Un trait d’union franco-suisse: L’ Assemblée nationale, la burqa et les minarets suisses.

Contrairement à ce qu’affirme l’AFP citée dans ce billet, il ne s’agit pas d’un référendum, mais d’une initiative populaire.

Vive la démocratie, au moins c’est direct…

Le même week-end, le peuple devra voter une autre initiative: l’interdiction d’exporter des armes. Or, le logo pour la qualité suisse, c’est encore une arbalète et l’arbalète, c’est l’ancêtre du fusil d’assaut. Non, mais…

On a tous des problème d’identité. Une vraie crise. Endémique en plus!

Pour ce qui est de la défense de “Lafâme”, voir cet excellent billet de Mademoiselle (pour la France) et cet autre billet fort intéressant (pour la Suisse): Interdire les minarets, ou comment promouvoir les droits des femmes.

On vit une époque formidable. Le problème c’est qu’on en a pris l’habitude. Depuis le temps que les réactionnaires s’ingénient à se soutenir parmi.

Il y a beaucoup de pensées qui s’agitent dans ma tête. Des réactions. Vaines et qui vont dans le sens de la haine. Alors, écoute plutôt…

Ouvre, mais ouvre la fenêtre…

by Jessica Bryan

In her latest post, TVC’s Andrea Lafferty expresses outrage in response to Mattel’s newest Barbie doll: “Burqa Barbie.”  Here are some excerpts  from her post:

…So I hope under that brightly colored burqa the new Mattel doll is badly bruised and has a frightened look on her face because most women in burqas are severely abused women.

…Shariah law is a despicable and anti-Constitutional throwback to the Dark Ages when rights were reserved only for males of certain religions. It is the opposite of America where we guarantee rights equally to every person, except the unborn.

Mattel could do a public service by distributing a “Rifqa Bary” Barbie doll which resembles the young Muslim woman in Ohio whose radical parents intend to kill her because she has professed her belief in Jesus Christ.

…The doll would need to look radiant and courageous like the real Rifka but it would be easy to accessorize. A miniature Bible could be tucked under her arm. And a set of cowardly politicians could be enclosed and they would do absolutely nothing just like they did in the real government hearings in Florida and Ohio.

An email from the TVC argues that several of the bills and nominations that will be voted on in the next month will “threaten religious freedom, our children, and our health care system.”  The TVC asked for readers to contact their senators.  The email also linked to several of the posts from the TVC website (from “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Threatens the Practice of Religion & Our Nation’s Children” through “Reid ‘Health Care’ Reform Bill Increases Premiums by $3,100 Yearly and Funds Abortion!”).

ONU, accuse a due preti italiani: “Soldi ai guerriglieri Hutu in Congo.” Gente che mozza arti col machete, ecco cosa mi spinge a donare il mio otto per mille!

RU 486, la maggioranza blocca la vendita. Sacconi: “Potete sempre inghiottire delle grucce.”

Clima, l’impegno cinese: “Anche noi taglieremo le emissioni.” Facile quando al posto della sedia elettrica hai le fucilazioni negli stadi.

Mezzogiorno, Draghi: “Criminalità blocca l’economia. ” Mafia: “Non vero, c’è pedaggio.”

Varallo, cartelli con “Divieto di Burqa”. Ancora in forse cani ed ebrei.

Napoli, sgominato il clan Sarno, c’è anche un consigliere comunale PDCI. E Nessie, no?

La notizia più ilare delle ultime settimane riguarda il divieto di indossare niqab, burqa e burqini su tutte le aree pubbliche del Comune di Varallo Sesia.

E’ apparso anche questo cartello stradale con sottotitoli in arabo (peraltro sbagliati):

I ferventi vietatori comunali leghisti non sanno o non hanno capito che burqini è un neologismo col quale si indica un costume da bagno: l’unione fra burqa e bikini.

E che in realtà il burqini è un prodotto commerciale australiano, un marchio registrato.

Un po’ come dire: vietato aggirarsi per le strade di Varallo Sesia con calzoni corti, canottiere e costumi della Speedo.

1. Suicide bomber Barbie – Okay, actually it’s just Barbie in a burqa. This only goes to show that Barbie will never stop keeping women down in society. But I guess at least it’s for a good cause:

Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the iconic doll is going undercover for a charity auction in connection with Sotheby’s for Save The Children.

2. War on Christmas continues with new athvertisement – And though I really shouldn’t have to say this, of course there’s no such thing as the “War on Christmas.” But it’s fun to play along with Fox News’ little conspiratorial delusion. The American Humanist Association is sponsoring a new nation-wide campaign involving ads with the slogan, “No God? …No problem! Be good for goodness’ sake.” This is the latest variation on a common theme. And despite the fact that it doesn’t say anything negative at all about anyone’s religion, I guarantee that it won’t be long before we hear from outraged Christians who feel personally slighted by the ad.

3. Marietta, Georgia considers dropping “so help me God” from police officer oath – Of course there’s some strange controversy over it. Councilman Van Pearlberg apparently just inquired as to whether it had ever been challenged, which somehow led to the option to remove it being considered. Pearlberg, however, claims he never actually objected to it and thinks it should not be removed, while also saying, “I don’t think anybody should be forced to say anything…I just don’t know what the alternative would be.” Keep it as part of the oath or give people the freedom to say what they want? Which is it? They’re mutually exclusive positions. If what you’re saying is that people should not be required to say it but they can should they be so inclined, then why not just obey the Constitution and remove it while leaving open the option for individuals to unofficially include it should they desire to do so?

4. Matt Barber blames everyone for Will Phillips’ decision except Will Phillips - Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel, a Religious Right organization, has publicly come out to respond to 10-year-old Will Phillips’ decision to not stand for the Pledge until gay marriage is legalized. Basically, that response is simply ranting about how all of Barber’s ideological opponents are responsible for brainwashing the kid. He’s apparently a pawn of his evil parents, liberals, atheists, gay activists, Hollywood, etc. To whoever that newscaster was who asked Will Phillips what a gay-wad was, Matt Barber’s your man. Hopefully Jon Stewart can dispatch some pro wrestlers to force an apology. What I want to know is, who is responsible for Matt Barber’s being a flaming moron?

5. Small children prove more knowledgeable about evolution than Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron:

6. Chris Matthews vs. Bishop Tobin over recent Catholic extortion tactic:

Da oggi le donne islamiche di Varallo che indossano burqa e niqab non possono più uscire di casa. E non solo per motivi sociali, storici, culturali o famigliari: da oggi contro c’è anche la legge.

As a child I had a collection of dolls that were designed with a selection of international costumes. I believe the color choices of the costumes generally reflected the national colors of each country. The ones I remember mostly were the Spanish and Afghani dolls. Perhaps it was because of my creamcicle SoCal life then, that the strong red yellow and greens attracted me. Today, when I see President Karzai in his perpetual green cloak, it still makes me think of that Afghani doll and the strong associations we make of national colors.

Enter the eternally popular and political lightening rod, Barbie. Christian Science Monitor has reported that Sotheby’s will auction a 500 piece Barbie doll collection, to raise funds for “Save the Children”, with international outfits that include a burka(burqa). From my position, It’s hard to imagine how anyone thinks arguing over the one outfit out of the collection, that a whole lot of women in other countries wear isn’t somehow misguided and inherently bigoted.

In the United States we have a lot of freedom over what to wear in public, although I think some places like Brazil may have more under the right conditions. Other places have more proscribed views about what people, and especially what women, should wear.

A US made doll, Barbie, on the other hand, has been getting bashed almost since her beginning over her shape, accessories and clothing. Each generation picks a new field of battle. This argument, however, is wrong. No matter what we think in the United States think about the Burqa, it’s not up to us to throw it off. We aren’t their mom’s, people. Those burka wearing women, wearing an outfit older than Islam, that Burqa Barbie represents, decide that.

And if a Barbie in a Burqa isn’t an educational tool, I don’t know what is.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4053&p=81775#p81775

Hi friends

Burqa and Niqab were in use in the House of Israel; it is mentioned in Torah:

Genesis 38:14

13 And it was told Thamar that her father in law was come up to Thamnas to shear his sheep. 14 And she put off the garments of her widowhood, and took a veil*: and changing her dress, sat in the cross way, that leadeth to Thamnas: because Sela was grown up, and she had not been married to him. 15 When Juda saw her, he thought she was a harlot: for she had covered her face, lest she should be known.

*”and took a veil: and changing her dress” this has been translated in the Urdu Catholic Bible ” aur Burqah ourha aur Niqab dala” which means she put on a Burqa and put on a Niqab. May be the Arabic Bible also uses the same words, I have not checked it.

So Burqah and Niqab were in vogue in Jacob’s time. Mary also used to be dressed fully, one could go and see in a church how the Christians project her. Similarly the nuns are also dressed in full.

Quran/Islam/Muhammad followed the same good tradition of Abraham’s family.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

An interesting conversation over facebook led to the suggestion that I make a sequel to a comic I made about atheists and believers reaching a consensus about God previously.

Among others things discussed were the ratios of the sexes among the atheists and believers. (Aarti said, “Interesting ratios here – Atheists: Believers = 3: 5 , Female atheists: male atheists = 2:1, Female believers: Male believers = 1:4 Shall I draw the inference that women are more enlightened than men ?” Rajesh added, “Moral of the Picture : Men join Atheism as there are more women there.”)

It was also suggested that this is not politically correct because there is only one woman in a burqa (Waseem commented, “I am astonished that the Mullah is so poor that he could bag just one as this cartoon suggests. there must had been two or three to be politically correct.”)

There was even speculation about the assets of the lady in the burqa (Harbir said, “the chick in the burqa has nice tits!” and added, “faith in the characteristics of the imaginary and the unseen, thats religion, isn’t it? So I am religiously faithful that she has nice tits, unseen and imaginary though they are. Anyway, its better to worship imaginary tits than an imaginary deity with a god complex.”)

Someone noted that the woman in the burqa didn’t have a voice (Gowhar said, “Remarkably the only woman on the religious side is a stereotypical Muslim woman… as a faceless appendage to the Muslim man… but notice apart from a face she also lacks a voice!”)

And I was eventually advised to do justice to the woman in the burqa, and to  show her real self. (Harbir said, “Siddharth, you should do a sequel of that cartoon that shows the burqa babe moving over to the left. Break her free of her burqa! And prove me right while you’re at it!”)

Clearly, the desire for confirming his intuition about her assets was more important than her seeming need to move to the left. Further, someone actually claimed that the person under the burqa was him. (Tarek commented, “That is me in the burqa. Please do not get into my tag space; it gets me all excited and that is haraam”. Rajesh even alleged  that Tarek got  into his burqa. Oona proclaimed, “I’d pay to see two men in one burqa.”)

In the fear that I’ll ruin everyone’s expectations of what’s under the burqa, I decided it best to leave that to everyone’s respective imaginations. Here’s the sequel:

Sorry folks, but if it is something else you were looking forward to, there’s always hentai.

UPDATE: Anyone interested in knowing the real identity of the burqa clad women? Watch this.

Sujet d’actualité important, nous vous invitons ici à considérer le côté de la problématique sous un angle juridique. L’Association Publique pour le Travail d’Entraide dite APTE a souhaité mettre ce fichier à la vue de tous. Pour que vous puissiez comprendre de la qualité des dossiers intégrés aux espaces sous mot de passe !

Sachant que le présent est noté bien en-deça des ressources proposées et cachées à votre lecture. Son classement  étoilé  (rapport utilité du document par rapport à la formation/fiabilité du fichier/nombre de lectures supposé) emporte un

Les meilleures citations tirées des débats…

Il faut comprendre qu’à Québec solidaire, les débats sont très animés et souvent bien colorés. Tandis que les heures de réflexion et de débats s’accumulent, je ne peux pas m’empêcher de sourire en entendant de tels propos, en tout respect. Faut ben se faire un peu de plaisir dans les congrès!

P.S. Je remettrais un pris de consolation au lapsus suivant: «révolution culturelle» à place de «révolution tranquille».

Gioco o provocazione?

A me ha colpito..infatti pubblico.

Da qui.

L’euthanasie,la burqa, la fessée. Je commence à comprendre le but de tout cela.

Les autorités font diversion. Et ce n’est pas pour que nous oublions un peu, en vrac, la baisse du pouvoir d’achat, la hausse du chômage, le climat qui se dérègle, la main de Thierry Henri, la grippe porcine ou le frelon asiatique. Non, non.

C’est pour nous détourner de l’odieuse et inéluctable et prochaine invasion extraterrestre. Heureusement, de braves gens veillent.

Les Sénéchal, remparts de l’humanité, l’ont bien compris. Les autorités “les gendarmes” comme ils disent, sont de mèche avec l’envahisseur. Alors, soyons vigilants.

Merci Diego.

La Barbie è stata la bambola preferita da molte di noi. Da bambine, ci piaceva quella donna alta, magra, anche bella ma soprattutto emancipata. Barbie indossava già la minigonna quando le nostre madri ci proponevano ancora modelli castigati. Era indipendente, autonoma con la sua auto, il suo camper per le vacanze, le sue sorelle e le sue amiche. In un certo senso  era il simbolo di una rivoluzione sessuale possibile, concreta, non più solo sulla carta, non più solo letta e ascoltata ma ancora lontana.

Molto più bella e carismatica dei suoi uomini (ricordate il patinato Ken e il Big Jim tutto muscoli e poco cervello?), Barbie ha spesso incarnato e anticipato fenomeni sociali che si sarebbero verificati solo anni dopo. Ricordo la prima Barbie nera, poi la giapponese, la russa, l’indiana. Antesignane della società multirazziale ancora da venire. 

Oggi Barbie mette il burqa. La notizia colpisce, sorprende. E fa riflettere. Per noi occidentali, sempre in lotta per la parità, non è facile comprendere la scelta di donne lontane (culturalmente e fisicamente), che si nascondono e vivono sotto  un velo, avvolgendo il loro corpo da capo a piedi. Molte di quelle donne scelgono liberamente il burqa, lo difendono. Noi non abbiamo nessun diritto di obbligarle a toglierlo, di imporre loro un rispetto di sé e una scelta di libertà che è nostra.

La Mattel dice che Barbie burqa è “una provocazione innanzitutto per la donna occidentale che si dice libera ma poi proprio libera non è e infatti vende il suo corpo e la sua immagine“. E’ vero, molte donne italiane sono più schiave delle afgane. Molte di noi sono costrette sotto burqa invisibili (velo, velinismo il passo è breve!).  

Certo, a nessuna di noi piace l’usanza del burqa. Ma, forse, le nostre figlie che giocheranno con la nuova Barbie  avranno un’opportunità in più per avvicinarsi senza preconcetti e pregiudizi a una cultura diversa dalla loro.

Barbi Burqa su www.affaritaliani.it/culturaspettacoli/barbie181109.html

(That’s spoken with an monotone eastern European accent.)

There has been talk of the individual approach to process and time management this week on the blog. It was addressed in a post from Tuesday.

Lately I’ve really been busted trying to manage my time in the studio. Its a drag with a capital g.

I work in a variety of ways. My monotypes, due to the nature of the medium, are produced rather quickly, in a matter of hours or less. Sometimes a painting will take but a relatively short time depending on the energy, the conceptual circumstances and how efficiently my subconscious is doing the thinking.
Other times, a piece or pieces will go through the whole “create and destroy and create” exercise and may take weeks or months to be realized. Here is an example of a painting I started a few weeks ago which has -and will – go through a metamorphosis as a dialogue of sorts. The conversation is all an adventure and will go through so many changes I may not quite know where it will end. The piece was started as a part of an ongoing series of paintings connected to the idea of the “purdah” and its related symbology and meanings.

I started it as a straight figure, but I unfortunately don’t have documentation from that first stage. Then I furiously worked into it.
a stage from a few weeks ago:

It wasn’t working for me; it was at a narrative and formal stage I wasn’t satisfied with. so I continued.

and another stage

Here it is staring at me now:

I wanted to push the form, the abstraction and the marks somewhere else. I’ll sit with this a little. it might be finished; I’ll keep you updated. Cause I know you care.

L’heure est grave : j’en suis obligé de citer Donna Summer & Barbra Streisand, c’est vous dire.

Je plaisante là, mais en vrai j’atteins un niveau de fureur qui vous terroriserait malgré mon mètre douze si vous étiez devant moi à cet instant.

- Oui, toi là, au deuxième rang ?

- Pourquoi t’es furieux monsieur Diego dis ?

- Très bonne question, je vais t’expliquer.

Je suis furieux, parce que la majorité (j’en frissonne) qui nous gouverne (j’en tremble), jugeant sans doute que le merveilleux débat fleurant bon l’ouverture d’esprit et sur le monde autour du formidable concept moisi d’identité nationale, vient de lancer une nouvelle initiative, consistant à monter en épingle un épiphénomène anxiogène, et là je vous le dit tout net, je tape ce post sur un clavier maculé de gerbe.

Introducing donc, le site internet de débat made in groupe Unité de Manipulation de la Populace à l’Assemblée Nationale : la-burqa-en-débat.fr (je mets pas le lien tellement c’est dégueulasse).

Oui je sais, vous aussi vous avez vomi, c’est  bon signe, vous êtes donc normaux.

Le principe : on prend une tête d’épingle enfouie dans une meule de foin de la taille du Mont-Blanc (bien blanc, le Mont, s’il vous plaît), et on en fait une question de survie nationale. En effet, on estime que 367 femmes portent la burqa en France (ne me demandez pas comment, mais bon, on l’estime).

Soit, je vous la fais à la grosse hein, 0.0104857% de la population féminine de ce pays. Et donc, pour un problème qui touche 0.0104857% de la population féminine de ce pays, quoi qu’on pense de la burqa qui n’est effectivement pas le meilleur symbole de ma conception de la femme, le groupe majoritaire à l’Assemblée Nationale crée un site Internet pour inviter les Français à débattre de cet épineux problème qui met en péril les fondamentaux de la Nation (et de son identité, bien entendu).

367 femmes en voile intégral, probablement relativement concentrées au sein de communautés spécifiques, ça fait quoi, 10 000 personnes qui y sont confrontées ? Et comme d’habitude, qui va contribuer au débat ? Le téléspectateur lambda de Jean-Pierre Pernaut, l’électeur qui vote Le Pen parce que “des fois y a des voitures étrangères au village dans le village” (authentique phrase entendue et gravée à vie dans mon cerveau, dans un reportage dans un bled de l’Ain à chômage et immigration zéro après le 21 avril), et des milliers de gens qui n’ont jamais vu et ne verront jamais une burqa de leur vie.

C’est, et ne rayez pas de mentions inutiles, il n’y en a pas : immonde, ignoble, gerbant, manipulateur, abject, de la propagande nauséabonde, un odieux secouage d’épouvantail virtuel, de la merde en branche, une honte en barre, dégueulasse, et comme on dit, “digne des pires heures de notre histoire”.

Jean-François Copé, dont j’aimerais à cet instant qu’il soit maire de Mole plutôt que maire de Meaux,  nous explique dans son édito que :

Phénomène récent qui semble s’amplifier, le port du voile intégral interroge nos valeurs ; au fond, quel sens voulons-nous donner à notre devise républicaine : liberté bien sûr mais aussi égalité et fraternité dans notre pays ? Comment concilier diversité et unité nationale ?

Plus loin, et deux lignes après avoir dit “je ne veux pas anticiper sur les conclusions de ces travaux”, il ose la phrase suivante :

comment accepter de ne pas pouvoir identifier une personne qui va chercher son enfant à la crèche, se rend dans un hôpital, dans un aéroport, une préfecture ?

Vraiment, si dans ma vie un seul de mes vœux doit être un jour exaucé, c’est que le peuple de ce pays se réveille, comprenne à quel point vous usez de ficelles grossières pour le manipuler, avec quelle absence totale de scrupules vous vous aventurez dans les marécages de la pensée, et que ce peuple, le moment venu, vous le fasse payer cher. Et longtemps, aussi. Parce qu’après ça, vous ne méritez plus le moindre respect, c’est désormais certain.

Karen Armstrong wrote an excellent piece on religion over at Foreign Policy. It criticizes Dawkins and ilk while calling for actual study of religion as a human phenomenon. I’ve decided to provide some excerpts and commentary, section by section, since this article shares many ideas I also have about religion.

I. “God Is Dead.”

No…We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner.

I’m actually contemplating writing a piece on why religion will never end, no matter how far science advances. This isn’t really surprising if you accept the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, but that’s a concept that requires more explanation and analysis than the Wikipedia page provides. Regardless, the approach of attacking religion, Armstrong argues, “risk[s] amplifying its worst faults”. I agree. All you have to do is look at how fundamentalist Christians perceive themselves a persecuted in present day and how particular atheists, in the mold of Dawkins, attack religion to observe this phenomenon.

II. “God and Politics Shouldn’t Mix.”

Not necessarily. Theologically illiterate politicians have long given religion a bad name. An inadequate understanding of God that reduces “him” to an idol in our own image who gives our likes and dislikes sacred sanction is the worst form of spiritual tyranny. Such arrogance has led to atrocities like the Crusades. The rise of secularism in government was meant to check this tendency, but secularism itself has created new demons now inflicting themselves on the world.

Armstrong gives the rapid secularization of much of the developing world as an example of these “new demons”; such moves have made secularization into the enemy for quite a few religious people, for example, in the Middle East.  Furthermore, over-secularization (or perhaps I should say overly “hard” secularization) has led to situations such as France, in which the state views no role for religion in the public sphere and actively attempts to quash religion in certain respects, such as outlawing the wearing of religious symbols in schools. Such attitudes only deepen the rift between France’s secular “majority” and its predominantly Muslim population (since they’re undoubtedly the ones targeted under these laws – see also the niqab/burqa/hijab debate). This section also notes the ways in which Islam provides support for democracy, e.g. the concept of shura.

III. “God Breeds Violence and Intolerance.”

No, humans do…”religious” wars, no matter how modern the tools, always begin as political ones. This happened in Europe during the 17th century, and it has happened today in the Middle East, where the Palestinian national movement has evolved from a leftist-secular to an increasingly Islamically articulated nationalism. Even the actions of so-called jihadists have been inspired by politics, not God. In a study of suicide attacks between 1980 and 2004, American scholar Robert Pape concluded that 95 percent were motivated by a clear strategic objective: to force modern democracies to withdraw from territory the assailants regard as their national homeland.

One of the earliest lessons I had in political science was that “religious” wars often have other motives, such as the pursuit of territory or economic factors or diverting a population’s attention away from domestic troubles…or a perceived fear for a group’s survival:

Fundamentalism is not conservative. Rather, it is highly innovative — even heretical — because it always develops in response to a perceived crisis. In their anxiety, some fundamentalists distort the tradition they are trying to defend…All fundamentalism — whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim — is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation.

We absolutely need to address fundamentalism – and, more importantly to understand it. The struggle against fundamentalism in all forms is one of the pressing issues of Western society in our times. However, religion is not inherently fundamentalist, and to denigrate “religion” as a whole for the actions of fundamentalists is a case of harmful over-generalization. Furthermore, we should not give credence to fundamentalists for being somehow more “true” to the principles of the religion or being free of innovation or being “conservative”; fundamentalism is a contemporary creature and must be treated as such.

IV. “God Is for the Poor and Ignorant.”

No.

Armstrong actually seems to get off-topic, since this starts off as a critique of beliefs that religion is the “opiate of the masses” etc. etc.; however, its tangent into discussing religious critiques of poverty is also well-placed. It should also be noted, however, that many intellectuals have also held religious beliefs – some clichés of this would be C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien. Though I’m a bit uncomfortable reading Armstrong’s characterizing of major religions (including Christianity) as market-friendly, but hey, you can’t have it all…

V. “God Is Bad for Women.”

Yes.

Wait, uh, what? God, in my understanding, doesn’t advocate human foibles regarding gender…

Even when a tradition began positively for women (as in Christianity and Islam), within a few generations men dragged it back to the old patriarchy. But this is changing. Women in all faiths are challenging their men on the grounds of the egalitarianism that is one of the best characteristics of all these religious traditions.

Oh…that I can agree with. Religion is at all times a human endeavour, and we must realize that any human has ever thought or done in religion could be wrong because of this. I find it a supreme irony that religions such as Christianity and Islam have come to be patriarchal, since their root teachings included a powerful message for the social advancement of women…

VI. “God Is the Enemy of Science.”

He doesn’t have to be. Science has become an enemy to fundamentalist Christians who campaign against the teaching of evolution in public schools and stem-cell research because they seem to conflict with biblical teaching. But their reading of scripture is unprecedentedly literal…Ironically, it was the empirical emphasis of modern science that encouraged many to regard God and religious language as fact rather than symbol, thus forcing religion into an overly rational, dogmatic, and alien literalism.

Before science, the idea of biblical literalism in the sense of reading the Bible as literally being a scientific or empirical account of what happened wouldn’t have existed; the interpretation of it as myth or narrative or allegory or meaningful stories or moral lessons or spiritual accounts wouldn’t have fallen to literalism without the scientific revolution. Indeed, I think accepting this sort of modern sense of the Bible, in which it’s put up against science and we have to judge between the two, is very much a part of both contemporary atheism and Christian fundamentalism, even though they completely disagree over what we should do about it.à

VII. “God Is Incompatible with Democracy.”

No…Nor is sharia law the rigid system that many Westerners deplore. Muslim reformers, such as Sheikh Ali Gomaa and Tariq Ramadan, argue that it must be reviewed in the light of changing social circumstances. A fatwa is not universally binding like a papal edict; rather, it simply expresses the opinion of the mufti who issues it. Muslims can choose which fatwas they adopt and thus participate in a flexible free market of religious thought, just as Americans can choose which church they attend.

That Armstrong even has to address this shows a gross misunderstanding of religion (particularly Islam, given the citing of Huntington). Notably, Sharia has the potential for both liberation and oppression. It is not inherently a container of certain bigoted viewpoints. Sharia also has a number of bases, such as consensus or equality that really shouldn’t be controversial. But it seems like most people just think of it as bigotry and oppression, particularly against women (though that’s usually bound up in a neo-imperialist mindset).

I’m currently working on my own observations on contemporary religion – but it seems like Armstrong and others have already done much of the work. I will try to mention more such people later on this blog. However, I will also approach the topic very much considering the world from my own position, particularly as a trans person, which I’ve essentially glossed over in this post.