Dear Jamaican Women & Girls, sorry we couldn't make it safe for you.

17yr old Micholle Moulton, murdered while she slept in her
Arnett Gardens community. Her 12 yr old sister was also
shot and is in hospital in stable condition. 

I don't know what it feels like to be a girl growing up in Jamaica, and honestly, I'm thankful I won't ever have to experience it. I don't think I could've handled half of what a Jamaican girl has to endure by the time she hits puberty - in particular, the constant male scrutiny which at any point could manifest in violent assault. The worst part is, most Jamaican men are completely oblivious to this reality and would either vehemently deny the situation is as bad as it is, or casually suggest there are other places which are far worse off. And just like that, it's back to "Jamaica, no problem." If it wasn't already obvious, the recent murder of a 17yr old student because she is alleged to have turned down sexual advances from men in her community should make it abundantly clear that Jamaican women and girls aren't safe in Jamaica and it's all our fault.

Micholle's murder is continuing a 5-6 year trend of increasing sexual assault on girls of high school age that has recently ramped up in the past two years. In 2011 when the trend had started to become worrying, an executive summary from the National Investigation Bureau (NIB) rationalized the uptick by stating that "This coincides with the increased recreational activities such as dances, parties, outings, and wakes," This statement is made even more bizarre by the clear statistical information in the study which shows:

"Most victims are raped at their homes, at their friends' homes, on the way to or from school and work, and while walking alone along lonely roadways."

If this second statement is true, then what on earth is one to make of the first statement? It appears that even when there is solid evidence to suggest that a rapist is more likely to be an acquaintance, even the professionals are still operating in the "rapist-hiding-in-the-bushes" paradigm. In a way I can understand why; while you can advise women and girls against walking home alone at night and attending alcohol fuelled parties, how do you warn them a potential rapist could be living at home with them now? The boogeyman rapist narrative rallies support and mobilizes resources, the rapist-might-be-my-father narrative does not.


Could this crime problem have a gendered dynamic? 

A global study on homicide done in 2013 by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime revealed that 96% of convicted homicide perpetrators were men. This is actually the same figure for the Americas region of the study which includes the Caribbean (pg. 13). Though no definitive figures are available for Jamaica, I would guess the percentage of male homicide perpetrators is in the high 90s as well, probably somewhere around 98% if the news reports are anything to go by. If women started to murder men and boys in the manner that men do it to women, by the third news report a national gender emergency would be declared. There would be no end to the organizations lining up to have an urgent intervention in the "women crisis" that would be gripping the island. But when men rape, sodomize, beat, and burn a teen girl it is the work of demons. And mark you, this isn't always meant to be a metaphor - many people actually believe "real" fucking demons to be the cause of these kinds of crimes. If demons were responsible for acts of gruesome violence, why aren't they possessing women in equal proportion? Does the possession happen via a man's cock?

It's time we wake up to the realization that at the core of Jamaica's crime problem is an element of the way in which boys are (anti)socialized. The data cannot be this glaring without significant attention being focused in that direction. Indeed, no long term crime reduction initiative will work unless this stark reality is simultaneously addressed. As Jamaican men, we have royally fucked up in our duty to keep our women and girls safe.


Jamaican women, get your head out your asses 

One of the most disgraceful displays in all of this is what happened when a news team visited the community a day after Micholle and her sister were shot. Apparently, community members were offended by the allegations that Micholle's murder was due to her spurning sexual advances from men in the same community. As far as these protestors (all of whom were women) were concerned, the Micholle's mother tarnished the "reputation" of the community by suggesting that her daughter was murdered because she didn't accede to being raped. Presenting themselves, as it were, in half slips and shower caps with stomachs bulging over the top of washed out tights, these women were the very picture of inner-city backwardness and dysfunction. One of them found it necessary to wonder aloud "Why dem neva rape me?" hinting that, if men in the community were desperate for sex, she would've been an easy low hanging fruit - no need to harm Micholle. This idea, of course, belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what rape is; it has nothing to do with inaccessibility to sex, but everything to do with a desire to assert power. In all their braying and grunting at the camera, not one of these women expressed a word of remorse let alone outrage at Micholle's murder; they were far more interested in protecting the (non-existent) reputation of their community (nicknamed "Zimbabwe" - now you tell me ... ) and the men who lived there. With ingrates like these willing to sacrifice their dignity in defense of the men in their community, is there any wonder why upwards of 90% of rapes go unreported?


And no, God's not coming to save our women either 

It hardly needs repeating, but neither an imaginary God nor the church is going to fix this problem for Jamaica. This isn't a problem being fought in a "spiritual realm" - this is a practical, real world disaster we are facing in Jamaica. As such, no time should be wasted bawling out to Jesus to rescue Jamaica - he sees each of the 900+ murders on the island and does fuckall, so maybe it's time Jamaicans disavowed themselves of their divine safety blanket. And lord knows we can't hope the church will magically correct this problem - when pastors aren't themselves raping children, we have God-fearing residents more than willing to defend the current status quo. Obviously, persons who identify as Christians need to a part of the solution (they do, after all, comprise the vast majority of Jamaicans), but unless they plan on coming to the table with research-driven methods, absent bible babble, they need to stand aside and allow those with the requisite expertise to get the work done. Enough time has been spent praying about crime in Jamaica - it's long overdue for Christians to get give their knees a break and engage their brains for a change.

Sometimes I worry about friends of mine in Jamaica raising young girls. I worry that, at any time, one of their daughters could fall victim to Micholle's fate. I personally know several Jamaican girls who have. I try to think what I would do as a parent in their shoes, and the same answer always returns - leave. As soon as resources permit, and opportunity presents itself, get your daughter out of Jamaica. Coward? Sell-out? Unpatriotic? Fuck that. Call me whatever version of turncoat you can find, but one label I'd never want for myself, or anyone else, is grieving parent. I'm sorry we couldn't have kept you safe Micholle, and I hope your bravery in sticking to your principles is the catalyst necessary to force us to do better.



Cool Dude. 

One March to Bring them All

Source: Youth for Change

Popular Jamaican dancehall, DJ Bounty Killa, thinks abusing women is "weird." This same DJ who himself was charged for domestic violence, but was never convicted on account of the accused not showing up for the trial, has recently publicly denounced violence against women amid the weekly reports of gender based violence coming out of Jamaica ranging the full span from beatings to flat out beheadings. His denouncement came in the nick of time too; a coalition of women advocacy groups got vocal about his upcoming performance at an event organized by the gender ministry in Jamaica. These women (and not a single man as far as I know, mind you) questioned the rationale behind allowing someone accused of gender based violence to perform at an event for survivors of gender based violence. Sensing the mounting public disapproval, Bounty was quick to remind his detractors that he was never convicted, he's a changed man, and beating women is "weird." Oh, and he threw in a threat of legal action against one of his detractors for good measure. 

Violence against women and girls has a long and storied history in Jamaica stretching back several centuries to the plantation society. If the police reports about the depravity committed against girls is horrendous now, with a functional security force,  legislation to protect children, and a host of advocacy groups, one can only imagine what it was like on the plantation before black girls were humans. Admittedly, Jamaica does try to do right by women and girls, and has managed to make improvements on the equality and protection of women since the time of slave economy. It's the areas where we fall woefully short which are disastrous; gaping loopholes in our sexual offences act, an investigative framework which moves at a snail's pace for sexual offences, a lack of measures to protect children in all contexts, and a general ambivalence towards domestic violence. So, yes, we've gotten some things right since the 17th century, and we aren't the worst where this problem is concerned. But, we are so embarrassingly far from achieving a safe and encouraging society for women and girls that we should move into a panicked frenzy to address the problem and remain there until the job is done. 

Men's role in all of this

If Jamaican women started chopping off the heads of their spouses, by the third time it happened, gender experts would emerge from all corners of the island to urgently host symposia and conferences asking the question "what is wrong with our women?" Evangelical snake oil salesmen would descend on the island from North America to exorcise the Jezebel demon possessing Jamaican women, and social media would be buzzing with how these women have finally gone mad. In essence, if Jamaican women started committing violent crimes at the same rate as men, no one would doubt this is gender-based issue. We fail to highlight this same paradigm when men are the perpetrators of violence primarily because men control the narrative. Women can berate men for propagating violent crime in their "sister circles", but if the correlation between gender and violence is to be an agenda item for national discourse, it's men that would have to put it there. And we sure as hell aren't going to single ourselves out as the culprits. 

Enter Tambourine Army 

Well, as it turns out, whether us men want to acknowledge our role in violence against women, someone is doing it for us. The Tambourine Army, an activist movement which coalesced in the last few months, has been making their presence felt on social media. And what a presence it is! When news broke late last year about a pastor caught in a sexually compromising position with a minor (aka raping the child), it set off an outcry throughout Jamaica. The Yardie Skeptics did a few shows related to the issue, but it was the #saytheirnames movement which set social media ablaze. Jamaican Survivors of sexual violence took to Facebook and twitter and started to list the names of their abusers. All the shit hit all the fans once that started happening; perpetrators began threatening legal action against the women in the campaign, even while they were being dragged off to the nearest lockup to answer to charges of rape. During the maelstrom, a distinct advocacy group began to emerge. They've called themselves the Tambourine Army. Emphasis on the army, since their militant, no fucks given approach to pushing back against gender based violence has massacred several egos in the short two months since they've officially come up with a name. And they've done quite a bit of real work in that time too - public forums, letters to the newspapers, several appearances in media (including the Yardie Skeptics radio show) submitting a proposal to a committee reviewing the sexual offences act, and organizing a survivor empowerment march. 

Boots on the ground 

I've never really been a fan of marching as a form of advocacy, especially where violence is concerned. As far back as I can remember, Jamaicans have been doing exactly that to no avail. When they do finally get off their knees praying that the violence will end, they sing and march down the streets; placards in hand, and platitudes galore. Pointless on both fronts. At the end of the day they return home and ignore the screams next door while a women gets pummelled by her spouse. Or ask to themselves "what did she do to make him so angry?" 

The Tambourine Army seems to be doing something different though. At the time of writing it is the day before their march. A march which seems like an exclamation point at the end of a very long and passionate manifesto. The guardians of Jamaica's patriarchy (both men and women) have distanced themselves from the movement claiming that the militancy is alienating, offensive, and likely illegal in some respects. Soldiers in the Tambourine Army aren't swayed - they've come to look cute and disrupt the establishment, and looking cute ended in the 90s. I'll be looking out for tweets, pictures, and live feeds on tomorrows march. No doubt the empire will fight back and launch missiles to intimidate the marchers. But something tells me, it won't work. This movement can't be stopped - not now, not tomorrow. And as for their general, Stella, she's a bumboraasklaat genius. 

(Tambourine Army  has a Gofundme page, I sent them a few dollars just now, if you can chip in go ahead)

- Cool Dude. 

Debatephobia: It's not just politicians

Jamaica is gearing up for its next general elections, where potentially a new prime minister could take office in exactly four days, and absolutely no national political debates will take place. Not between the current prime minister and leader of the opposition, nor between candidates vying for the crucial role of minister of finance; no debate will take place. The story behind such a state of affairs is one almost too bizarre to merit a lengthy discussion here - suffice to say that Prime Minister Simpson-Miller never had any talent for political debates and happily found an excuse to avoid this one when Opposition Leader Holness called her a "con artist." This, notwithstanding the fact that the political debates aren't really designed for the candidates to interact with each other, but instead to field questions from a panel of interested members drawn from the corporate sector, civil society, youth leaders, and the general public. Alas, the prime minister has been stricken by a severe case of debate-phobia; much like that which affects the highly religious from time to time.

The Yardie Skeptics have encountered our fair share of religiophiles afflicted with debate-phobia, some terminally so. And ironically it is those one would least expect to shy away from a debate; the formally trained theologians, the celebrity Jesus freaks, and the social media spokespersons for heaven. For every one Christian who steps up to dialogue with the Yardie Skeptics, no less than five have turned us down for no other reason than an aversion to honest debate. The excuses generally come in one of three flavours: a) the previously vocal holy roller suddenly realizes they need "expert" training to debate their own views, b) debates are a waste of time and an inefficient medium to challenge ideas, or c) the Yardie Skeptics are irredeemable heathens who should simply repent and stop interfering with the "anointed." In truth, the reason for debate-phobia is much more simple; cowardice. A cowardice which comes from the recognition that, at the core, your talking points would never hold up to serious scrutiny. And this is what debatephobic pastors and politicians tend to have in common.

At the very least, no one should be shocked that such a reality would occur right before the general elections in Jamaica. The two major political parties have both had their turn at ignoring essentials of the democratic process, whether it be free and fair elections or a commitment to accountability. Moreover, Jamaica has never had a tradition of throwing ideas into the arena to allow them to duel to the death and the sound ones emerging the victor. Political allegiance, much like religious devotion, has always been about tradition, emotions and insecurity. Just as how children are indoctrinated into the religion of the household, so too do they become indoctrinated into the political allegiance of said household. And the religion and the political party are passed down between generations, not because they've passed any litmus test for legitimacy but because that is how it has always been.

And because it "feels" right.

Religion has a knack for encapsulating its adherents in a psychological safety blanket. Devout behaviour in the form of church attendance and tithes are rewarded by the psychological reassurance of being beamed up into paradise at the end of days. Politics is no different; both political parties in Jamaica are buoyed along on the backs of zombie like devotees who will surrender their livelihood, and even their lives, for the political spoils whether real or imagined. It's no accident that politics and religion are so intertwined in Jamaica, to the point where political leaders have been given the names of biblical figures like "Moses" or "Joshua." Just recently the prime minister held the election date hostage until she received a divine touch from her "master" and candidates from both parties have often beseeched divine intervention when fresh ideas are short. In essence, Jamaican religious expression prepares one for their political expression later in life - a near complete surrender to a saviour, whether in heaven or in parliament, who will see to the deliverance of the faithful. Why even bother with a debate?

Politicians and pastors are fully aware they have very little to gain from participating in debates. Just recently I saw this statement in a Facebook post on my timeline:

"Mi navel string cut from PNP, nuh matter what nobody can change me." (my emphasis)

This statement comes from a university educated individual, from that tiny sector in Jamaica referred to as the "articulate minority." That group which, presumably, would be most interested in hearing what candidates have to say in the context of a debate. But what we instead see here is a defiant oath to loyalty regardless of what the light of reason might show. In Jamaica, political allegiance, like religious piety, is a deck of cards, surround by a glass house, built on shifting sand - as fragile as it is insecure. Debates only serve to reinforce positions of bias at best, or cause mental meltdowns at worst. You afterall can't use reason to change a stance which wasn't arrived at via reason in the first place. For the vast majority of Jamaicans, it is a seamless transition from the birth canal to the baptismal pool, and the transition into political allegiance tends to be just as seamless. Questioning this paradigm can result in social reprimand, family disavowal, or sadly, even death. Those being called upon to debate need not worry since the content of debates has little to no impact on the "faithful."

It is the small fraction who are undecided, but willing to commit, which will be left out in the cold by the absence of a national debate. For them, they will simply have to flip a coin and cast their ballot or skip the entire process altogether. And who can blame them? If there is no forum for the ventilation and scrutiny of ideas, whether for political or religious issues, then allegiance can only come via blind faith. For the discerning among us, this is untenable. For the legion of sheep, let the church say "Amen!"


-Cool Dude.

"I Don't Know, Therefore God": The Last "Valid" Argument for God's Existence

Very few arguments for the existence of gods have been as enduring as the God of the Gaps Fallacy. It was very likely the first argument which emerged, and currently it is the only one which has remained. Forget the cosmological argument, the complexity argument, the "prime mover" argument, the wager; the one remaining argument for God is hinged on the power of sheer ignorance alone. It manifests in two general varieties - "I don't know the answer to this question, therefore God" (personal incredulity), or "There is currently no scientific answer to this question, therefore God" (gap in knowledge, hence God of the Gaps). And no one is better at finding the right God-sized gaps than one of Jamaica's more vocal theologians Rev. Clinton Chisholm, who wrote the column "Scientific Problems for Atheists" in the Gleaner of Monday August 31st.

Before I address the main point of Rev. Chisholm's column, it's important to speak generally about, what appears to be, the last remaining gap for the kingdom of heaven - the origin of life. Not too long ago, this gap was a little bigger since it extended to the origin of mankind, but it has since shrunk given the overbearing evidence that modern humans evolved from earlier hominid species, just like all modern life forms evolved from earlier ancestral progenitors. No scientist of any repute today doubts that evolution is a fact - the fossil record and the genetic information proves that ALL life on our planet evolved from a single biological source. So, that gap in knowledge has been plugged for quite some time now; what remains a mystery is how exactly this life form emerged. And this new gap is where God has crammed his entire kingdom - it is an extremely tight fit, and given the recent advances in the field of abiogenesis, the lease is running out on that gap too. God and company will soon be homeless.

Turning now to Rev. Chisholm's column, what we find is nothing new. Chisholm resurrects the usual tired tactics of creationists - referencing once prominent scientists who slipped into senility and then ended up on the payroll of some fundamentalist Christian "science" board (e.g. Dean H. Kenyon); citing from work which has been been heavily discredited for decades (e.g. "Evolution from Space"); and worst of all putting words into the mouths of authors (e.g. Chisholm wastes no time in suggesting that the authors are "hinting" at the supernatural, even though they said no such thing). This, of course, is expected. Men steeped in theology have a tenuous grasp on scientific concepts at best. Chisholm himself doesn't actually know what Darwin's theory of evolution is, as evidenced by his Facebook post:

Darwin neither claimed, nor believed anything of the sort. Darwin set out to explain how it is we have so many different species of animals on the planet, NOT how the first life form originated. Darwin noticed that animal and plant breeders could modify a variety of traits in different species of livestock and plant life by a process called "artificial selection." He then wondered, and demonstrated, that an unaided parallel process is at work in nature doing the same thing - "natural selection." The discovery and study of DNA was the last piece of the puzzle to vindicate Darwin. The mystery of the origin of that first life form is certainly an attractive gap to stuff the supernatural, but given the fact of evolution, we have already erased the possibility of a literal creation story a la the book of Genesis. If evolution is a fact, and it is, then Genesis must be a fairy-tale. How do conservative Christians like Chisholm deal with this problem? Do they scramble to revise their theology and produce ideas like "theistic evolution" or do they buckle down on old time creationism and weather the onslaught of being called "dunce?" (Just take a peek at the comments under Chisholm's article to see what I mean).

All in all, there is one thing we cannot forget whenever God apologists like Chisholm step up to dazzle us with theological gymnastics. To date, not ONE single supernatural occurrence has ever been verified. The tally for religions demonstrating supernatural occurrences sits comfortably at an embarrassing 0 (zero) and has been that way since the beginning of religion. Science, on the other hand, has overturned religious claims time and time again, ad nauseum. Why should we think anything is going to be different now? Every claim to the supernatural has either been convincingly proven false, or else cannot be proven at all (yes, how could one "prove" imaginary creatures like angels have wings?) With a track record like that, why even bother giving serious attention when they cry for wolf (or God) yet again?


- Cool Dude.

Skeptacles (pt. 2)

Ahhhh... Another Sunday and loving the fact that I am Jamaican. The Jamaican track and field team has dominated once again and Jamaican patriotism has been at an all time high this week. What a wonderful feeling.  

So, last week we spoke a bit about Jamaica's religiosity and how it's affecting the lives of Jamaicans and Jamaica as a country.  We peeked into the lives of sister Hyacinth, which unfortunately is not doing any better than she was before.  To be honest she is even more worried than before because although the church was praying for her recovery her diagnosis from the doctor unfortunately didn't come with "divine" intervention or intercession and her liver is almost completely shut down. She will need to have a liver transplant or she may be not live beyond this year's end. My heart goes out to her and her family.  I can see she has gone back to church again today because she honestly believes that she is a good person and has been through so much in life.  With her personal belief in having a relationship with God and her pastor's constant religious ministrations, Sister Hyacinth truly believes she will be OK. 

Now I understand believing or having faith in pulling through the most dire of situations because of divine intervention if you are a religious or spiritual person, but I can't understand why she is not actively reaching out to her family to see if anyone is interested in being tested to see if they are a donor match for her and if they would help in saving her life.  Praying every day seems to be the way that Jamaicans like Sister Hyacinth and most religious people deal with serious life changing issues.  It pains me sometimes to see and know that Jamaicans are so indoctrinated and borderline narcissistic in thinking personal prayer request to a God sitting in the clouds is the preferred method to problem solving. Why do people really pray, and does prayer really work? Those are the question most Jamaicans need to ask themselves in order to exact change in their lives.  So let put on these Skeptacles for a minute and so we can see things for what they really are not for what we want to believe them to be. 

Prayer. Such a powerful thing in the Jamaican life and experience.  We grow up learning how to pray in church and from our parents. We learn to ask for things in life from a God that knows us personally. Down to every follicle of hair on our very heads.  It's such a wonderful fulling to believe that we are being protected and cradled personally by a all powerful God.  The being that created us all and loves us unconditionally.  (Inhales deeply... Then exhales). That feeling is good isn't it? It's the same feeling you can get from so many other things in life; like finding someone you are in love with, knowing that you have the winning hand at a game of dominoes, winning the lottery when you know your lights are about to get disconnected tomorrow or getting that new job that will bring home some much needed money in your life.  It's such a wonderful feeling isn't it? That's the feeling prayer gives to you. A feelings of connection and release.  A feeling of calm and belief that everything will be OK tomorrow.  The problem with that is that the feeling of elation, calm or         all-will-be-right-with-the-world, is just a feeling that our minds produce on its own to help deal with the hardships of life. 

For us as Jamaicans to believe that prayer works we will have to believe that we and our personal prayers are better than everyone else's prayer in the world.  We would have to accept the fact that we are so misguided by religion and narcissistic that we actually believe that our personal prayers should be answered by a God.  Think about it for a minute. I often get so annoyed with people when they say things like: "Thank God for making me win the lottery because I really needed the money." or "Thank God for saving my life from pneumonia because I though I would die in that hospital."  Have you thought about it enough? Now let's look at this clearly. There are so many children out there starving every day in Jamaica. There are so many women being beaten and abused.  So many children being raped daily by some man in their family or community that is praying every day just like you for help from the same God you are expecting to answer your prayers. Their prayers don't get answered because they are still being abused and staving.  The innocent children are still getting raped every day but you win the lottery and actually believe that God believes that your light bill was more important than all the other prayers.  Please understand how narcissistic you have to be to believe that your prayers are more important. 

So why was your prayers answered and not the starving children or children being raped? Hmm? Maybe it was their fault right? Maybe they are not Christians or in God's favour, right?  How many Christian families do you know of that suffer every day that are praying every day and their prayers are not being answered but your prayer is being answered why? You barely go to church and you only pray when you might need something in your life so why your prayers and not others? I can tell you. It's because prayers don't work. There is no one sitting on any cloud answering personal prayers for some and not others.  We need to stop thinking that prayers are a fix all for our problems in life.  We need to let go of this religious narcissism and start living in this real world. We can allow religion to distort the truth in our lives.  Your prayers are not more important than anyone else.  We exact change in our own lives when we work hard at changing our own lives.  Some people don't have the means to change their lives on their own. We tell our children if they they just believe and pray then their problems will be solved. So why are we losing so many of our children to violence, to hunger and to pain?  

Prayer does not work. It only gives us a false sense of security that things will be handled by divine intervention and intercession but the truth is our lives will only be changed by us. It will only be changed by people helping people.  Stop waiting for the lord to heal the world and focus on healing yourself.  Tell your children that if they are being hurt and abused to tell someone not tell the lord because if they are telling the lord and praying to have the abuse end and it's still happening it's either the lord does not care about them or their is no lord there to receive their prayers. Either way we need to break this cycle of divine dependency.  We need to take hold of our lives.   

So let's tell Sister Hyacinth that although she is praying for divine healing, she should try to look for help here on earth.  She should try all she can do to save her own life.  We need to start looking at the world differently.  Take off the religious eye wear and put on these "skeptacles" and see life as it really is.  Ask yourself this question when you have time to today; "Are my prayers more important than everyone else's prayers in Jamaica?" "Am I that selfish and narcissistic to believe that there is a God that is watching over me personally and not watching over the innocent children dying every day and being abused every day by the hands of a predator?"  If you can honestly answer yes, my problems are more important than everyone else's, then you are losing your humanity and have a serious deficiency in empathy and morality.  

I have to finish making my Sunday dinner,  you know how us Jamaicans like to cook a big meal on Sunday lol, so let's catch up next week and talk more about your empathy, morality and why most people in Jamaica are morally superior to the God of the bible.  Yes I just said that.

To be continued...

Guest blogger Peter-John Williams

"Skeptacles": Seeing the world through skeptical looking glass

Guest blogger Peter-John Williams.
Administrator of Facebook group
"Freethinkers & Coexisters Island"

Another early Sunday morning and many in Jamaica are donning their Sunday's best, making sure they look as presentable as possible to enter into church and listen to the gospels being preached by one of Jamaica's many self-proclaimed prophets and holy men. As some are running down the check list of what to bring to church, Ms. Mary is  making a mental note to suggest a group prayer for sister Hyacinth in church so the good Lord will help cure her of this devil induced liver disease she has been afflicted with and making sure to also ask the Lord for help this month because the electricity bill is past due and the lights is about to be disconnected. 

I have to pause for a minute while I put on these "Skeptacles" to ponder and ask myself if many of these Jamaicans ever stop to think about what religion has done to their lives and how the religiosity of the nation has crippled progression and intellectualism in this once great island we call Jamaica. 

Jamaica is culturally and historically rooted in religion, or should I say some form of Christianity. Although Jamaica has a few non-christian religious sects such as Hindus and Muslims, Jamaicans and Jamaica as a country, are predominantly Christian.  So let's try to identify how Jamaica became a Christian nation and how Christianity affects the people of this island.  

Jamaica, for hundreds of years, was colonized by England and was subjected to British rule up until August 6,1962. The African slaves that were brought to Jamaica historically never worshipped or knew anything of Christianity. In order to break and further subjugate the African slaves in Jamaica, physical torture was not enough because it created anger and rebellious behaviour so the slaves were also captured mentally by using Christianity.  The mental fear of eternal damnation in Hell and the hope of eternal bliss and paradise in Heaven was the datum in the total domination of the African slaves in Jamaica.  Total indoctrination was the key to having a successful colony that utilized subjugated slave labour, because even in the very bible that the slaves were taught from and were to use to gain understanding of salvation, were the passages on Slavery and how slaves should obey their masters...  

Fast forward to today and you will see that Jamaica is still enslaved mentally by the same doctrines and book that held us in captivity for hundreds of years.  Christianity facilitates and incubates anti-intellectualism in Jamaica.  Jamaicans are constantly bombarded with the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent by the church, the preachers, by friends, family, by the music and even the government, when in fact those ideas are not only unverifiable, but simply not true in this real world that we live in.  

Looking through our "Skeptacles" we will uncover different ways of looking at Jamaica and the world to find new ways of enlightenment. We will see how much better Jamaica and our individual lives could be if we started seeing through the eyes of a skeptic and not through the eyes of the religious.  You will start to see that although Ms. Mary has good intentions for praying for sister Hyacinth's liver, it won't do any good in the sense of "divine" healing because there is no such thing. We will start to see that the liver disease wasn't caused by the devil but because sister Hyacinth has been a closet alcoholic for many years because of her depression due to her husband leaving her for another woman. The amount of alcohol consumed by her in her lifetime has damaged her liver and only a transplant will save her life. Not prayers.  Ms. Mary will also recognize that the light company will not take payment in prayers and that her husband needs to stop gambling away his paycheck and talking a hold of the house hold finances would be a better way of solving her problems. 

The "Skeptacles" guest blogs will focus on Jamaica, Jamaican religiosity and a path for healing and moving forward progressively.  We have been blinded for too long.  It's time to see with new eyes. 

Continued next week... 

Cricket, not so lovely cricket - Boyne's no-balls to atheism

The following is the unabridged verion of a recent Yardie Skeptics letter to the Gleaner newspaper in Jamaica in response to a letter written by journalist Ian Boyne. The links to Gleaner publications can be found here - Boyne's article, Yardie Skeptics response

In cricket terms, our friend and leading theist bowler Ian Boyne has once again been delivering a series of philosophical no-balls at the stumps of atheism, and perhaps a few deliveries well wide of the stumps altogether.  Bowling to Dr. Patrick White, a leading atheist batsman, Ian’s wayward deliveries include assertions that:

*Darwinian atheists have no basis for asserting objective morality or moral realism, and that by doing so they were intellectual parasites.”

*Evolutionary theory and atheism have no ontological basis for positing objective morality, and that moral subjectivism or constructivism is a necessary corollary of atheism

* Without a belief “ in God or some supernatural reality outside of nature”, atheists have no basis for protesting human-rights abuses or being against genocide and slavery, while remaining silent on the slaughter of millions of chickens, cows and sheep.

At the heart of Ian’s propensity for wayward deliveries, is his philosophical confusion about the nature of atheism – which in turn arises from his theistic investment in supernaturalism.   Despite previous attempts to school Ian, he is yet to appreciate that atheism is not a philosophy, but merely disbelief in god(s).  As a matter of logic, non-belief cannot translate into affirmative acceptance of, or belief in Darwinisim, evolutionary theory, or any other secular philosophy, including human rights. and secular humanism.  .  In this regard, NON-belief is not, nor can it be a source of  moral concern for humans or other sentient beings.  Such a concern arises from from subscribing affirmatively to philosophies such as human rights or secular humanism.  One might simultaneously be an atheist or theist AND an  advocate against slavery, homophobia, racism and sexism.   Being an advocate is not contingent on having, or lacking religious belief.    

Accordingly, Ian’s claims about atheism’s “moral subjectivism” or its lack of ontological credentials regarding morality are no-balls that have been pitched laughably wide of the stumps of atheism.   

On the matter of atheism and "animal rights", Ian no doubt thinks he's pitched an unplayable delivery on the stumps of atheism.  But a replay of the delivery reveals that Ian has once again overstepped the crease of reason and delivered a spectacular no-ball.

The essence of Ian’s contention is that , Darwinism, with a corresponding disbelief in a supernatural order condemns humans to being no more than just another species or "merely a part of nature", with no transcendental place for humans above animals and the rest of nature. Based on this conflation of humans with the rest of nature, Ian argues that atheists should be as passionate about animal rights as they are about human rights. If they do indeed assert the rights and dignity of humans to the exclusion of animals,, they are parasites living off the “intellectual heritage of Judaeo-Christian religion”.  

This is a laughable proposition, given that this very same Judaeo-Christian heritage  rampantly and unapologetically promotes the subjugation and oppression of humans and animals alike.  This includes human and animal sacrifice to appease the temperamental Christian god.  Ian’s contention  is all the more risible, given that  Christianity is largely built on the much celebrated torture and death of its central figure - Jesus Christ - at the behest of “God”, a deity that demanded bloody expiation for human “sin”.

For its part, Abrahamic religions have reduced the entire non-human species on the planet to “clean” vs “unclean”, or food vs not food. That we even have such a thing as human rights or “animal rights” (and it’s younger cousin “environmental rights”) is due entirely to secular concern for reducing or eliminating suffering that is otherwise warranted by these religions.  To the extent that Christianity and its Abrahamic siblings have abandoned their heritage of cruelty to humans and animals the extent to which they have become intellectual parasites  living off secular philosophies that promote the protection and promotion of human dignity and the diminution, if not elimination of cruelty to non-human animals.

The apocalyptic nature of Christianity requires the fiery destruction of the planet earth, including all its human and non-human denizens.  Our wayward bowler of supernatural spin doesn’t come anywhere close to explaining how such a doctrine might ground, much less promote the universal well-being of these hapless denizens.

Happily, in cricket, batsmen are allowed to score off no-balls in cricket.  Rhetorically speaking Ian, if you’d like to know where we’ve dispatched your deliveries, I’d suggest you look on the roof of the pavilion or outside of the cricket ground altogether.

We are, etc.

Hilaire Sobers

Clive Forrester

Co-hosts of the social media programmes 'Skeptically Speaking' and 'Yardie Skeptics'. Email: yardieskeptics@gmail.com

On True Sacrifice

Over the past few days, I've been engaged in several discussions with theists on the subject of Easter and the story of Jesus' sacrifice which, as most would argue, was the most significant event in the history of Christianity (notwithstanding the fact that the Gospels make a holy mess of corroborating the details surrounding the event). Unlike Christmas, the other big Christian celebration, Easter tends to be decidedly more sombre, as well as generally less commercialized, and is usually treated as a time of quiet reflection as opposed to joyous celebration (notwithstanding the fact that Jamaica Carnival - a hit with local Christians - actually occurs around this time). But just like Christmas, any attempt at interrogating the tenets on which the holy day was founded tend to be met reactions which range from dismissal to outright rage. Such was my experience when I questioned the authenticity of Jesus' alleged "sacrifice."

Incidentally, what sparked my online discussions was a question from a Christian, one not uncommon around this time of year - "Why did Jesus have to die?" A simple and honest question, one which I imagine any well thinking Christian would've asked upon first introduction to the horrific and macabre episode which is the crucifixion. As the Bible shows, Jesus' sacrifice follows a long line of blood sacrifice practised in Hebrew mythology for atonement from sin - whenever you incurred the wrath of the Hebrew god Yahweh, an animal (or humans a few times apparently) had to be sacrificed to appease his anger. In Christian mythology, Jesus represents the last sacrifice; a pure "lamb" lead to the slaughter for the remission of the sins of all mankind, everywhere, forever more. The whole foundation of Christianity is hinged on this death - asking why it had to happen cuts right through to core of the belief system. The answers tend to be well rehearsed platitudes regurgitated from Sunday school lessons - "he did it because he loves us so much", "there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood", "sin is so awful that a life had to be sacrificed on our behalf" and so on ad infinitum. From where I stand however, no sacrifice took place.

Assuming we are using the standard definition of sacrifice - which is to give something up to gain something else - what exactly did Jesus lose? We know it was not his life. The story indicates that Jesus went into his own crucifixion knowing full well that he would "die" on Friday evening but be up and about in time for Sunday brunch. Additionally, if we accept Catholic dogma, there was no break in the continuity of his life - he went from the cross, to the underworld to preach up a storm, back up to the surface to say goodbye, then flew off into heaven. So, technically speaking, Jesus did not sacrifice his life - he appears to have sacrificed a couple days on planet earth. And, how genuine could such a sacrifice be anyway when you are fully aware, without a shred of doubt, that what you lament about giving up will be returned to you after two sundowns. You cannot claim to have sacrificed a thing, but yet it still remains firmly in your possession. Jesus gave nothing up.

So why then did Jesus have to die? My alternate explanation is that this is just how the most enduring hero epics are written - the hero dies a martyr. What better way to accomplish the following:

1. Adding instant credibility (if not outright vindication) to your cause - your life, after all, is no easy thing to gamble with. A hero however sacrifices their life since the cause is more valuable than the life of any one person, including the hero. 
2. If there was any doubt among followers about the authenticity of the hero, martyrdom removes it. 
3. Related to the point above, followers are now imbued with the necessary confidence and certitude to carry the cause through to completion. Indeed, many heroes have accomplished more by their death than they could've ever accomplished in ten life times. 

Who could deny the appeal of such a story? Which believer would not be stirred to action by such a brave act? The "Passion" story, like several other hero epics before it, all follow the same general melodramatic template - a tumultuous adventure filled with conflict and strife, culminates in a climatic finale where the hero of the story must forfeit their life for the greater good of the cause.  It is literary gold, even if historically it never actually happened. Such appears to be the case with the Easter story - a sacrifice which never was, for a cause which, at present, seems to be in decline. 

Cool Dude. 

Foot Washing, Christianity and Human Rights

Rev. Fr. Sean Major-Campbell performs a foot-washing
at his service to commemorate Intl. Human Rights Day.
Photo - Jamaicagleaner.com

Traditionally, Christianity has been a veritable bastion of homophobia and Jamaican Christians have typically reached for their bibles to condemn same sex intimacy.   This biblical view has been incorporated into our laws that criminalize same -sex relations (between men), and which exclude LGBT persons from the full purview of human rights protection. Prominent Christians like Shirley Richards and Wayne West, successfully lobbied for the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender as grounds of discrimination under Jamaica’s 2011 Charter of Rights.  Christians were also successful in having the Charter insulate the laws on buggery, gross indecency (between men) and marriage insulated from any constitutional challenge.  Courtesy of the Christian lobby, marriage is formally defined to exclude any relationship other than a heterosexual, man/woman relationship.

Since the 2011 passage of the Charter of Rights, the Jamaica Coalition for Healthy Society has continued its assault on the rights of LGBT Jamaicans, ritually coopting (or hijacking) successive International Human Rights Days to host public events to wail about the existential threat posed to religious freedoms by the “LGBT” agenda.   

In commemoration of  International Human Rights Day 2013, the JCHS released a documentary entitled Sex, Lies and Rights: a seduction of law, medicine and politics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvHD9edam0A.     In summary, this documentary sought to promote the idea that human rights is a gift only to those who comply with “divine” dictates – which automatically excludes LGBT people who practice an “ungodly lifestyle”.

For International Human Rights Day in 2014, the Rev. Fr. Sean Major-Campbell (SMC), an Anglican priest, turned the tables on the JCHS by ritually washing the feet of members of Jamaica’s LGBTI community during a church service.   In a later online conversation with Fr. Major-Campbell, he explained to me that the feet-washing ritual “simply affirms loving service to those whose feet are being washed”, particularly those who are marginalized in some way.  Fr. Major-Campbell added that foot washing does not signify inclusion into the church or Christian community, noting that when Jesus performed this ritual there was no Christian community to speak of.   However, within the context of IHRD, this ritual did at least two things: (a) announce that all persons are entitled to human rights, regardless of sexual orientation, social status or other marginalizing factors; and (b) challenge, if not undermine the dominant Christian narrative that human rights is a divine gift to a class of God-fearing beneficiaries from which LGBTI people are excluded.  

SMC’s liturgical embrace of the LGBTI community was simultaneously greeted by acclaim and condemnation.    From a media standpoint, it was a coup of monumental proportions.    In 2014, the JCHS did host a public event – again aimed at appropriating International Human Rights Day to vilify the LGBTI community.  However, this time around, they were completely upstaged by SMC’s foot washing, with barely any mention of the former event in the press. 

Apart from stealing the thunder of the JCHS, SMC’s foot-washing coup has exposed a major fault line between traditional and progressive notions of humanity and human rights.   

This is partly reflected in a letter to the Gleaner of December 13, 2014 http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20141213/letters/letters1.html by the Rev. Earl Thames.  Mr. Thames complained that SMC had misinterpreted Jesus' words and actions.  He contended that Jesus “ came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance”, and that the crucial phrase in this expression was  "to repentance". Mr. Thames reasoned that Jesus never accepted nor condoned the sin of these sinners, but called them “to turn radically from their lifestyle, and to live according to His commandments”.   Accordingly, for Mr. Thames, “The impression given by SMC is that he was justifying and condoning the lifestyle of the ladies as a 'right'”; and thus, SMC’s action was “the very opposite of that of Jesus”.

So in a nutshell, Mr. Thames’ theology is no repentance, no rights, while SMC’s theology holds that all are entitled to rights, without the prerequisite of repentance.

So both Mr. Thames and SMC appropriate human rights as part of their respective theologies. “Traditional” Christianity, it appears, appropriates human rights on exclusionary terms, while “progressive” Christianity appropriates human rights on inclusionary terms.

As a secular human rights advocate, I am certainly more supportive of SMC’s theology.  I certainly salute him for his bold, courageous stand for the human rights of marginalized people, including LGBT folks.   However, at the end of the day, I think that both theologies miss an important point: human rights have an entirely secular provenance, and have nothing to do with religion, least of all Christianity.  Human rights have everything to do with a secular humanism, a philosophy that arose substantially in resistance to Christianity and its theologically justified abuses of human rights - in various forms, including murder, slavery, misogyny, and anti-democratic forms of government (e.g. divine right of kings).   

SMC’s approach is predicated on what I’ve previously called a Jesus-is-Love theology (or JILISM), a theme I previously explored here: http://yardieskeptics.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-fundamentalism-of-jilists.html

In brief, JILISM promotes a warm, cozy Christianity, in which the central figure Jesus, is presented as the ultimate paragon of love, compassion, and forgiveness. In this conception of Christianity, there is no room for anti-humanist doctrines like original sin or substitutionary atonement, or divisive ideas like sinner and saved, or heaven and hell.  And of course, despite the prescriptions of Leviticus and Romans, anti-gay precepts are nowhere to be found in this cuddly, inclusive view of Christianity. In essence, JILISM conscripts human rights to sanitize or neutralize Christianity’s scriptural and historical antipathy to humanity and to human rights.    

No matter how you slice it – the essential ideology of Christianity is divisive, hierarchical, discriminatory, and unapologetically hostile to human rights.   While the JILIST conception of human rights is more palatable, it is almost as indigestible, philosophically, as the repentance theory of human rights espoused by traditional Christians like Earl Thames.    

Thames, it seems, doesn’t quite appreciate that his repentance theory of human rights cuts both ways.   If I base my conception of human rights on anti-theism, I could just as easily argue that (a) religion is a lifestyle; and (b) that such a lifestyle is a “sin”, given the atrocities historically committed in the name of religion; and that (c) full enjoyment of human rights should be contingent on “repentance” of their religious “lifestyle”.   Given the volitional nature of religious belief versus the involuntary nature of sexual orientation, it seems that I could make a stronger case for the religious to repent for their rights, than for LGBT to repent for theirs.

Ultimately, my thesis is a simple one.  No variant of Christianity can legitimately claim philosophical kinship with human rights.   However, to the extent that Christians, JILIST or otherwise, are willing to support and defend the human rights of all - they have my admiration and applause.

Coming Out… “Ole’Eathen!” by Sharon Smith, guest blogger

My Mom was a believer, she believed in the love of god and that he was everywhere.  She didn’t get too caught up in the dogma of the different denominations.  She was content to attend which ever church was closest or convenient regardless of denomination.  So I was well schooled in Christianity, in all its forms, before I hit puberty!

Mommy grew up catholic and raised my brother and I as such when we were young.  I remember going to classes (catechism lessons), rehearsals and what I remember most was the frock… so many frills and oh even my underwear had frills!  Then there were the white shoes and socks, again with the frills!  Eeew! I felt like the doll my brother and I used as target practice while honing our bingy skills (aka sling shot, similar to what David used to slay Goliath).  When the First Communion Day came I put on the dress, scratching and nervous but excited!  I was going to receive the body of Christ and with any luck get some of that wine too!!!  I can totally understand the vampire culture… I was excited about drinking the blood/wine or maybe I was a boozer at seven!  Hmmm?

Later when we moved to Mona, some friendly Jehovah Witnesses came knocking and soon we were off to the Kingdom Hall on Trafalgar Road.  Somehow the street walking and lack of a Christmas celebrations got to my Mom (she loved Carols) or perhaps it was just that during the street walking she came across the Mona Church of Christ worshipping at the old Mona Theatre… just walking distance from our home.  This one was non-denominational and by my tenth birthday I had been baptized in another white dress sans frills!  This meant that I went to church not only on Sundays but Wednesdays for Bible Study and Fridays for Youth Choir.

It was somewhat of a relief to move to Barbican, with no churches within walking distance and somewhat secularist neighbours (you’ll come to appreciate this shortly).  Soon our visits to Church of Christ grew fewer and fewer and we became like many normal families who attended church at Christmas and Easter.  That did not last very long as my Father retired from the Police Force and before I had time to hit puberty I was going to classes again to be confirmed Methodist.  

My Dad had always been a Methodist and really didn’t share my Mom’s sophisticated attitude towards other denominations.  He was, while he was working, a consistent once a year visitor to Saxthorpe Methodist Church.  Now that my Dad was retired he decided to become a Local Preacher in the Western St. Andrew Circuit with Red Hills Methodist Church as our home church.  By then we had moved to Forest Hills, and I had no idea how much my life would change.  It was really great to move across the street from St. Hugh’s sisters, one of whom was in a few of my classes but their Dad was one of the Deeper Life Ministries Leader and my Mom experimented with the Charismatic Movement at the same time that my Dad was doing his Local Preacher thingy.

What this meant for me was I would go to Stephanie Hall (Holy Childhood) every Saturday with my Mom and neighbours for Deeper Life Ministries’ all-day activities.  Soon I was singing, rhythmic clapping, beating tambourine and drums, dancing and signing (yes sign language chile, there were some deaf members) but remained in awe of those who would/could speak in tongues, prophesy and slay in the spirit (or as we would chuckle in the back… drop like ripe breadfruit!)  Not to be outdone, my Dad would drag me off to at least three different Churches one Sunday a month (Red Hills, Sterling Castle and Rock Hall) in the Circuit where I would read the same scripture during each of the services and listen to my father’s sermon over and over again.  

On the other Sundays we worshipped at Red Hills, then we did the Church books after the service. Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse for me, my Dad took on the responsibility of ministering to “shut-ins” or elderly folks who could no longer come to church.  That meant that those Sundays when he would preach, we would leave home at 8:30 am and return after dark because in addition to three services we had to make home visits.  Those who were missed on Sunday had a mid-week visit.  These home visits were particularly taxing, as it was a two or if my Mom joined us, three person recreation of Sunday service.  Not only did I have to read the scripture but I would have to sing or play some musical instrument depending on the season.  I would play either the recorder or pianica, thankfully I could not blow and sing at the same time nor did we have a keyboard to cart around.  When my Dad suggested I learn to play the accordion, I truly felt victimized!  Did I mention my Dad repeated shortened versions of his sermon in the homes too?  This had to be child abuse!   

Eventually I started bringing some of the Charismatic moves into the Methodist Church, they were not welcomed by most, not even the tambourine or rhythmic clapping, go figure!  My spirited attempts to stay awake caught the eye of one of the mature youth leaders.  We became fast friends to the delight of my Dad, as her Mom was a well-respected Local Preacher.  She had a car and shared my love for Manning Cup and Champs so I helped her with the youth program, organizing skits, lively songs with modest clapping even some drumming and dances while also generally recruiting support from teenagers in the area… one of these teens “mek mi kin ketch a fya!”   It was not so tortuous going to Church three or four times a week anymore, except for the Sunday’s when my Dad would preach, it was actually fun! 

In sixth form when we were introduced to Comparative religion, I became exceedingly curious about other religions and had the perfect opportunity because one of my best friends is Hindu so I would attend the Diwali Festival to support her and her younger sister and would overwhelm them and their parents with all kinds of questions about their beliefs and practices.  In my afro-Jamaican consciousness period I became very aware of obeah, I continue even today to speak of paying the obeah man (for it is never good to owe yu obeah man), ‘nointing wid de oil an generally call on de spirit of our ancestors during sporting events in particular… watch out fe World Cup! 

This fascination with religions and culture was turbo charged when I moved to New York where I cultivated my love of all things cross-cultural and was provided with the tools to become a participant observer through my doctoral studies.  Not to mention that the doctoral program and the faculty who taught us were so diverse.  So I sampled Islam, Reform Judaism and Buddhism (a non-theistic religion) and dragged my Mom to partake as well.  She remained curious but never quite comfortable with these other religions.  I took from each experience of these religions and culture something that informs my life even today.  From Islam, the notion of jihad as a struggle against injustice, I use it in my approach to gender and racial equality.  From Reform Judaism, I take the skepticism, they question everything and apply reason and logic to it all.  Reform Jews are very tolerant of differences and also have a long history of support for LGBT and reproductive rights, I embraced that too.  From the Buddhists, I learned to meditate and practice yoga and often still refer to karma, though not quite the same way that they do. 

My Mom encouraged my participation and was always welcoming to all my friends from school whatever their orientation, race or religion.  When she died I had an interfaith service to celebrate her life which pissed off my Christian family!  My cousin especially who “forbid me” from distributing keepsakes with a beautiful quotation from Thich Nhat Hanh’s “No Death, No Fear,”  did I mention my younger son also recited it during the service.  Then dear old Dad, who could not believe that I had my “multi-national friends” read from Bhagavad Gita, Khalil Gibran’s “The Prophet,” in addition to the Bible but no sermon and the service was not in a Methodist Church!  There was lots of singing, musical tributes – piano and flute, dance and even some drumming… my Mom would have loved it!  I sure did!

This feud gave me the courage to “come out” as an agnostic atheist… I don’t believe that god exists because I have not seen evidence nor do I believe it is likely knowable… or as my family refers to me “ole ‘eathen!”  What a relief to be out of the closet… frees up my time for so many other pursuits, like Air Me Now, Yardie Skeptics and activism!

[Sharon, an "ole heathen",  feminist skeptic, and proud Swan (alumnus of St. Hugh's High School) is a Jamaican resident in the USA, and the recent recipient of a Yardie Skeptic honour: permanent dedication of Singing Sandra's "Die With My Dignity": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egi0ahIti4E]  Sharon is also a regular panelist on our all-woman show Air Me Now, which will be launch its second season on May 8, 2014]