After the abuse scandals within the Catholic church, an official report has been published today – concerning the Church of Scientology. For several decades, members of Scientology have systematically abused children in Germany.

Here are the results, in a nutshell:

• In over six different institutions, at least 205 children and adolescents have been abused. They have been touched, they have been molested, they have been hit, they have been raped.
• The official investigator stated that she strongly believes that the actual number of cases is “far bigger”.
• 46 perpetrators are mentioned in the report.
• Some of the delinquents were known to abuse children. When their crimes came to light within the church, they were transfered to other institutions to continue their crimes.
• An official spokesman of the church said that the reality is outrageous and brings shame and disgrace to the church.

I lied.

There was report published yesterday about abuse within the Church of Scientology.

But imagine for a second what would have happened if it were the case. There would have been a public outrage – this topic would have been all over the news. People would have been arrested all over the place – not only perpetrators, but also the hundreds of members of the church who helped to cover up these crimes. Police investigations would have been initiated, maybe Scientology would have been banned in Germany.

In truth, the investigation, and the official document released concerns the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church. You can find a detailed report on spiegel.de.

Can we please start drawing consequences and initiate appropriate actions?

2010. Niedersachsen.
Die designierte CDU Sozialministerin Özkan schlägt vor, auf Kreuze in öffentlichen Schulen zu verzichten. “Christliche Symbole gehören nicht an staatliche Schulen”, sagt sie dem Focus. Auch betont Frau Özkan, dass eine Schule “ein neutraler Ort” sein sollte, weswegen auch Kopftücher “in Klassenzimmern nichts zu suchen” hätten.

• CDU-Generalsekretär Hermann Gröhe ist “eindeutig anderer Meinung”.
• Younes Ouaqasse, Schülerunion: “Durch Aussagen wie jene von Frau Özkan verlieren die Volksparteien CDU und CSU ihre Glaubwürdigkeit und damit ihren Rückhalt in der Bevölkerung.” Er fordert einen Verzicht auf die Ernennung der Ministerin.
• CSU-Generalsekretär Dobrindt bezeichnet das ganze als “abstruse Idee”. “Solche Verunsicherungen unserer Stammwähler sind wirklich überflüssig [...] Bei uns bleiben die Kruzifixe in den Klassen und die Gipfelkreuze auf den Bergen.”
• Maria Böhmer, CDU: Kreuze seien “Ausdruck unserer Tradition und unseres Werteverständnisses”.
• Auch die Kanzlerin spricht sich gegen den Vorschlag Frau Özkans aus.
• Update: und die Bayern schießen natürlich wieder die Palme ab. Thomas Goppel (den habe ich ohnehin sehr gerne – der hat uns 2002 oder 2003 in einer kleinen Runde mit Studierenden versprochen, dass keine Studiengebühren kommen, und 4 Wochen später auf einer Pressekonferenz Pläne zu Studiengebühren veröffentlicht) hat gesagt, die Äußerungen seien “völlig daneben”. Weiterhin, dass es Frau Özkan in “ihrem Heimatland wohl nicht in den Sinn” käme, so mit einer gewachsenen Religiosität umzugehen. Die Dame ist in Hamburg geboren, hahaha …

1995. Karlsruhe.

Die Anbringung eines Kreuzes oder Kruzifixes in den Unterrichtsräumen einer staatlichen Schule sind mit dem Neutralitätsprinzip des Staates unvereinbar.

Liebe Union, es gibt ein Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes. Kreuze haben nichts in Schulen zu suchen, ebensowenig wie jüdische Symbole oder Bildnisse von hinduistischen Gottheiten. Jeder darf glauben, was er möchte, und wenn er die Rechte anderer nicht verletzt, auch sagen, was er möchte. Das ist gut so, und darauf kann man stolz sein. Aber Glauben ist Privatsache.

Es wäre doch zur Abwechslung mal nett, wenn man sich an das Bundesverfassungsgericht halten würde.

An dieser Stelle noch zwei kurze Punkte.

Zum einen sollte man sich Gedanken darüber machen, ob es sich wirklich um eine Vermittlung von Werten handelt – ob man Kindern wirklich zu moralischem, selbstständigen und reflektierten Verhalten erzieht – wenn man ihnen bestimmte Regeln vorgibt, die wortwörtlich “in Stein gemeißelt” sind. Werte, die Gott, der sich selbst nicht an diese Regeln gehalten hat, einem Mann mit Bart, der Superkräfte hatte, alleine auf einem Berg gegeben hat. Ob es wirklich ethisches Verhalten nach sich zieht, Kindern mit übernatürlichen Strafen zu drohen (“es gibt einen unsichtbaren Mann im Himmel, und der sieht alles!”), wenn sie sich nicht an die Regeln halten (“dann kommt ihr in die Hölle und werdet bei lebendigem Leibe gefoltert bis ans Ende der Tage”). Vielleicht wäre es eine bessere Lösung, ihnen humanistische Ansätze zu vermitteln, die alle solche Regeln und irrationale Angst und Strafen nicht brauchen, um ein guter Mensch zu sein? Wo man ein guter Mensch ist, um ein guter Mensch zu sein, und nicht, um ein übernatürliches Ziel zu erfüllen (“in den Himmel kommen”)?
Man sieht ja, wie gut diese christlichen Werte funktionieren, wenn diejenigen, die sie predigen, seit Jahrhunderten Menschen foltern, Andersläubige umbringen oder gewaltsam missionieren, Menschenrechte in gröbster Form missachten, und sich jedwedem humanistischen Fortschritt in den Weg stellen (Kreuzzüge, Inquisition, sexueller Missbrauch von Kindern; auf der anderen Seite Frauenwahlrecht, sexuelle Selbstbestimmung von Frauen, Demokratie, etc. pp.).

Zum anderen: was ist das eigentlich für eine Religion, deren Kernsymbol ein Mann ist, der brutal an ein Kreuz genagelt wurde und dort unter schrecklichen physischen (Google gibt schöne Infos, was bei Kreuzigungen so alles mit dem Körper passiert) und psychischen (“Vater, warum hast du mich verlassen”) Qualen elendig verreckt ist?

– Quelle: tagesschau.de

What about the divine plan? Long time ago God made a divine plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, and put it into practise.

Now you come along and pray for something. Now suppose the thing you want isn’t in God’s divine plan. What do you want him to do? Change the plan? Just for you?

Doesn’t seem a little arrogant? What’s the use of being God if every run-down schmuck with a two dollar prayer book can come along and fuck up your plan?

– George Carlin in “Religion is bullshit“.

Now, this 10 minute comedy sketch is clearly offensive. And not a sensible way to touch the whole subject. And actually very polemic.
And usually, I moralize and say that this is not very helpful at all, thank you very much.

But this video is simply too hilarious, I basically have to post it.

Here’s another one, about rights (and, ultimately, God again):

(thanks to Denis)

I took a liking to Bertrand Russell rather early, due to his very logical, empirical, critical way of approaching what could or could not be called the truth.

A couple of days ago a friend of mine sent me a link to a speech Russell gave in 1929 at the Battersea Town Hall (under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society), England. He was 57 by then, so you’d have to imagine an older gentleman talking to fellow colleagues.

You should very much read the whole discourse. It’s not that long, really.

Here are some hilarious snippets:

The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different we could not manage to live in it. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody.

When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascisti, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe.” I am not very much impressed by the splendor of those people.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the United States, the Catholic Church has payed more than 2.6 billion US dollars in compensation to victims so far. Since it is getting uncomfortable, they came up with a new way to cope with compensation payments now.

After yet another child-abuse scandal has come to light, the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus – also called Jesuits – filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Province includes Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Washington and Oregon.

Seattle University Spectator reports:

The province [...] filed for reorganization [...] in response to a lawsuit in which 63 Native Alaskan victims have alleged they were sexually abused by Jesuits and that leaders of the province covered up the abuse. More victims will be joining the lawsuit in the coming weeks, according to the plaintiff’s lawyers.

Now, let’s see how Fr. Patrick Lee, S.J., provincial of the Oregon Province views this affair:

Chapter 11 will allow the Oregon Province to resolve pending claims, manage its financial situation and continue its various ministries in the Northwest in which it has been engaged since 1841. [...] Our decision to file Chapter 11 was not an easy one, but with approximately 200 additional claims pending or threatened, it is the only way we believe that all claimants can be offered a fair financial settlement within the limited resources of the Province.

To sum up, in order to pay a fair financial settlement, the church files for bankruptcy. Right.

John Manly, an attorney for the victims:

This bankruptcy has nothing to do with finances–the Jesuits are one of the wealthiest religious organizations in the United States. This filing is about protecting the hierarchy and those who covered up for abusers.

Patrick Wall, a representative of the victims:

We believe that this is an affirmation that the Society of Jesus knowingly and purposefully dumped priest perpetrators in Alaska. The data is overwhelming. Twenty-eight priests from 11 provinces in five countries resulted in over 300 Native Alaskan kids being sexually abused from 1948 to 2001.

And that is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. Why do I get the strong impression that this is not about individuals - one priest here, another there – but about the institution Church, about the way the whole system seems to work?

See also:

• Church Humane
• Catholic Church and Paedophilia

A couple of months ago, the Vatican officially stated that “only 1.5 – 5 per cent of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse”.

Read that again: “only 1.5 – 5 per cent”. Right. I wrote an article about it back then, containing some extremely unpleasant facts.

Yesterday, Malte Welding put together a comprehensive overview I want to share here.

In 1962, an official document was sent to all Catholic bishops, signed by the Pope John XXIII. The Guardian brought a story about this document in 2003, also publishing the document online.

The document was confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales. It encourages to “cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church”. The Guardian writes:

“[The document] is called ‘Crimine solicitationies’, which translates as ‘instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation’. It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. The instructions outline a policy of ‘strictest’ secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication. They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials.”

Now comes the interesting part: as dailykos.com pointed out in 2005, Cardinal Ratzinger (also known as Benedict XVI – the current pope) is “the author of a May 2001 letter to bishops stating that the ‘Crimine Solicitationies’ law [...] is still in effect”.

The Catholic Church has been systematically abusing children for decades. They have an official document, encouraging clergy to cover abuse up, and “encourage” victims to swear an oath to keep it secret.

And the current pope Ratzinger officially signed a letter that this practise should continue, in the year 2001.

I feel very, very sick. And I am pretty sure that holy Ratzinger and his devout group of bishops have broken international law here, for a couple of decades. Not necessarily by abusing children – but by covering thousands of cases up.

Read the rest of this entry »

Die heilige Schrift ist ein Buch (eigentlich eine ganze Buchkollektion) mit viel Text. Es stehen sehr viele spannende und inspirierende Dinge darin, aber einige sind auch sehr widersprüchlich und grausam. Es soll hier heute gar nicht darum gehen, dass die heilige Schrift im Laufe der letzten 1.500 Jahre oft verändert wurde.

Es soll um die Inhalte gehen, die wir heute in der heiligen Schrift finden.

Ich sehe zwei Möglichkeiten, mit den Texten umzugehen:

• Man nimmt das, was dort steht, als das, was dort steht – eben wörtlich. Im Koran zum Beispiel ist dies die einzig mögliche Lese-Art, da der Koran tatsächlich als Allah’s direktes Wort, was er dem Propheten Mohammed eingegeben hat, verstanden wird.
  Zurück zur Bibel: wörtlich ist nach etlichen Übersetzungen natürlich immer schwierig. Jesus, Gottes Sohn, wird in der Bibel oft wörtlich zitiert. Aus den genannten Punkten resultieren zwei Probleme: (A) ist es rein logisch unmöglich, die Bibel zu lesen, wie sie geschrieben steht, weil sie voller Widersprüche ist. Man kann daraus keinen Kodex, keine Lehre, keine empfohlenen Richtlinien und Verhaltensweisen ableiten, denn sie widersprechen sich vielfach. Es gibt natürlich auch Informationen, die nur einmal gegeben werden, und deswegen nicht widersprüchlich sind. Stellt sich die Frage, wie ernst man diese nehmen kann. (B) gibt es wohl kaum ein grausameres, antidemokratischeres, homophoberes, frauenfreindlicheres und menschenverachtenderes Buch als die Bibel. Niemand, der sie einmal ernsthaft gelesen hat, würde heute auf die Idee kommen, sie wörtlich zu nehmen. Und wenn doch, gehört er für immer eingesperrt.
• Die zweite Möglichkeit ist, die Bibel zu interpretieren (lese: einige Stellen zu ignorieren). Dies öffnet Willkür Tür und Tor, und birgt, wie die Geschichte gezeigt hat, große Gefahr in sich: denn mit dieser Methode hat man u.a. die Kreuzzüge und die Inquisition sowie den Sündenablass gerechtfertigt, und niemand (auch kein Christ) würde heute bestreiten, dass das Hunderttausende (oder mehr) unschuldige Menschen das Leben gekostet hat. Wer also sagt, die Bibel müsse interpretiert werden, gesteht zu, dass auch die vielen extrem grausamen Stellen Richtigkeitsanspruch haben könnten, und dass jeder die Bibel interpretieren kann, wie er möchte – niemand würde ernstlich von sich behaupten, die einzig richtige Interpretation vorgenommen zu haben.

Es folgen zwei Zitationsblöcke.

Der erste veranschaulicht, wie widersprüchlich (und damit willkürlich) die Aussagen der Bibel sind. Was heute von den meisten Christen geglaubt wird, hat nur wenig mit dem zu tun, was in der Bibel steht, bzw. ist in höchstem Maße selektiv.

Der zweite Block zeigt, dass es viele extrem grausame Textstellen in der Bibel gibt, die man nicht “interpretieren” kann: wenn Gott mir in direkter Rede befiehlt, andere Menschen zu steinigen, gibt es daran wenig zu “interpretieren”. Man kann sie höchstens ignorieren, doch damit wird das komplette Buch hinfällig. Gottes Wort, aber man hört nur bei jedem zweiten Satz hin. Lasst uns doch in dem Fall ehrlich sein, und dazu stehen, dass wir unsere eigenen Regeln machen (Humanismus), und nicht aus einem Katalog mit vielen widersprüchlichen Regeln diejenigen herauspicken, die wir heute für adäquat halten, und ihnen deswegen Autorität einräumen, weil sie von Gott kommen.
Read the rest of this entry »

Slate wrote a very good article about a product called the “Artificial Virginity Hymen Kit”, which helps women to fake virginity in their wedding night.

If you’re a woman in a conservative Muslim country, you had better bleed on your wedding night. If you don’t, your husband or his family will know you aren’t a virgin. For that, you could be beaten or killed.

If you’re a man, on the other hand, all you have to do on your wedding night is ejaculate. Nobody expects you to bleed or produce any other proof of virginity.

Some day, this barbaric and hypocritical tradition will end. Until then, the best we can do is fool it. You want blood on your wedding night? We’ll give you blood. Fake blood.

Here’s a short description of the product by Joseph Freeman, Associated Press:

The Artificial Virginity Hymen kit, distributed by the Chinese company Gigimo, costs about $30. It is intended to help newly married women fool their husbands into believing they are virgins—culturally important in a conservative Middle East where sex before marriage is considered by many to be illicit. The product leaks a blood-like substance when inserted and broken.

Now, rather famous Muslim lawyers and lawmakers (e.g. Sheik Sayed Askar, a member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood who is on the parliamentary committee on religious affairs), are demanding a ban on the kit.

Slate’s conclusion:

If a $30 item that leaks fake blood violates your faith so profoundly that you must ban it, then what you have isn’t really a faith. It’s a fetish. And your fetish won’t survive globalization.

[...] Rigid proscriptions against premarital sex are excessive, futile, and unnecessary. They breed hypocrisy and contempt for authority. In the age of the artificial hymen, you can still preach and practice fidelity. Just don’t ask God to protect your sick craving for wedding-night blood. She can’t and won’t.

Virginity fetishism is doomed, boys. Give it up.

They don’t stop to amaze me. And I’m not sure whether to laugh or to cry. Both at the same time didn’t work the last time I tried. Let’s give it a shot anyway:

The conservative bible project wants to create a proper new version of the bible. The Wiki page is hosted on conservapedia.com (sic!).

• Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
• Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
• Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
• Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop

Hey, what a great idea! I think it’s awesome, and want to contribute. To be more precise, I have two rather revolutionary contributions two make:

(1)

Let’s look at the term “Virgin Mary” for a second.

The first historical relevant pre-Christian translation of the old testament from Hebrew to Greek – historical relevant because it was widely used for further translations – was done by Greek scholars and called “Septuaginta”. They translated the Hebrew word “almah”, with has without any doubt the single and only meaning “young woman”, into the Greek word “parthénos”, meaning virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is “bethulah”, by the way, which is what the more or less original bible would have used if they meant virgin, not young woman.

The Evangelist Matthew quotes Jesaja from the Septuaginta (13 out of 15 words exactly match) lateron, using the word “virgin”.

I very much hope my contribution was helpful.
Oh wait. Basic principles of the Christian church are based on a very obvious translation error (that is widely acknowledged, by the way). I’m so sorry to hear that. But I have a second contribution to make, which will hopefully be more fruitful:

(2)

How about adding the fifth Gospel according to Thomas to the bible, which is without scientific doubt as old and as authentical as the other four? The Christian Church has fought against it for over 15 centuries now, because it states very clearly that Jesus was not in favour of a constitutional Church.

Umm … wait. So by making a proper, conservative translation of the bible you’d just show that this “document” is more or less based on very creative and politically motivated translation incompetence (read: forgery)? I’m not sure if you will get what you want doing this properly. But I trust a bit more forgery won’t do any harm, will it now?