Krauss and Pinker on the Pope’s misguided climate-change bicycle

June 19, 2015 • 12:00 pm

Scientific American asked physicist Lawrence Krauss to comment on Pope Francis’s long encyclical on global warming. Krauss’s piece, “Ideology subsumes empiricism in Pope’s climate encyclical,” gives to the Pope with one hand but slaps him with the other.

Krauss lauds the Pope for the his no-nonsense acceptance of anthropogenic global warming, and his warning that climate change has the most severe impact on the poor. But then Krauss faults Francis for his solution, which is apparently to blame consumerism and rule population control out of bounds (see quotes at bottom). Krauss:

An encyclical wouldn’t be an encyclical without theology however, and that is where problems arise. In a chapter entitled “Gospel of Creation” Francis ruminates poetically on the nature of man, the mystery of the cosmos (my own area of study) and the special duty Christians have to respect nature, humanity and the environment. It’s beautifully presented and sounds good in principle. However, his biblical analysis leads to the false conclusion that contraception and population control are not appropriate strategies to help a planet with limited resources.

. . . Here, ideology subsumes empiricism, and the inevitable conflict between science and religion comes to the fore. One can argue until one is blue in the face that God has a preordained plan for every zygote, but the simple fact is that if one is seriously worried about the environment on a global scale population is a problem. A population of 10 billion by 2050 will likely be unsustainable at a level in which all humans have adequate food, water, medicine and security. Moreover, as this pope should particularly appreciate, the environmental problems that overpopulation creates alsodisproportionately afflict those in poor countries, where access to birth control and abortion is often limited.

. . . The Catholic Church and its leaders can never be truly objective and useful arbiters of human behavior until they are willing to dispense with doctrine that can thwart real progress. In this sense, the latest encyclical took several steps forward, and then a leap back.

In an email discussion of this piece among several of us, Steve Pinker wrote that the Pope didn’t go far enough (remarks quoted with permission):

I’d say several steps back, actually. It’s not just reproductive rights. The pontiff continues in the millennia-long Catholic tradition of vilifying technology, commerce, and ordinary people enjoying the fruits of material progress. So he puts the blame on economics and consumerism. But the solution to climate change is not to moralize from on high and implore people—particularly the poor people who he claims to sympathize with—to learn to be abstemious for the common good and do without central heating, electric lights, and efficient transport. Billions of people aren’t going to do that. Not even the Pope—especially not the Pope—is going to do that. The solution is economic and technological: a global carbon tax, and investment in the development of new energy technologies. The Pope shows no signs of acknowledging this, because it leaves him and his church no special role.

In Chapter 6 of The Bicycle, the pontiff includes a section called “Towards a New Lifestyle,” blaming individual consumerism while, in the previous chapter, he exculpates population growth. I quote from the text (my emphases):

(Chapter 6) 206. A change in lifestyle could bring healthy pressure to bear on those who wield political, economic and social power. This is what consumer movements accomplish by boycotting certain products. They prove successful in changing the way businesses operate, forcing them to consider their environmental footprint and their patterns of production. When social pressure affects their earnings, businesses clearly have to find ways to produce differently. This shows us the great need for a sense of social responsibility on the part of consumers. “Purchasing is always a moral – and not simply economic – act”. Today, in a word, “the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our lifestyle”.

Nota bene from Chapter 5:

50. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”. To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.

Apparently, condoms are not the solution. But who would ever think that the Vatican would see population growth as the cause of any problem? As Krauss notes, here we see a direct conflict between a scientific and a religious solution.

Heather Hastie on Mexican exorcisms

June 19, 2015 • 10:30 am

New Zealand reader Heather Hastie’s website, Heather’s Homilies, is temporarily down: past posts are visible but she’s unable to put up new ones. This may be the result of a hacker attack, but we hope the site will be online soon. In the meantime, Heather sent me a piece of news that she wanted to write about. I found it intriguing because the subject, the increasing prevalence of Catholic exorcism, leading to the exorcism of an entire country, clearly demonstrates the Vatican’s conflict between science and faith. I suggested that Heather put her post here pending reactivation of her own site. She kindly assented, and here it is:

*******

The Power of Christ Compels You: Leave Mexico!

by Heather Hastie

Just when you thought the Roman Catholic Church might be heading towards rationalism with its encyclical on Climate Change, reality bites. It seems that the Church is so concerned with the state of morality in Mexico that an exorcismo magno (“great exorcism”) was carried out there on 20 May. This is apparently only the second time this rite has ever been performed; the first time was by Friar Sylvester at the urging of St Francis of Assisi in Arezzo, Italy in 1224 (see picture below).

In the modern church, the rite of exorcism had become a bit of an embarrassment – an eccentric uncle no one talked about. Some even refused to admit it existed. Belief in hell and the devil himself has been declining, especially in the West. In 1997, a New York Times article reported on a Barna Research Group survey of American beliefs. Although then 95% of the population still believed in God, and most also believed in heaven and angels, only 30% thought the Devil actually existed. Further, only 31% thought hell existed as “a place of physical torment.”

That’s changing.

By December 2013, Pope Francis had been in office for nine months, and perhaps that was long enough for the gestation of some new ideas in the religious consciousness. A Harris poll reported that while U.S. belief in God had dropped to 74%, their belief in the Devil and Hell had both increased to 58%.

When Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope, he chose the name Francis after St Francis of Assisi. His explanation of that was that the Church needed to focus more on the poor and on its own spiritual nature. But it soon became evident that “spiritual” included the bad aspects of the word, and it wasn’t only St Francis’s work with the poor that the new pope wished to emulate. The “Pope Francis Effect” has become well known since his election in 2013. His frequent references to the Devil and the temptations of evil in his sermons have made exorcism once again a mainstream phenomenon.

Exorcism of Arezzo - Giotto
The Exorcism of Arezzo by Giotto. St Francis of Assisi kneels in prayer and support of Friar Sylvester, whom he called on to drive out the demons Francis had seen over the city. (Source: WikiArt)

In June last year, Pope Francis formally recognized the statutes of the International Association of Exorcists (AIE). They of course were thrilled by this acknowledgment; L’Osservatore reported the head of the organization, Rev Francesco Bamonte, considered “… the Vatican approval was cause for joy.” The AIE has around 300 members worldwide and was founded in 1990, but had never received formal Vatican recognition. They are the elite of the world’s exorcists, meeting every two years in Rome to discuss trends and techniques in their professions.

Coincidentally (yes, I’m being facetious), since the pope’s endorsement of the AIE’s work there has been an increase in demand for their services. The Telegraph’s Nick Squires interviewed several attendees of their week-long conference in Rome two months ago. The reporting is revealing and scary, although not for the reasons the exorcists believe. Father Cesare Truqui, Chief Exorcist of Chur, Switzerland, says that these days about a third of the phone calls received by Catholic officials in Rome relate to exorcism. Truqui also noted that exorcists are able to tell the difference between possession and mental illness. As he also claims to have taken part in around a hundred exorcisms, that’s clearly not true.

On the first day, the 150 attendees of the conference were addressed by Monsignor Luigi Neri, the archbishop of Ferrara. According to Squires, Neri ascribed the increasing need for exorcisms to atheism and consumerism. Throughout the week, other causes were examined as well. These included pornography, television, drug-taking, greater interest in the occult, and Satanism. Previously, Harry Potter and yoga have also been cited as risk factors for possession.

A 2013 YouGov poll demonstrates the widespread belief in the devil, possession and exorcism amongst Catholics. It shows that 94% of them believe that people are sometimes possessed by the Devil, with 67% believing in the power of exorcism (another 25% are unsure):

YouGov Exorcism 2

Dr Valter Cascioli, spokesperson for AIE, warned on Vatican Radio in November, 2014 of “an extraordinary increase in demonic activity.” Dr Vascioli is a psychiatrist; this is another example of the incredible potential for damage faith has when it replaces proper medical care. As Jerry said about exorcism in Faith vs Fact (page 238):

“… who knows how many disturbed people have been subjected to a frightening procedure that is harmless at best, but potentially dangerous, especially when those who use it misconstrue and thus ignore the real causes of mental illness?”

Dr Vascioli doesn’t even have the excuse of not knowing the real cause of mental illness; he simply ignores them in favour of faith.

As a result of the increased demand from believers for spiritual healing, the training and appointment of exorcists has become widespread. According to other reporting from Nick Squires, three years ago only about half of English and Welsh dioceses had an official exorcist; now almost all of them do. He has also seen similar increases in the number of exorcists throughout the world. For example, the archbishop of Madrid sent eight priests for training due to “an unprecedented rise” in instances of “demonic possession”.

And so we come to Mexico, which according to the Pew Research Center (2014) has a populace that is 81% Catholic. The Church decided it was time to do something about the problems of Mexico, which according to them are drug cartels, high levels of violence, and abortion. So what did they come up with? Education? Programs to help the poor? Community outreach? Job creation? Community health centres? No. What they decided on was prayer. But not just any prayer. For the first time in almost 800 years they were going to perform an exorcismo magno, and they were going all out! It wasn’t just a town this time, but a whole country!

Under the leadership of Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, the archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara, a group of exorcists got together behind closed doors in the cathedral of San Luis Potosí, strategically located in the centre of Mexico for the best dissemination of anti-demonic forces. The event wasn’t announced beforehand because, according to the Catholic News Agency (CNA), they wanted “… to avoid any misguided interpretations of the ritual.” I’m not sure what they imagine “misguided interpretations” would entail. My only interpretation, which I don’t consider “misguided”, is that it was a colossal waste of time, and by not announcing it there wasn’t even hope for a placebo effect.

“If” it doesn’t work, though, those taking part have already provided several explanations. Spanish demonologist and exorcist Father José Antonio Fortea, who attended the ceremony, spoke to CNA:

The Spanish exorcist explained, however, that the celebration of this ritual will not automatically change the difficult situation Mexico is going through in a single day.

“It would be a big mistake to think that by performing a full scale exorcism of the country everything would automatically change right away.”

Nevertheless, he emphasized that “if with the power we’ve received from Christ we expel the demons from a country, this will certainly have positive repercussions, because we’ll make a great number of the tempters flee, even if this exorcism is partial.”

“We don’t drive out all the evil spirits from a country with just one ceremony. But even though all will not be expelled, those that were removed are not there anymore.”

Fr. Fortea emphasized that “when the exorcists of a country drive out its demons, it has to be done in faith. You’re not going to see anything, feel anything, there’s not going to be any extraordinary phenomenon. We have to have faith that God conferred on the apostles a power, and that we can use this power.”

I bet Beelzebub is shaking in his boots.

*****

Gratuitious photo added by Professor Ceiling Cat:

4d05e496000e80ebd02ec1c3d6d45c8d

Disability activists call for Peter Singer’s resignation

June 19, 2015 • 8:30 am

Two days ago I posted a piece about how Princeton philosopher Peter Singer was disinvited from a philosophy conference in Germany because of his views on euthanasia of newborn infants having horrible diseases or deformities (he’s long been in favor of that form of mercy killing). His disinvitation was prompted by a recent interview in a Zürich newspaper that dealt with these views.

Singer’s position on the assisted dying of both infants and adults who are ill appears on his FAQ page; here’s the bit on infants, which is far more nuanced than many of his critics claim:

Q. You have been quoted as saying: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term “person” to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future.  As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.  That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do.  It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment.  That will often ensure that the baby dies.  My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection – but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.

Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it.  And that’s a good thing, of course.  We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby.  It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child.  Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.

These views, which seem reasonable—or at least justifiable—have been known for a long time, so it seems unfair to disinvite Singer for re-expressing what he’s long avowed. But of course Germans are extraordinarily sensitive about euthanasia given its widespread and vicious employment by the Nazis.

But according to the Washington Times, disability activists have begun gathering signatures on a petition at change.org asking that Singer leave his faculty job:

Their petition, which has over 800 signatures, demands that Mr. Singer resign and asks that Princeton officials disavow his comments. It also demands that Gov. Chris Christie “publicly denounce the lethal and discriminatory public health care policy advocated by Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer.”

“Rather than challenging Singer’s advocacy as a form of hate speech,Princeton University has provided Singer with a prominent platform and increased access to US media and policymakers for 16 years, establishing itself as the home for the worst of overt — and deadly — bigotry against disabled people of all ages,” the petition states.

Note that here Singer’s views, which at the very least should provoke debate, and have, in my view, considerable justification, are characterized as “hate speech.” Such is the way campus activists try to ruin the careers of those who merely raise provocative questions. And, in truth, Singer’s proposals have very little chance of being adopted, at least in the U.S.

The petition is one product of demonstrations at Princeton in which a group of activists, many of them with disabilities, blocked Nassau Street in early June, calling for Singer’s resignation. (There have been such periodic protests since Princeton hired Singer in 1999.) Planet Princeton reports:

At one point, the protesters marched in a circle on Nassau Street and called for Singer’s resignation, shouting “Hey hey, ho ho, Singer’s got to go.”

. . . “I don’t want to call him a  professor. I don’t think he can be a professor,” said one rally participant. “He’s talking about euthanization.”

Here’s one photo of the demonstration from Planet Princeton:

11414557_10153430409567491_1173360249_n-700x525

I can understand the anger of some of these people, though I’m not sure that any of them have medical conditions that, under Singer’s view, would have been cause for euthanasia in infancy. If they did, I can also sympathize with their feelings, which must be something like, “Hey, I’m here and I am okay with my life. But if Singer had his way, I wouldn’t be here now.”

Yet that is surely the case for every fetus that is aborted, most of them being infants without any medical condition. Surely nearly all of them, if allowed to become adults, would decry the desires to abort them. But does it really make a substantive difference whether that “abortion” occurs before or immediately after birth, and, if the latter, is practiced only on the kind of sick children to which Singer refers? Further, one has to balance the view of those who are disabled, but have become old enough to become self-aware, against the well being of their parents, and against, as Singer emphasizes, the burden that their care would place on society.

Finally, regardless of what these people think of Singer’s views, to call for his resignation or condemnation on the grounds of “hate speech” is unconscionable. Singer is a philosopher, not a “hater”, and has garnered a considerable reputation by getting people to think about hard questions—questions that we’d prefer to avoid but which have serious social consequences. Are we justified in eating animals to slake our craving for meat? Should we well-off Westerners give away much of our income to help impoverished people in the rest of the world? Those are questions in the tradition of Socrates. For asking them, Socrates was sentenced to death. Today we’re more humane: we only try to get philosophers fired for posing uncomfortable questions.

Readers’ wildlife photographs

June 19, 2015 • 7:30 am

Reader Stephen Barnard has a few photos today, including the two offspring of the bald eagles Desi and Lucy, which are ready to fledge.

I just saw these pronghorns (Antilocapra americana) in my alfalfa field across the creek. (Deets spooked them.) This is unusual. I’ve only seen one other here in the past three years. [JAC: note the pronghorns, although often called “antelope”, aren’t really antelopes: they’re the only species in the family Antilocapridae, and their closest surviving relatives are the giraffids: giraffes and okapi!]

RT9A8892 Also, the eaglets (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in their current stage of development — they are SO READY to fledge.

RT9A8780
And a Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias):

RT9A8789 (1)

The next three photos come from reader Jon Meddings:

This is a very young grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Kananaskis country in Alberta. It was a rainy day and this young bear was out eating dandelions that seem to be an favorite early spring food item.

EOS-1Ds Mark III_080613_3993

An Alaskan brown bear, a variant of the grizzly taken in Alaska. This is a young cub that the mother (in the background) was teaching how to fish.  They would move from pool to pool and when they approached us, he cautiously checked us out, crossed the stream and then moved past us. Beautiful.

EOS-1Ds Mark III_100801_9899

Canadian moose (Alces alces) taken in the Kananaskis again. These animals are notoriously short sighted but have a great sense of smell and hearing. Not seen in the foreground is a rushing stream that hid the sound of us approaching for the shot.  She left shortly after this shot in a very graceful manner….

The moose (North America) or elk (Europe), Alces alces, is the largest extant species in the deer family. Moose are distinguished by the palmate antlers of the males; other members of the family have antlers with a

Friday: Hili dialogue

June 19, 2015 • 4:45 am

We’ve reached the end of another week, and all in good shape, I trust. One week from tomorrow the Great Road Trip Begins, and I’m busy packing for six weeks. I will probably make it to western Iowa the first day; any readers out there? Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili simply can’t be arsed to move.

Hili: It’s great here. I wonder what it’s like over there?
A: Go and see.
Hili: I can’t be bothered.

P1020964

In Polish:
Hili: Tu jest mi dobrze, a jak mi tam będzie?
Ja: Idź i zobacz.
Hili: Nie chce mi się.

2015 Audubon photography awards

June 18, 2015 • 2:27 pm

Over 9000 images were submitted to Audubon Magazine’s 2015 photography contest (all birds, of course), and the judges have chosen the top 100, which you can see here. All of them are superb. I’ve selected only ten below, but you really should go over, take a bit of time, and look at them all. I didn’t realize that they had chosen the winners, but none of the ones I liked below won. I’ll put two of the winners at the bottom. 

Screen Shot 2015-06-17 at 1.27.43 PM
Merlin/Amateur Category. Photo: Carl Woo, Audubon Photography Awards
Screen Shot 2015-06-17 at 3.21.38 PM
Peregrine Falcon/Amateur Category. Photo: Carl Woo, Audubon Photography Awards
Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 10.52.32 AM
Gyrfalcoln and rock pigeon/Amateur Category. Photo: Harry Colquhoun, Audubon Photography Awards
Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 10.55.17 AM
Pyrrhuloxia/Amateur category. Photo: Joseph Messina, Audubon Photography Awards.
Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 10.57.13 AM
White-breasted Nuthatch/Amateur Category. Photo: Kenneth Helar, Audubon Photography Awards
Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 10.59.31 AM
Magnificent Frigatebird/Professional Category. Photo: Keith Ellenbogen, Audubon Photography Awards
Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 11.02.03 AM
Pileated Woodpecker/Amateur Category. Photo: Linda Cullivan/Audubon Photography Awards
Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 11.04.24 AM
Green Heron/Amateur Category. Photo: Peggy Coleman/Audubon Photography Awards
Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 11.06.03 AM
Wood Duck/Amateur Category. Photo: Peter Brannon, Audubon Photography Awards
Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 11.08.58 AM
Snowy Owl/Amateur Category. Photo: Loi Nguyen, Audubon Photography Awards

TWO WINNERS I LIKE:

Laughing Gull, Double-crested Cormorant, Royal Tern. Photo: Constance Mier/Audubon Photography Awards
Species: Laughing Gull, Double-crested Cormorant, Royal Tern
Where: Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve, near Miami, FL
Camera: Sony a700 with a Sony F4-5.6/70-400 G SSM lens; 1/2500 second at f/5.6; ISO 320
SONY DSC
SONY DSC
Black Skimmer. Photo: Tim Timmis/Audubon Photography Awards
Species: Black Skimmer
Where: Bolivar Flats Shorebird Sanctuary, near Port Bolivar, TX
Camera: Canon 1DX with a Canon 500mm f4 IS II lens and a Canon 1.4X III teleconverter; 1/500 second at f/8; ISO 1600

sfw_tim_timmis_black_skimmer

 

 

 

h/t: Michael

‘I’m offended’ is not an argument

June 18, 2015 • 10:45 am

by Grania Spingies

On my way to work this morning I saw this go by in my Twitter feed:

My eyebrows raised a little, not the least because Paul Levitz (DC Comics president) once wrote:

“The Sandman became the first extraordinary success as a series of graphic novel collections, reaching out and converting new readers to the medium, particularly young women on college campuses…“

The Sandman series is a pastiche of genres such as horror and fantasy, full of religious and cultural references, and constitutes a multi-volume story of the eponymous Sandman “Dream” who is the anthropomorphised  lord of the realm of dreams. The stories are filled with supernatural entities, violence, betrayal, history, legends, angels, demons, lovers, justice, judgement, death and love, as well as Dream’s siblings Death, Delirium, Desire, Destiny etc. You see the general pattern here.

It’s certainly not to everyone’s taste, but the same can be said of any comic book, or indeed novel of any genre. The series also employs the talents of a host of artists whose styles vary greatly. Although I prefer Gaiman’s “written” novels to his graphic novels, The Sandman series is certainly a rich canvas to explore and I am not surprised that they have turned up in college English courses. However, I am not here to defend Gaiman’s work, as neither he nor his work needs my justification to exist or be read and discussed.

Redland Daily Facts reports that a student is protesting their inclusion in her English Literature course:

“It was shocking,” Shultz said. “I didn’t expect to open the book and see that graphic material within. I expected Batman and Robin, not pornography.”

I’m glad she hasn’t spotted the reckless child endangerment implicit in, say, Frank Miller’s rather good Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, let alone the (completely non-sexual) full body hug between a naked, wounded Bruce Wayne and the underage female Robin, ‘cos then we’re all going to be trouble (see below):

She doesn't make a sound. Good soldier, good soldier.
She doesn’t make a sound. Good soldier, good soldier.
haveakid4 (1)
An aging Batman and new sidekick Robin, aka Carrie, on discovering they are not dead after a brutal encounter with the baddies.

Ironically, Dark Knight was well aware of the self-appointed moral arbiters of society, and there are several sequences in the novel that poke fun at experts pontificating on the negative social impact of The Batman.

However, back to Dream of the Endless and the allegations of pornography. Well, the books certainly contain images of violence and death and sex—themes that are fairly typical in practically every novel or play ever produced since humans first started writing fiction. Or history, come to think of it. And of course, graphic novels are, by their very nature, graphic. Whether they are pornographic is up for interpretation. After all, one woman’s porn is another woman’s Sunday afternoon entertainment. They are certainly not intended as pornographic though; nudity and sex, where it occurs, is integral to the plot. It’s graphically depicted if only because I don’t think that any graphic artist/novelist has managed to envisage a way of drawing in a non-graphic way yet. I’ll put up a couple of examples beneath the fold. They are certainly NSFW, although I would maintain these are pretty far from being pornography.

Still, I don’t object to Shultz finding it offensive, or making her thoughts on the subject public. She is completely entitled to do that. This is the bit that bothers me:

“At least get a warning on the books,” Shultz said. “At most I would like the books eradicated from the system. I don’t want them taught anymore. I don’t want anyone else to have to read this garbage.”

Once again we have someone deciding that because they don’t like something, no-one else should be exposed to it. Of course, once again, I’m not arguing that she has no right to express this opinion. I have a problem with her proposed solution which is to suppress a book and deny it to all other students doing that course.

This isn’t a high school; it is a tertiary institution. While many of the students are undoubtedly still quite young (Shultz is 20), they are presumably all above the age of consent, old enough to marry, old enough to join the military and die for their country, old enough to drive a car, and (most of them) old enough to vote. It is curious that she thinks that books containing fairly commonplace adult themes are too adult for her peers.

The other three novels she objected to were “Fun Home” by Alison Bechdel; “Y: The Last Man, Vol. 1” by Brian Vaughan; and “Persepolis” by Marjane Satrapi. I haven’t read them all, but I have read the autobiographical Persepolis – it’s a fascinating account of life in Iran during and after the Revolution, and the relegation of women to the status of second-class citizen as the national government moved away from “Westernisation” and promoted the Islamification of dress and behaviour instead.

This scene is of the author as a child, the adults are her parents discussing the aftermath of a rally to protest the imposition of the veil on women.

I can’t imagine why anyone would want this book removed from a college course. But again, whether one likes the novel or not, there is a huge leap between finding something offensive and deciding that nobody else should read it or discuss it.

Let me bring the subject closer to home. I’m done with discussing the subject of abortion. I live in a country where it is still functionally banned, and I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument from any anti-choice advocate on why it is morally sound to force a woman to bear a child against her will. I find listening to the medically inaccurate and morally dubious arguments of anti-choicers on why a woman can be reduced to a breathing incubator nauseating—to the point where I don’t want to hear the stuff ever again. But it has never occurred to me to suggest that those who wish to ban abortion should be silenced. There are multiple reasons why this would be wrong: for one, this debate can be won only if the nay-sayers are challenged and debunked. For another, it is an act of extreme egotism to insist that your version of what is right is the only version that deserves to be heard.

Perhaps the most compelling reason why books and ideas should not be censored is this: who do we trust in society to make those decisions for us? I would hope that we trust nobody but ourselves to judge what we wish to read and think about and debate.

And below the fold, a couple of NSFW images from The Sandman series. I promise you, you will not go blind.

Continue reading “‘I’m offended’ is not an argument” →