Atheists and Agnostics - the Trials of Unbelief

I'd like to begin this post with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
That is an admirable statement, and is meant to be implemented by all the UN member states. If strictly applied, it guarantees all of humanity the right to worship, or not worship, as they choose. Living in Britain, we take this right for granted, and admit to having been somewhat complacent about it myself. Only when I was researching my last but one blog item did I realise, with a massive jolt, that Article 18 is more honoured in the breach than the observance worldwide. I found that Christians face persecution today that, in some places, rivals that which they suffered under the Roman Empire. My research begged a question - if believers persecute other sets of believers, how do they treat UNbelievers?
I expected to find the answer - "not too bad, really". After all, atheists and agnostics do not proselytyse, observe unique festivals, dress in distinctive clothing or engage in rituals that others could find offensive. But I was wrong.
Firstly, it needs to be said that atheism, as a coherent world-view, is a comparatively new phenomenon. It also needs to be said that the freedom to be an atheist or agnostic in Britain is even newer. The poet, Shelley, wrote a pamphlet called "The Necessity of Atheism", for which he was expelled from Oxford University and denied the custody of his two children. Then there was the case of Charles Bradlaugh, Britain's first atheist member of parliament, who was elected to Parliament in 1880, but not allowed to take his seat until 1886, because he refused to swear the Oath of Office until finally being allowed to affirm the oath. As Christopher Hitchens (in "God is Not Great") observed:
"As late as the 18th and 19th centuries, in relatively free societies such as Britain and the United States, unbelievers as secure and prosperous as James Mill and Benjamin Franklin felt it advisable to keep their opinions private".
It hardly needs to said, that if it was difficult for Mill and Franklin, it was far tougher for ordinary people who held atheist or agnostic views. They remained silent - as do many today in many countries. In the UK, happily, things have changed. Britain's most prominent atheist is the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and atheists have full rights and protection under the law. Some estimates put the percentage of unbelievers in the UK to be as high as 44% - although not all of these people declare themselves to be atheists. Celebrity British atheists include Richard Dawkins, Richard Branson, Daniel Radcliffe and Ricky Gervais.
To my surprise, I found that the only Western country where unbelievers face discrimination is the USA. Seven US states - Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas - have constitutions which forbid unbelievers from holding public office. Atheists even complain of persecution by Christians in some states. This is a shock, because, as the atheist writer, Gore Vidal, used to love pointing out, the Founding Fathers of the USA were men of the Enlightenment, not religious believers. To be fair, this discrimination only occurs in a minority of states, and unbelievers have their rights protected by the US Constitution. Nevertheless, the highest figure for the percentage of atheists and agnostics in the USA is only 9%, as opposed to 54% in France and (according to some estimates) 85% in Sweden. This gives US believers (mostly Christians) something of a numerical advantage over their unbelieving fellow citizens. Some academic research appears to show that atheists are among the most distrusted people in North America.
Unsurprisingly, the harshest treatment of atheists happens in Islamic countries. For example,there are no figures for atheists and/or agnostics in Iran. Doubtless, the Iranian regime would say that they have none. The real reason is that unbelievers have no legal standing in Iran (and many other Islamic countries) - you are either Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian - or you have no rights at all.
The other factor making it awkward for atheists to declare their lack of religious faith in Muslim states is the fact that to do so is to make oneself an apostate to Islam, for which the penalty is death. In practice, though, it has to be said that the treatment of atheists in Muslim states varies from country to country.
I think that the United Nations should reopen the discussion on human rights - especially the right to freedom of worship. It would then be incumbent on some member states to explain why they show such contempt for Article 18.

The Great Gatsby - Nostalgia and Innovation

As this is supposed to be partially an arts blog, I thought it time to try writing my first film review (I must remember to give a star rating). I have no idea how to proceed, so I'll just have to do my best. The film I wish to review is none other than the latest production of "The Great Gatsby"(TGG), starring Leonardo DiCaprio. There have, of course, been previous films based upon this enduring novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald - this film makes a total of five. The one most valued by film buffs is the 1974 film which starred Robert Redford as Gatsby, and, for some purists, is the definitive edition.
I disagree with that, of course, and will make my case later. Before this, though, I think it worth examining the historical context of the book. It is set in New York State in 1922. For those unfamiliar with the story, the action revolves around the romantic yearning for a past lover by a rich man who conceals the source of his wealth (he's a bootlegger). There are spectacular party scenes which typify most people's view of the period - the so-called "Jazz Age", of which Fitzgerald was a key figure, along with his disturbed wife, Zelda. Lest we disapprove of, or ridicule this, we should remember (and most reviewers don't) that the early 20's were lived in the shadow of World War One, which had a devastating effect on so many young lives. Gatsby himself has returned from Western Front service as an impoverished officer. Scott Fitzgerald also served with the US forces at this time. Understandably, those who could afford it, the famous "bright young things" of the period, wanted, to paraphrase Prince, to forget the war and party like it was 1929. Well, as we know, the party ended in 1929 with the Great Depression. Fitzgerald's career and marriage went into a decline, and some commentators see TGG as reflecting Fitzgerald's longing to return to the happy times of the early 1920s. Gatsby insists, in the book and the film, that it is possible to recreate the past. His attempts to bring this about lead to his downfall, which proves, perhaps, that Fitzgerald was not as naïve as might be believed.
But I digress. Di Caprio's portrayal of Gatsby is a harder and edgier portrayal than Robert Redford's urbane Gatsby. This, I think, makes the character more believable. I could never see Redford's polite bon viveur making a fortune as a bootlegger. Readers of the book will know that, in TGG, there is no physical description of Gatsby, but Di Caprio is highly convincing and, for me, is THE Gatsby.
Purists (I hate that word - it makes me think of odourless soap) have raised loud objections to the musical score, which has numerous contemporary sounds by modern artists, such as Jay Z, Fergie, Beyoncé, Will.I.Am and the Bryan Ferry Orchestra. I personally see nothing wrong in this. The early 1920s and our present times have much in common. Both periods see masses of people having a good time without being happy, and both periods have a soundtrack of meaningless popular songs which, as Billy Bragg has said (of today) are about nothing more than getting drunk. The gangsters of the 1920s (like Gatsby) ran speakeasies and made a fortune. Al Capone and other US mobsters became media stars. Today, gangsters (aka "gangstas") have a whole genre of music dedicated to them - a celebrity presence common to both eras.
As for performances, the two best, in my opinion, are of the Buchanans, who are the prime movers of the action. Daisy Buchanan is played very well by Carey Mulligan, and the obnoxious Tom Buchanan is shown in his full odiousness by the distinguished actor, Joel Edgerton. Daisy, the object of Gatsby's yearning, is seen as a frivolous spoilt brat. It is a common theory that the basis for Daisy was Zelda Fitzgerald - if then, we see Gatsby as an avatar for Fitzgerald, Carey Mulligan leaves you wondering what he saw in Daisy or Zelda. Tom Buchanan, who contrives Gatsby's death, is seen as the malevolent creep that Fitzgerald intended him to be - well done, Mr Edgerton.
For those who plan to see the film, I make one suggestion - read the book. It is not very long and somehow (at least for me) has the power to be unforgettable. I first read it back in the 1960s (another Jazz Age?) and have never forgotten it. The book, and THIS film version, admirably complement each other.
For me, this film merits four stars out of five, but I can imagine that it will not be to everyone's taste.