Challenges facing the women’s liberation movement

"But stop, I am told. Saying so ‘just supports Western propaganda’ - something by the way that the Islamic regime of Iran often tells women and men it is hauling off to prison and execution.
How absurd. It is like Iranian women’s rights activists telling one to stop opposing US-led militarism because it supports the ‘Islamic regime of Iran’s propaganda!’
The religious-nationalist anti-imperialist left always ready to act as prefect when women’s rights under Islamic laws are concerned has an affinity towards Islam, which it views as an ‘oppressed religion’ bullied by the USA.
It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World.
This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there.
And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist.
In the world according to them, the people in these countries are one and the same with the regimes they are struggling against.
So at Stop the War Coalition demonstrations here in Britain, they carry banners saying ‘We are all Hezbollah;’ at meetings they segregate men and women and urge unveiled women to veil out of ‘solidarity’ and ‘respect’.
But even their anti-imperialism - their badge of honour - is pathetically half-baked; it does not even scratch beneath the surface to see how political Islam is an integral part of the US’ militarism and new world order.
Their historical amnesia of even the past 30-40 years ignores that the political Islamic movement was encouraged and brought to centre stage by Western governments as a green belt against the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

[...]

Whilst the anti-imperialist left defends and justifies political Islam on the one hand, the virulently racist and right-wing defends US militarism and the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine on the other.

[...]

They are ‘concerned’ about the ‘rights’ of women and apostates so they can ban the Koran and ‘Muslim immigration.’ So they can stop the sub-human teeming hordes destroying the Christian nature of Europe and the West.
They are quite happy to defend Christian religious morality, restrict the benefits due single mothers, demand exemptions from the Sexual Orientation Regulations, bar funds for AIDS- related and contraception-related health services abroad if they provide abortions and consider the women’s rights movement’s fight for equality ‘the destruction of the nuclear family and of the power structures of society in general.’
According to their warped worldview, ‘the West has skyrocketing divorce rates and plummeting birth rates, leading to a cultural and demographic vacuum that makes [it] vulnerable to a take-over.’"

Maryam Namazie, speech at a seminar entitled ‘Sexual apartheid, political Islam and women's rights. (maryamnamazie.blogspot.com Tuesday, March 11, 2008)

She takes on two sides that are a problem. The appeasers and the demonizers.
I think it's a good point that as the Islamists got a real boost thanks to American funding, the Left is supporting an old American strategy.
Also, what she says about the Christian Right is right. They aren't against fundamentalism, they just don't want competition. They may be less dangerous for the moment, and so was Stalin during WW2.
And I mean, it's crazy to hear people talk about "plummeting birthrates" when the world is overpopulated. We should make the whole world a place with plummeting birthrates, but no doubt the Catholics have other plans.

Sign here against Sharia in Britain: One law for all!

"Faith-based arbitration, where people agree to settle disputes in by the judgement of a religious figure is a highly problematic form of privatising law: using laws which are not publicly enacted, in forums which are not monitored, with no right of appeal, often within environments where women's rights are routinely subordinated to traditional and patriarchal cultures and beliefs which threaten the welfare of women and children.
Arbitration is an acitivity which should be entered into willingly: yet the ability to make an independent choices within a relationship is based in equality in social and economic choices, which is rare in society generally, is even rarer amongst those who cleave to traditional gender roles. Some women face violence for resisting pressures put on them in the name of religion or culture; many others face rejection from the family or community, isolation, financial hardships and other pressures.
The rights of equality between men and women, gay and straight, the rights to divorce and child custody on equal terms, and the criminalisation of domestic violence and marital rape have been hard-fought for by human rights activists over centuries, and continue to be fought for across the world. It is a deeply backward step for human rights to withdraw rights from the weakest and most powerless sectors of society. Women's, and children's, powerlessness will be legitimized and enforced, codified into law.
Given the central role of family in most societies, religious elites seek to strengthen their control and influence over their communities by controlling family relationships. Religious laws—especially in family matters—have long been a battleground. For many women, the family is the source of patriarchal oppression, and those forces which seek to normalise religious interference into private life are often the same ones which seek the control of women and girls.
Fundamentalism in all major religions involves similar views on gender relations and sexuality. Among other things, it seeks to establish and strengthen male-dominated control over the family and restrict women's sexual and social freedoms. Recognising a right for religious figures to intervene in family affairs priveleges the fundamentalist forces by definition, strengthening the worldwide growth of fundamentalism, and eroding women's hard won rights.
We ask our political representatives to respect and protect women’s constitutionally and internationally protected human rights by ensuring access to a single, uniform family law regime. Equally, we ask that religious freedoms of the majority not be confined to the interpretation of a limited few."

Middle-eastern women's campaign against faith-based arbitration and sharia law

Notice that you can sign under at "UK" and "Worldwide".
I urge all Atheist bloggers with any sense of justice to sign and pass this around.

Evangelical priorities: abortions, homos and TV

"The survey explored two important slices of the Christian vote: born again Christians, a group of Americans who accounted for about half of all ballots cast in the 2004 election and the smaller, more socially conservative subset of born agains, labeled as evangelical voters. Evangelicals represent about one-fifth of all born again Christians.

[...]

The nation's 68 million registered voters who are born again Christians were most concerned about personal indebtedness (79%), poverty (78%), and HIV/AIDS (77%) - levels similar to that of other voters. However, born again Christians emerged as distinct from other voters in relation to many other issues. They are more concerned than were non-born again adults about illegal immigration (68%), abortion (67%), the content of television and movies (60%), homosexual lifestyles (51%), and homosexual activists (49%).
The subset of evangelicals (representing about 15 million of the born again voters) displayed a significantly different view on many issues. Evangelicals' top concern - by a wide margin - was abortion (94%). This was followed by the personal debt of Americans (81%), the content of television and movies (79%), homosexual activists (75%), and gay and lesbian lifestyles (75%). Evangelicals were more likely than other adults to be concerned about illegal immigration, but they were less worried about HIV/AIDS than virtually any other segment of the population. One of the most significant differences of opinion expressed in the survey was the skepticism evangelicals harbor toward global warming (only 33% identified it as a major issue) compared to the rest of the population."

Barna.org, January 21, 2008

Swedes don't need a book to be moral

I found an interesting Swedish story in the Christian paper Dagen that I translated the gist of:

"A new survey, the Bible barometre 2008, shows that 32 per cent of Swedes think the bible is important for their own morality and ethics.

Krister Andersson, secretary of the Bible company, says that an earlier survey has shown that the golden rule is at the core of Swedish morality.

When the question is more open: "Is there any writing that strongly affected your ethics and morality?" 20 per cent mentioned the bible. Of the other alternatives, the UN Declaration of Human Rights was the most common with 4 per cent.

But most people, 62 per cent, hadn't read any writing at all that made such an impression.
- This is very surprising. I thought more people were going to say that they had some sort of written or scriptural starting point for their moral judgements, says Krister Andersson.

He was also struck by the variation of writings and writers that were mentioned under "Other". On the list there's among others The Diary of Anne Frank, newspapers, Dalai Lama, Fröding, Greek philosophers, the Swedish Law, the catecism, and the scout law. Some of the asked also mentioned the upbringing they were given by their parents: "I try to be honest and fair to people."

As with the Biblebarometre 2006 and 2007 this year's survey shows that about eveyr tenth person reads the bible at least once a month, while four out of read it only rarely.
Those who consider the bible most important are the older generations, 65 years and older."

Dagen.se, 2008-01-17

What I liked about this survey wasn't merely that it showed how many read or didn't read the bible, but it showed that 62 per cent did not pick up their morality from a particular book.

I think it's fair to say that they hardly discovered their moral principles within their own heads, but that they don't simply stick to one book or one type of philosophy. Throughout life most of us read a lot, listen to a lot, and watch a lot and doing this we absorb a lot of moral reasoning. And we stick to the ideas that make sense to us personally instead of being too dependant on one book. Let's say you need advice, would you not preferably want to get it from more than one person?

It also reminded me about something Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion (p. 265):

"First, how is [the moral zeitgeist] synchronized across so many people? It spreads itself from mind to mind through conversations in bars and at dinner parties, through books and book reviews, through newspapers and broadcasting, and nowadays through the Internet. Changes in the moral climate are signalled in editorials, on radio talk shows, in political speeches, in the patter of stand-up comedians and the scripts of soap operas, in the votes of parliaments making laws and the decisions of judges interpreting them."

On the subject of books, I'll plug a new book from Prometheus books that I think could be worthwhile to read. Knowing myself I'm not sure I would get through its 800 pages, but if you're going to read one book this year, then this might be the book.

Successor to the highly acclaimed Encyclopedia of Unbelief (1985), edited by the late Gordon Stein, the New Encyclopedia of Unbelief is a comprehensive reference work on the history, beliefs, and thinking of America’s fastest growing minority: those who live without religion. All-new articles by the field’s foremost scholars describe and explain every aspect of atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, secularism, and religious skepticism. Topics include morality without religion, unbelief in the historicity of Jesus, critiques of intelligent design theory, unbelief and sexual values, and summaries of the state of unbelief around the world. More than 130 respected scholars and activists worldwide served on the editorial advisory board and over 100 authoritative contributors have written in excess of 500 entries.

In addition to covering developments since the publication of the original edition, the New Encyclopedia of Unbelief includes a larger number of biographical entries and much-expanded coverage of the linkages between unbelief and social reform movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, including the labor movement, woman suffrage, anarchism, sex radicalism, and second-wave feminism.

The distinguished contributors—philosophers, scientists, scholars, and Nobel Prize laureates—include Robert Alley, Joe Barnhart, David Berman, Sir Hermann Bondi, Vern L. Bullough, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Dennett, Paul Edwards, Barbara Ehrenreich, Antony Flew, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Peter Hare, Van Harvey, Susan Jacoby, Paul Kurtz, Richard Leakey, Gerd Lüdemann, Michael Martin, Martin E. Marty, Kai Nielsen, Steven Pinker, Robert M. Price, Richard Rorty, John R. Searle, Peter Singer, Ibn Warraq, Steven Weinberg, George A. Wells, David Tribe, Sherwin Wine, and many others.

With a foreword by evolutionary biologist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins, this unparalleled reference work provides comprehensive knowledge about unbelief in its many varieties and manifestations.

About the Author
Tom Flynn (Amherst, NY) is the editor of Free Inquiry magazine, director of the Center for Inquiry, founding coeditor of Secular Humanist Bulletin, director of the Robert Green Ingersoll Birthplace Museum, and the author of The Trouble with Christmas, Galactic Rapture, and Nothing Sacred.

Good Cop, Bad Cop: Atheist Activism

"In addition, the street activists presented a more extreme, hard-line set of demands... which made the lobbyists and other negotiators seem more reasonable in comparison."

Greta Christina's Blog, September 19, 2007

You get the gist of it right here.

Religion: is the fight back under way?

"Let us look at the score-sheet so far as religious evangelists try to reclaim Britain as their own.

Sikh activists in Birmingham didn’t like the way their community was presented in a play at the local Rep Theatre. They protested and eventually rioted in front of the theatre and the play was taken off.
Score: Religionists 1, Secularists 0.

The BBC came under intense pressure from religious activists when it decided to show Jerry Springer - the Opera. Tens of thousands of born-agains (very few of whom had seen the opera) bombarded the Corporation with emails and letters demanding that the show be cancelled. The BBC went ahead and showed it.
Score: Religionists 1, Secularists 1.

Stephen Green, director of Christian Voice, which had tried to stop the broadcast of Jerry Springer - the Opera, tried to bring a prosecution for blasphemy against the Director General of the BBC. The court threw his application out.
Religionists 1, Secularists 2

The Government recently wanted to change the entry requirements at “faith schools” to permit 25% intake of children from other religions. The Catholic Church screamed blue murder and the Government backed down.
Religionists 2, Secularists 2

The Catholic Church wanted an exemption from the new Sexual Orientation Discrimination Regulations which would permit it to refuse services at its adoption agencies to gay couples. The Government refused.
Score: Religionists 2, Secularists 3

Shabena Begum, a Muslim schoolgirl, wanted her school to change its uniform policy so that she could wear a flowing Islamic gown. After several appeals, the courts upheld the schools right to say no.
Score: Religionists 2, Secularists 4

In Glasgow a man defining himself as an atheist was working at a Catholic school. He was denied promotion because he wasn’t of the faith. He took the school to a tribunal and won. Glasgow City Council appealed the decision, but lost and was told by the court that it had no business promoting any particular religion.
Score: Religionists 2, Secularists 5

Employment protection for tens of thousands of non-religious head teachers and non-teaching staff in various types of “faith schools” was removed by the Government at the behest of the Church of England in the recent Education and Inspections Act, despite vigorous opposition from secular parliamentarians being advised by the National Secular Society.
Score: Religionists 3, Secularists 5

A woman working for British Airways wanted to wear a crucifix over her uniform, in contravention of the company’s policy. After the usual cries of persecution from the evangelicals, and a media humiliation led by the Daily Mail, BA backed down.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 5

Lydia Playfoot sued her school because it refused to let her wear a “purity ring”. The court ruled in the school’s favour.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 6

A gay man took the Bishop of Hereford to a tribunal for blocking his appointment to a job in the diocese as a youth worker. The tribunal said the Bishop had illegally discriminated.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 7

An independent adjudicator ruled that the human rights of the members of the Christian Union at Exeter University had not been infringed when its funds were frozen by the University’s Student Guild. The Guild had decided that the Christian Union’s own equal opportunity policy had been violated by the Christians. The case will now go to the High Court, so, at the moment the
score: Religionists 4, Secularists 8 (Read BBC story)

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that a full-page advertisement taken out in The Times by a group of evangelical Christians to protest against the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Regulations had been misleading.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 9

Shambo the bull was designated as “holy” by a group of Hindus in Wales. When he tested positive for bovine TB it was ruled that he should be slaughtered. The Hindus went to court saying their human rights were being infringed. The judge agreed, but then the Court of Appeal overturned that decision and the law prevailed.
Score: Religionists 4, Secularists 10.

The point of listing these battles is that they are part of a growing pattern of determination by religious people to impose their way of life on to all of us. And they are trying to use parliament and the courts to do it."

National Secular Society, 08.03.2007

Well done!

Is the Dutch Labour Party "muzzling" activists who want to help victims of religious intolerance, I really hope not

"I can't emphasise how much I hope this story isn't true, because if it is, then it is to the eternal shame of our comrades in the Dutch Labour Party. The accusation is that the party are trying to muzzle a young activist of Iranian heritage, Ehsan Jami, who is organising to assist other people who want to leave Islam but face horrendous hurdles, including threats of violence or murder. Sounds like exactly the kind of thing a young Labour activist should be involved with, as I said, I just hope this is wrong is some way, and that I can blog instead about trash media cooking up a load of nonsense."

The Labour Humanist, June 07, 2007

Will they never learn?

"Jami compares his situation with that of the meanwhile world-famous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who switched from PvdA to the conservatives (VVD) at the beginning of her career because she was not allowed by PvdA to speak freely about the emancipation of Islamic women. Jami is however for now refusing to leave the PvdA and will carry on with his committee. "I want to change the party from inside.""

Germany: Founder Of Council Of Ex-Muslims Seeks To 'Break Taboo'

"Mina Ahadi, an Iranian-born activist living in Germany, has founded a council of former Muslims who have renounced their faith. Members of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims are immigrants from predominantly Islamic countries. Ahadi, who is now under police protection, spoke with RFE/RL correspondent Golnaz Esfandiari.

[...]

"On the one hand, when there is talk about people who have come to Germany from countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey, they're all being labeled Muslims; then all of these 3 1/2 million people are put in the same bag, and Islamist organizations are being presented as being in charge of them.
People like myself, we sought asylum in Germany and we came to live here because we [opposed] political Islam and such organizations. Many of the problems here -- such as honor killings or imposing the Islamic hejab on children, or building a number of mosques here -- create divisions among people. All of these are explained to society based on the argument that Muslims have a different culture or Muslims have different ideas. All of these prompted those of us who are critical and who oppose such things to create a body that will have different policies regarding such issues.

[...]

All our members are living in Germany, and our only principle is that those who become our members [must] be atheists and not believe in God or any religion.""

Rferl.org, April 20, 2007

See also: "Not Possible to Modernize Islam" in Der Spiegel (27. Feb 2007)

[Secularisation] Mina’s ex-Muslim group spawns a movement

"The Iranian women's rights and human rights activist Mina Ahadi, who founded the Central Committee of ex-Muslims in Germany, seems to have started a trend. Following her valiant example, activist in the Netherlands have set about founding their own organisation of ex-Muslims."

National Secular Society Fri, 11 May 2007

I might as well mention that there's a group of people trying to start such an organisation in Norway as well, although it seems they had some disagreements on policy (homosexuality and Israel was mentioned). Anyway, this development is welcome for two reasons: 1. It will diminish the possibility of the Fundamentalist and Conservative Muslims to speak on behalf of everyone with a Muslim background. 2. Europeans will feel less threatened by Muslims when we see that they are getting more secular.