has been used to conceal a widespread sexual eploitation and oppression of minors. He demonstrates that a lacking regard for their integrity and rehabilitation needs and an astonishing lack of accountability prevail at all levels of the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church.
Nobody should be above the law and no state should be allowed to interfere with the legal system of any other state. The Catholic church, however, still insists on applying their own Canon Law, even in cases where their staff are suspected of serious crimes and in doing so the church is deliberately acting to circumvent the rule of law of several countries.
Why is this disregard for the national sovereignty of other states and interference with their law enforcement systems tolerated by these states?
It is also unclear why a state that has neither a permanent population nor a territory of its own, why a state that shows little respect for the rule of law of other states, why a state that is not a democracy and which is, in fact, not even a state but a religion or a church, why such an entity should be a non-member state of the United Nations and a regular member of the OSCE.
Why is the Catholic church not simply treated as an NGO amongst others and accepted as such – no more, no less?
PS. Mr. Robertson’s book “The Case of the Pope” can be found at
http://www.amazon.de/Case-Pope-Vatican-Accountability-Rights/dp/0241953847
onsdag 17 november 2010
Definition of Life
Since the English translation of my Concluding Remarks was published I received a few comments and questions regarding my rather unconventional definition of “life” as it obviously does not conform to the traditional view that life came about with the “birth” of the first cell. One question was how I could define brainless animals and vegetables as being without life.
Here is my answer:
As I have no academic background in biology or chemistry I realise that I am out on very thin ice. As you noticed, my starting point was Descartes’ revelation that he “is” because he thinks. Well, I am no expert on Decartes either, but the little that I have read about him has puzzled me. – If Descartes sees himself in a mirror, he cannot be sure, that what he sees is real, because his eyes may deceive him, but if he thinks that he sees himself in the mirror, then he can be certain that he exists! To my simple mind, that seems to be more like a play with words than deep philosophy.
So, that made me “think”, not to prove for myself that I exist, but to see whether I could improve on that revolutionising statement “cogito, ergo sum”.
The first question is what “cogito” actually means? What is the “I” in “I think” and subesequently included in “I am”? – Am “I” the thought produced by my thinking or some sort of consciousness, i.e. a pure abstraction? Or am “I” the thinking person consisting of a brain, a head and a body of flesh and blood?
If we assume – as I do – that Descartes had this latter definition in mind, then he must have also been convinced of having or having had parents. Thus, if Descartes exists, something else must also exist. Otherwise, he would have neither been created nor sustained in his existence. It follows from this that Decartes did not exist in a vacuum. There must have been an environment.
To discover this environment and what is in it we can use our intellect and our senses. These can deceive us, so we can never be sure of what it really is that we perceive as our environment, but following from the above, there must be something or some things around us that actually exist. Some of it may be alive, the rest may be dead materia, but it all exists.
Decartes’ conclusion “ergo sum” does not say anything as to whether Decartes is part of the world that lives or in that which does not.
Now back to the second leg of “cogito”. What is actually the meaning of the word “think”? - According to my way of “thinking” there is an important difference between simply reacting on stimuli and thinking, which is to assess stimuli, envisage options, form concepts and draw conclusions. (I am aware that this is only one of all possible definitions, but I believe it is sufficient in this context).
For a thinking process a brain is required. At the beginning of the evolution there was no brain and consequently, no thinking. Bio-chemical organisms reacted on changes in their environment, moved around and adapted themselves to changing circumstances. The world got gradually covered by grass, flowers and trees and inhabited by mussels, corals, worms and insects.
Later on some animal species developed brains capable of carrying out a thinking process. The first thought was born! - Reacting on stimuli continued, however, to be the predominant activity.
It is my personal view that it was not the appearance of the first single cell organism but the beginning of “thinking” that marked the beginning of life on earth. All there was, before the first thought was thought, was simply varying forms of bio-chemical machineries. – Therefore I reformulated Descartes’ phrase to read “cogito, ergo vivo”.
Thinking is, however, not the only indication of life. The other one is the “awareness” of our emotions, such as love, hate, fear, etc. This awareness is also inconceivable without a brain. Although the brain’s rational functionality is often severely impaired by very strong emotions, the awareness of loving and being loved is undoubtedly an indication of life. Thus, we can also say, “amo, ergo vivo”.
What it all boils down to is my perception that life is a spiritual phenomenon, not a bio-chemical one. This has led me to the conclusion that without “thinking” or “awareness” there is no life but materia only and various bio-chemical processes. Therefore, the inception of life did not come – as is generally stated - with the appearance of the first single cell organism but with the evolution of the first brains capable of enabling their bearers to “think” and/or reach at least some level of “awareness”.
Here is my answer:
As I have no academic background in biology or chemistry I realise that I am out on very thin ice. As you noticed, my starting point was Descartes’ revelation that he “is” because he thinks. Well, I am no expert on Decartes either, but the little that I have read about him has puzzled me. – If Descartes sees himself in a mirror, he cannot be sure, that what he sees is real, because his eyes may deceive him, but if he thinks that he sees himself in the mirror, then he can be certain that he exists! To my simple mind, that seems to be more like a play with words than deep philosophy.
So, that made me “think”, not to prove for myself that I exist, but to see whether I could improve on that revolutionising statement “cogito, ergo sum”.
The first question is what “cogito” actually means? What is the “I” in “I think” and subesequently included in “I am”? – Am “I” the thought produced by my thinking or some sort of consciousness, i.e. a pure abstraction? Or am “I” the thinking person consisting of a brain, a head and a body of flesh and blood?
If we assume – as I do – that Descartes had this latter definition in mind, then he must have also been convinced of having or having had parents. Thus, if Descartes exists, something else must also exist. Otherwise, he would have neither been created nor sustained in his existence. It follows from this that Decartes did not exist in a vacuum. There must have been an environment.
To discover this environment and what is in it we can use our intellect and our senses. These can deceive us, so we can never be sure of what it really is that we perceive as our environment, but following from the above, there must be something or some things around us that actually exist. Some of it may be alive, the rest may be dead materia, but it all exists.
Decartes’ conclusion “ergo sum” does not say anything as to whether Decartes is part of the world that lives or in that which does not.
Now back to the second leg of “cogito”. What is actually the meaning of the word “think”? - According to my way of “thinking” there is an important difference between simply reacting on stimuli and thinking, which is to assess stimuli, envisage options, form concepts and draw conclusions. (I am aware that this is only one of all possible definitions, but I believe it is sufficient in this context).
For a thinking process a brain is required. At the beginning of the evolution there was no brain and consequently, no thinking. Bio-chemical organisms reacted on changes in their environment, moved around and adapted themselves to changing circumstances. The world got gradually covered by grass, flowers and trees and inhabited by mussels, corals, worms and insects.
Later on some animal species developed brains capable of carrying out a thinking process. The first thought was born! - Reacting on stimuli continued, however, to be the predominant activity.
It is my personal view that it was not the appearance of the first single cell organism but the beginning of “thinking” that marked the beginning of life on earth. All there was, before the first thought was thought, was simply varying forms of bio-chemical machineries. – Therefore I reformulated Descartes’ phrase to read “cogito, ergo vivo”.
Thinking is, however, not the only indication of life. The other one is the “awareness” of our emotions, such as love, hate, fear, etc. This awareness is also inconceivable without a brain. Although the brain’s rational functionality is often severely impaired by very strong emotions, the awareness of loving and being loved is undoubtedly an indication of life. Thus, we can also say, “amo, ergo vivo”.
What it all boils down to is my perception that life is a spiritual phenomenon, not a bio-chemical one. This has led me to the conclusion that without “thinking” or “awareness” there is no life but materia only and various bio-chemical processes. Therefore, the inception of life did not come – as is generally stated - with the appearance of the first single cell organism but with the evolution of the first brains capable of enabling their bearers to “think” and/or reach at least some level of “awareness”.
tisdag 16 november 2010
Confession of Beliefs
The following is an English translation of "Min trosbekännelse" that was included in the chapter called "Epilogue".
I believe in love to others and to nature.
I believe that all need to be loved and give love.
I believe in a dignified life for all.
I believe in democratic principles of free elections, freedom of thought and expression, a free press, the right to form associations and in everyone’s right to further their own wellbeing and happiness, albeit not at the expense of others.
I believe in the joy of appreciating cultural differences and in everybody’s right to observe their own traditions as long as they do not harm others.
I believe in reason and in our right and duty to seek with compassion rational solutions to all problems.
I believe in generally accepted scientific methods to enhance and widen our knowledge of the world and all there is in it.
I believe we should comport ourselves in relation to others as we would wish them to do in relation to us.
I believe we should in all our doings be driven by positive thoughts but never by feelings of shame or other kinds of imaginary compulsion.
I believe in everyone’s right to always seek enjoyment and delight in all things they do as long as they do not harm others or in extreme cases themselves.
I believe in the freedom from all oppression including religious oppression.
I believe that we ought to fight superstition, magic, prejudice, religious dogmas and all other delusions and never get tired of doing so.
I believe there are no races but billions of different ways to look.
I believe that when we are about to die we should let our organs be used for transplantation and that we should do so joyfully in the hope of being able to contribute to the prolongation of the lives of others or to reduce their sufferings.
I believe that capital punishment should be abolished everywhere and for all times.
Amen.
I believe in love to others and to nature.
I believe that all need to be loved and give love.
I believe in a dignified life for all.
I believe in democratic principles of free elections, freedom of thought and expression, a free press, the right to form associations and in everyone’s right to further their own wellbeing and happiness, albeit not at the expense of others.
I believe in the joy of appreciating cultural differences and in everybody’s right to observe their own traditions as long as they do not harm others.
I believe in reason and in our right and duty to seek with compassion rational solutions to all problems.
I believe in generally accepted scientific methods to enhance and widen our knowledge of the world and all there is in it.
I believe we should comport ourselves in relation to others as we would wish them to do in relation to us.
I believe we should in all our doings be driven by positive thoughts but never by feelings of shame or other kinds of imaginary compulsion.
I believe in everyone’s right to always seek enjoyment and delight in all things they do as long as they do not harm others or in extreme cases themselves.
I believe in the freedom from all oppression including religious oppression.
I believe that we ought to fight superstition, magic, prejudice, religious dogmas and all other delusions and never get tired of doing so.
I believe there are no races but billions of different ways to look.
I believe that when we are about to die we should let our organs be used for transplantation and that we should do so joyfully in the hope of being able to contribute to the prolongation of the lives of others or to reduce their sufferings.
I believe that capital punishment should be abolished everywhere and for all times.
Amen.
Concluding Remarks
The following text is an English translation of the last chapter of "Tro Vett Vanvett" ("Faith Sanity Insanity")
If you were hoping to learn about new unique ideas or arguments, you are probably quite disappointed. Indeed, it is not easy to say something new on a subject that has been studied and debated for thousands of years and on which so much has been written by prestigious philosophers. The old saying "there is nothing new under the sun" is hard to deny when you venture into areas of religion and belief.
Not even the expression "the eternal book about the universe" is entirely new. Initially, I thought I had invented it myself, but a poetic reference to " the great book of the universe" had been made already some four hundred years earlier by noone less than Galileo Galilei himself. No need for further comparisons.
What could possibly be seen as something unusual about my writing is the disrespectful and rather mundane treatment of a sacred matters that one is traditionally expected to approach with great humility and solemn respect for established religious views and beliefs. Is this perhaps the reason why so many appear to be satisfied with empty phrases aimed at answering sincere questions about God, how he actually is and how we can understand his will and intentions behind all that happens in the world? An example of such empty phrases is that "God's ways are inscrutable", a phrase which is usually pronounced with a dignified look of profound thoughtfulness.
During the CNN hearing of the republican presidential candidates in the fall of 2008, the baptist priest Huckabee expressed himself in the following way about the Bible: "There are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, but I am not supposed to, because the Bible is the revelations of an infinite Good and no finite person is ever going to fully understand him. If they do, their God is too small." - For this he received a resounding applause of the audience who apparently took the view that the answer was brilliant, which it may also have been in that particular situation. It is probably also not simple even for deeply religious clerical servants to understand the God that they worship. But why should one then worship God, if one is neither able nor even wishes to be able to understand how he is?
God is by definition all-powerful, but why would he be good, loving, forgiving, and a guarantee of eternal life, isn’t this just a fiction held by those who wish that God would be like that? With equally strong support in the Holy Scriptures, it can be claimed that God is a punitive and revengeful god who will when time is ripe "separate the wheat from the chaff". Perhaps there is a greater reason for us to fear God than to worship him?
According to the Christian faith we are actually called to do both, both love and fear God. The likely idea behind these hypotheses is that one should love God, because he is good and fear him because he is almighty. Can anyone think of a more schizophrenic message?
When we look around the world with all its evilness and misery, all the suffering and destitution, it is difficult to see how God could be both good and all-powerful. This question is ancient and widely known under the name of theodicy. It was one of many issues discussed in the book, however, without reference to that particular term.
I am not aware of having ever heard an intelligent answer to this question. Is there such an answer? In any case, the dogma of God's omnipotence and goodness is repeated over and over again as if it had never been questioned or the problem simply solved by reference to God’s inscrutability.
The conversations taking place in the book develop in ways that I think is common among people who have known each other for a very long time. They are not meant to be viewed as scientific discussions with high demands on rigourous stringency, but rather as a lively exchange of personal thoughts about religious and other lifestances. As you surely noticed, my friends were kind enough to give me very good opportunities to develop my own views. Their replies and standpoints were, however, not selected for the reason that they would be easy to refute but because they seem to me representative of ways in which many people ponder over these ultimate questions.
Even though the talks were not scientific, they touched on some specific scientific subjects. One of these is the "mischievous" electrons as Sven told us about in the sixth chapter. What he was referring to was the discovery that the physicist Werner Heisenberg made in the 1920s, and which has since been called the "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle."
Einstein initially refused to accept that it would be impossible to determine the behaviour of any physical element. In a letter dated 29 april 1924 to his colleague and friend Max Born – winner of the Nobel Prize in physics 1954 - he wrote the following lines translated by myself from German: "The thought that an electron that is hit by a beam can freely decide to choose the moment and the direction in which it shall move is to me unacceptable. If so, then I would rather be a shoemaker or even en employee at a casino than to be a physicist. My repeated attempts to give the quants a more tangible shape have, however, not succeeded."
It is against this background that one can understand Einstein's later and more famous expression that God does not play dice. So he wrote to Born on 4 December 1926 (also here in own my translation): "Quantum mechanics are very respectable. But an inner voice tells me that it is not the real Jacob. The theory offers a lot, but it conducts us hardly any closer to the Old man’s secret. In any case am I convinced that he does not play dice ".
Born experienced Einstein's rejection as a "hard blow". He noted, however, that Einstein actually did not put forward any real justification for his criticism but only justified it by reference to his "inner voice" and that God would not play dice. Was this an indication that Einstein, the possibly greatest scientific genius of all times, was genuinely religious? This is a question widely discussed even today. Richard Dawkins has for example touched on this topic in the introduction to his book "The God Delusion" and the Israeli physicist and philosopher Max Jammer has written an entire book on it with the title "Einstein and Religion".
The important thing here is not, however, Einstein's criticism or whether he by any chance was a deeply religious person. The essential thing is that Heisenbergs theory in fact has stood its ground over so many years and shaken the perception that everything is predetermined. At the same time it lent a scientific support to the idea that people have a free will. Much of what we do, think and say may be anticipated, but only with varying degrees of uncertainty. We are shaped by our genes and we react to what happens around us, but we can usually freely choose between the options available to us and these are normally quite many. The choices we make are our own personal choices. We are no robots.
This idea has long been challenged by prophets of determinism, beginning with the Greek philosopher Democritus till the French 19th century mathematician Laplace. However, it seems that it is now resting on a fairly strong scientific basis.
"Cogito, ergo sum", said Cartesius in the 17th century. He viewed his ablility to think as a proof of his own existence. The existence of stars and stones and other tangible things might well be doubted, but not his own. That he was able to question it proved to him that he actually existed.
In my own humble opinion Cartesius could have gone a step further and said: "I think, thus I live". Against this statement may be argued that even an earth-worm lives, even though it cannot think, and that life came about with the appearance of the first single cell organism. Is it so?
Biochemical researchers are likely to agree that life did not occur for the first time at one single marvelous moment ("such as when two atoms have sex with each other"), but through a long molecular process that led to the formation of single cell creatures with ability to develop into ever more complex species of plants and animals.
On this issue the chemistry professor, bio-physicist and Nobel Laureate Manfred Eigen has pronounced himself as follows: " ‘the origin of life‘, i.e. the development from a macromolecule to a microorganism is just one step among others, similar to that from elementary particle to atom, from atom to molecule ... or even that from single-cell organisms to organic compounds, and finally to the human central nervous system. Why would this step from the molecule to a single-cell organism be viewed with greater respect than any of the others? " (My translation)
In a book by the well-known catholic professor Hans Küng from where I have quoted Eigen’s statement I also found the following said by another theologian with the name of E. C. Hirsch: "The origin of life is no longer the secretive place where God would be found more than elsewhere. Either one believes in God, or one does it not here either. A proof of God does not present itself. Thus, it stays with the old question: ‘why is there anything at all and not nothing? ' With this, the secret of life rests within the secrecy of materia. From where has the matter come that has (under appropriate conditions) the property of producing life? " (My translation)
Beneath this bridge between science and theology one may sit down to ponder about what life is and which its origin is. For my own part, I am inclined to believe that life for its existence depends on the thought and vice versa. No thought without life. No life in the strict sense and especially not in a human sense without the ability to think. - Cogito, ergo vivo!
This approach is also consistent with the way in which death is defined in countries such as Sweden. When the possibility of thinking no longer exists, then also life is gone.
But what happens with thoughts that are not being thought any more? – Here is an answer given by Viktor Rydberg, a Swedish writer and poet of the 19th century.
“Your righteous thoughts, your loving kiss
the dreams you dreamt, no time can kill
such harvest lives and always will
belong in kingdom of eternities”
No doubt, this is a truly inspiring message, uplifting, encouraging, beautiful and poetic. But does anyone think that it is true? – What happens to all poems, when noone reads them anymore?
Not everyone shares the scientifically founded theory of evolution. In addition to those Norwegian members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church whom we met at a restaurant in Rab, there are many who advocate a theory of creation that is based on a literal interpretation of the old testament. The complexity of nature and the human species is for them the proof that everything was created in accordance with an 'intelligent design'. For them this is the Truth, no matter what.
How often has it not surprised me that people who are sceptical to religions are often accused of being "Besserwissers" claiming to have found the Truth, while others with cemented religious beliefs seem to merit particularly high degrees of respect and reverence.
In fact, it should be the opposite. Non-religious people may form their philosophy in a rational manner basing it on scientific observations and logical reasoning. With an approach like that one must be prepared to change one’s conclusions, if conditions change or if it is demonstrated that the logic is flawed. Our concept of truth must always be questioned. It must never be like carved in stone.
Those who are religiously convinced of having found the Truth do not find it necessary to defend this "Truth" with rational arguments, which they anyway reject as being too restrictive. According to Huckabee and others it is anyhow not possible to understand God. His routes are inscrutable and it is impossible to navigate along such routes with the help of logical thinking. Instead, we shall have to rely on something that we neither can nor even want to understand. Within Christianity one refers to Jesus' words: "I am the way, the truth and the life". – For convinced believers this is sufficient. With them, it is difficult to discuss as they know already all they need to know. They have found the Truth. They know better. Is it not these people who are the real "Besserwissers"?
My problem with atheism and some of its proponents is not so much the self-confidence with which they trumpet their message but their alacrity. Sometimes it seems as if death and the anxiety people feel when facing it would not be so much to worry about. You can usually hear atheists express themselves in the following way: "We live only once in this wonderful world and only a short time. Therefore, let's not waste our valuable time to think of death and the time thereafter but on how best we can live our lives before we die."
This is an essentially rational way of thinking and not without wisdom. But what does one say to those who are afraid of dying and disappearing into the eternal oblivion? – That they should not to be afraid? That there is no life beyond death and therefore nothing to worry about? – For those who are afraid of hell, it may be comforting, but hardly for the others. Throughout history, many have struggled with their anxiety when faced with the atheistic perspective that all that awaits you at the end of life is death. Herbert Tingsten was one of those who openly declared his fear of dying, both on TV and in books and articles. Others have also dealt with the same subject, sometimes in an artistic way in film and poetry, like Ingmar Bergman, Pär Lagerkvist and others. Outside the public stage one does not usually speak about one’s fear of death. It is not a subject that lends itself very well for discussion at dinner parties. Nevertheless, many belabour it in silence.
For those who are convinced that there is a life after death and not afraid of ending up in hell the fear of dying should not be very strong. However, for many atheists, who do not believe in a continuation of life beyond death, the fear of their ultimate obliteration may be a big problem. Against this background, I find it strange that neither of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christer Sturmark is treating this problem more seriously in their respective books, "The God Delusion”, "End of Faith" and "Faith and Knowledge 2.0 ".
A lot can be said in favour of atheism, such as its contribution to the human intellectual emancipation and its struggle against religious repression in all its forms. Unlike some religions it has, however, no earthshakingly joyful message to deliver, no gospel. On the contrary, it has a rather sad outlook on what awaits us after death, namely nothing. This notion is based on a well developed skepticism, a kind of honesty in recognition of the fact that the incredible remains incredible regardless of the number of people who believe it and of the strength of their faith. Whilst the firm believer thinks he sees the "Truth", the atheist chooses to see it in the white of the eye.
As mentioned in the first chapter, the world's most eminent science community has taught us that the universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. This may seem to most of us a whole eternity, but it is not. Eternity is longer. No one knows how much longer. The concept of eternity cannot be imagined. However, it is not impossible to imagine that there was a time also 13.8 billion years ago, or 13.9, or 14.0 etc. It is the opposite that is difficult to understand, namely that, according to the same scientists, there was no time at all before the Big Bang. Also, we do not know what caused the Big Bang. We are again faced with the old question why there is something rather than nothing?
What it was that triggered the process which began with the Big Bang is still an open question. This phenomenon cannot be explained with the help of scientific methods. Not yet at least, I may add. Thus, the subject leaves ample room for speculations in the truest sense of the word, for reflections, fantasies, dreams, etc. In this complete lack of knowledge no opinion is wrong, nor is anyone right and nothing can be proven. Some say that they do not know and abstain from speculating. Most people tend, however, to believe in some sort of primary power, a universal consciousness or a cosmic spirit. Many people choose to name this phenomenon God without worrying too much about who created him.
Another question is what kind of relation this primary power or God has to the universe as it is today. Does he carefully follow all that happens? Does he involve himself in the functioning of galaxies and nebulae? Does he even know where our earth is? In this scientific vacuum, there are enormous opportunities for everyone to develop his/her most imaginative concepts. Also here, there is no right or wrong, because nothing can be proven, nor disproven.
Similarly, we can ponder about ourselves. As previously discussed, we may with reasonable certainty assume that we exist. We may even go so far as assume that we live, as we are able to think. We have reason to believe that we have a free will with which we have evolved to unique creatures. Everyone has his/her own personality. All of us perceive ourselves as subjects saying "I" about ourselves and experience the world around us with all our senses. We remember. We have a consciousness. All this together, we may call our soul.
The physicist Paul Davies, who in several books dealt with the borderland between metaphysics and physics, says in his book "The Mind of God": “I cannot believe that our existence in the universe is just a twist of fate, a historical coincidence, a temporary spot of light in the cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may not mean anything, but the existence of an awareness in any organism on any planet in the universe is certainly a fact of fundamental importance.”
It has been said that a person loses a few grams of her weight, when she dies. Is this the soul that leaves the deceased? I would find it hard to believe that, but the question remains - what happens with the "soul", when we die? Does our consciousness live on in a spiritual dimension or is it strictly tied up with our poor brain cells?
Is there, as Davies seems to suggest, a connection between an x-dimensional cosmic consciousness and the individual human immaterial soul? Here one may again imagine several scenarios, one more fantastic than the other. Everyone can create his/her own view of the world in precisely the way that suits him/her best. One can speculate as one may wish. No one is right, and none is wrong for nobody knows anything. All must be free to develop their own theories without pressure from any side, no matter how benevolent. This is the meaning of freedom of religion.
Noone needs to learn from others which theory or belief that is correct and which is wrong. This is patently absurd, because none can be based on verifiable scientific observations. It is not about reality but about dreams of life in other from us hidden dimensions. Here we can get no help from any theology, because there is no knowledge of God.
Each in freedom created religious belief is profoundly personal, shaped by the individual with a mix of thoughts, feelings, fears and desires, hopes and worries, spirituality, and poetry.
Any such belief may have meaning for the believer. It can bring comfort and provide a form of security. It harms noone but helps to legitimise a religious thinking that may often lead to serious problems. They occur, for example, when the believers work hard to convince others of the "Truth" they found, when such conversations exert pressures of different kinds, when they lead to indoctrination and violations of the freedom to form one’s own life stance. When faith does not remain a matter for the individual, when like-minded believers gather in sects, congregations and organized religions that demand strict loyalty of their members and have the power to control their behaviour, then there is a growing risk that those who wish to think freely or differently will no longer be tolerated. Then we can expect terror, other acts of violence and widespread religious repression.
I therefore believe: we need no preachers, no missionaries, no inquisitions, no Crusades, no holy wars, no occupation of sacred places, no religious repression – in short, we need no religious sects or religious communities. Nor do we need any organized religions. WE NEED NO RELIGIONS!
Religions have many rules. They restrict people's freedom and make life difficult for those who have to adapt. Here's a selection of such rules:
* Provisions on Muslim women's clothing restrict their freedom and tend to underscore their social inferiority in relation to men. About the status of women and their humiliation in Muslim environments we can learn a lot from several different sources. One of these is Aayan Hirsi Ali's book "The Caged Virgin: an Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam.
* Muslim men and religious male Jews must wear a beard. Orthodox Jewish men must have curly sidelocks in front of their ears and their wives have to cover their hair, when they are away from home or shave it off and wear a wig. Why this interference in strictly personal matters?
* Muslims and Jews must not eat pork, a prohibition which Christians have not accepted and why would they do that? Pork is a quite suitable kind of nourishment for humans. If due to ethical or other reasons one would prefer vegetarian food, then one will abstain from eating meat, but that would apply to all kinds of meat, not just pork
* Jehovah's Witnesses may not eat food made of blood such as blood-pudding.
* Mormons must not drink coffee or tea, nor may they smoke.
* Faithful Muslims must not drink wine or other alcoholic beverages.
* Religious rules do also regulate when and what to eat during the Christian and Jewish holidays and for Muslims during the month of Ramadan.
* Jewish and Muslim rules prescribe how animals should be slaughtered and in orthodox Jewish homes, one must not keep certain types of food in the same places as other kinds of food, nor must they be placed on the same table at the same time.
* What we can and cannot do during holidays must also be regulated and in orthodox Jewish circles such rules are taken very seriously.
* Less surprising is perhaps that Christian, Muslim and Jewish rules prescribe for the believers how they must pray, when they should stand up and sit down, when they should be on their knees, which way to turn themselves and how to bow.
* Noone must crack a joke or speak critically about Mohammed. Anyone doing that risks to be murdered by some dutiful islamist acting on behalf of an Ayatollah.
* In several religions, their authoritative representatives take a specific interest in interfering with people's sexual behaviours. This interest is, however, not primarily focused on the prevention of prostitution or trafficking. Other issues seem to be much more important, such as prohibition of adulterous relationships, homosexuality, the use of contraceptives, etc.
* The Witnesses of Jehovah must not accept to receive blood transfusions, even if they otherwise risk to die on the operation table. A long list of people who died for this reason, including many children, is published on http://www.ajwrb.org/about.shtml. Behind this Web page is a group that calls itself the associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood. They struggle to reform the official policy of the Witnesses.
In the foregoing I gave some examples of sectarian prohibitions and restrictions that limit the believers in their choices. This list could be made very much longer. It is difficult to understand what all these rules have to do with religion, except that the majority of the rules have origins in one or the other passage in some ancient scripture.
Preachers of religions do, however, not restrict themselves to prescribing what their members must not do. They also provide guidance on what they have to do to get into heaven, to arrive there quickly and safely as martyrs, to escape hell, to gain salvation and avoid damnation, to find the eternal truth and do God’s will.
As mentioned already, none of this is based on any knowledge of God and his will, because no such knowledge exists. In the eminent confusion of religious beliefs about God and on whose side he is, religions tend to lead to discord and rivalry amongst each other and there are similar trends also within the religions. Religions do not unite, they divide, which often leads to terrorism and religious persecutions. Therefore, I believe that a world without religions would be a freer and safer place to live in.
The professor of religion and baptist reverend Charles Kimball has written an interesting book entitled "When religion becomes evil" in which he examines how seemingly peaceful religions can become evil and threatening. Kimball points out that the following five characteristics may serve as alarm bells:
When religious leaders claim to possess the absolute truth
When they demand blind obedience
When they announce that time will soon be ended
When they let the goals justify the means and
When they declare holy war,
In spite of the fact that he fully understands the implications of the development he describes, namely oppression, mutilations, murders, terrorism and “holy“ wars, he does not believe that the fault lies with religions but with the human tendency to distort them.
However, those accused by Kimball to "distort" religions are those who go back to their origins, to the oldest and most genuine of all documents, to the historical foundations of religions, i.e. their most ancient scriptures. Through all our times people have been bickering about which religious interpretation is the one that is “true” and about who has distorted what. When it has proved impossible to peacefully convince “the others” of the "correct" doctrine, one has not hesitated to condemn, oppress, persecute, expel, torture, burn or beat to death those who "distorted" the faith, i.e. the "infidels." The history of religions is filled with countless "true" teachings and an equal number of "false" ones.
Against this bleak background I would like to conclude by quoting another poem by Pär Lagerkvist, also this from "Anxiety" which was published in 1916.
Here I wish to stay,
silent.
Here I will lower my head.
Holy spaces.
No human words are true.
Neither any words of God, I feel inclined to add.
If you were hoping to learn about new unique ideas or arguments, you are probably quite disappointed. Indeed, it is not easy to say something new on a subject that has been studied and debated for thousands of years and on which so much has been written by prestigious philosophers. The old saying "there is nothing new under the sun" is hard to deny when you venture into areas of religion and belief.
Not even the expression "the eternal book about the universe" is entirely new. Initially, I thought I had invented it myself, but a poetic reference to " the great book of the universe" had been made already some four hundred years earlier by noone less than Galileo Galilei himself. No need for further comparisons.
What could possibly be seen as something unusual about my writing is the disrespectful and rather mundane treatment of a sacred matters that one is traditionally expected to approach with great humility and solemn respect for established religious views and beliefs. Is this perhaps the reason why so many appear to be satisfied with empty phrases aimed at answering sincere questions about God, how he actually is and how we can understand his will and intentions behind all that happens in the world? An example of such empty phrases is that "God's ways are inscrutable", a phrase which is usually pronounced with a dignified look of profound thoughtfulness.
During the CNN hearing of the republican presidential candidates in the fall of 2008, the baptist priest Huckabee expressed himself in the following way about the Bible: "There are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, but I am not supposed to, because the Bible is the revelations of an infinite Good and no finite person is ever going to fully understand him. If they do, their God is too small." - For this he received a resounding applause of the audience who apparently took the view that the answer was brilliant, which it may also have been in that particular situation. It is probably also not simple even for deeply religious clerical servants to understand the God that they worship. But why should one then worship God, if one is neither able nor even wishes to be able to understand how he is?
God is by definition all-powerful, but why would he be good, loving, forgiving, and a guarantee of eternal life, isn’t this just a fiction held by those who wish that God would be like that? With equally strong support in the Holy Scriptures, it can be claimed that God is a punitive and revengeful god who will when time is ripe "separate the wheat from the chaff". Perhaps there is a greater reason for us to fear God than to worship him?
According to the Christian faith we are actually called to do both, both love and fear God. The likely idea behind these hypotheses is that one should love God, because he is good and fear him because he is almighty. Can anyone think of a more schizophrenic message?
When we look around the world with all its evilness and misery, all the suffering and destitution, it is difficult to see how God could be both good and all-powerful. This question is ancient and widely known under the name of theodicy. It was one of many issues discussed in the book, however, without reference to that particular term.
I am not aware of having ever heard an intelligent answer to this question. Is there such an answer? In any case, the dogma of God's omnipotence and goodness is repeated over and over again as if it had never been questioned or the problem simply solved by reference to God’s inscrutability.
The conversations taking place in the book develop in ways that I think is common among people who have known each other for a very long time. They are not meant to be viewed as scientific discussions with high demands on rigourous stringency, but rather as a lively exchange of personal thoughts about religious and other lifestances. As you surely noticed, my friends were kind enough to give me very good opportunities to develop my own views. Their replies and standpoints were, however, not selected for the reason that they would be easy to refute but because they seem to me representative of ways in which many people ponder over these ultimate questions.
Even though the talks were not scientific, they touched on some specific scientific subjects. One of these is the "mischievous" electrons as Sven told us about in the sixth chapter. What he was referring to was the discovery that the physicist Werner Heisenberg made in the 1920s, and which has since been called the "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle."
Einstein initially refused to accept that it would be impossible to determine the behaviour of any physical element. In a letter dated 29 april 1924 to his colleague and friend Max Born – winner of the Nobel Prize in physics 1954 - he wrote the following lines translated by myself from German: "The thought that an electron that is hit by a beam can freely decide to choose the moment and the direction in which it shall move is to me unacceptable. If so, then I would rather be a shoemaker or even en employee at a casino than to be a physicist. My repeated attempts to give the quants a more tangible shape have, however, not succeeded."
It is against this background that one can understand Einstein's later and more famous expression that God does not play dice. So he wrote to Born on 4 December 1926 (also here in own my translation): "Quantum mechanics are very respectable. But an inner voice tells me that it is not the real Jacob. The theory offers a lot, but it conducts us hardly any closer to the Old man’s secret. In any case am I convinced that he does not play dice ".
Born experienced Einstein's rejection as a "hard blow". He noted, however, that Einstein actually did not put forward any real justification for his criticism but only justified it by reference to his "inner voice" and that God would not play dice. Was this an indication that Einstein, the possibly greatest scientific genius of all times, was genuinely religious? This is a question widely discussed even today. Richard Dawkins has for example touched on this topic in the introduction to his book "The God Delusion" and the Israeli physicist and philosopher Max Jammer has written an entire book on it with the title "Einstein and Religion".
The important thing here is not, however, Einstein's criticism or whether he by any chance was a deeply religious person. The essential thing is that Heisenbergs theory in fact has stood its ground over so many years and shaken the perception that everything is predetermined. At the same time it lent a scientific support to the idea that people have a free will. Much of what we do, think and say may be anticipated, but only with varying degrees of uncertainty. We are shaped by our genes and we react to what happens around us, but we can usually freely choose between the options available to us and these are normally quite many. The choices we make are our own personal choices. We are no robots.
This idea has long been challenged by prophets of determinism, beginning with the Greek philosopher Democritus till the French 19th century mathematician Laplace. However, it seems that it is now resting on a fairly strong scientific basis.
"Cogito, ergo sum", said Cartesius in the 17th century. He viewed his ablility to think as a proof of his own existence. The existence of stars and stones and other tangible things might well be doubted, but not his own. That he was able to question it proved to him that he actually existed.
In my own humble opinion Cartesius could have gone a step further and said: "I think, thus I live". Against this statement may be argued that even an earth-worm lives, even though it cannot think, and that life came about with the appearance of the first single cell organism. Is it so?
Biochemical researchers are likely to agree that life did not occur for the first time at one single marvelous moment ("such as when two atoms have sex with each other"), but through a long molecular process that led to the formation of single cell creatures with ability to develop into ever more complex species of plants and animals.
On this issue the chemistry professor, bio-physicist and Nobel Laureate Manfred Eigen has pronounced himself as follows: " ‘the origin of life‘, i.e. the development from a macromolecule to a microorganism is just one step among others, similar to that from elementary particle to atom, from atom to molecule ... or even that from single-cell organisms to organic compounds, and finally to the human central nervous system. Why would this step from the molecule to a single-cell organism be viewed with greater respect than any of the others? " (My translation)
In a book by the well-known catholic professor Hans Küng from where I have quoted Eigen’s statement I also found the following said by another theologian with the name of E. C. Hirsch: "The origin of life is no longer the secretive place where God would be found more than elsewhere. Either one believes in God, or one does it not here either. A proof of God does not present itself. Thus, it stays with the old question: ‘why is there anything at all and not nothing? ' With this, the secret of life rests within the secrecy of materia. From where has the matter come that has (under appropriate conditions) the property of producing life? " (My translation)
Beneath this bridge between science and theology one may sit down to ponder about what life is and which its origin is. For my own part, I am inclined to believe that life for its existence depends on the thought and vice versa. No thought without life. No life in the strict sense and especially not in a human sense without the ability to think. - Cogito, ergo vivo!
This approach is also consistent with the way in which death is defined in countries such as Sweden. When the possibility of thinking no longer exists, then also life is gone.
But what happens with thoughts that are not being thought any more? – Here is an answer given by Viktor Rydberg, a Swedish writer and poet of the 19th century.
“Your righteous thoughts, your loving kiss
the dreams you dreamt, no time can kill
such harvest lives and always will
belong in kingdom of eternities”
No doubt, this is a truly inspiring message, uplifting, encouraging, beautiful and poetic. But does anyone think that it is true? – What happens to all poems, when noone reads them anymore?
Not everyone shares the scientifically founded theory of evolution. In addition to those Norwegian members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church whom we met at a restaurant in Rab, there are many who advocate a theory of creation that is based on a literal interpretation of the old testament. The complexity of nature and the human species is for them the proof that everything was created in accordance with an 'intelligent design'. For them this is the Truth, no matter what.
How often has it not surprised me that people who are sceptical to religions are often accused of being "Besserwissers" claiming to have found the Truth, while others with cemented religious beliefs seem to merit particularly high degrees of respect and reverence.
In fact, it should be the opposite. Non-religious people may form their philosophy in a rational manner basing it on scientific observations and logical reasoning. With an approach like that one must be prepared to change one’s conclusions, if conditions change or if it is demonstrated that the logic is flawed. Our concept of truth must always be questioned. It must never be like carved in stone.
Those who are religiously convinced of having found the Truth do not find it necessary to defend this "Truth" with rational arguments, which they anyway reject as being too restrictive. According to Huckabee and others it is anyhow not possible to understand God. His routes are inscrutable and it is impossible to navigate along such routes with the help of logical thinking. Instead, we shall have to rely on something that we neither can nor even want to understand. Within Christianity one refers to Jesus' words: "I am the way, the truth and the life". – For convinced believers this is sufficient. With them, it is difficult to discuss as they know already all they need to know. They have found the Truth. They know better. Is it not these people who are the real "Besserwissers"?
My problem with atheism and some of its proponents is not so much the self-confidence with which they trumpet their message but their alacrity. Sometimes it seems as if death and the anxiety people feel when facing it would not be so much to worry about. You can usually hear atheists express themselves in the following way: "We live only once in this wonderful world and only a short time. Therefore, let's not waste our valuable time to think of death and the time thereafter but on how best we can live our lives before we die."
This is an essentially rational way of thinking and not without wisdom. But what does one say to those who are afraid of dying and disappearing into the eternal oblivion? – That they should not to be afraid? That there is no life beyond death and therefore nothing to worry about? – For those who are afraid of hell, it may be comforting, but hardly for the others. Throughout history, many have struggled with their anxiety when faced with the atheistic perspective that all that awaits you at the end of life is death. Herbert Tingsten was one of those who openly declared his fear of dying, both on TV and in books and articles. Others have also dealt with the same subject, sometimes in an artistic way in film and poetry, like Ingmar Bergman, Pär Lagerkvist and others. Outside the public stage one does not usually speak about one’s fear of death. It is not a subject that lends itself very well for discussion at dinner parties. Nevertheless, many belabour it in silence.
For those who are convinced that there is a life after death and not afraid of ending up in hell the fear of dying should not be very strong. However, for many atheists, who do not believe in a continuation of life beyond death, the fear of their ultimate obliteration may be a big problem. Against this background, I find it strange that neither of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christer Sturmark is treating this problem more seriously in their respective books, "The God Delusion”, "End of Faith" and "Faith and Knowledge 2.0 ".
A lot can be said in favour of atheism, such as its contribution to the human intellectual emancipation and its struggle against religious repression in all its forms. Unlike some religions it has, however, no earthshakingly joyful message to deliver, no gospel. On the contrary, it has a rather sad outlook on what awaits us after death, namely nothing. This notion is based on a well developed skepticism, a kind of honesty in recognition of the fact that the incredible remains incredible regardless of the number of people who believe it and of the strength of their faith. Whilst the firm believer thinks he sees the "Truth", the atheist chooses to see it in the white of the eye.
As mentioned in the first chapter, the world's most eminent science community has taught us that the universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. This may seem to most of us a whole eternity, but it is not. Eternity is longer. No one knows how much longer. The concept of eternity cannot be imagined. However, it is not impossible to imagine that there was a time also 13.8 billion years ago, or 13.9, or 14.0 etc. It is the opposite that is difficult to understand, namely that, according to the same scientists, there was no time at all before the Big Bang. Also, we do not know what caused the Big Bang. We are again faced with the old question why there is something rather than nothing?
What it was that triggered the process which began with the Big Bang is still an open question. This phenomenon cannot be explained with the help of scientific methods. Not yet at least, I may add. Thus, the subject leaves ample room for speculations in the truest sense of the word, for reflections, fantasies, dreams, etc. In this complete lack of knowledge no opinion is wrong, nor is anyone right and nothing can be proven. Some say that they do not know and abstain from speculating. Most people tend, however, to believe in some sort of primary power, a universal consciousness or a cosmic spirit. Many people choose to name this phenomenon God without worrying too much about who created him.
Another question is what kind of relation this primary power or God has to the universe as it is today. Does he carefully follow all that happens? Does he involve himself in the functioning of galaxies and nebulae? Does he even know where our earth is? In this scientific vacuum, there are enormous opportunities for everyone to develop his/her most imaginative concepts. Also here, there is no right or wrong, because nothing can be proven, nor disproven.
Similarly, we can ponder about ourselves. As previously discussed, we may with reasonable certainty assume that we exist. We may even go so far as assume that we live, as we are able to think. We have reason to believe that we have a free will with which we have evolved to unique creatures. Everyone has his/her own personality. All of us perceive ourselves as subjects saying "I" about ourselves and experience the world around us with all our senses. We remember. We have a consciousness. All this together, we may call our soul.
The physicist Paul Davies, who in several books dealt with the borderland between metaphysics and physics, says in his book "The Mind of God": “I cannot believe that our existence in the universe is just a twist of fate, a historical coincidence, a temporary spot of light in the cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may not mean anything, but the existence of an awareness in any organism on any planet in the universe is certainly a fact of fundamental importance.”
It has been said that a person loses a few grams of her weight, when she dies. Is this the soul that leaves the deceased? I would find it hard to believe that, but the question remains - what happens with the "soul", when we die? Does our consciousness live on in a spiritual dimension or is it strictly tied up with our poor brain cells?
Is there, as Davies seems to suggest, a connection between an x-dimensional cosmic consciousness and the individual human immaterial soul? Here one may again imagine several scenarios, one more fantastic than the other. Everyone can create his/her own view of the world in precisely the way that suits him/her best. One can speculate as one may wish. No one is right, and none is wrong for nobody knows anything. All must be free to develop their own theories without pressure from any side, no matter how benevolent. This is the meaning of freedom of religion.
Noone needs to learn from others which theory or belief that is correct and which is wrong. This is patently absurd, because none can be based on verifiable scientific observations. It is not about reality but about dreams of life in other from us hidden dimensions. Here we can get no help from any theology, because there is no knowledge of God.
Each in freedom created religious belief is profoundly personal, shaped by the individual with a mix of thoughts, feelings, fears and desires, hopes and worries, spirituality, and poetry.
Any such belief may have meaning for the believer. It can bring comfort and provide a form of security. It harms noone but helps to legitimise a religious thinking that may often lead to serious problems. They occur, for example, when the believers work hard to convince others of the "Truth" they found, when such conversations exert pressures of different kinds, when they lead to indoctrination and violations of the freedom to form one’s own life stance. When faith does not remain a matter for the individual, when like-minded believers gather in sects, congregations and organized religions that demand strict loyalty of their members and have the power to control their behaviour, then there is a growing risk that those who wish to think freely or differently will no longer be tolerated. Then we can expect terror, other acts of violence and widespread religious repression.
I therefore believe: we need no preachers, no missionaries, no inquisitions, no Crusades, no holy wars, no occupation of sacred places, no religious repression – in short, we need no religious sects or religious communities. Nor do we need any organized religions. WE NEED NO RELIGIONS!
Religions have many rules. They restrict people's freedom and make life difficult for those who have to adapt. Here's a selection of such rules:
* Provisions on Muslim women's clothing restrict their freedom and tend to underscore their social inferiority in relation to men. About the status of women and their humiliation in Muslim environments we can learn a lot from several different sources. One of these is Aayan Hirsi Ali's book "The Caged Virgin: an Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam.
* Muslim men and religious male Jews must wear a beard. Orthodox Jewish men must have curly sidelocks in front of their ears and their wives have to cover their hair, when they are away from home or shave it off and wear a wig. Why this interference in strictly personal matters?
* Muslims and Jews must not eat pork, a prohibition which Christians have not accepted and why would they do that? Pork is a quite suitable kind of nourishment for humans. If due to ethical or other reasons one would prefer vegetarian food, then one will abstain from eating meat, but that would apply to all kinds of meat, not just pork
* Jehovah's Witnesses may not eat food made of blood such as blood-pudding.
* Mormons must not drink coffee or tea, nor may they smoke.
* Faithful Muslims must not drink wine or other alcoholic beverages.
* Religious rules do also regulate when and what to eat during the Christian and Jewish holidays and for Muslims during the month of Ramadan.
* Jewish and Muslim rules prescribe how animals should be slaughtered and in orthodox Jewish homes, one must not keep certain types of food in the same places as other kinds of food, nor must they be placed on the same table at the same time.
* What we can and cannot do during holidays must also be regulated and in orthodox Jewish circles such rules are taken very seriously.
* Less surprising is perhaps that Christian, Muslim and Jewish rules prescribe for the believers how they must pray, when they should stand up and sit down, when they should be on their knees, which way to turn themselves and how to bow.
* Noone must crack a joke or speak critically about Mohammed. Anyone doing that risks to be murdered by some dutiful islamist acting on behalf of an Ayatollah.
* In several religions, their authoritative representatives take a specific interest in interfering with people's sexual behaviours. This interest is, however, not primarily focused on the prevention of prostitution or trafficking. Other issues seem to be much more important, such as prohibition of adulterous relationships, homosexuality, the use of contraceptives, etc.
* The Witnesses of Jehovah must not accept to receive blood transfusions, even if they otherwise risk to die on the operation table. A long list of people who died for this reason, including many children, is published on http://www.ajwrb.org/about.shtml. Behind this Web page is a group that calls itself the associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood. They struggle to reform the official policy of the Witnesses.
In the foregoing I gave some examples of sectarian prohibitions and restrictions that limit the believers in their choices. This list could be made very much longer. It is difficult to understand what all these rules have to do with religion, except that the majority of the rules have origins in one or the other passage in some ancient scripture.
Preachers of religions do, however, not restrict themselves to prescribing what their members must not do. They also provide guidance on what they have to do to get into heaven, to arrive there quickly and safely as martyrs, to escape hell, to gain salvation and avoid damnation, to find the eternal truth and do God’s will.
As mentioned already, none of this is based on any knowledge of God and his will, because no such knowledge exists. In the eminent confusion of religious beliefs about God and on whose side he is, religions tend to lead to discord and rivalry amongst each other and there are similar trends also within the religions. Religions do not unite, they divide, which often leads to terrorism and religious persecutions. Therefore, I believe that a world without religions would be a freer and safer place to live in.
The professor of religion and baptist reverend Charles Kimball has written an interesting book entitled "When religion becomes evil" in which he examines how seemingly peaceful religions can become evil and threatening. Kimball points out that the following five characteristics may serve as alarm bells:
When religious leaders claim to possess the absolute truth
When they demand blind obedience
When they announce that time will soon be ended
When they let the goals justify the means and
When they declare holy war,
In spite of the fact that he fully understands the implications of the development he describes, namely oppression, mutilations, murders, terrorism and “holy“ wars, he does not believe that the fault lies with religions but with the human tendency to distort them.
However, those accused by Kimball to "distort" religions are those who go back to their origins, to the oldest and most genuine of all documents, to the historical foundations of religions, i.e. their most ancient scriptures. Through all our times people have been bickering about which religious interpretation is the one that is “true” and about who has distorted what. When it has proved impossible to peacefully convince “the others” of the "correct" doctrine, one has not hesitated to condemn, oppress, persecute, expel, torture, burn or beat to death those who "distorted" the faith, i.e. the "infidels." The history of religions is filled with countless "true" teachings and an equal number of "false" ones.
Against this bleak background I would like to conclude by quoting another poem by Pär Lagerkvist, also this from "Anxiety" which was published in 1916.
Here I wish to stay,
silent.
Here I will lower my head.
Holy spaces.
No human words are true.
Neither any words of God, I feel inclined to add.
måndag 16 augusti 2010
Världens Längsta Bokbord
Den 15 augusti anordnades Världens Längsta Bokbord som en del av Stockholms Kulturfestival. Det var roligt att vara med.
Stort tack till alla dem som köpte min bok eller kom fram för att diskutera ett tag.
Det vore kul att höra ifrån er igen.
Stort tack till alla dem som köpte min bok eller kom fram för att diskutera ett tag.
Det vore kul att höra ifrån er igen.
söndag 25 juli 2010
"Är vi beredda att älska juden och muslimen?"
I en artikel i DN med titeln ”Är vi beredda att älska juden och muslimen?” hävdar fyra företrädare för olika kristna sammanslutningar att det i Sverige ”finns en svag acceptans för avvikande religiösa och kulturella beteenden”. Detta säger de bero på ”den svenska sekulariseringen och synen att religion enbart ses som en privat angelägenhet”.
Snarare är det väl så att dominerande religiösa samfund i alla tider valt att bekämpa andra trosriktningar. Den katolska inkvisitionen är bara ett av många exempel på religiös förföljelse av oliktänkande. Bland utvandrarna till Amerika under 1800-talet var det många som lämnade sina länder i Europa till följd av det förtryck som utövades av de statsunderstödda religionerna.
Tvärtom torde det vara så att den ”acceptans för avvikande religiösa och kulturella beteenden” som vi har i Sverige i själva verket är ganska stor och att detta till stor del beror på landets internationellt sett långtgående sekularisering. I en god demokrati som den svenska är det högt i tak för olika livsåskådningar trots flera religiösa rörelsers avoga inställning till konkurrerande riktningar.
Det är inte helt lätt att i förstone förstå vad författarna Sven-Bernhard Fast, Caroline Krook, Peter Weiderud och Karin Wiborn egentligen vill med sin artikel. En sak torde vara att främja en ökad acceptans för andra religiösa rörelser och då i första hand för judendomen och islam. Man kan förstås fråga sig varför just dessa ska skiljas ut som de mest behövande, varför inte författarnas önskan om en ökad tolerans i samma mån omfattar alla livsåskådningar, ja varför inte även sådana som inte är av religiös natur.
Författarnas plädoyer för ökad tolerans beträffande religiösa och kulturella yttringar är dock i högsta grad välkommen och deras öppna attityd gentemot judiska och muslimska trosutövare är lovvärd. Den är dock inte oproblematisk vilket visar sig i skärningen mellan religiöst grundade sedvänjor och allmänt accepterade värderingar i det numera sekulariserade svenska samhället. Ett exempel på detta är författarnas tillfredsställelse med domstolens beslut till förmån för den man som avskedats för att han av ”religiösa” skäl vägrat ta sin kvinnliga chef i hand av den enda anledning att hon är kvinna.
Ska vi verkligen tolerera - i betydelsen acceptera - ett sådant beteende? Är det rimligt att vi i religionsfrihetens namn bör bejaka och som författarna till och med välkomna den här mannens rätt till sitt ”avvikande religiösa” beteende. Bör vi inte i stället söka övertyga honom om det olämpliga i att här i landet fortsätta med sitt förolämpande beteende?
Ett annat exempel är författarnas ömmande för ortodoxa judars och muslimers behov av kött från djur som slaktats enligt religiös ritual och som innebär att man skär halsen av djuren med en lång kniv så att de får långsamt förblöda tills de förlorar medvetandet och dör. Denna form av djurplågeri är inte tillåten enligt svensk lag som föreskriver att djuren först ska bedövas innan de utsätts för slaktarens ”religiösa” ritual. Författarna visar på denna punkt en skrämmande undfallenhet inför grymma religiösa sedvänjor. Det centrala måste väl ändå vara att djuren utsätts för så lite lidande som möjligt.
I Sverige finns utrymme för många kulturer och många religioner men det finns bara en svensk lag och det är den som gäller. Det bör inte finnas särskilda regler för religiösa trosutövare lika lite som för människor med icke-religiösa livsåskådningar. Religiöst motiverade handlingar som strider mot svensk lag får inte accepteras i toleransens eller religionsfrihetens namn.
Den svenska demokratin grundar sig på ett antal medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter. Hit hör bl.a. lagar om
• yttrandefrihet som ger oss rätt att i tal och skrift eller på annat sätt, meddela upplysningar samt uttrycka tankar, åsikter eller känslor;
• informationsfrihet som ger oss rätt att ta emot och inhämta upplysningar;
• mötesfrihet som garanterar rätten att anordna möten av alla möjliga slag;
• demonstrationsfrihet som ger oss en principiell rätt att ordna demonstrationer på allmänna platser;
• föreningsfrihet som ger oss rätt att bilda föreningar.
Därtill kommer lagar till skydd för religionsfriheten. Med hänsyn till det heltäckande system av lagar som redan finns till skydd för våra demokratiska fri- och rättigheter kan det emellertid diskuteras om det verkligen behövs en särskild lag till skydd just för religioner och religionsutövning. Vad är det som sker inom religiösa samfund som inte redan är skyddat av de grund- och andra lagar som vår demokrati vilar på?
Om det finns sådana företeelser, riter och procedurer, bör vi nog fråga oss om dessa verkligen bör få förekomma? Ska vi exempelvis i religionsfrihetens namn acceptera att pojkar omskärs? Vi gör det ju inte ifråga om flickor.
Förekomsten av en särskild lag om religionsfrihet kan lätt uppfattas av religiösa människor och samfund, av myndigheter och människor i allmänhet som att det kan eller bör få finnas särskilda fri- och rättigheter för olika former av religionsutövning, även om de står i strid med svensk lag. Ju mer en sådan inställning brer ut sig till följd av en missvisad tolerans och förståelse för oacceptabla religiösa riter och normer, desto svårare blir det att försvara och fördjupa tanken bakom en sekulär stat.
Tyvärr är det just en sådan inställning som speglas i de fyras artikel under en lös täckmantel av tolerans och ekumenisk vidsyndhet.
--------------
Den kommenterade artikeln var införd i DN den 23 juli 2010.
Snarare är det väl så att dominerande religiösa samfund i alla tider valt att bekämpa andra trosriktningar. Den katolska inkvisitionen är bara ett av många exempel på religiös förföljelse av oliktänkande. Bland utvandrarna till Amerika under 1800-talet var det många som lämnade sina länder i Europa till följd av det förtryck som utövades av de statsunderstödda religionerna.
Tvärtom torde det vara så att den ”acceptans för avvikande religiösa och kulturella beteenden” som vi har i Sverige i själva verket är ganska stor och att detta till stor del beror på landets internationellt sett långtgående sekularisering. I en god demokrati som den svenska är det högt i tak för olika livsåskådningar trots flera religiösa rörelsers avoga inställning till konkurrerande riktningar.
Det är inte helt lätt att i förstone förstå vad författarna Sven-Bernhard Fast, Caroline Krook, Peter Weiderud och Karin Wiborn egentligen vill med sin artikel. En sak torde vara att främja en ökad acceptans för andra religiösa rörelser och då i första hand för judendomen och islam. Man kan förstås fråga sig varför just dessa ska skiljas ut som de mest behövande, varför inte författarnas önskan om en ökad tolerans i samma mån omfattar alla livsåskådningar, ja varför inte även sådana som inte är av religiös natur.
Författarnas plädoyer för ökad tolerans beträffande religiösa och kulturella yttringar är dock i högsta grad välkommen och deras öppna attityd gentemot judiska och muslimska trosutövare är lovvärd. Den är dock inte oproblematisk vilket visar sig i skärningen mellan religiöst grundade sedvänjor och allmänt accepterade värderingar i det numera sekulariserade svenska samhället. Ett exempel på detta är författarnas tillfredsställelse med domstolens beslut till förmån för den man som avskedats för att han av ”religiösa” skäl vägrat ta sin kvinnliga chef i hand av den enda anledning att hon är kvinna.
Ska vi verkligen tolerera - i betydelsen acceptera - ett sådant beteende? Är det rimligt att vi i religionsfrihetens namn bör bejaka och som författarna till och med välkomna den här mannens rätt till sitt ”avvikande religiösa” beteende. Bör vi inte i stället söka övertyga honom om det olämpliga i att här i landet fortsätta med sitt förolämpande beteende?
Ett annat exempel är författarnas ömmande för ortodoxa judars och muslimers behov av kött från djur som slaktats enligt religiös ritual och som innebär att man skär halsen av djuren med en lång kniv så att de får långsamt förblöda tills de förlorar medvetandet och dör. Denna form av djurplågeri är inte tillåten enligt svensk lag som föreskriver att djuren först ska bedövas innan de utsätts för slaktarens ”religiösa” ritual. Författarna visar på denna punkt en skrämmande undfallenhet inför grymma religiösa sedvänjor. Det centrala måste väl ändå vara att djuren utsätts för så lite lidande som möjligt.
I Sverige finns utrymme för många kulturer och många religioner men det finns bara en svensk lag och det är den som gäller. Det bör inte finnas särskilda regler för religiösa trosutövare lika lite som för människor med icke-religiösa livsåskådningar. Religiöst motiverade handlingar som strider mot svensk lag får inte accepteras i toleransens eller religionsfrihetens namn.
Den svenska demokratin grundar sig på ett antal medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter. Hit hör bl.a. lagar om
• yttrandefrihet som ger oss rätt att i tal och skrift eller på annat sätt, meddela upplysningar samt uttrycka tankar, åsikter eller känslor;
• informationsfrihet som ger oss rätt att ta emot och inhämta upplysningar;
• mötesfrihet som garanterar rätten att anordna möten av alla möjliga slag;
• demonstrationsfrihet som ger oss en principiell rätt att ordna demonstrationer på allmänna platser;
• föreningsfrihet som ger oss rätt att bilda föreningar.
Därtill kommer lagar till skydd för religionsfriheten. Med hänsyn till det heltäckande system av lagar som redan finns till skydd för våra demokratiska fri- och rättigheter kan det emellertid diskuteras om det verkligen behövs en särskild lag till skydd just för religioner och religionsutövning. Vad är det som sker inom religiösa samfund som inte redan är skyddat av de grund- och andra lagar som vår demokrati vilar på?
Om det finns sådana företeelser, riter och procedurer, bör vi nog fråga oss om dessa verkligen bör få förekomma? Ska vi exempelvis i religionsfrihetens namn acceptera att pojkar omskärs? Vi gör det ju inte ifråga om flickor.
Förekomsten av en särskild lag om religionsfrihet kan lätt uppfattas av religiösa människor och samfund, av myndigheter och människor i allmänhet som att det kan eller bör få finnas särskilda fri- och rättigheter för olika former av religionsutövning, även om de står i strid med svensk lag. Ju mer en sådan inställning brer ut sig till följd av en missvisad tolerans och förståelse för oacceptabla religiösa riter och normer, desto svårare blir det att försvara och fördjupa tanken bakom en sekulär stat.
Tyvärr är det just en sådan inställning som speglas i de fyras artikel under en lös täckmantel av tolerans och ekumenisk vidsyndhet.
--------------
Den kommenterade artikeln var införd i DN den 23 juli 2010.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)
