Press Release for Freedom from Religion

 

           

307316 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Groundbreaking book delivers a powerful manifesto for freedom

In ‘Freedom from Religion,’ author Noel McGivern boldly presents a well argued case for why walking away from religion would be beneficial to individuals and society.

ENGLAND – Author Noel McGivern publishes a groundbreaking work that he explains is a manifesto for freedom, titled “Freedom from Religion.” He declares that this is a human right often forgotten by those who only defend freedom of religion. The claims of religion are presented and then forensically dissected by a powerful prosecution case. However, this is not simply an account of religion from the outside. The author draws on his own religious and spiritual experiences and explains why he rejected them.

This book brings an original perspective on why religions cannot escape responsibility for the violent acts carried out in their name. It explains how the religious identities that fuel such conflicts are often fostered by religious teaching in early childhood or result from a later desire to assert that identity and why the refusal of religions to acknowledge this is so dangerous to the world.

With knowledge of one worst of the predators, he examines the moral bankruptcy of the Catholic Church over child abuse. This case for the bankruptcy of religion is furthered by a compelling case for why the Catholic Church and Christianity in general are responsible for creating the circumstances that allowed the Holocaust. Through the use of a source in Saudi Arabia, he shows how the treatment of women in Islam demonstrates how religious claims are used to justify abuse.

There is also a sense of fun when we are told what a dog can teach us about human religious belief and how what’s behind wallpaper shows the absurdity of believing that everything is meant to be. The ridiculousness of the Noah’s ark story is explored in detail, down to calculations of much food would be needed for the lions.

Starting from the simplest of examples McGivern builds a case that shows how nonsensical the case for treating Creationism and Intelligent design as sciences is.

Not just beliefs and practices but the logic at the heart of religious beliefs is exposed. Why the idea of God and belief without evidence make no sense is skillfully explained. The case of the MMR, measles, mumps and rubella, scandal where belief was put before evidence, at the cost of children’s health, is given as an example of how religious thinking infects a wider society.

“Freedom from Religion” will arm those who argue against religion with powerful arguments and will challenge anyone who claims books like the Bible and Qur’an deserve to be treated as sacred. This may be the most challenging book many believers have ever read. It sets a penetrating gaze on the harm of religion in order to proclaim one simple principle: The right to walk away from religion.

For more information on this book, interested parties may log on to www.XlibrisPublishing.co.uk.

Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Religion-Noel-McGivern/dp/1483685454/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382365426&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=N0EL+MCGIVERN+FREEDOM+FROM+RELIGION

 AND

 Barnes and Noble

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/freedom-from-religion-noel-mcgivern/1117191831?ean=9781483685458

 Soon available in ebook and paerback in Amazon,co.uk and other outlets.

About the Author

Noel McGivern was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1962, and left at the age of 19 for a degree in politics at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. A major reason for leaving Belfast was his desire to be free from the religious identities imposed by that divided society. He spent many years seeking the truth at the heart of religion and spirituality, eventually reaching the conclusion that such beliefs are often barriers to human and political progress. He embarked on a study of how religion affects individuals and society. This book, sometimes funny, and at others deeply serious, is the outcome of that.

Freedom from Religion * by Noel McGivern

The Position of Women in Saudi Arabia.

How Enslaved Are Saudi Arabia?

This is  an extract from the  Shadow Report for CEDAW prepared by 'Saudi Women for Reform' Saudi Arabia in December 2007. 

I was originally sent a copy of this report  by a Saudi dissident  who managed to get out of the country  to pursue post-graduate study, but was reported to the Saudi Authorities for her Atheism.  She'd been reported by her own family, the Saudi Government removed her funding and  she ended up having to seek asylum.  

A copy of the final  Official report is available  at olddoc.ishr.ch/hrm/tmb/treaty/cedaw/reports/cedaw%2040/cedaw_40_saudiarabia.pdf … it gives a more diplomatic assessment and couches cruelty in  more polite terms that the victims do. However  even reading that you could be in no doubt of the position of Saudi women. Here I have highlighted key points that can leave no one in any doubt as to how enslaved Saudi Women. 

What follows is not my writing but the report.  While since it was written women have been given limited voting rights in local elections the position of women  has not changed in any meaningful way.

The Shadow Report for CEDAW

Prepared by 'Saudi Women for Reform'

Saudi Arabia

The Executive Summary

December 2007

This shadow report tries to balance the official report submitted by the Saudi Arabian (SA) government, which was prepared confidentially. The shadow report is also prepared secretly mainly for security reasons. The women working on this report are a group of women concerned with public issues and active in women's rights. They don't belong to any official umbrella and work independently. They call themselves 'Women for Reform'. Therefore, if there are any flaws in this report it is because it is not the work of an institution. Working under an NGO was not possible since this type of institutions is not available in SA.

The reservations of SA on the CEDAW are mainly about 'all what controvert Islamic law', i.e. that SA will follow just what conforms to Islamic laws. This concept is very obscure and inaccurate, which was, thankfully, commented on by the CEDAW committee to the government. It is important to note that Islam incorporates many schools of thought that adopt different stands according to their interpretation of the sacred text in regard to women and other social issues. In Saudi Arabia there are citizens who adhere to the four Sunni schools: Maliki, Shafei, Hanafi and Hanbali, as well as the Shii schools and Ismaelis, in addition to many Sufi orders. But officially, SA adopts the Hanbali School only as the state's jurisprudence, and acknowledges the remaining schools but not their interpretations of texts.

What is important for women is to accept and acknowledge the differences in religious interpretations, a method that could facilitate the implementation of the CEDAW articles. Some of these controversial issues affect women's empowerment and participation in public life, such as the face cover and mixing with the other sex.

The principle that is ruling in SA is imposing the guardianship of a male over the woman all her life. Guardianship is linked to the inferior look to women and her traditional role in society and family. It belongs also to parts of our cultural heritage, traditions and customs practiced in the Arabian Peninsula.

According to the first report of the Saudi 'National Society for Human Rights': 'The denial for an adult woman to act on her behalf, in some times, except through a guardian or an agent, is harming her a lot, and is deepening the inferior look to women and to their legal and constitutional capacity. That harm extends to her right to file a law-suit. Her education, work, public activity and movement they are all relying on her male guardian or mahram (a relative who is not allowed to marry her such as a father, brother, son, uncle, nephew, grandfather, or father-in-law) regardless of his age, education and regardless of her age or qualifications'.

1

Linked to the issue of 'the guardian' many laws are breached and the Saudi woman is exposed to exploitation, blackmailing, plagiarism, violence, preventing her from getting married, and more, in addition to the humiliations a woman feels when demanding a male mahram to consent to her vital needs in order for the state to recognize them. This relationship holds many contradictions which will be clarified in details in the full report and briefly below:

Article 2

a)

In answering the query about how far in practice there was an implementation of equality between men and women, it is sufficient to say that the status quo is a continuous discrimination against women practiced not only by society but by the whole government's institutions and employees. There is no sign of an attempt to stop that, prevent it or punish the perpetrators. According to our knowledge, there is no legal text that punishes a person who discriminates against women. Discrimination is part of the general system, regulations and some explanatory legal circulations.

There are absolute NOT Do's for women, and there are other NOT Do's except with a mahram that could clarify the general situation. Here are some examples only:

1. Absolute prohibitions:

• Not allowed in all the government's departments including the administration of women's education, and public institutions such as the Department of Social Insurance. Accordingly women's access to recourses is limited and some times denied the right, or abused by men who provide such services.

• Not allowed to issue an official document that combines the mother's identity information with her children's.

• Not allowed to drive a car.

• Not allowed into many shops and public service stores such as video shops, music shops, children's barber shops, travel agencies, or foreign labor recruitment offices (such as drivers).

• Not allowed to ride any game while accompanying a child in a public place such as a Mall.

• Not allowed to ride any boats in public parks.

• Not allowed to use gym rooms in hotels nor having designated hours.

• Not allowed into any sport clubs (all male), sport halls, or attend sport games.

2. Prohibited except with a Mahram or guardian:

• Not allowed to schools, universities, postgraduate studies except with permission from a guardian.

• Not allowed to travel abroad except with a guardian's permission. If a woman does not have a guardian: a father or a husband or brother, then her SON will be her guardian.

• Not allowed to work except with a guardian's permission.

• Not allowed to take a car that she owns out of the country unless she has a permission of the minister of interior or the governor.

2

• Not allowed into restaurants or cafés except with a mahram.

• Not allowed to stay in hotels or furnished flats without a mahram.

• Religious discrimination occurs in the two Holy Mosques. In Makkah's Holy Mosque women's share of the main space surrounding the Kaaba, which is the holiest place, is about one seventh of the inner circle of the mosque (the circumambulation area), the remaining area is open to men's prayers only.

• In Madina's Holy Mosque, women are not allowed to reach the Rawdah al Sharifah (the holiest part of the mosque) except for a small part of it, a few hours a day, whereas it is open for men the whole time and the remaining area of the Rawdah.

• Not allowed to have an operation without the consent of a guardian, especially when it is a gynaecological operation.

• Not allowed to enter a hospital for delivery except with a guardian's approval, nor she can be discharged from hospital or prison without a male guardian's signature.

• Not allowed to register her baby's birth notification. Who can register it is only the father, or a male relative over 17 years old.

• According to the regulations of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA), a woman is not allowed to open a bank account in the name of her son or daughter except with the father's consent, nor is she allowed to carry any transactions on her child's behalf even if it is she who is depositing money in it.

Bieber Fans Show the Roots Of Religion

LOVE OF JUSTIN AND JESUS IS SIMILAR REMARKABLY SIMILAR

One way to understand religion is to look at the adoration of celebrities like Justin Bieber. His fans often feel like they have a real relationship with him in very much the same way as Christians see themselves as having a personal relationship with Jesus. It is probable that the early spread of Christianity was very like how the popularity of celebs spreads today in that believers worship the image they had of Christ and not reality. This may seem like a fanciful idea and therefore needs to be justified. This account of Justin Bieber fans from December 2011 is a highly illuminating place to start.

The Beliebers had gathered that night for a buyout, a unique form of Justin Bieber fandom and one of the reasons why he consistently posts huge CD sales despite the fact the majority of his fanbase came out of the womb with iPod earbuds on. In a buyout, Beliebers descend in a biblical swarm on a store that sells Justin Bieber CDs. They buy out the entire stock, two or three copies per girl if they've got the cash. Of course these die-hards already have all of Justin's music, so the CDs are donated to charity after the buyout, usually a local children's hospital. Buyouts are happening all over the country now, to celebrate the release of Justin's new Christmas album, Under the Mistletoe.

At about 8:00pm a pair of older girls mounted a wall in front of the tittering crowd, shouting like generals marshaling an army. This isn't really a metaphor: The buyout was organized via Twitter and Facebook by a Justin Bieber fan group called BieberArmy, which consists of four longtime fans with a popular Bieber fansite and 340,000 Twitter followers. Stephanie, a 19-year-old Bieber Army leader shouted out two ground rules for the evening: 1) Buy as many Justin Bieber CDs as possible and 2) "don't freak out" if Justin Bieber showed up. "Just don't attack him," she stressed.

http://gawker.com/5864603/the-unstoppable-rampage-of-the-beliebers

Bieberanity, like most religions, requires collective acts of worship and demonstrations of faith. Beliebers express their loyalty and devotion by the number of CDs they purchase. The CDs are the alms a good Christian Moslem, Hindu of Buddhist should give. They invest them with a deep value, just as many Christians invest the giving of a Bible or perhaps (depending on which side of the reformation they favour)  a crucifix or picture of the Virgin Mary with deep value.  The Bieber CDs, like these Christian items are perceived to be a comfort and benefit to the sick. The required altruism is an act of submission to the faith.  That same submissiveness is most marked in religions that require believers to give 10% of their income. When we pay for something we make a commitment.

The giving on behalf of the faith makes a statement of its power and status.  It says we have the resources to give and the command over our followers to also get them to do so. 

Let’s return to the Gawker.com account of the buy out.

Things got weird outside after the buying was done. The organizers suddenly halted the mob outside a cafe half a block away. One organizer named Cher revealed that they'd heard some girls hadn't given up the CDs they bought for charity: "If everyone doesn't put their CDs in the bag, Justin's not coming," she warned, holding a giant trash bag full of most of the girls' CDs.

After a minute of awkward silence, three or four girls emerged from the back of the crowd and sheepishly dropped their CDs into a big bag to be donated to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

"This is a buyout, not a meet and greet," explained another organizer. "If this was for you to meet Justin I would have labeled it a meet and greet."

"There are people in a hospital right now who can't afford this because of their surgery!" said Cher.

Here we see the use of morality to assert authority over the group. Backsliders are shamed and brought into line. We are very familiar with this approach by those in religious authority. The similarity is found in another significant way.

Bieberanity like other religions is both a rejection and development of earlier religions. It proclaims the uniqueness of the Deity Justin. We find that Islam does not deny its common Abrahamic origins with Christianity and Judaism but claims it arose when Muhammed received a direct message from God. Buddhism arose out Hindu asceticism but again claims to be an uninfluenced realisation. Buddhists claim that reaching the point of true enlightenment is an experience which is beyond influence. Christ, born into Judaism, is said to have not only have been directly influenced by God but to have been God.

We could go back to Elvis starting in the 1950s, the Beatles in the 1960s and then into the 1970s with stars like David Cassidy, or better still the boyish Donny Osmond and you can see the origins of Bieberanity worship. Teenage girls screamed and swooned. They were the mothers and grandmothers of Beliebers and they ate, studied (or failed to concentrate) and slept longing for the benediction of their idol(s).  Their daughters and granddaughters like the Moslems, Buddhists and Christians mentioned above see their faith as very different from the previous ones. Differentiating your religion or pop idol from other ones is a key characteristic of religion and central to Bieberanity.

Perhaps when we wonder at the origins of religion we should look at how teenage girls treat their idols and ask if it is really very different from religious belief. 

Both religion and the collective following of a idol are largely (though not exclusively) about group identity. This is used as a means of social control, with the group demanding conformity from its members. It seems to  matter little when the object of adoration is Justin or Jesus, devotion is an important source of religious feeling.

Open Letter to @Ginab0beena

Open Letter to @Ginab0beena

Dear Gina

You have changed.

You burst into to my timelines a bit over a year ago earnestly discussing a teddy bear’s picnic with your friend. I couldn’t resist displaying my knowledge of Winnie the Pooh, not expecting a response. Who replied I don’t recall but I was drawn into the exchanges.  I grew to love your tweets. Not just because you shared my concerns about the harm of religion but because you could so skilfully sum up your experience in a few words.     

  

The topics you tweeted on ranged from work, dog sitting, the wealthy dunks at a regatta to shoes.  Shoes always featured a lot.  You tweeted about being in and out relationships.  In so many ways your tweets were  just about being young and alive. One running theme was your plan to travel.  You could not wait for the days to pass.  You longed to kick the English dust from one of your many pairs of shoes.

But something has happened to you, Gina, something more profound that anyone could have predicted.  Your recent tweets have moved me so very deeply. If I believed in Hell, I’d say you were tweeting from there.  Some of your tweets are painful to read and must be so much more painful to tweet.  Yet you tweet with such clarity and compassion.  More than that, you show so much strength and a desire to find a way forward. Any yet you remain Gina, in so many ways.

Something has changed Gina. You have started to record the condition of the children in Cambodia in a way that breaks my heart. You are putting what you see in plain but very powerful words.

Gina, you make me want to help. I do not believe I am alone in that. Who could not be moved by your account of a three year old child eating rotten fruit from a bin or horrified by a mother telling you how her two year old child was raped on the streets?  

We need to decide on the best way to help and, as I say, I will certainly contribute and  I am certain that many others will contribute too.  You have said there is a charity you have seen and you want to check it out further. Please give us details  about it. We will raise a fund to help.

Gina, look after yourself.

Love

Noel.

Why Abdullah Fandi al_Shammari should be spared

In January2005 I received the worst phone call of my life. It was telling me that my sister had been stabbed to death by a man she'd had a relationship with. Nothing could ever have prepared me for news like that, or for the effect it would have on who I am, and my life.

I had had a good deal of experience of grief: the loss of my mother from cancer, the death of my grandparents, a school friend who'd died in a road accident, a number of friends who died of overdoes or intentional suicide. I had also known the victims of violent death. I'd even had the experience of finding , someone I shared a house with dead. So I can, with experience, say that the death of a loved one, by violence is vastly worse than any of these experiences.

I was, in short, to experience a level of pain I could not have imagined. Though it would have been impossible for me to have done so I was burdened with the irrational feeling that I should have been able to protect my sister. I had a feeling of guilt which I knew made no sense but would not leave me. For about five years I could not have honestly answered yes to the question "Are you OK?" because I was not OK and could not even conceive of ever feeling OK again. I had times when the pain was so great that my whole torso ached with pain for days on end.

And yet I am arguing against the execution of Abdullah Fandi al_Shammari who was convicted of murder. The first point is that had my sister's killer faced execution it would not have lessened my pain in any way. It would, in fact, have added to the burden. I say this because waiting for the execution would have caused me to be constantly aware of my sister's killer. It would have also introduced the uncertainty of waiting for an unknown execution date. My grief was hard enough to deal with without introducing the idea that I could have only had "closure" after an execution.

Execution does not deter murder. If it did the murder rate would be lower where there was a death penalty. As the link http://chartsbin.com/view/1454 shows the USA with a death penalty has 5.22 homicides/murders per 100,000 population. In the UK without it the figure is 1.57. This correlation between societies with a death penalty and a high murder rate is repeated again and again across the globe.

In a jurisdiction where there is a death penalty the state's act of intentional killing lowers respect for human life. It most clearly does nothing to make for a society safer.

I argue that the life of Abdullah Fandi al_Shammari should be spared because I am convinced that executions lead to a more violent society.

Abdullah Fandi al_Shammari is due to be beheaded in Saudi Arabia eight days from the writing of this blog post.

Confusing Believers with Facts

Let me start by saying something which seems to often cause deep offence: SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE. I know this is a very shocking thing to ask anyone to do, especially if the evidence relates to such sensitive matters as the existence of a deity. I mean, frankly, believers often act as though they couldn't be more offended if I asked them to perform some deeply erotic act.

The simply truth is most believers have never seriously considered the question of evidence for God. They were taught about God in early childhood and regard his existence as a self evident truth. They are very shocked when told that there is no more evidence for God than for Santa Claus. Often this simply fact causes them to get very indignant.

"Don't be ridicules!" they tweet at me.

I calmly reply by asking them to provide any available evidence for God.

"Well the evidence is all around you. Everything in the world is evidence for God."

"Like the Ebola virus," I helpfully suggest.

That stumps them. First they have to google the the word "Ebola", just to check. Then they have to explain how God can be responsible for everything but somehow evade responsible for the Ebola virus. Many stop tweeting at that point. They remember all the other important things the need to do rather than tweet. But there are the determined ones.

The determined believers argue sin is the result of the "Fall of Man." They tweet this proud of the clever answer they have come up with and certain they have put me in my place.

Unfortunately, for them, that answer does not end the matter. I point out that if there was an all knowing God he would have known everything that would have in the world BEFORE HE MADE IT. I further point out that any human who intentionally does something, knowing the consequences will be harmful, will be held responsible for it. That is what the word "culpability" means. I It can hardly be reasonable to expect God to have lower standards than humans.

"But evil came about as the result of free will."

"Precisely how can free will create viruses?" I ask. The memory of my schooldays, when I'd wished I could have developed a virus to get me out of Latin class, comes to mind. I wonder if perhaps if I'd only used a bit more free will. Sadly they never come up with the formula that eluded me .In fact, at this point, they frequently seem to lose the train of their argument.

"What about Stalin and Hitler?" they tweet.

As you can imagine I struggle to see the connection between this and my last questiont but I try to be helpful. I point out that Hitler wasn't an Atheist and even provide a link to a very instructive Youtube video featuring Christopher Hitchens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyYwo7X4zck

Do you know there are some believers who just can't get this video to play? Anyway, asking them to view it shows how hateful and closed minded I am. Well they have a point. How can it ever be fair to argue with Christians simply by using facts? After all they've managed to maintain their faith for years and years without ever examining any.

The God of Irresponsibly

In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth Genesis I:I

It does not matter whether believers are creationists or not. Those of the three Abrahamic faiths all agree the world was intentionally created by an all powerful and just God.

This all powerful god would, by definition, be capable of creating any type of world he wanted to. He'd not be restricted by the laws of physics, which he would invent. He could make a tiny or gigantic universe. He didn't have to make humanity his central creation. Remember, being all powerful he could do whatever he wanted, any way he wanted.

When he decided to create humanity he could have made it as gentle as a kitten or like a bunch of hyenas. His choice. It is odd how often believers try to pretend God had no choice but if he was all powerful he had unlimited choice.

If someone drove a car recklessly and caused an accident, in which someone is killed or injured, that driver would be culpable for their behaviour. However, unless the driver deliberately set out to injure someone, they could claim they didn't know the consequences beforehand. God couldn't claim to not know the consequences. He knowingly created a world in full knowledge of every baby that would starve to death. How much more culpable would the driver have been had he or she known with complete certainly that they would kill and injure? How Culpable must the God of Abraham Be?

Christians argue God created free will. In that case, he did so in the full knowledge of all who would suffer as a consequence of free will. He knew everyone who would be killed and injured and abused because of free will. Christians argue that free will was necessary yet never address the question of why a just God would put the rights of wrong doers to have free will over the rights of their victims. How is that Just? In fact I have never heard any believers willingly addressing the harmfulness of their God's decision to create free will.

Assuming free will exists, which is a big assumption, why does it only apply to questions of wrong or right? An all powerful God could have given me the power to simply think I was in Paris and be there. After all, he supposedly set the laws of physics. Yet if you listen to the arguments of believers free will was primarily given to enable wrong doing. The logic of their argument is God intentionally created a humanity which he knew would largely disobey him; simply to see how many would be good. Essentially, he created humans as play things for a twisted game. He did this in the full knowledge of the suffering it would cause to the victims.

As a humanist I take a simple moral position: It is wrong to do something you know will cause harm, unless it is necessary to prevent a greater harm. An all powerful god could have created the world in another way but chose a suffering world. Those who believe in God cannot say that he is not responsible for his actions. If he isn't responsible he's no example to human morality and has no right to judge. Christians are quick to claim humans should take responsibility for their actions. Where is the logic in not saying God should take responsibility for his actions?

Those who argue that human suffering is caused by free will want to ignore that the logic of their own position; that God made a free will choice to create the world. He knew the consequences and yet freely decided to do things in the way he did. He had the power to create a world without suffering but made a conscious decision not to. The God they worship is, in short, callous and irresponsible.