Dating a a Secular, Polytheistic, Non-Religious Christian?????

Lately I’ve been seeing a woman—very attractive, met completely randomly. She’s black, which should come as no surprise to anyone who’s been following this blog since its beginning. For those who haven’t: I tend to date women who are not white. This isn’t by accident, although it’s not by design either; I’m just more intellectually drawn to people who can teach me something about a culture of which I’m not a part. This is also precisely why I go through passports like they’re double mint gum. I’m interested in things from which I can learn something new.

Anyway, she’s smart, educated, and genuinely curious about an extraordinary amount of things. She’s studying to be a Registered Nurse, but we don’t discuss medical issues; we discuss politics, philosophy, the origins of life—whatever it may be—and Pluto (because why the hell not?!). She’s a great girl, but I’m not here to discuss my dating life.

Actually I’m here to discuss something incredible she said.

Now, let me get this out of the way: She’s black, and black women and men tend to believe in a higher power more often than white, hispanic, or any other ethnic group in the US. She’s no exception, and she believes in Jesus Christ as her personal savior, although, paradoxically she’s not religious. But that’s not the point.

The issue of religion came up, and, after I told her I’m not religious (I’m not ready to tell her I’m a blog-administering atheist until I get to know her a little more), she said she doesn’t have a religion but believes in Jesus…. and she also believes in several other gods.

In my words—not hers—she’s a secular, polytheistic, non-religious Christian.

In her words, she worships Jesus “although I also believe other gods and higher powers exist. I choose to worship Jesus.”

Isn’t that interesting?!

I’ve said a bunch of times that belief isn’t a choice (and it isn’t), but she pointed out to me that worship is.

Although I disagree with her beliefs, I’m sure this will make for some very engaging debates. Maybe this relationship will survive those debates, and maybe it won’t (let’s face it; the odds are against me), but this will be an interesting adventure.

POST SCRIPT: This whole conversation—for the sake of honesty—stemmed from my desire to test the religious waters with her. I think I passed the test, but I won’t know for certain until the word “atheist” passes from my lips. Unfortunately, as stated above, if history is any indication, that word will destroy the relationship. And for the sake of romantic honesty, I admit I have an obligation to use that word at my earliest convenience.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Fares Al-Khodor Is Dead (And So Is a Piece of My Heart)

This post is a combination of personal anecdote, argument, and tragedy. I’m writing this because a young boy I once knew has died, a victim of the protracted and intense fighting in Northeast Syria. Although I’m not blaming anyone for his death, his life was tragically cut short because people don’t listen to us who study the use of technology in warfare.

Fares Al-Khodor is dead

fares

IMAGE SOURCE: Zeinoun Naboulsi via Daily Mail

On 9 July 2015 Fares Al-Khodor was killed near Al-Hasakah, Syria. I don’t have a lot of information about exactly what happened, but according to the linked article, a “coalition air strike” was carried out near Hasakah, where the boy was staying. I contacted a good friend of mine in Lebanon, Zeinoun, and asked him for more information. He wrote back, adding a few details:

He died by an american drone missile strike on his village on syria

This is the only information I have on the incident, and not all of it can be verified. So far the US has not claimed responsibility for the attack, and I doubt they’d be forthcoming if they were responsible. Therefore, I cannot say for certain whether or not the US had a hand in Fares’ death. But still, air strikes….

What did you think would happen?

In college I took a class called “Technology of War,” offered by the incredibly intelligent Aaron Karp. During this class I became obsessed with how technological innovation can—under the right circumstances—undermine military strategy. Karp was instrumental in encouraging me to attend graduate school where, while working on my masters, I majored in Conflict and Cooperation (you might call it “War and Peace,” but that is a little misleading). Indeed, currently in my studies “Conflict and Cooperation” is my minor.

For the last six years I have studied many, many aspects of international conflict—from nuclear armament to nuclear technology, from revolution to reaction, from terrorism to war crimes. But the technology of our wars has always been a special project of mine. I refer back to Karp’s class on a regular basis. And after I heard about Fares’ death, one thing immediately jumped out at me: What the fuck did you think would happen when you conduct an air war against a land-based target?!!

Many of us in my field are extraordinarily cautious about the pursuit of air dominance against ground forces. Sending jets (or in this case, drones) to conduct pinpoint eliminations of specific targets at very specific places can be a very good use of technological innovation that can have immediate benefit to the holder of that technology. But conducting air strikes against general areas—particularly areas with a civilian presence—can have immediate consequences. The least of these is that your target (in this case, what? The Islamic State generally??) has a greater chance of escape and survival. The worst of these is that innocent people die all the time!

I was going to make a short list of combative aerial failures against ground forces, but I really only need to mention two: Israel’s 2006 campaign against Hezbollah and Operation Allied Force’s NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Indeed, the reason I’m capping the list at two is because Wikipedia has an entire page on civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force. Check out the link. It has massive failures, such as the Grdelica train bombing, when we bombed a civilian passenger train on accident… and then turned around and bombed it again just to make sure (I’m stretching the truth a little, to be honest, but not that much).

The point is, although political science has no consensus regarding offensive/defensive technology and how to use it, I would never advise an aerial attack against a non-specific, non-combative target. This is why I call for boots on the ground. While it might be tragic to lose soldiers, losing Fares because we’re too lazy to use our technology in a responsible manner is unacceptable. I just wish generals would actually pay attention to us.

Rest in peace, Fares

I write this not because Fares’ life was worth more than the tens of thousands of other civilian lives lost in Syria, many of whom are children. I’m writing this because I knew Fares. He was a staple in Hamra, Beirut, a place I once called home.

I saw him every night, carrying his bucket of roses, which he would sell for LL3,000 ($2.00). I often spied a pretty lady across the alley and would pay Fares to take her a rose. Other times I’d buy a rose from him just because I like the smell of roses. And it wasn’t just I who knew Fares either. This post isn’t just about my friendship with him. I would be willing to bet that Fares knew each and every resident of Hamra—every student, every vendor, every doctor, every artist. He knew them because he was the friendliest soul in Hamra. And he knew them all because Fares was the kind of child who fit in perfectly with the adult world, even if he was too young to understand it. He was given respect without demanding it. I don’t think I ever really thought about the fact that he was a child until he died. To me, Fares was a peer. And when I return to Lebanon I will feel the profundity of his absence. I’ll miss the sting of his deceptively powerful high fives.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Analysis of a Cult Death Tape (Jonestown)

Yesterday Sam Harris shared the Jonestown Death Tape on his Twitter account. According to the source it was acquired from an FBI agent’s son. Naturally I couldn’t help but listen to all 44 minutes of it, and let me tell you—it’s one of the most interesting historical audio recordings I’ve ever heard!

But it’s obviously not for everyone.

You can listen to the tape here, but first let me lay out some warnings.

While I call the tape “interesting,” I do so precisely because of how disturbing it is. In the background you can hear babies crying and (presumably) toddlers screaming “No! No! No!” Parents cheer the deaths of their children as if infanticide is a meritorious venture.

Meanwhile the Rev. Jim Jones goes off on a paranoid torrent, accusing vague but malicious forces of plotting to kill everyone in the camp. Rather than face death by evil and invisible mercenaries, Jones reminds everyone: “we are not committing suicide; it’s a revolutionary act.”

This goes on for the last half of the tape. The first half is altogether different and is an extraordinary case study in cult mass suicide.

Jones begins his tirade by nonchalantly discussing why they are killing themselves. He asks his audience for feedback. After a few inaudible questions from his cult members, we finally hear the voice of one of them who vainly begs Jones to look for other options. Christine Miller pleads, “Is it too late for Russia?” The question is whether or not the cult can escape Jonestown and move to Russia. Presumably Jones told them earlier the Soviet government had extended them an invitation (highly, highly unlikely to be true).

Jones shoots her down, but Miller gets back up. In fact, she stands her ground against a murderous cult leader for several minutes. Here are some of the highlights from that exchange (emphasis mine):

Miller: I said I’m not ready to die.

Jones: I don’t think you are.

Miller: But, ah, I look about at the babies and I think they deserve to live, you know?

Jones: I agree. But also they deserve much more; they deserve peace.

Miller: We all came here for peace.

Jones: And we’ve—have we had it?

Miller: No.

Jones: I tried to give it to you. I’ve laid down my life, practically. I’ve practically died every day to give you peace. And you still not have any peace. You look better than I’ve seen you in a long while, but it’s still not the kind of peace that I want to give you. A person’s a fool who continues to say that they’re winning when you’re losing. …

Miller: When you—when you—when we destroy ourselves, we’re defeated. We let them, the enemies, defeat us. 

Whoa.

What makes this discussion so captivating in context and in hindsight is that Christine Miller was among the 900+ people who died at Jonestown! Unfortunately we only know she died. We don’t know if she committed suicide or continued to stand her ground against Jones only to be murdered later. But I’d guess it’s pretty likely that she committed suicide.

The calmness of everyone on the tape, Jones included, is the most interesting aspect of the tape. We would probably think Jones was insane if he asked any of us to kill ourselves in a mass suicide ritual and vocally condemn and resist any pressure to do so. And we wouldn’t do it, but somehow he convinced ~1,000 people to end their lives, including a woman who publicly resisted Jones!. This is no easy feat.

Another very remarkable moment in the tape comes when Jones gets word that Leo Ryan was assassinated. He announces it to his audience, and they all cheer. Jones was able to paint a compassionate congressman from the US as a foreign enemy, and he convinced his flock that Ryan’s death was just. How did he do that?

People often think I’m a little crazy because of my interest in Jim Jones and his People’s Temple, but how could you not find it interesting? This is some of the weirdest shit to ever happen in the names of society and religion.

If you can handle the sounds of dying babies, I highly recommend listening to this. Creepy as fuck.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Wonderful Humans of New York Photo and Caption

I don’t follow Humans of New York on any social media platform; however, many of my friends do, and they share posts by the photographer on a regular basis. I’m glad they do. Otherwise I would’ve missed this one.

I’m not adding much commentary or the image itself. Go ahead and click it, and if you like it, give credit where credit is due, and not by liking my post about the photograph.*

The caption is a former Baptist ordained minister who lost his faith after finding himself unable to reconcile suffering with his beliefs.

*Of course, if you feel like discussing the image with me, feel free to comment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

ISIS vs. Isis: The Rare Case for Political Correctness

I read this article on the Daily Mail a few days ago, and while it didn’t immediately sink in, an obvious thought resonated in my brain as I pondered the article more fully. In the article an Arizona couple struggled to conceive their first-born child. And so when their daughter was born in 2010 they named her after the Egyptian Goddess of Fertility, Isis. I’m sure you can see where this is going. Little did they know five years ago that their daughter would share a name with a terror organization.

Tragically, Isis was diagnosed at age five with a rare neurological disease, Rett Syndrome. This diagnosis came around at a time when she and her parents were already beginning to be harassed because of the girl’s familiar moniker. Her parents, in order to raise social awareness about her disease, printed bumper stickers with #TeamIsis emblazoned on them.

team isis ciara martinez

SOURCE: CIARA MARTINEZ

According to the parents and various media sources, the stickers didn’t go over too well. The harassment intensified, as drivers acted aggressively towards them, trying to force them off the road, and giving them the finger. According to the Daily Mail article, one of their friends whose car sports the #TeamIsis sticker was investigated for terrorism by the FBI… all over a sticker raising awareness for Rett Syndrome. Harassment has also come from the Twitter world, as #TeamIsis gets (understandably) confused with the Islamic State. Even their doctors and specialists advised the parents to change Isis’ name.

Sigh.

Thankfully, they’re sticking to their guns. Changing Isis’ name is out of the question! And I applaud them for this decision.

But my daughter’s name is beautiful, and she’s not the only one called Isis. It is an old name that has a beautiful meaning.

We are not going to change her name over this. We know what it means and so do so many other people.

It’s the Islamic State, not ISIS

Before you criticize me for hypocrisy for calling the group ISIS in previous posts, here’s my preemptive rebuttal.

In several of my posts and even in my “Burn ISIS Flag” videos, I’ve used ISIS and ISIL to refer to the Islamic State. This mostly came at a time during confusion over which acronym—if either—was preferred. The Islamic State dropped “Iraq and the Levant” and “Iraq and Syria” from their official name last summer. The media (and I) drifted through a period of confusion over what to call the group until we finally accepted their official title.

Unfortunately, not all in the media, the government, or society have adopted the new name. Various reasons exist: 1) the name explicitly highlights Islam (as opposed to ISIS, which hides it in an acronym), making some people uncomfortable, fearing it’s not politically correct. 2) Striking the geographical portion of the group’s name lends credit to the idea that the Islamic State no longer functions in only Iraq, Syria, and the rest of the Levant, but instead operates at a global level, which understandably might make people uncomfortable. And 3) most people are just too ignorant to realize they changed their name to the Islamic State.

It’s time to give this little girl back her name, dammit!

But if you’ve read this far, and if you previously fell into the third group of people, now you know that the name change occurred. If you fall into one of the other groups above, I say to you “grow up!” Being PC—not wanting to offend Islam by linking it with a terror organization—is just stupid. “The Islamic State” is just a name. They could call themselves “Rayan Zehn and His Atheist Papers Suck!” and I’d call them that because that’s the group’s fucking name! And if you think you’re giving them extra (and presumably magical) powers by using their actual name (a la Beetlejuice) then you’re a complete moron.

This little girl, Isis, and the hundreds and thousands of other girls and women named Isis throughout the years deserve to have their names back. We can’t hold them hostage to our fears, forcing them to change their names or harassing them with vehicular assault and twitter jackassery just because we’re idiots. ISIS the group doesn’t even fucking exist, so #TeamIsis is—in no way—a showing of support for terrorism.

Usually I could not care less about political correctness. But in this case being politically correct is being literally correct as well. And our stupidity is causing people to behave in a manner sufficient to cause a five-year-old girl with Rett Syndrome to suffer the sins of an unrelated Islamic terror regime.

So stop calling the Islamic State ISIS. Isis is a beautiful name for a girl (or maybe even a boy), conjuring images of health, marriage, and wisdom, the opposite of the images we usually associate with the Islamic State.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Doctor Who and the Atheist Years

It’s pretty amazing the things you’ll find when perusing the results on EBSCOhost or some other database of scientific literature. Sometimes people take research to very interesting areas. Pop culture being one that I don’t spend a lot of time on, surprisingly, one in particular popped out at me. First I should confess that I’m not a fan of Doctor Who. I’ve never watched a single episode, and my only knowledge of the franchise comes from a silly club mega hit from several years ago: The Timelords and the KLF – “Doctorin’ the Tardis.”

Despite my ignorance on the subject matter I gave the article a read.

In last summer’s The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, Sarah Balstrup published an article titled “Doctor Who: Christianity, Atheism, and the Source of Sacredness in the Davies Years.” It’s a combination literature review/qualitative analysis, and it examines how Russell T. Davies, the atheist lead writer on the show from 2005 to 2009, approached religion as a thematic device while penning his episodes. Taken from the abstract, Balstrup states the following:

Symbolically, it is deeply concerned with Christianity and the function of the Christ figure, while ideologically the program is aligned with New Atheism. At a subtler level, romantic love and friendship then take on quasi-mystical qualities through their definition as ultimately important and through their association with the unexplained.

New Atheism

Balstrup begins her piece by explaining the relatively short history of the term “New Atheism,” and she shows us how Davies took cues from several heavy hitting “New Atheist” authors. To illustrate this point, she quotes Davies as claiming that religion is banned in the Doctor Who universe. “[R]eligion is banned on Platform One. Yes, I’m deeply atheist. If they haven’t reached that point by the Year Five Billion, then I give up!” (quoted on p. 146), writes Davies.

The Doctor as Christ

Balstrup then shows how Davies subtlety alludes to the Doctor as Christ. She writes, “Despite these views, Davies presents the Doctor as a saviour figure, in notably Christian terms” (p. 147). Examples exist throughout the episodes: He saves mankind from Satan. Church windows contain images of his Tardis. He entices people to Church with promises of (literal) salvation (from actual, imminent threats). He plays a church organ (or something like that; the article isn’t specific) to defeat a monster. He is also “raised up into the air by two triumphant (robot) angels to the sound of organs before saving the day” (p. 147). And finally, prayer brings about his resurrection.

While others warn, she writes, that reading a Christ figure into film and literature where there is none has the tendency to read Christ into “anywhere,” she notes that Davies’ aforementioned alignment with “New Atheism” and his previous writing on a miniseries titled The Second Coming all show his “[concern] with Christianity, despite his critical stance” (p. 148). How cool is that?!

Of course, the Doctor is also a scientist who values rational thought over superstitions. From my reading of Balstrup’s piece, it appears she’s trying to say that his Christ-like image is merely the product of a man with deep compassion for the human race and who uses logic and rationality to save humans from their ills. [Disclaimer: As a man unfamiliar with this show, some of what she says goes over my head, so I might be mistaken on some small but key points].

Love, Friendship, and Mysticism

I’ll let Balstrup summarize this one (p. 151):

In summary, the new series may demythologize many mystical experiences by explaining their scientific mechanics, yet it is within the Doctor’s relationships with his true love, Rose, and with his best friend, Donna, that mystical aspects are allowed to remain unexplained. Both of these figures put their lives on the line for the Doctor, and in extenuating circumstances have absorbed the space-time vortex and seen the world as the Doctor sees it. If the Doctor is to be imagined as a godly saviour figure of supernatural nature, then the transcendent experiences that Rose and Donna undergo reveal not only the potential for the mystical but the mystical power of love itself. In the Doctor Who universe, religious mythology may be described as “Chinese whispers. Getting more distorted as it’s passed on” (“The Doctor’s Daughter” 4.6), yet true love and true friendship possess a sacredness that is both real and of ultimate importance.

Love is a great mystery, and not even a space/time traveling genius who literally has every tool past, present, and future at his disposal can demystify the emotional bonds we share with friends, family, and lovers. On the other hand, love is not mystical; it’s merely unexplained.

Discussion

Wow. To be honest, after reading Balstrup’s analysis, I’m tempted to watch Doctor Who, if only to examine the Davies years myself. Anyway, back on topic.

Balstrup’s analysis is very interesting. Although the article is choppy and malformed (there are no headings or subheadings, and that always irks me), she picks apart several years’ worth of episodes to determine how Davies’ atheism impacted the show.

This analysis might strike some people, particularly Christians, as offensive, but Balstrup is quick to point out that, although religious ethics are missing from the show, even if religious themes are common, there’s a final saving grace to the godless Doctor Who universe. She sums it up nicely (p. 153-4):

Critiquing religion, however, does not engender a disenchanted view of the universe, and the program presents a strong alternative value system based on humanistic ideals and the quasi-mystical power of love.

Posted in Science Sundays | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

An Open Letter to They Who Lost Today: Same-Sex Marriage and the US Supreme Court

Well, the inevitable has happened; the Supreme Court of the United States in a sharply divided decision ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same sex couples have an intrinsic right to marry, bringing an end to a decades-old debate. On one side of the debate sat gay and lesbian couples and they who supported their relationships. On the other side sat they who opposed same sex marriage along sectarian lines. This letter is addressed to the latter group from a straight ungodly heathen.

I feel for you. I really do. Losing a battle you feel so passionately about is frustrating, to say the least. I’ve been there. SCOTUS tends to make some decisions I agree with and many that I don’t. I take the good with the bad because—although this system isn’t perfect—it’s the best system we have. I tend to avoid—as best I can—throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If it makes you feel any better, try looking at it as a glass-is-half-full kind of thing. Remember last year when explicitly religious speech defeated secularism at 1 First St NE? Greece v. Galloway was a major victory for Jesus, solidifying your right to invoke Christ in public prayer at town hall meetings. Thirty years ago the Court also decided in Marsh v. Chambers (1983) that the state can hire a chaplain to lead religious prayer at state meetings. Although Greece partially overruled Marsh, the Marsh decision is still in effect as long as the town hall does not discriminate against non-Christian clergy or speech.

The majority opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby—too—upheld religious exemptions under the Affordable Care Act, meaning private, for profit organizations are not required to provide contraceptives to their employees if doing so would violate the owners’ religious beliefs.

And Muslims out there can rejoice too. This term’s EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch dismantled some of the systemic discrimination Muslim women face when applying for a job while wearing a hijab or some other head covering. Similarly this year in Holt v. Hobbs, the court ruled that prisons cannot prevent a Muslim inmate from growing a beard according to his faith.

The Court consistently upholds religious freedom. Whenever your rights to religious liberty are threatened, the Court will be on your side, practically 100% of the time. Of course, I hope you’re aware that today’s decision had nothing to do with religious liberty. You didn’t lose today. Instead, the outcome merely challenges your beliefs.

If I can accept when the Court challenges my beliefs, then I hope you can accept this decision as well. Who knows? This time next year you might be celebrating another religious freedom victory while I’m over here huffing and puffing because I vehemently disagree with the Court’s decision in this future case.

Take the bad with the good and the good with the bad. Like I said, it might not be a perfect system, but it’s the only system we have.

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

36 Serious Questions for God

Today I watched the video from The Atheist Voice titled “36 Questions I’d Like to Ask God.” Mostly they’re the standard questions we’d expect atheists to ask in order to make a point about certain religious absurdities. Afterwards, however, I thought about the concept—asking God questions—and I said to myself, “What kinds of questions would I ask an all-powerful and all-knowing entity?” So here’s my list of 36, devoid of religious questions:

  1. What is “dark matter”? [hands down, number one question]
  2. How could Napoleon have defeated the coalition at Waterloo?
  3. What are the mechanisms behind a cat’s purr?
  4. What’s the biggest erroneous theory that evidence has led scientists to currently maintain?
  5. What happened to Amelia Earhart during her fateful flight?
  6. How can we [humans] accurately predict the formation and path of a tornado?
  7. Is there a cure for cancer? And if so, what is it?
  8. JFK assassination. Conspiracy theory nut jobs, or conspiracy theory geniuses?
  9. What is consciousness? And how does the brain generate it?
  10. How can we ideologically defeat the Islamic State without bloodshed? [surely, God could answer that question]
  11. And similarly, what are the causes of wars and conflicts, and how can we avoid them?
  12. Are there any real cryptids? Or are they all just fictional creatures?
  13. Who assassinated Rafic Hariri?
  14. Are there other planets with life on them?
  15. Similarly, how can we make interstellar travel possible and feasible?
  16. What’s your favorite band or musical artist? [Genuinely curious]
  17. Similarly, why and how do we create music?
  18. Why do humans span wide spectrums between sexual and gender identities?
  19. Jurassic Park franchise theme: Possible or impossible? If possible, would it be ill advised? Personally, I want to see a dinosaur.
  20. How many predictions—if any—did Futurama get right?
  21. Was the Cold War a fluke? Or did the concept of mutually assured destruction really prevent a global nuclear war?
  22. I want to travel into the future. How can I do that?
  23. I’m a righty. My girlfriend is a lefty. My sister is ambidextrous. Why is dexterity so diverse?
  24. What are the mechanisms that led humans to have different blood types?
  25. Big rip, big crunch, or big freeze? Or something else?
  26. How many universes are there?
  27. And if there are more than one, how can we take an inter-universe holiday?
  28. Why do I need sleep?
  29. Is there a way to bridge the left-right divide in politics? [US because I live there, but also generally]
  30. Is there a cure for depression and mental illness?
  31. Who killed Bob Crane?
  32. What causes state corruption?
  33. Is there an energy source that will provide for our energy needs as long as humanity survives?
  34. Is there a cure for baldness? [I’m sure many of you would like an answer]
  35. How can we increase human life expectancy to 200 years or more?
  36. What questions should I ask you?

Personally, if I met God I would be so amazed by the wealth of knowledge s/he has that I would begin seeking answers to things that I’ve always pondered. Why ask about the meaning of suffering (meaningless question) when we can ask how to stop it (meaningful question)?

Posted in Atheism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Female Self-Immolations in Afghanistan (SS#20)

Today’s post reflects on a rather dated perspectives article from the The New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Driven to a Fiery Death — The Tragedy of Self-Immolation in Afghanistan” (May 2008). This article was instrumental in helping me form my thesis’ hypothesis. Indeed, without the medical literature, I might not have been able to complete my work; political scientists are generally reluctant to tackle or uninterested in the issue of self-immolation.

The article by Anita Raj, Charlemagne Gomez, and Jay G. Silverman laments the social climate in Afghanistan, particularly in regards to women, which, according to the article and its sources, is shockingly (or not so shockingly, when you think about it) abhorrent. The article cites arranged marriages, low literacy rates, high birth rates, and systemic domestic violence against women.

With no way out of their hopeless situations, many Afghan women commit suicide by self-immolation (setting oneself on fire), an extremely painful way to die. The authors write (p. 2202):

researchers involved in [the analyses] report that forced and child marriages, as well as violence perpetrated by husbands, in-laws, and husbands’ other wives, were common precursors to acts of self-immolation.

These acts were not uncommon either. The article cites previous studies that identified potentially hundreds of cases in a few short years. Some of the victims were as young as 12 years old.

The remarkable information this article uncovers, however, is through reviewing the narratives of survivors. In many of these non-fatal post-self-immolation interviews, the victims chose to commit suicide after they “spoke out against or sought help in alleviating the violence to which they were subjected — but were ignored” (p. 2202). In other words, they perceived their personal situations as hopeless because their traditional support structures (family, friends, and police) ignored their cries for help. Although this is not mentioned in the article, it could also be that the women weren’t always ignored. It’s not difficult to imagine family members or police officers beating these women for criticizing their husbands.

So why do they choose self-immolation when other, less painful, suicide methods exist? The article puts it thusly (p. 2203):

Women and girls appear to see this horrifying act as a means of both escaping from intolerable conditions and speaking out against abuse, since their actual voices do not bring about changes that would allow them to lead safe and secure lives.

Discussion

The perception of hopelessness, or, as Raj, et al, put it, “intolerable conditions,” appears to be a necessary variable in compelling these women to self-immolate. If they had support structures, or if society was malleable enough to offer these women platforms for change, then it is likely they wouldn’t chose suicide in the first place—particularly self-immolation. And, of course, my oft-cited favorite study might back this up.

The Raj, et al, article has a long list of reasons why existential security in Afghanistan is low. Afghanistan also boasts a 99.7% Islam population and has been known for strict interpretations of Islam at least in the social context, if not in the public sphere. And a quick look at the World Bank’s page on Afghanistan reveals all the hallmarks of an existentially poor country (low life expectancy, high fertility rates, an infant mortality rate at about 10%, etc.); it is not surprising that religion plays such a dominant role in Afghan society.

The “intolerable conditions” under which many Afghan women live, driving them to commit suicide by self-immolation, will—in the long term—slowly disappear as Afghanistan increases its existential security though the process of industrialization. As existential security increases, the need for religion decreases. As religion decreases, the strict interpretations of Islam in the social context will decrease, offering these women a platform for social change, offering hope for more tolerable conditions. With this platform we should expect to see self-immolation be utilized less frequently.

Of course, the situation on the ground is going to be pretty hopeless for a very long time. Women in Afghanistan, unfortunately, will continue to suffer intolerable conditions for the foreseeable future.

Posted in Science Sundays | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Upcoming Research: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Altruistic Suicide

It’s summer again, and I have a few short months to do independent research of my liking before getting into the deep again. In late August I’ll be starting a rather intensive Modeling and Simulations program at The Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center. This—effectively—means I’ll have essentially zero time to pursue research into strictly qualitative areas. Therefore, I’m going to spend the summer doing a qualitative research project I’ve been wanting to do for a very long time.

Previously I conducted a year-long study on the origins of self-immolation as a form of political protest. I use the word “origins” not to mean “the first recorded occurrence,” but rather the conditions likely to cause self-immolation to occur. While conducting my research I noticed an interesting trend in the US during Vietnam and in the Arab World during the Arab Spring. First, in the US every case for which I had sufficient data (name of victim, date of suicide, location of suicide, and either suicide letter, witness statement, victim biography, etc, or a combination of several), I noticed these were deeply religious people: A Catholic Worker, a Quaker who prayed to God for guidance before setting himself on fire, a Jewish Holocaust survivor who felt the Vietnam War was a prelude to the end of the world and that she was a modern-day David fighting her own Goliath (the Johnson Administration). Second, many—if not all—of the victims of self-immolation in the Arab World were also deeply religious (although, to be honest, there are several cases where insufficient data exist). Note that these are all victims of suicide who ascribe to religions that prohibit suicide.

I’ve previously addressed the question before on this blog: Under what conditions might we expect people to commit self-immolation despite their religious beliefs? The previous question was what role does religion play…? which I now believe is a faulty question. While religion might make certain people—particularly Quakers and Catholic Workers—more attuned to social tragedies, I don’t think I’ll ever find a compelling causal relationship between the Church (or dogma) and suicide protest. The current question is more in-tune with reality.

In the following passage I quote my thesis (pp. 66-67), which also quotes Michael Biggs:

This religious theme uncovers interesting questions. First, is belief in god correlated with the decision to self-immolate? Michael Biggs notes that the vast majority of self-immolations from 1963 to 2002 were “most frequent in countries with Buddhist or Hindu religious traditions…” Additionally, he points to belief in a supernatural being as a motivational factor in the decision to self-immolate. He writes, “Self immolation is an exchange: in return for the sacrifice, a supernatural agency will intervene on behalf of the cause.” While this might indeed be a motivation for believers in the Eastern gods, it cannot definitively be stated that it serves as a motivation for believers in the god of Abraham; the Abrahamic god promises no eternal reward for suicide, but rather eternal suffering.

The last sentence is what prompted this question. Why do Jews, Christians, and Muslims commit suicide by self-immolation when, by doing so, they fully expect to spend eternity in hell? Let me unpack this a little bit.

The act of self-immolation is an altruistic act. That is, it is done because the actor believes by sacrificing themselves they can change a hopeless situation and better their society. This is, in its every sense, a selfless and secular act. But as far as I can tell, in the US and the Arab World all victims are deeply religious. But this makes it all the more interesting; these people are willing to risk eternity in Hell in exchange for alleviating some of the temporary pain their society experiences in a temporal reality!! I’ll ask it again: Why? 

Well, I hope to have some kind of answer to that question very soon. Methodologically, I’m already finished. I merely need to duplicate my previous methods, tweaking them here and there to account for a smaller sample (I obviously have to control for Eastern Asian protestors). My literature review is already complete. All I have to do is go back to the data. It shouldn’t take me too long to finish this research project, but peer-review could take considerably longer. In any case, you’ll have something at least resembling an answer to this question relatively soon.

In the meantime I’ll try to keep this page as up-to-date as possible. Unfortunately, I completely forgot to make any posts during the last week—including my Science Sunday post—because I was too busy formulating this study. So more things could fall through the cracks, but I’ll do my best.

Posted in Self-Immolation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment