The Great Veil Debate

I remember a while back during one of my courses, I got into a heated discussion with a professor about the wearing of the Muslim veil.  Needless to say my colleagues were surprised to hear that as a former Muslim I opposed the Muslim head scarf (the burka, hijab, and niqāb).

For its entire mystique the Muslim head scarf, in all its form, is nothing more than male ownership of female sexuality. Little do western observers realize that often the choice between the wearing of the hijab and not wearing it comes down to severe physical harm. Instead, it is assumed that women who wear the veil do so of their own volition.

And while this may be true in some instances, the concept of choice can only be used as a valid reason in the context of an environment free of medieval sexual apartheid. Consider this, currently in the Islamic republic of Iran the penalty for not wearing the veil correctly is seventy-five lashes. The lashes are sometimes administered publicly for the purpose of discouraging others from following suit. Similarly In Saudi Arabia (the birth place of Islam and home to its holy shrines) the punishment can be as severe as beheading by sword.

We also hear Muslims and their defenders espouse the concept of modesty, often perversely citing examples of sexual assault on women whom dress provocatively as evidence of the hijabs necessity.  But this line of argument assumes that women who dress provocatively are asking to be assaulted and further whitewashes the fact that in cases involving women that have been raped and assaulted in a Muslim country the women are sentenced to stoning while men pay a mere fine.

It is important to also consider the hijab to be more than a religious obligation. This is especially true of women who wear the head covering in western countries. Immigration is a traumatic and emotional experience. It is often the case that as immigrants we find comfort in familiar customs that not only distinguish us from the rest of society but also gives us a sense of communal solidarity.

The western observer should be weary of assumptions behind the wearing of the veil. There are many women around the world to this day that struggle against sexual oppression in places like Iran and whose rights have been ignored for sake of medieval traditions.  Whatever the politically correct view may be, the Muslim head scarf is a form of sexual repression whose sole purpose is to validate male ownership (father, husband etc) of a women’s body and “honor”. There are many women around the Muslim world that would relish the opportunity to dress as they please, and would only dream of not being harassed because of the way they dress themselves.  It irks me to see women in Canada “choosing” to wear this medieval costume, knowing that there are women elsewhere who are being severely harmed because they “choose” not to wear it. To me, this is akin to a freed slave wearing a slave collar proudly!

The Danger of Supernatural Beliefs: Tears of Blood, The Murder of a Child Witch & The Mother Who Slit her Child’s Throat

What happens when supernatural beliefs become a hazard to the safety and health of a society?

All over the globe, cases are popping up which demonstrate that supernatural beliefs can be devastating for those that believe in them as well as for others.

In recent news, a very questionable event took place In Egypt. An 18 year old girl named Dawa’a claimed that the tears of blood she cried were a sign of jinn, the spirits or ghosts of Egyptian folklore.

The issue here is that crying tears of blood should cause concern for the health of this teen. Ignoring the condition due to beliefs that the cause was supernatural could be considered a form of neglect.

The teenager became unconscious as the Muslim scholar Amr Al-Laithi recited verses from the Qu’ran over her body. Upon waking, Dawa’a said she could not remember anything except having an extremely painful head-ache. However, when speaking of her experience, the teen claimed that she was touched by a “tribe of about one thousand jinn,”.

Crying tears of blood, also called haemolacria, can be a symptom of serious medical conditions, such as a tumor or an internal injury. The girl received no medical attention to ensure her health or safety.

Near London, England, Kristy Bamu was tortured and killed under the accusation of practicing witchcraft. His sister, Magalie Bamu and her partner Eric Bikubi, claimed that he was practicing spells on a young child.

Magalie Bamu and Eric Bikubi, the murderers of Kristy Bamu.

Both Magalie Bamu and Eric Bikubi were jailed for life. Under no circumstances should a belief in witchcraft be a justification for the murder and sadistic torture of anyone. What is most distressing about the death of Kristy Bamu is that he was killed by his family, by people who he trusted and loved, all due to ignorant beliefs.

Various other children in Britain have been abused and/or killed under similar accusations that the children were practicing witchcraft.

Another terrible example took place in Magnolia, Texas. A mother named Daphne Spurlock stomped on her 5 year old’s chest and slit his throat with a kitchen knife because she heard voices that told her to rid her son of a demonic possession.

A photo of Michael Spurlock, who remains in critical condition after the incident.

Daphne Spurlock was heavily involved in her church, Magnolia Apostolic Tabernacle, and was an extremely religious individual. Take a look at her Facebook profile, where she regularly posts about her religious beliefs.

In each of these cases, the supernatural beliefs of a society caused people to harm (either intentionally or unintentionally) others.

I think that this is an atrocious problem in our world today. We need to step back from our belief in the supernatural and see it for what it really is; potentially dangerous. Reason and skepticism are necessary in our world to have safe and just societies, where it will not be tolerated for people to harm others simply based on their supernatural beliefs.

Why Legal Abortion is Vital for the Safety, Health & Freedom of Women

“What is this ban on abortion? It is a survival of the veiled face, of the barred window and the locked door, burning, branding, mutilation, stoning, of all the grip of ownership and superstition come down on woman, thousands of years ago.” – Stella Browne

Does person-hood begin in the womb or after birth? Is abortion the murdering of an innocent human child or is it simply terminating a mass of cells? What do abortion rights have to do with women’s equality? Why even talk about abortion in the first place?

Why we need to talk about abortion.

I know you may be wondering why I would even want to discuss abortion when it appears as though most people have made up their minds on this debate, and there’s no turning back for them. However, this notion is wrong. Change is possible. Opinions and moral convictions are not stable. Remember the good old days when society condemned premarital sex and divorce?

Our views on abortion are evolving rapidly, just like the topics that people have debated over in the past, such as child labour, the voting rights of women, and slavery. All of these issues are now universally agreed upon. It’s vital that we discuss abortion so that awareness can be brought about.

A woman is a person. So…?

“No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.” Margaret Sanger

To begin, I give you the basic premise that women are indeed persons, and therefore deserve equal rights, respect and dignity as do all other persons. There is no longer a question about the person-hood of women. Although the reality of equality has not completely been attained, we can agree that women are people. Therefore, I believe that women should have the ability to make decisions about what is and isn’t good for themselves. It is without a doubt that women have the right to autonomy and one cannot have true autonomy if they do not have it over their own physical bodies.

What is in debate here is at what point does person-hood begin? Some say it starts at conception, others when the zygote becomes a fetus and some say it begins when the baby is born. It’s a question which is disputed by many.

What is person-hood anyway? And how does one define it?

When deciding if one is a person or not, there are a few key questions to ask.

1. Can the entity act in the world and respond to its environment?

2. Is the entity aware of its own existence?

3. Does the entity possess rights and duties?

4. If it can claim the right to live, does it live independently?

I will now examine these questions and provide answers as to whether or not a prenatal organism should be considered a person.

1. A fetus cannot act in the world nor respond to the environment except in response to it’s provider’s body, its mother.
2. A fetus and even newborn babies do not yet have awareness of their own state, emotions or motivations. It is not self aware and therefore cannot acknowledge it’s own existence. We also cannot disregard the state in which the fetus exists within it’s mother’s womb; the fetus is asleep, surrounded by darkness and connected to a placenta which provides the nutrients and blood necessary for growth. The fetus is actually in a sedated state due to the low oxygen pressure and substances provided by the placenta which cause sleep; such as steroidal anesthetics.
3. A fetus cannot possess rights or duties unless it is sentient and self-aware.
4. Let’s say that the fetus should have a right to life. If this is true, it should also be living independently. A fetus cannot do this because it can only live while being attached to and being nourished by it’s mother. It requires it’s mother’s life to live.

Based on the answers to the questions listed above, a fetus does not have true person-hood.

What a fetus looks like at 12 weeks, contrary to some misinformed beliefs of pro-life advocates:

When abortion is illegal, women are not safe.

“Women are not dying because of diseases we cannot treat. They are dying because societies have yet to make the decision that their lives are worth saving.” Prof. Mahmoud Fathalla,MD, PhD

Whenever a country has tried to outlaw abortion, it has only lead to dangerous consequences for women. Many women have died or have been injured when abortion was illegal due to unsafe practices. This is why people have fought so hard to have the right to choose. Why would we go back in time knowing that it will cause harm towards all women?

If we seriously honor and respect the individual rights of people, then we cannot possibly return to the horrifying idea of laws that will both force women to bear children against their will and force women into getting dangerous abortions.

Not all women who get pregnant can have safe pregnancies.

Many women who suffer with heart disease, sickle-cell anemia, kidney disease, severe diabetes and other illnesses require that they have an abortion because of the potential life-threatening consequences a pregnancy or childbirth could have on them and/or the fetus.

An accidental pregnancy or a rape can destroy a woman’s life if she does not have access to abortion.

It is a horrendous idea that some people are trying to push, that even if a woman is raped she should not have an abortion. It could bring her economic, emotional and personal freedom to an absolute halt. Even a consensual but accidental pregnancy could have a devastating effect on a woman’s life. Forcing someone to have a child they did not want takes away all of her personal choice.

Therefore, I believe it is vital that women have the right to choose what happens to their own body and that abortion be legal. It is vital for their safety, health, and for their freedom and autonomy as an individual human being.

The God Helmet: Your Brain On Religion

What if we could recreate a religious experience by simply flipping a switch in the brain? What if we could produce the feeling that someone or something is watching over us on demand? According to neuroscientific research conducted with The God Helmet, this may be possible.

The God Helmet, invented by Stanley Koren and used primarily by Dr. Michael Persinger, has forced us to reconsider the neurological basis of religion in the brain. The headgear is controversial because when electromagnetic waves are sent through a subject’s temporal lobe, it can create the feeling of a religious experience, or a sense of belonging. “We basically imitate what happens within the brain itself during a mystical experience,” says Dr. Persinger.

In this engaging lecture with guest speakers Trevor Carniello and Dr. Michael Persinger, learn about how The God Helmet works and discover the origin of religious experiences in the brain. Join us in this exclusive opportunity to be able to ask Dr. Persinger questions and find answers to your curiousities about God, the brain and religion.
The lecture takes place on Friday, March 9th at York University.This event is brought to you by Free[SAY]: Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists at York in collaboration with the Center For Inquiry.

When: Friday, March 9^th 2012 7:00pm

Where: York University, Accolade West Room 109

Tickets: http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/the_god_helmet/

How Much: $5 York Students

$7 General Admission

Tickets will also be available at the door

To encourage and promote involvement in both Free[SAY] and the Centre For Inquiry we’re offering FREE ADMISSION to “Faithless: Better without God”  (details here:http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/how_dan_barker_lost_his_faith_in_faith) AND “The God Helmet: Your Brain On Religion” with the purchase of a Student Membership for one year to the Centre for Inquiry.

For more information about the event and to purchase tickets please visit: http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/the_god_helmet/

Faithless: Better without God

Atheists have now been found to be the fastest growing minority group. We are no longer being silent and closeted about our beliefs. The question is, how does one transition from being devoutly religious to being an active atheist? In this compelling presentation brought to you by Free[SAY] and the Centre for Inquiry we will hear the deconversion story of a man who lost his faith in faith.

Dan Barker is the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is now the largest organization of freethinkers. He is also an accomplished musician and songwriter. However, what makes his story fascinating is that he began his career as an evangelical preacher.

At the age of 15, Dan accepted Christ as his savior and a few months later accepted what he felt was a calling to join the ministry. Dan received a degree in Religion at Azusa Pacific University and was ordained into the ministry by the Standard Community Church, California, in 1975. Barker also co-pastored in three different churches, and for eight years he was a cross-country evangelist. He preached for a total of nineteen years and has over two hundred published and recorded Christian songs that he has composed.

So what made Dan Barker lose his faith in religion? Free[SAY]: Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists at York in collaboration with the Centre for Inquiry, will be bringing you Dan Barker to tell his deconversion story at York University on March 1^st, 2012. The presentation will be taking place from 7-9 PM at Accolade West, room 109.

When: Thursday, March 1^st 2012 at 7:00 pm

Where: York University, Accolade West Room 109

Tickets: http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/how_dan_barker_lost_his_faith_in_faith/

How Much: $5 York Students

$7 General Admission

Tickets will also be available at the door

To encourage and promote involvement in both Free[SAY] and the Centre For Inquiry we’re offering FREE ADMISSION to “Faithless: Better without God” AND “The God Helmet: Your Brain On Religion” (details here:http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/the_god_helmet) with the purchase of a Student Membership for one year to the Centre for Inquiry.

Atheists Care: Help Support FreeSAY’s Food Drive!

A recent study titled “Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice,” done by the University of British Columbia discovered that atheists are one of the most distrusted groups of people. According to the survey, atheists were as distrusted as rapists. This prejudice is based on the misguided notion that atheists are immoral.

FreeSAY has taken up the challenge of dispelling this negative stereotype placed upon atheists. We are holding a food drive in order to show that atheists can and do have a positive role in society. All proceeds from this event will be going to support the North York Harvest Food Bank which supplies a variety of food banks and kitchens across North York, including York University’s own food bank.

We will be accepting donations from Monday January 30th till Friday February 3rd in Vari Hall from 10:00am – 4:00pm everyday, with the exception of Thursday February 2nd where we will be in the Vari Hall Link.

Our goal is collect 500 pounds of donations! Come out and show your care by helping us reach our goal and supporting your local community.

Was God created in man’s image?

         At first glance this illustration may appear to be just another rendering of the Sistine Chapel’s The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo. However with closer inspection one sees that Adam is actually illustrating an unfinished god. This beautiful charcoal drawing was created by Cristian David Garcia.

The original artwork by Michelangelo was meant to be a Biblical depiction of the moment when God first breathes life into Adam. Creatively, Garcia breathes life into this idea and flips it upside down to demonstrate an atheist perspective. The Creation depicts the moment when a human created god.

Wait. Read that again. Humans created god? What a preposterous idea!

         No, you read it correctly. As an atheist, I believe this idea to be true. The claim that an elderly man created the universe speaks volumes of how we are limited by our lack of knowledge. Because of the fact that we cannot perceive what is beyond the information given to us, it makes sense that humans conjure up the idea that someone must have made us. After all, we create children who are in our image, so who created us in their image? It somewhat makes sense if using simplistic and egotistical logic.

The problem is when there is evidence that the organisms on our earth exist due to an extraordinary and complex process called evolution. How do we explain the age of our earth? How do we understand our galaxy and beyond? The model of a god creating everything is no longer enough to make sense of our existence.

While we do have amazing imaginative and creative abilities, we do not yet have the technological abilities to perceive and understand the entire universe and how it works. We know facts about our earth, solar system and our galaxy, and we can estimate and theorize about what is beyond that. We can even take images and use the knowledge we do have to try and comprehend what is out there. But the fact is, we are so small, and new to this universe. What we do think we know in science may be disproved tomorrow, as scientific knowledge is constantly in flux.

When taking these ideas into consideration throughout my life, I reached my own conclusion that it may be that humankind created god because that is all we knew when we first became conscious and thinking beings. God is our creation, s/he doesn’t own us. We own the idea of god because it manifested in our minds as an explanation for events that we simply didn’t have the understanding to explain. But now we do have more knowledge, and we are always in the process of learning more every day.

So, I commend Cristian David Garcia for his artwork. It is eye opening and refreshing to see a piece of art which is not only gorgeous to view but also inspiring for the mind.

Of course, another food for thought is the Flying Spaghetti Monster rendition of The Creation of Adam. Now, excuse me as I go to have my second helping of spaghetti.

Q: Should people teach children that they can go to hell for all eternity for sin?

A: No, I don’t believe parents should teach their children that they are going to suffer and be damned to hell. I agree with freedom of religion and freedom of expression but there is a difference between a freedom and a right. A freedom is a privilege and if you harm someone (threatening, emotionally harming someone by saying that they will go to hell) it is no longer acceptable. In my opinion it is harmful to teach children that certain actions they do can condemn them forever. It causes lots of anxiety, guilt and stress that is really damaging in the long run. As a child I grew up in a religious environment and I had a lot of fear and guilt associated with my religion, so I know the result of teaching children about hell. It is only putting large amounts of pressure and fear onto a child, which in my opinion is a form of emotional abuse, because making someone fear for their life (or in this case afterlife) is injurious to that person’s well being.