Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1886

The Wages of Tolerance: Atheist Gadfly Theo van Gogh, a Foe of Islam, Was Assassinated Ten Years Ago Today

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the brutal murder of Dutch writer, filmmaker, and free-speech advocate Theo van Gogh. He died at the hands of a Muslim fundamentalist, Mohammed Bouyeri, who silenced Theo’s criticism of Islam with bullets and blades. For the crime of making a movie (with Ayaan Hirsi Ali) that called out Islam’s widespread misogyny, Theo was assassinated in public, in broad daylight – Bouyeri, after emptying his gun, calmly and methodically almost severing his victim’s head while horrified bystanders looked on. Then he plunged two knives into the body — one pinning a threatening note to Hirsi Ali to Theo’s flesh — and left them there as he tried to make his getaway.

Like the Islamic death sentence received by Salman Rushdie, it was a defining moment in one of the defining fights of our time.

Tintin parody: “Belly and the Jihadis,” by Joost Veerkamp — featuring, from right,
Theo van Gogh, Mohammed Bouyeri, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. See www.veerkamp.nl for more.

Back when I lived in Amsterdam, I’d met Theo a few times and interviewed him once (about local architecture, of all things; he was quite the renaissance man). I was struck by how easily he carried himself in all kinds of different company. As combative and fierce as he could be in print, in person he was a very social and genuinely curious man, always probing, trying out ideas and theories, soaking up new information. He was blunt but kind, passionate but not wrathful, eager to drive home a provocative point but careful not to twist the knife, so to speak.

In short, he was the antithesis of his assassin.

As a private remembrance of sorts, I’ve been re-reading Ian Buruma‘s Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance, which came out about two years after the outrageous end of Theo’s life. And just as it had the first time around, the part that floored me was Buruma’s encounter with a second-generation Dutch-Moroccan man, an actor then in his twenties named Farhane el-Hamchaoui.

First, let’s establish this: El-Hamchaoui’s family, Buruma writes, is unusually successful.

His father taught himself to speak Dutch and owned several shops in The Hague. His two elder brothers were the first Moroccans to finish the prestigious Gymnasium Haganum. One works as an IT expert for the ministry of justice, the other for a large insurance firm.

And Farhane? He became a juvenile delinquent, getting into fights, smoking dope, gang-banging girls, mugging elderly people, even robbing the headmaster of the school for difficult children he was sent to. But gradually, he turned his life around; and when Buruma met up with him, Farhane was performing in an autobiographical play about his dubious adventures, a drama intended to convey a message about redemption and the importance of “doing something positive for the community.”

One man to whom El-Hamchaoui undoubtedly owes a debt of gratitude was Theo van Gogh. Theo hired El-Hamchaoui to play in his movie Cool!, launching the young man’s professional acting career.

Now, here’s the passage that grabbed me and won’t let go:

I asked Farhane whether he ever felt Dutch. “Neither Dutch nor Moroccan,” he replied. What if Holland plays soccer against Morocco? “Then I’m for Morocco, for sure! But if I had to choose between a Dutch passport and a Moroccan one, I would choose the Netherlands. You have to think of your interests. A Moroccan passport would be useless. But with soccer I can choose for my own blood.” [...]

He had to explain to other Moroccans that Cool! had been made before Submission, the film Van Gogh made with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for otherwise he “would have been seen as a traitor.” He had only seen a small bit of the eleven-minute film. “It was totally ridiculous, totally missing the point.” Van Gogh must have been “tricked into making such a film.” Projecting the Koran onto the naked body of a woman is “an insult, the kind of insult I could never forget, like that time I wasn’t allowed to play with my best [white Dutch] friend at school. All Moroccans feel that way. I would never support Mohammed Bouyeri. But about the film he was right.“

“Right to kill Van Gogh?” asks Buruma. El-Hamchaoui doesn’t really answer the question, except to say, with a startling non sequitur,

“No Moroccan respects Mohammed Bouyeri. To commit a murder during Ramadan — that is totally unacceptable.”

When Buruma presses him further, El-Hamchaoui says that murder is “never justified,” but he adds that he can see how Bouyeri was “pushed into it.” He also says that in coffeehouses where Muslims congregate, his fellow believers “say things they would never say in front of a camera” (presumably, “I condemn bloodshed in the name of my faith” isn’t one of those things). And El-Hamchaoui also reveals that someone in his social circle remarked, apparently admiringly, that “millions of Muslim women want to marry Mohammed Bouyeri.”

It’s worth reassuring oneself that El-Hamchaoui is, of course, no extremist — not even close. He’s a modern Muslim. No jihad for him! And why would it be otherwise? He was raised in a famously broad-minded country that bestowed relatively generous subsidies upon immigrants and their children, and whose ruling classes insisted that every Dutch burgher fully embrace the tenets of unfettered multiculturalism. He had the benefit of fairly well-to-do immigrant parents (who arrived poor but thrived), and was offered a top-notch secondary education. He is a full Dutch citizen, with all the rights and privileges that entails. Also, he was given a rare opportunity to become a professional actor, by a man — Theo — whose open-mindedness and company he confesses to have liked a lot.

And yet El-Hamchaoui’s loyalties are murky at best. He openly says he doesn’t much value his Dutch passport, except that it suits his “interests.” He doesn’t stick up for his murdered benefactor, because he understands what drove the killer, and about Submission at least, that killer “was right.” He thinks of Submission not simply as a controversial movie that he didn’t care for, but — despite his knowing and liking the director — as a personal insult, on a par with being discriminated against by the parents of his best friend in school.

In terms of integration, Muslims like El-Hamchaoui — moderate, thoughtful, steeped in western values, capable of change, relatively successful — are the Netherlands’ best hope.

And it’s impossible to not find that a bit disheartening.

Churches Give You a Sense of Purpose (Seriously)

The video below, part of The Atheist Voice series, discusses how churches are very good at handling fear (seriously):

This is an excerpt from a longer video, which can be seen here.

A rough transcript of the video can be found on the YouTube page in the “About” section.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the project — more videos will be posted soon — and we’d also appreciate your suggestions as to which questions we ought to tackle next!

And if you like what you’re seeing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon.

Why You Should Never “Just Have Faith” When It Comes to Religion

The video below, part of The Atheist Voice series, discusses how you should never “just have faith” when it comes to religion:

This is an excerpt from a longer video, which can be seen here.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the project — more videos will be posted soon — and we’d also appreciate your suggestions as to which questions we ought to tackle next!

And if you like what you’re seeing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon.

Watch Matt Dillahunty Explain Why the Creation of the Universe and Life Really Aren’t All That Improbable

In the next video for his Atheist Debates project, Matt Dillahunty explains the Argument from Design — specifically, how the astronomical possibilities against the creation of the universe and life really aren’t all that improbable:

I haven’t had a chance to watch the whole thing yet, but if any moments stand out, please leave the timestamp/summary in the comments!

Florida Judge Who Ran a Christian Ministry from the Courthouse Is Finally Kicked Out of Office

Judith Hawkins (below) was a county judge in Tallahassee, Florida who didn’t seem to care much about the law. That would explain why she used her government position to advance her religious ministry.

Hawkins is the founder of Gaza Road Ministries and she ran the company from the Leon County Courthouse. She also attempted to sell her ministry’s books to lawyers appearing in front of her. And it just got worse from there:

[Judicial Qualifications Commission] Hearing Panel Chair James A. Ruth wrote Hawkins was guilty of deleting subpoenaed financial records or her ministry, misleading investigators during depositions and refusing to turn over material without an official order.

…

The JQC also found Hawkins guilty of posting images of her wearing judicial robes on her ministry website, failing to comply with tax law, reading magazines during court proceedings and using less than her full time for judicial duties.

She also had her judicial assistant help her run the ministry but never reported that to taxing authorities. And check out this exchange:

On November 10, 2011, during a hearing in open court, an attorney appearing before Judge Hawkins mentioned, “Judge, I hear you have a new book out,” and requested an autographed copy… He heard about the book from one of the bailiffs… The judge, who was still on the bench, requested $15 dollars, told the attorney to pay her personally, and said “I’ll take it right now.”… The attorney offered, and Judge Hawkins accepted, an additional $5 more for her autograph… Judge Hawkins thanked the lawyer, said “I like your spirit” and asked him to “spread it amongst the others” because “[t]hese work for the State. I’m going to let you take the private Bar crowd.”

These allegations first came to light in December of 2012 and the case has been ongoing ever since.

In June, the Florida Supreme Court decided that Hawkins could no longer be a judge. The JQC had suggested she be suspended for 90 days and fined $17,000, but the justices had the option of taking it even further:

On Monday, six justices of the Supreme Court — Justice Peggy Quince recused herself — said it considered the entire case and requires she “show cause why removal from office is not the appropriate sanction in this case.”

On Thursday, the justices did indeed go that next major step, stating that Hawkins had no business being a judge anymore in a 36-page opinion:

“We conclude that Judge Hawkins’ conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office, demonstrating present unfitness to hold office, and that removal is the only appropriate sanction… Based on the violations found by the Hearing Panel, which were supported by clear and convincing evidence, we conclude removal from the bench is the only appropriate sanction in this case.“

Hawkins has about two weeks to file for a rehearing… but it’s hard to see how she can defend herself at this point.

Finally, there’s some justice in this matter.

(Thanks to Richard for the link. Large portions of this article were published earlier)

Creationists Set to Make Monkeys of Themselves at Michigan State University Today

Students at Michigan State University are in for a real treat today: a Creationist conference called the Origin Summit! The event’s website is really quite informative, as it gives students a great preview of what’s in store for them. I’m tempted to let this actual screen capture from their site do the talking, as it pretty much sums up what you can expect:

I know, you’re already burning your science textbooks, having been swayed by such wit and reasoning. But, really, there’s so much more goodness to be had that it seems a shame not to mention at least a few more shining moments.

There is, for instance, the morning workshop with Dr. Jerry Bergman. First point of interest? Creation Wiki has this to say of Bergman’s Ph.D.:

In 1992 he received a Ph.D. in human biology, from Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California. The degree is legal, but the university faced various accusations and had its accreditation removed in 1997. Some feel that the school’s support of Intelligent Design in required readings may have been involved. Others believe that their support of various alternative medical treatments was a factor. The real reason is unknown.

That a favorable description of a key speaker even has to mention that his “degree is legal” might cause concern for some, but obviously not all. The topic itself is surely worth a mention, if only for the shades of Godwin’s Law:

There’s no doubt Adolph Hitler believed in evolution, but to what extent did that belief affect his actions? You might say he caught the “survival of the fittest” ball and ran with it, declaring the Aryan race to be “the fittest”.

There are, of course, plenty of other fascinating talks, like “The Big Bang is FAKE,” as well as an iPad contest serving as a desperate bribe an inducement to attend (“Must be present to win”). The event that promises to be the most fun, though, is the “debate.”

The dictionary defines debate in this context as

a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

Which isn’t exactly how the Creationists of Origin Summit mean “debate.” Rather, they define it this way (again, an actual screen shot from their site):

Best part? They even included time for this debate-sans-debater in their schedule:

4:30 p.m. : Closing Address — Why Origin Matters
7:00 p.m. : Debate (pending)

Am I catching a whiff of Eau de Desperation in the air?

Bill Maher Speaks About the Berkeley Controversy, Then Gets Berated by Panelist for His Comments About Islam

On last night’s episode of Real Time, Bill Maher addressed the controversy at UC Berkeley in which he was invited as a commencement speaker, only to have students protest his invitation, calling him a “blatant bigot and racist.” (Berkeley officials said they would not rescind his invitation.)

Panelist Rula Jebreal followed that monologue with a lengthy diatribe calling out Maher’s comments about Islam:

Among the many things she said was that this wasn’t about free speech. The protesters were justified in complaining because they wouldn’t have a chance to respond to Maher’s commencement address.

(Quick rebuttal: Maher made clear that his address would focus on advice for the students, not his views on Islam. The latter would be inappropriate, really, given the nature of the event.)

Jebreal also claimed Maher never invited people on his show who disagreed with him on the issue of Islam… a claim she made as a panelist on his show who disagreed with him about Islam… (Maher responded bluntly: “You’re here!”)

Finally, Jebreal suggested Maher looked at all Muslims the same way (“For you, we are all jihadists”) and that if he made similar claims about African-Americans or Jews, he would be out of a job.

Of course, Maher said never said anything like that. He’s said the percentage of Muslims who do not condemn violence in the name of their faith is much higher than we’d think (21% worldwide and 13% in the U.S., according to the Pew Research Center). He’s said the more liberal Muslim voices tend to be silent when we need them the most, like when a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie. He’s said Islam is unique in the way it both calls for the death of apostates and has followers who agree. He’s had moderate Muslims on his show before.

And comparing Maher to a racist or anti-Semite is really off base, considering that African-Americans don’t have an unquestionable holy book that commands them to kill other people and, again, there’s a difference between criticizing a holy book and going after the mostly peaceful people who might revere it.

It was frustrating to see her make accusation after accusation without giving Maher much of a chance to respond. He briefly cut in at times, as did the other panelists, especially toward the end, but it was mostly a Gish Gallop of anti-Maher talking points on her end. If she really wanted to have a conversation, there were plenty of opportunities for it, all of which she squandered.

8th Grader Gets Biblical Literalist to Admit That When God Says Hell is Forever, He Doesn’t Really Mean It

Chad, the young atheist who has flummoxed a number of Christian debaters, has done it again.

The eighth grader asked Christian debater Dennis Marcellino whether he believed the Bible was literally true.

Marcellino said he did.

Chad followed that up by questioning Marcellino’s claim from earlier in the debate that Hell wasn’t really forever — doesn’t the Bible say it is?

Check out Marcellino’s mind-boggling response:

Marcellino: … Forever doesn’t really mean forever.

Chad: … you said it was all literally true.

Marcellino: Well, yeah, it’s not literally English true. It’s Hebrew and Greek. So you have to get into the Hebrew and Greek.

Got that, everyone? The Bible is literally true. But not when you read it in English. The translators did a great job, but they royally fucked up all the sections about Hell…

In short, Marcellino basically responds by saying that words like “eternal” and “forever” are just synonyms for “a long time.”

Just for the sake of argument, here are some verses about Hell from the Bible:

“… when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might…” (2 Thessalonians 1:5-12)

…

“… just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7)

…

“These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 12-13)

But, you know, that’s English. The Bible doesn’t count in English.

I’ve heard of Christians arguing against the concept of Hell, but I’ve never heard a self-described Biblical literalist say the whole “eternal damnation” thing wasn’t about eternal damnation.

Nice job getting him to admit that, Chad!

(Portions of this article were published earlier)

What Would Your (Secular) Ten Commandments Be? Your Answers Could Be Worth Up To $10,000

Yesterday, I posted an excerpt from a new book called Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century by Lex Bayer (a Silicon Valley entrepreneur) and John Figdor (the Humanist chaplain at Stanford University).

In conjunction with the book launch, they’re also running a contest in which you can win a lot of money — up to $10,000 — by telling them what would be included in your personal Ten Commandments.

In short, tell them your new Commandment (in the length of a Tweet), along with an explanation of why it’s important to you. After the November 30 deadline, the judges — including Mythbusters’ Adam Savage, Camp Quest’s Amanda Metskas, some brown dude, and several others — will select the best ones.

Even if you don’t win, anything you say will still be better than the actual Ten Commandments since they probably won’t require worshiping false idols or come with the penalty of death.

All the rules are right here. Good luck!

A Wheelchair User Dresses Up As the Pope For Halloween; In Alabama, Cops Would Have Grounds For Arrest

This is how Redditor MattONesti is celebrating Halloween today: as the Pope. Improvised add-ons to his wheelchair mean he can roll around in style, in his very own Pope-mobile. Pretty cool!

A fellow Reddit user kindly cautioned him that in Alabama,

It is illegal to dress as a member of the clergy for halloween.

Which can’t possibly be true. Or can it?

I give you Section 13A-14-4 of Alabama’s criminal code:

Fraudulently pretending to be clergyman.

Whoever, being in a public place, fraudulently pretends by garb or outward array to be a minister of any religion, or nun, priest, rabbi or other member of the clergy, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500.00 or confinement in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(Acts 1965, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 273, p. 381; Code 1975, §13-4-99.)

Note that the law doesn’t include the all-important phrase “with intent to deceive.” I hope that doesn’t matter; that even in the Christianist heart of Dixie, no law enforcement officer would be crazy enough to go after people who dress up as clergy for Halloween.

But if a cop or a prosecutor wanted to, they could.

I couldn’t find where the Alabama law says that it’s also illegal to dress up as a stripper, scientist, soldier, or firefighter. Evidently, members of the clergy are special.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

P.S. The officers had better bring a big paddy wagon, as MattONesti’s classmates decided to put on a sister act:

Take that, coppers.