I just got to know a hilarious fact about the Malta Humanist Association, an organisation of atheists and agnostics.
They held a meeting to discuss whether they should condemn the PL's fundamentalist attack against me after I declared that I'm a non-believer.
Apparently, a consensus was not reached because 'left-wing' members were uncomfortable about giving support to someone with my political 'orientation'. So they decided to do nothing.
We can all rest easy. Our human right to believe in god, or not to, has the par idejn sodi of the Malta Humanist Association to give it iron-clad protection.
Only in Malta.
57 comments:
Lou,don't you think that being an athesit or not is no body's concern,?
I am sure it is of no interest,to us what you are.Do you have to let everybody know?
Now come on ,if we were to hear that let's say,the Pope is an atheist,now that would interest us, but come on it is of no interest to anybody what Lou Bondi is.That's your problem.
Where did you get this information from? I am a member of the Malta Humanist Association, and was never even informed of any meeting, let alone a decision being taken in this regard.
@ silvio - I agree. But I did not make it an issue, the PL did. I was asked a point blank question and I told the truth. Should I have done the Maltese thing and waffled or lied?
@ Kenneth, a member told me.
and this is exactly why I didn't join the MHA in the first place, although ironically most of the atheists I know are PN supporters.......
There was no meeting.
I'm a member of MHA and know nothing of the meeting you mention.
This evening on One Radio Joe Grima was discussing the "democratic deficit" in view of recent comments made by the "rotweillers", i.e. IM Beck, DCG and yourself. And after declaring that Bondi "jista' jbusli ghajni" with his comments on Joe's democratic credentials, he said that he switched his One TV talk show to Monday so see if you can beat him on audience. But, he said, you moved your show on TVM to Tuesday and Thursday so that you don't clash. You coward! :)
Labour might soon start arguing that Joe Grima should have the Monday slot on TVM to overcome this democratic deficit.
@Lou: Your "facts" are not very factual. It's not hard to verify things before publishing them.
I'm a committee member in the MHA and we've not had a meeting for some time, partly because some of us are abroad, and because, since we don't have regular meetings, each time we have to find a day that is suitable for everyone in a 10-member committee. We have not had a meeting on this matter. We DO have a facebook page and this issue was discussed by members there, as was the matter about kissing crosses in court. Nobody said anything about your political orientation as far as I can recall. In any case the contents of the MHA facebook group is public, you can check out the discussions yourself. There was disagreement between members about whether the article in question was attacking you, or PN for having earlier attacked Alfred Sant and now seemingly changing tactics. In any case there was broad consensus that the article and the attitude behind it were, at best, in bad taste and, according to many, reprehensible. As for what response there will be, if any, that is a matter for the committee.
Personally, I would question the integrity of the "member" who gave you this "fact".
My hero or is it martyr not sure whether I should laugh or cry!
In connection with many comments above, it was a prominent member of the Malta Humanist Association who informed me that the matter was discussed. But the bottom line is elsewhere: no one said that the Association took a position against the PL. Exactly as I wrote.
@Silvio It is important to say you're an Atheist, firstly because there is nothing to be ashamed of and secondly because we are living in a culture where too much revolves around religion. Now even an oath in court is being made into an issue with regards to Lou's testimony.
In all fairness the MHA Vice-Chairperson Raphael Vassallo did give a prompt reaction to the KullHadd article from Last sunday. and this can be found here: http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/blogs/raphael-vassallo/2011/1010/atheism-is-not-news
Just to be clear I had nothing to do with this. As an atheist myself I am sympathetic to MHA's cause, but do not consider myself a member, moreover a prominent one. As part of MHA's Facebook group, I am also not aware of any meetings done recently. Perhaps Lou & the MHA's committee, whoever that is exactly, should get in touch and clear the waters straight away otherwise this will be counter productive for the secular cause.
Lou,
I believe you are being unfair towards the MHA. It seems that this "member" gave you false information. It is not true that the MHA decided not to do anything about this issue.
Secondly just because the MHA hasn't officially done anything, it doesn't mean it's not discussing to (which in fact it is) and it's members (as Roger pointed out) are actually doing something about it. So please be a gentleman and admit that your informer gave you false information. The MHA is actually doing its bit.
Lou, I am sorry that you feel that we have let you down because we did not issue a press release to condemn the stance taken by PL in your regard. But I can assure you that this incident was noted and we are taking steps to ensure that similar fiascos are not repeated in a country whose own Constitution gives its citizens the right to believe in whatever they want!
Funny that partisan politics in the MHA Facebook group seems to be a problem now that the Labour Party is the target of criticism... It didn't seem to be a problem attacking en masse the PN especially in the pre and post Divorce referendum stages and the constant jibes at the now obsolete 'religio et patria' motto.
Read more here: http://whewitt.blogspot.com/2011/10/partisan-atheists.html
Lou,
(A) it seems that you didn't get the facts straight. Committee members confirmed that no meetings were conducted.
(B) it seems reasonable that if you're an atheist you don't swear on the crucifix. It is right to question the testimony of someone who swore on something he does not believe in.
So, my suggestion: why not question the usefulness of swearing on religious bases in courts? That would be interesting, and perhaps worthy the involvement of the mentioned organisation.
@Ramon.
So if an atheist is not an MHA member he's a threat to your integrity.
Good to know.
@ Lou Bondi:
You were obviously misinformed by the "member" - unless of course he meant a chat on facebook. But then, I wouldn't know. The members (and I mean all members) of the Malta Humanist Association (MHA) weren't invited to any meeting.
It is true that the MHA did not take an official position against the PL on this, but several of its members did take a position against Toni Abela's reprehensible behaviour.
Ramon Casha already explained why no such official position was taken, so I won't repeat it here.
@ Lou Bondi:
I can understand your feelings after being misinformed about a phantom meeting where it was supposedly decided that no action would be taken on a serious matter such as this.
However, you must understand that your argument is little different from that of someone who unfairly criticizes an animal rescue organization that saves thousands of animals just because they missed one rescue because their shelter was full and they didn't have the resources.
The bottom line is that no official decision can be taken from a committee unless a meeting is called and the committee members vote on it.
And no, you did not write that the Association did not take a position against the PL. What you wrote - and I quote - is that the MHA "held a meeting to discuss whether they should condemn the PL's fundamentalist attack against (you)" and that "a consensus was not reached because 'left-wing' members were uncomfortable about giving support to someone with (your) political 'orientation'. So they decided to do nothing".
This is untrue. You were obviously misinformed. Shall we move on, or shall we insist on being correct even when shown to be mistaken?
I trust you share my following principles:
1. Do not take anything at face value but ask for the evidence.
2. Admit mistakes. It will enhance your credibility.
3. Always be open to correction when given sufficient evidence.
I trust you agree with the above.
@ Anonymous:
Where did Ramon say that if an atheist is not an MHA member, then he's a threat to his integrity?
What Ramon said is that one should question the integrity of someone who knowingly gives false information.
It sure is easy to slander people when one posts anonymously.
@ C:
Like I said elsewhere, would you question the veracity of my claim that the earth revolves around the sun, if I swore that on the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
@ Wayne Hewitt:
Did anyone actually accuse you of being the "prominent member" that misinformed Lou Bondi?
I also think it is unfair on other "prominent members" to say that the information came from a "prominent member" without naming him/her.
Another important thing that needs to be stressed:
When a facebook group is an open group where anyone can post, it stands to reason that no one is accountable for what is posted except the person who sends the comments.
The only instance where the owner or moderators of the group should be held accountable is when abusive and illegal posts are made, and the posts are not deleted and the person who makes them is not banned.
An opinion on whether the MHA (not the facebook group) should publicly condemn an action, does not qualify as abusive/illegal.
The only way to avoid, as much as possible, having any posts that go against Humanist principles, would be to make it a closed group where members have to be interviewed and approved to become members. But that would defeat the educational aspect of the group.
It should be stressed that the MHA facebook group is not limited to humanists. I personally know members of the group who are Christians or members of other religions - and we have actually had plenty of discussions and debates with them in the group.
First of all, thanks for all the comments above, much appprecaited. Secondly, I checked with th MHA member who informed me and it appears that there wasn't a meeting but an exchange of emails. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Now to the matters of substance.
1. The bottom line remains that the MHA has not and, it appears, it will not take a position on the matter. Why?
2. The PL's declarations and actions are not marginal to MHA's mission. In fact, they constitute an attack on its very basis and its core beliefs. So why remain silent?
3. The only reason that I can think of to explain MHA's passivity is fear. Fear of the PL. Fear of being associated with - irony of ironies - the political heretic Lou Bondi who is still not convinced to vote Labour.
4. A weird running thread of contemporary Maltese politics is that people are afraid to critice Labour and they think it's cool to be anti-PN. I go against this grain. On this blog I was for divorce, critised Edwin Vassallo, criticised JPO for posing as a christ groupie, criticised Tonio Borg when, after the referendum, he tried to retain the principle of succession in the divorce law and more recently critised Helen D'Amato for suggesting that draconian laws to control teen parties. Because the PN does not instill fear in people. The PL does, as the issue at hand clearly demonstrates.
Quite frankly, I do not give a toss what the political beliefs of MHA members are. But they do. Theya are the ones who are reluctant to take a stand against Toni Savonarola Abela. Incidentally ... read my next post
@ Lou Bondi:
Thanks for the clarification. Allow me to reply to your comments in point form (for brevity's sake).
1. It is true that the MHA has not taken an official position on this matter. But it is not given that the MHA will not take an official position. An official position may only be taken when an official meeting is held (including inviting all the members, as is usually done in such cases). The only thing you can say about the MHA is that it is not efficient enough - quite understandable when the committee members are not paid by the MHA and they meet in the little free time they have. I am not a committee member myself precisely because I do not have the time. If you want my opinion, I strongly believe that the MHA should make an official statement on the matter. But as I said, such matters are decided through a committee, and not unilaterally decided by a member (be he/she a committee member or just a member like me).
2. Yes, I agree that the PL's declarations and actions are not marginal to MHA's mission. In fact, they constitute an attack on its very basis and its core beliefs. But please refer to my point 1.
3. I believe you are completely mistaken on this point, and I would publicly disassociate myself from the MHA if I am shown evidence that this is the case. I believe the true reason is the one given in my point 1, but I stand to be corrected if provided with any evidence suggesting that this is the case.
4. I agree with you here. I have a history of criticising the PN government where the criticism is warranted and deserved. Likewise, I criticise the PL when deserved.
In conclusion, you are wrong to generalize that MHA members "give a toss" about your political beliefs just because - perhaps (no evidence of this yet) someone in an email or on facebook gave that impression. I'd even defend Norman Lowell if he is denied his rights as an unbeliever.
There is not a shred of truth to this. I am a committee member of the MHA and we held no meeting whatsoever to discuss this issue. In fact we held no meeting whatsoever, fullstop. We are planing our next general meeting, to be held later this month, and have had any other unscheduled meeting. Lou Bondi must be getting his information from the fairies as usual.
I just tried posting but was asked a million questions before being allowed to. anyway, this is my second attempt and I;ve no idea what happened to the first.
There is no shred of truth to Lou Bondi's allegation. Nothing whatsoever. I am a committee member of the MHA and categorically deny that any meeting of any kind was held in which this was issue was even remotely discussed. In fact no meeting was held at all - we are still discussing venues for our next general meeting.
@ Kenneth Cassar: Like I did elsewhere, I'm reading your posts with a pinch of salt. Of course you have a right to your opinions.
I believe that the bottom line here is that if someone doesn't believe in X, then that someone shouldn't swear on X. It's as simple as that.
The Malta Humanist Association and individual members of said association was quick to disparge, belittle and ridicule the PN's (and the church's ) official anti- divorce stand. They are now seen to chicken-out when it comes to making an official statement denouncing Dr Abela's intolerant comment re other people's lack of belief.
"Coraggio Fuggiamo" comes in mind.
Hawk: The MHA never commented on the PN's divorce stand. What are you on about?
@ Raphael Vassallo - you are now unable to read apart from unable to reason clearly. It is the only explanation possible of your post which followed what I wrote. Now go back to your Malta Today playpen.
@ Raphael Vassallo - you are now unable to read apart from unable to reason clearly. It is the only explanation possible of your post which followed what I wrote. Now go back to your Malta Today playpen.
@ Raphael Vassallo - you are now unable to read apart from unable to reason clearly. It is the only explanation possible of your post which followed what I wrote. Now go back to your Malta Today playpen.
any reason for the m,ultiple posts lou? Or haven't you worked out to how to comment on your own site?
@ C:
I too agree that generally speaking, if one doesn't believe in X, one shouldn't swear on X. However, there could be situations where this does not hold. To go to extremes (just to make the point), if someone is sure he will be shot if he does not swear on a religious book he does not believe in, then I would say it would be silly and literally suicidal not to comply. I don't hold martyrs in high esteem unless the martyrdom is done to save others.
Of course, no one in Malta will be literally shot (though metaphorically, yes) if one does not take an oath on the bible or crucifix. However, there could be other repercussions which I need not go into.
The bottom line is that the veracity of a claim does not hinge on which piece of paper or wood one takes an oath on. Truth is not subjective.
Another thing, hawk. I am an individual member of the MHA, and yes, i was quick to comment on the PN's anti-divorce stand.
I was just as quick to comment on the attack on Lou in KullHadd last Sunday. In fact, as far as I know I was the first (if not the only one) of the regular columnists to do so... not counting Lou himself.
I know it's hard for some people to understand, but there are no double standards at work here. I think political parties should stay well out of individual's private opinions regarding religion: irrespective of who the individuals are, and what party they support.
There is an important principle at stake here, and if a political party - any political party, or for that matter any institution or even individual - threatens that principle, my reaction will be the same.
So if I defend Lou's freedom to believe what he likes, and to take his oath in court howsoever he feels comfortable, it's not because I agree with him on this, that or other (I think you can pretty much deduce from his comment above that there is neither mutual agreement nor respect between us). It;s because the State should have no business to be telling citizens what to believe and how to express that belief.
If it wasn't an important principle I wouldn't bother. But it is, and I do.
I'm in no position to judge what the committee is doing in your regard, though there was an open discussion on MHA's FB page that was very critical of Abela.
Wayne is being petulant because an MHA admin censored a blatant electoral promotion of his. A month or so ago somebody was posting a lot of pseudo science items on the board and was politely told to refrain from polluting the board with unrelated stuff.
I'm subscribed to Wayne's, Norman Vella's Lou's and frequently read Daphne too frequently. The last thing I want is to see duplicate posts on MHA's FB page… I'm sure Wayne is advertising himself admirably in MHA. If anyone wants to follow his party propaganda they can easily friend him.
Personally I subscribed to MHA's FB page (through Wayne and post divorce campaign unfortunately) so as to learn what humanism means for Malta and get a lot of interesting discussions there as I'm very ignorant of the local situation.
As for the accusation that many seem to delight in bashing the PN and let PL go scott free I think the reason is obvious: the incumbent has to defend its record, whilst the opposition has to keep the coals burning.
Personally I get annoyed with blatantly partisan politics Lou. It gets lame very quickly. At least people like you and Daphne qualify it with some very good information and insightful arguments but there's a lot of trash in what's published on both sides of the political divide.
@ Hawk:
My existence and my posts disprove your entire claim. As for an official statement, I have already tackled this in previous comments here.
So your taunts and childish insults were unwarranted. Grow up.
@ Hawk:
And isn't it ironic, calling people chicken while you post anonymously as a 'hawk'?
@ Kenneth Cassar
So what excatly was Ramon saying? That unless an official statement is made by the committee, a non member can be left to his own devices? Funny how all of you find it necessary to stick up for the MHA as an entity instead of what it should stand for.
Looking for a venue? why have a facebook page then? to chat?
What are you exactly, Scouts?
Counterproductive to the secular clause? Yes, especially when the secular clause becomes exclusive to anything outside it.
The member who spoke to Lou did not give false information, the MHA was playing for time, hoping this fracas would end, until someone gave the game away. The panic can be seen a mile away.
Very embarrassing. Or better, if one has to be snide, true to form, as atheism according to you guys, seems to not believe in anything.
How do you expect to be taken seriously? You sound like a bunch of scaredy cats, victims of your own prejudice.
@C No it is not a contradiction to swear on the crucifix if you're an atheist. It becomes a contradiction if you have a problem with religion and it's meaning. One of Europe's leading atheist philosophers is invited regularly to the vatican to purposely contradict the pope.
It's an exercise in dialectics.
The way you talk denotes a discrimination between those who declare themselves atheists, and those who say they lost the faith. It seems too close for comfort for the former.
Now unless you want your cause to thrive, stop the denigration and settle to your nature.
I'm not an atheist and welcome your association, but please stop these corporate jitters.
Qabel ma nispicca fl-Opus Dei.
Kenneth Cassar: I think I get your point, but, Dr Abela did not claim that atheists are liars. He simply pointed out that atheists should not swear on the crucifix.
Now, the magistrate seeks Lou's explanation. I'm not a lawyer but I think that Lou has a few options:
1) Admit an unintentional human error and perhaps ask for permission to override the previous oath/s by swearing on something that he really believes in. Of course he should swear that everything that was said is true and indeed that the previous oath/s was/were a human error, and not intentionally disrespectful or anything else.
2) Claiming that he was not an atheist at the point in which he swore on the crucifix. Of course only if this is true. Unlikely.
3) Explaining that notwithstanding the fact that he's an atheist, he believes in Christ as the founder of Christianity, and in the validity and usefulness of Christian principles as written in the Bible. i.e. what does kissing the crucifix really signify? Does it signify that you believe in God? Or does it signify that you believe in the fact that Jesus Christ existed and that this is somehow worthy of being the basis of an oath? Of course it could be that what kissing the crucifix really means to a court is documented somewhere, but well, it's unlikely that Lou or anyone else would know this.
I think that the best option is option 1. But option 3 is not too bad either.
@ Anonymous:
"So what excatly was Ramon saying? That unless an official statement is made by the committee, a non member can be left to his own devices?"
No. What he's saying is that unless a statement is an official statement made by the committee, it is not an official statement made by the committee. You'd have to be really thick not to understand this.
"Funny how all of you find it necessary to stick up for the MHA as an entity instead of what it should stand for".
I did both. It's not my fault that you can't read.
"Looking for a venue? why have a facebook page then? to chat?"
Yes.
"What are you exactly, Scouts?"
Why do you ask? Would you join us if we were? I'm afraid you'd have to give us your name, though.
"Counterproductive to the secular clause? Yes, especially when the secular clause becomes exclusive to anything outside it".
Can you translate that to English, please?
"The member who spoke to Lou did not give false information"
This has already been established. Even Lou Bondi acknowledged it. Now if you want to keep believing we held a phantom meeting, suit yourself.
"the MHA was playing for time, hoping this fracas would end, until someone gave the game away. The panic can be seen a mile away".
A fan of conspiracy theories, are you?
"Very embarrassing. Or better, if one has to be snide, true to form, as atheism according to you guys, seems to not believe in anything".
Funny how, to defend Lou Bondi, you are actually attacking Lou Bondi. So go ahead...attack atheism...make a fool of yourself.
"How do you expect to be taken seriously? You sound like a bunch of scaredy cats, victims of your own prejudice".
Now this is hilarious. A prejudiced anonymous person (a scaredycat perhaps?), calls us prejudiced scaredycats. Oh well.
@ C:
"I think I get your point, but, Dr Abela did not claim that atheists are liars. He simply pointed out that atheists should not swear on the crucifix".
He said much more than that. But I won't repeat myself. Read this: http://loubondi.blogspot.com/2011/10/scoop-toni-abela-your-liberal-and.html
@ C:
I too am not a lawyer, but I think this whole absurd issue can be easily resolved in just 5 seconds.
If an oath on the crucifix is as valid as one without a crucifix (and it is), all Lou has to do is take an oath (without the crucifix) that his testimony is true.
End of story. I can't think of anyone who can get around that ;)
Anonymous, the venue we are looking for is a physical venue - i.e., a hall to host a physical meeting for our members. As for the facebook space the issue was discussed there (as Jenneth told you) and the consensus, such that there was, was very much in favour of bondi. Why dont you check it out for yourself before rushing to comment? same goes for you, lou.
Also: the information given to Bondi was not only incorrect, it was entirely fictitious. Especially the part about a leftwing conspiracy, which is evidently the only part that interested you. (Strange, incidentally, how all these 'leftwing conspirators' never posted a single comment on our fb page to say that Toni Abela was right...)
Meanwhile, if our association is not to your liking no one's going to force you to join. There is nothing stopping you from setting up your own secular humanist society if you're unhappy with the existing one, but my advice is that societies set up by shadows and ghosts don;t get very far as a rule.
It is pertinent to notethat ours is a humanist asdociation, and not all our members are atheists. It is perfectly possible (though admittedly not very common) for deists to be humanists, too. Our real concern is much more long term than issuing sporadic press release in knee-jerk response to issues that arise from particular court cases - at the moment we are involved in talks with the educationsla department about the new syllabus, to give one example.
Having said that the matter at hand is of direct concern to us. Clearly we didn;t jump fast enough for your liking, but i think the problem here is really with your expectations.
I like it; i just love it. Kenneth Cassar, Ramon Casha and Raphael Vassallo waffling about credibility! Hilarious!
You should stick to Andy, Andy. The diminutive form suits you well...
@ Andy Farrugis:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Trollface.png
Kenneth,
let's stick to the facts shall we?
The deputy leader of a major party seeking power uses religion to attack a journalist.
The Malta Humanist Association remains silent.
Yes, Raphael writes a piece from the heart, and so did you. (I missed your later posts)
IT IS NOT ENOUGH.
When something like this happens, you use that facebook page to draft a statement and to hell(whatever)with those who aren't available.
If your statute requires a full committee for an official statement, yet everyone seems to be all over the place when you need them, I suggest the set up be revised.
Here we are, waiting for a statement, and all we get is the statute book. How thick is that?
I don't expect anything better from Toni Abela, what I miss is your vocal protest to his deceit and callous talk. You know fully well this isn't just about freedom of religion and the right to an opinion, but a concerted attempt at turning back the clock to militant ideology and the appropriation of shared values. The fact that he turns it onto a public person confirms the intent to induce hate, prejudice and the abuse of any public space.
A space you miss.
That is why I choose to put it squarely in your lap. Consider it, if you please, one major opportunity.
You HAVE to take a stand, The choice here is to open up yourself to the rest of society by showing integrity, or continue calculating what to say in the name of formality. An elegant solution would be a joint statement with your imposed nemesis.
Don't underestimate the responsibility you have when you call yourselves humanists.
Humanism, in my book, deplores the use of religion to bash people around the head given its origins in western philosophy and the lessons learnt from saturated catholicism. It does not pertain to those who denigrate faith as belonging to the mentally deficient either. It is about respect and refutes its opposite; the prostitution of anything held sacred to destroy percieved opponents. Sacred here is symbol.
What Abela does is to question Lou's allegiance to the flag.
Guess what that is.
Questioning whether an atheist is bound by principles be they justice, truth, decency and respect is NOT an attack on atheism.
When you say that, you play Abela's game.
Finally, a note to the vice chairman.
I have no intention of disrupting your efforts, and am not a member.
I just wish to point out the dynamics of public perception and the good work you can do.
Now leave me alone, I have some pending self flagellation.
@ Raphael:
Yes, Andy is more fitting to 10-year-olds.
http://www.maltahumanist.org/node/83
"14 October 2011 13:19
Raphael Vassallo said...
Hawk: The MHA never commented on the PN's divorce stand. What are you on about?"
@ Mr Vassallo; re to Mr Hewitt's posting on the subject.
Kenneth Cassar said...
@ Hawk:
And isn't it ironic, calling people chicken while you post anonymously as a 'hawk'?
Ooops, I must remember to change my nick then , just in case there is some hunter amongst you enlightened lot.
Cheers
Hawk.
Kenneth Cassar said...
@ Hawk:
And isn't it ironic, calling people chicken while you post anonymously as a 'hawk'?
Ooops, I must remember to change my nick then , just in case there is some hunter amongst you enlightened lot.
Cheers
Hawk.
Some (not all) of you MHA folk sound just like pre-kindergarden tots whose diapers are in dire need of changing.
Ave Dawkins.
Post a Comment