UNITED NATIONS: VATICAN TRIES TO
BLOCK WOMEN'S RIGHTS _____________________________________________________________________________________
BRITAIN: CHARLES, PRINCE OF THE ABSURD!
Britain’s Prince Charles is known for his green linings and
especially for his salvos against cloning and genetically modified (GM)
food. Now he has, in the name of environmentalism, launched a blunt attack
against rationalism and scientific approach. In a twenty-minute speech,
broadcast on BBC’s Radio 4 on 17th May and presented as reflection on
the recent Reith lectures on sustainable development, he warned of the
disastrous consequences of science tampering with nature. In the green
cover, he delivered heavy religious mysticism with fundamentalist
features. Truely sustainable development, he hooked with priest routine on
the occasion, is based on the sacred trust between mankind and our
creator. And there we are.
“The idea that there is a sacred trust between mankind and our creator,
under which we accept a duty of stewardship for the earth, has been an
important feature of most religious and spiritual thought throughout the
ages. Even those whose beliefs have not included the existence of a
creator have, nevertheless, adopted a similar position on moral and
ethical grounds. It is only recently that this guiding principle has
become smothered by almost impenetrable layers of scientific
rationalism”, he lamented. “If literally nothing is held sacred any
more - because it is considered synonymous with superstition, or in some
other way “irrational” - what is there to prevent us treating our
entire world as some 'great laboratory of life', with potentially
disastrous long-term consequences?”
Feeling scientific rationalism looming large and dangerously over his
future as “Defender of Faith”, as he likes to visualise himself after
eventually taking over as King and Governor of the Anglican Church, Prince
Charles called upon humanity to take a turn to avoid an apocalyptic
catastrophe. “Only by rediscovering the essential unity and order of the
living and spiritual world ... and bridging the destructive chasm between
cynical secularism and the timelessness of traditional religion, we will
avoid the disintegration of our overall environment.” This sounds like a
reflection about his personal situation.
In his effort to tap the irrational specters of the environmentalist
movement and lead them into the herd of faithful which he wishes to
defend, Prince Charles called all hands of passionate mystic: “So do you
not feel that, buried deep within each and every one of us, there is an
instinctive, heartfelt awareness that provides - if we will allow it to -
the most reliable guide as to whether or not our actions are really in the
long-term interests of our planet and all the life it supports? This
awareness, this wisdom of the heart, may be no more than a faint memory of
the distant harmony, rustling like a breeze through the leaves....” And
finally he tried to land the traditional religious knock-out against
rationalism by putting it into opposition to ethics and humaneness.
“Wisdom, empathy, compassion have no place in the empirical world”, he
says, “yet traditional wisdoms would ask 'without them are we truly
human?'”
We allow ourselves to return the question: On one side we have an ethical
value system, developed with progressing civilization and growth of
scientific knowledge, modified, refined and extended in course of history
according to changing realities and human requirements, evaluated and
framed by reason, and finally answerable to the tribunal of reason
whenever different interests, needs and preferences are to be reconciled
and ethical choices have to be made and justified. On the other side we
have the guidance of some voice of nature which is rustling in faint
memory of distant harmony through the leaves from time to time. Wouldn’t
one consider the one in which empirical knowledge and reason have been
midwife and guardian as more appropriate to man than the other? Will, b
the way, each of us find the same memory buried deep within him and hear
the same rustling? And i f not: whose rustling is to be taken as the
common yardstick? The royal one? If we ignore the voice of reason and put
the cacophonic chorus of voices of nature and of heart rustlings in charge
of guiding our lives and our future - will we really win sacred harmony?
And on what base, if not empirical knowledge and reason will the rustling
wisdom of the heart translate into purposeful action? Wisdom of the heart
is not able to cure an ailing person from his illness, but scientific
knowledge about his ailment is. It may also be of great interest to see,
how the “Defender of Faith” will reconcile the conflicting and often
contradicting wisdoms and ethics and dogmas of different religious
provenience without unleashing holy wars? Charles tries obviously to
classify for the title “Prince of the Absurd”.
British scientists have reacted strongly against Prince Charles’ speech.
Plant scientist Chris Leaver told him to listen to the scientists trying
to find ways of feeding six billion people on the planet today and another
three billion by the yea. Steve Johnes, professor of genetics at
University College London called him a “woolly thinker” who mixes up
theology and science and ordered him back to school. “I have no time for
understanding people who prefer ignorance to knowledge”, he said.
Richard Dawkins, zoologist and award-winning science writer, called
scientific rationalism the “crowning glory of the human spirit”. “Of
course, you can use the products of science to do bad things, but you can
use them to do good things, too”, he said.
It is nothing very new in shouting against science. "Hands off!
Tampering with nature is an offence against god and will be
punished!"-We have heard this cry throughout history from the camp of
religious reaction whenever humankind, thanks to scientific achievements,
was about to make a great leap forward. Luckily it has finally never been
successful and we are able to make use of painkillers, immunisation,
pacemakers and contraceptives. Joining now in the anti-science tirade, how
seriously does Prince Charles take its general principles? If he is not a
hypocrite, we should expect that he is ready to take personal consequences
of his approach, that he does not merely abstain from genetically modified
tomatoes but from the fruits of human control over nature in general and
that he is ready to personally surrender to the much praised “genuis of
nature’s designs”.
HONORARY ASSOCIATES OF RATIONALIST
INTERNATIONAL
Since its promising start into the new century with the successful
International Rationalist Conference in January this year, Rationalist
International has broadened its base. It has been decided to create the
title Honorary Associate to be awarded to distinguished personalities from
around the world who are committed to the rationalist cause.
Honorary Associates of Rationalist International are (in alphabetical
order): Katsuaki Asai (Japan), Prof. Colin Blakemore (UK), Prof. Vern L
Bullough (USA), Dr Bill Cooke (New Zealand), Joseph Edamaruku (India), Jim
Herrick (UK), Christopher Hitchens (USA), Prof. Paul Kurtz (USA), Prof.
Jean-Claude Pecker (France), Dr G N Jyoti Shankar (meanwhile deceased)
(USA), Prof. Harry Stopes-Roe (UK), Jane Wynne Willson (UK) and Prof.
Lewis Wolpert (UK).
IRAN: FIRST PARLIAMENT WITH REFORMIST MAJORITY STARTED
FUNCTIONING
It seems the balance is carefully tilting In Iran. The first parliament
with reformist majority since 1979 has finally started its work. After the
February elections, the election results of Teheran were withheld by the
election supervising body, the conservative Council of Guardians. Reason
was obvious: the parliament seat of hard-liner and former Iranian
president Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani was endangered. Only after intervention
of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei, the results were
released three months later. Meanwhile Rafsanjani’s vote position had
dramatically improved and his parliament seat was guaranteed. On this base
he decided to contest for the post of parliament speaker, which he had
been holding in the last parliament. The opening day of the parliament
brought a surprise: Rafsanjani declined to join the parliament. He
declared that he gives up his mandate because of the extent of the
propaganda against him - a victory and hopeful beginning for the side of
the reformists, who would have had a hard time in the parliament under
Rafsanjani as speaker.
This is the background of the dramatic crackdown on pro-reformist
newspapers during last month. The authorities closed 16 newspapers to stop
open reporting about the murky election affairs. But at the same time new
pro-reform papers have opened and still more are in planning. And the
closing goes on. The latest victim is the paper Ham-mihan, published by
Golamhossein Karbaschi, a former mayor of Teheran, who faces 17 charges
under the draconian press law, including “spreading false reports about
the Revolutionary Guards, the police and the intelligence ministry".
Saeed Pour-Azizi, publisher of yet another (newly started) pro-reform
daily, “Bahar” is also summoned by the judiciary and the future of
this newspaper, too, seems to be uncertain.
Despite Rafsanjani’s refusal to participate in the parliament, the
reformists have not much reason to relax. Rafsanjani is still holding the
key post of the Expediency Council, a kind of super-parliament which
mediates between parliament and Guardians, who can reject any legislation
as “un-islamic” The last word lies, however, with the Supreme Leader,
who is the highest authority in Iran .
RUSSIA: CZAR NICHOLAS II MAY BE CANONISED
The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church meeting in August
may declare Czar Nicholas Romanov, the last emperor of Russia and his
family as saints. Father Maxim Maximov, secretary of the Holy Synods
commission on canonisation said, Czar Nicolas II and his family deserved
sainthood for the “humble way” they accepted death at the hands of the
Communist Bolsheviks. Many orthodox believers already regard the Czar as a
saint.
INDIAN RATIONALIST ASSOCIATION
CRITICISES GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF HINDU RELIGIOUS FESTIVAL
The Indian government, for the first time, has allocated a sum of 550
million Rupees (approximately 13 million-Dollar) for the Mahakumbh Mela, a
Hindu religious festival to be held in Allahabad early next year. The
Indian Rationalist Association strongly criticised the government’s
decision to spend state funds for religious purposes and demanded urgent
withdrawal of the allocation. “The decision to spend state money for a
religious festival is highly objectionable and against the principles of
secularism envisaged in the Constitution of India” - said Sanal
Edamaruku, Secretary General of Indian Rationalist Association in a press
statement released in New Delhi.
The intention behind the government’s decision is transparent: in a
situation where cracks and tension within the camp of the Hindu
organisations weaken its political base, they try to buy their silence by
sponsoring their festival. Peanuts politics with religious communities is
also played by the opposition: With an eye on the Muslim vote bank, the
Congress party in some states where it rules has recently announced its
plan to subsidise Haj journeys of Muslims to Mecca. The appetite of some
fringe groups for peanuts is already stimulated: “If the government has
so much money, then all the communities should be given funds for their
festivals. Why should the others be discriminated?”
“The Indian Constitution provides, thanks to its strictly secular
character, a strong base for the functioning of world’s largest
democracy, which is moreover charcterised by the greatest diversity of
beliefs”, said Sanal Edamaruku in his statement. “The government
should value this quality and promote the spirit of secularism, instead of
dirtying it by corruption”, he said. “Spending state money for the
promotion of the majority religion or for the minority religions are
equally dangerous and against the secular culture that India cherishes”.
UNITED NATIONS: VATICAN TRIES TO
BLOCK WOMEN'S RIGHTS
What has been achieved on the base of the goals and specific targets
for action, set in the great women's conference in Beijing in 1995, to
improve women's lives worldwide? How can we move forward from the platform
of these achievements? Which are the next targets we have to persue? These
burning questions should have been addressed in a global UN meeting on the
eve of the conference “Women 2000”. But things developed differently.
Pierre Sane, head of Amnesty International, reported that the Vatican,
Algeria, Libya, Iran and Pakistan played a very obstructive role by trying
to roll back what had been worked out in Beijing and to reopen the debate
about basic questions and concepts, in which general agreement between
governments and representatives of organisations had been already achieved
in 1995. In areas of central importance like education, economy, violence
against women, health and decision making, the Beijing declarations have
been watered down and good proposals diminished, instead of being further
specified and translated into action. With the same technique the Vatican
has tried over years quite successfully, to obstruct clear decisions and
concrete results in UN and WHO conferences about contraception and
population control.
_____________________________________________
