Sep
30
I've just found out (suppose I should have checked before) that today is International Blasphemy Day. The title of this post links to the site Blasphemy Day , which was set up to "open up all religious beliefs to the same level of free inquiry, discussion and criticism to which all other areas of academic interest are subjected." which is not only a noble cause but also gives us an extra excuse, as if one were needed, to ridicule beliefs held and proselytised without foundation in reality. Excellent.The site makes no attempt to debate the existence or non-existence of Gods of any flavour, and makes it quite clear that such topics are well outside it's remit.
The reason that September 30th has been chosen for this day of blasphemy, is that it was on this day in 2005 that those infamous cartoons of Mohammed were published in the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten. As a result of this, we found out just how fragile our values of 'free speech' and 'free expression' are here in Britain, as every single one of our newspapers declined to print any of the images, ostensibly for fear of causing offence, in reality for fear of having their windows broken by ramapaging mobs of hate-filled bigots, sorry, I mean peaceful and devout Muslims whose feelings were hurt by nasty cartoonists. I don't know about you, but if somebody hurts my feelings or criticizes something I hold dear, I don't feel the need to charge through the streets shouting, throwing stones and waving placards that say 'behead those who insult x' and 'butcher those who mock x'. Maybe I just don't have a highly enough developed sense of outrage.
So as mobs of 'offended' young men threatening obscene acts of violence paraded through the streets of Europe, waving their disgusting banners, shouting insults, throwing stones, spitting bile and showing us just how much Islam truly is 'the religion of peace', our political and religious leaders lined up in condemnation - of the cartoonists and the newspapers that dared to print them. I know it's a couple of years ago now but this case is so indicative of how our culture and our freedoms are being steadily eroded as we are forced to bend over backwards by our spineless political leaders, to accommodate a tiny minority of - lets not beat around the bush - infantile, ignorant, disgusting, hate-obsessed, violent, bigoted, misogynistic pricks, whose only way of coping with 'hurt feelings' are to get truly mouth-foamingly angry and take to the streets shouting insults and waving banners of such eye-watering evil and cruelty that we simply have no choice but to wring our hands and apologise profusely for upsetting them so much. Well, I would say, grow up you sad bastards and take a peak at the real World. Are you offended by this? Good. You don't just deserve to have your feelings hurt, you poor deluded little lambs, you deserve to have that disgusting, anti-human, uncivilized excrement you call the immutable word of God shoved so far down your throat that is makes you at least as half as sick as it makes me.Now you may feel I've stepped way over the line, I've insulted you, your holy book, the very tenets by which you claim to live your life, and of course that it is me who is being bigoted and hate-filled. I strongly suspect that the word 'Islamaphobe' has flashed across your consciousness several times, closely followed perhaps, if not preceded by, 'infidel', 'fatwa' and 'death threat'. You may even now be chalking up your banner and sharpening your scimitar in preperation for a march to show just how offended you are. Well, I'll be honest with you, I do hate you. I hate what you beleieve, and I hate what you stand for, but crucially, I don't want to kill you for it, and however much I dislike it, I have to accept that you have a right to believe it - can you say the same about me? I hope you'll change your mind, you'll grow up and see the real world, you'll see that beliefs founded in reality do not need violence to succeed, unless they are threatened by it, but I suspect it is too late for you, that you are so corrupted by hate and medieval bullshit that any chance of you using the mind that (you say) God gave you to actually think about this is lost. For this reason, I feel deeply sorry for you.
But of course Blasphemy day isn't just about the Muslims, it's about everyone who thinks their 'beliefs' should be above criticism (its' just that the Muslims are the only ones insecure enough to feel the need to threaten doubters with death) so without being gratuitously offensive, well not too much, here is my attempt at a little light-hearted blasphemy for each of the major faiths.Judaism: Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look headbutting that silly wall? Do you really think God would make you his 'chosen people'? Why on Earth does God want you to have such ridiculously curly hair? Just what is God planning to do with that mountain of foreskins? Seems a bit daft that he would make you so perfectly in his image, then order you to cut off a bit of your knob.
Catholicism: Ah, a monotheism. With three Gods. Who are also one God. Mmm, you drink the blood of your God - if it really was blood and not just cheap plonk, do you have any idea how disgusting that would make you? Yes, a monotheism whose followers worship a pantheon of saints. Bit odd, eh? So hows that mile-high true cross coming along, have you collected all the splinters yet?
Greek and Russian Orthodox: - as above, just can't agree on the dates. Oh, and much nicer priestly outfits, those hats are great.
Protestantism - mainstream denominations: Catholics are wrong, of course, you got it right. So right that ther're literally thousands of different churches, all interpreting the 'word of God' differently. You'd think God would be a bit more careful when writing his truths, not to make them so ambiguous eh? Well who am I to judge, you're the experts...
Protestantism - evangelical denominations: Yes, thats right, the Bible is true, all true, ALL OF IT! Especially those bits that contradict each other, they're especially true. So, are you rapture ready? Its coming, you know, any day now. Any day. Any day now... Well, OK we're still waiting, but seriously, it is coming... any day...
Islam: I hardly need say anything, you're just a complete joke. A lethal joke, but funny none the less. Take a look at the images I've included to see just how incredibly funny you really are. So fucking funny that you make me puke.
Mormonism: Oh no thats offensive isn't it? I mean Church of Jesus Christ of The Latter Day Saints: Well, the mind boggles, just reading the history of your 'religion' had me rolling in the aisles. A holy book dictated to an illiterate con-man (keep up people, I've done Islam already) telling the story of the lost tribe of Israel who somehow made it to the Americas. Gold-tabletted commandments that could only be seen by a convicted fraudster and magically disappeared into heaven afterwards... truly beyond satire. Thanks for helping me out with my genealogy research, by the way, but you need to go back through it again as you put one of my Carsberg relatives in the wrong family. I'd hate it if, come judgement day, God got all confused when reading your records and left my great great great grandfather in limbo.
Hinduism: Well take your pick, we've got a God for all occasions, and one of our holiest Gods is the one we drink from, bathe in, wash our clothes in, drain our sewerage in and of course scatter our dead in. Yummy.
Buddhism: Ah the ultimate path to enlightenment, the only way by which our essences may leave this mundane plane and escape the endless cycle of reincarnation. All you need to do is sit very still and think about it until you stop thinking about anything. And shave your head, of course, one cannot achieve spiritual enlightment with the weight of hair pressing down on you.
Sikhism: - The only path to God is to never cut your hair. What??
I think thats enough for now, as tempting as it is to rain down insults on the faithful, I'd hate to sink to their level of peurility, so I will close now by simply quoting from the Blasphemy Day website:
"Blasphemy Day, because your god is a joke."
Sep
30
Sep
29
In my previous post, Polish Catholic Magazine Ordered to Pay Damages to Abortion Woman I mentioned that the editor of the magazine, Father Marek Gancarczyk, was accused of comparing abortion to the Nazi and other fascist exterminations of Jews carried out in Europe in the 1930's and 40's. When discussing many societies' growing acceptance of abortion, at least on medical grounds, he wrote that "They had become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp. And what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible." A clear statement to the effect that all those who tolerate abortion are no different to the citizens of the Third Reich and other fascist regimes who made no attempt to stop the exterminations of Jews, Romany, Homosexuals, the mentally ill and other minorities during the darkest years of our continent's recent history. By stating "what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible." he clearly means to say that the abortion of foetuses for any reason is comparable to rounding up, imprisoning, torturing, starving, raping, beating and eventually shooting or gassing millions of people.
After my initial anger at reading this had subsided, I tried to think about why and how he could make this comparison, and really mean it. I tried to understand it from his point of view, but I just can't. Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of abortion, one cannot possibly reasonably compare the killing, even 'murder' if you insist, of an embryo with little or no feeling or sensation of pain, and absolutely no comprehension of it, that exists only as a potential life, to the brutal torture and incarceration of a fully grown human being with thoughts, feelings, a full understanding of what pain means, living in hell in the full knowledge that at any time they are likely to be shot or gassed.
So even when I attempt to be reasonable I cannot forgive Father Gancarczyk for making such a disgusting comparison.
But I'm not going to be reasonable, because of course Father Gancarczyk is a Catholic. And that means that whatever he and his fellow Catholics feel about the Holocaust now, and however much they may like to say that murdering lots of Jews is really bad (at least as bad as abortion, anyway) the Church as an organisation was, shall we say, somewhat less bothered by the murder of around 6 million people at the time.
Before Hitler rose to power in 1933, the Church frowned on membership of the Nazi party, and threatened excommunication to clergy who joined it. Dismayed by the erosion of Church authority (specifically in the areas of education and culture) under the Weimar republic however, the Vatican was pleased to negotiate the Reichskonkordat with Hitler's new government in 1933, and although the Church retained certain 'reservations' about the Nazi party, the threat of excommunication for those who wanted to join it was lifted.
Fact: - The first international treaty signed by Hitler's government was with the Vatican.
Fact: - Parishes were ordered by the Church to hand over their records to the Nazi authorities, greatly assisting them in their quest to identify Jews.
Relations between the Vatican and Germany were strained at best during the 30's, and the Vatican made frequent protestations to Hitler's government about the treatment of Jews and other minorities. What really annoyed the Church though, enough to request every priest to deliver a sermon on the subject, was the Nazi party's use of pagan symbolism.
Pope Pius XI died in 1939, and with him died any possibility of the Church taking any kind of strong, meaningful stand against Hitler's regime. The Cardinal, who as Vatican foreign secretary had negotiated and signed the Concordat with Hitler in 1933, was elected Pope Pius XII. The Vatican took a resolutely neutral position throughout the war.
Whilst the Church's official position was ambiguous at best, of course many Catholics risked their lives to speak out against Nazism, or to take direct action by saving Jews from certain death, and this is of course commendable, but set against the fact that so many of Hitler's high command were devout Catholics, and that approximately 30% of Germany's population were Catholic (from which you can pretty easily infer that around 30% of concentration camp guards were probably also Catholic) the actions of a few decent people hardly weighs against the complicity of a few millions.
So Catholics had not only "become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp" but were in fact responsible for many of those murders in the first place, from the whole conception of the Holocaust (Himmler) to the people responsible for implementing it (notably Rudolf Hoss and others) right down to the ordinary foot-guards in the firing squads and gas chambers.
Fact: - No Catholic, from the leaders of the Nazi party or the SS, right down to ordinary foot soldiers and civilians, no matter how many deaths and how much misery they were responsible for, was excommunicated for their part in the Holocaust.
Fact: - Any Catholic who wished to join the Italian communist party after the war, was threatened with excommunication.
Fact: - The Vatican helped several war criminals escape to south America by issuing passports to them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for this particular instance of the murder of millions of innocents, just that it was at least as complicit, if not more so, as anybody else. I would like it therefore if flat-footed ignorant cretins like Father Marek Gancarczyk would pause for a moment and bear this in mind before they ever, ever attempt to invoke the greatest crime of all time in support of their pathetic, half-baked, knee-jerk, ill-conceived and anti-intellectual positions.
The picture I include at the top of this article is deliberately provocative, but I hope it will serve to remind Catholics of why they should keep their ignorant mouths shut, and rest their bilious writing hands without setting pen to paper, next time the thought of invoking the Holocaust in favour of their 'argument' occurs to them.
Sep
28
A Roman Catholic magazine by the name of Gosc Niedzielny, published by the Polish archdiocese of Katowice, was ordered on Wednesday to pay damages of 30,000 Zloties (approx. $11,000 US or 7,400 Euros) and issue a written apology to a woman who sought an abortion on medical grounds, after likening her to a child murderer and comparing abortion to Nazi war crimes.
Alicje Tysiac, now 38, was not allowed to abort her third child back in 2000 despite being told by doctors that giving birth could cost her her sight. Abortion is illegal in Poland except in extreme circumstances, such as if the life of the mother is threatened, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and even then only up to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
As a result of the birth, Ms Tysiac suffered a retinal haemorraghe and her eyesight is now irreversibly damaged.
Ms Tysiac took her case to the European Court of Human Rights and in 2007 the Polish Government were ordered to pay her 25,000 Euros in compensation.
Following this ruling the magazine's editor, Father Marek Gancarczyk, wrote: "We live in a world where a mother receives an award for very much wanting to kill her child, but not being allowed to do so."
In a clear comparison between the acceptance of abortion and the Nazi extermination of Jews his article also stated that: "They had become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp. And what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible."
Judge Ewa Solecka ruled that the article (whose text I am unfortunately unable to find; I'm sure its a delightful read) had shown "contempt, hostility and malice" toward Ms Tysiac and ordered the magazine to compensate her and issue an apology. The judge also said that Catholics have the right to express their disapproval of abortion, and to call it murder, but they do not have the right to vilify (IE libel) individuals.
The magazine is planning an appeal on grounds of "infringement of freedom of speech". The editor also denied comparing abortion to Nazi exterminations, as well he might, as I'll come to shortly.
OK, we all know that there are many good reasons for being opposed to abortion as simply a choice, fewer for being opposed to it in cases such as this where there are medical grounds for seeking one. I would state categorically that religious belief, and adherence to religious doctrine, do not count as legitimate reasons for anything at all. In any circumstances, for any reason, ever. If your opinion - no matter how deeply and passionately held, however genuinely and even well-intentioned it is - is based upon a belief; based upon what you have been told by an authority, whose own authority rests simply on belief and tradition; based upon a random interpretation of an old book (that you almost certainly have not read from cover to cover) that you believe to be the word of God, a God you cannot prove or in fact feel any need to prove because you know he exists, and you know your opinion comes from doing what he wants, then quite frankly, your opinion is worth about as much as one of my farts, so kindly keep it yourself.
I'll say it again - opinions derived from religion are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing at all, because they are based upon nothing. If you want to bring real morality to a discussion, to invoke (in this instance) science, medicine, or give a real reason why this lady should have been forced to have a child that could've blinded her, then I'm sure you could find lots of decent things to say and have a really good, mature discussion about it - perhaps even win the debate. If you want to say that you think abortion is simply murder, in any circumstances, but hide behind an invisible man in the sky (or all-too visible Nazi in the Vatican) rather than actually think (if you are capable of it) why you really hold this opinion, then you need to have your bible (large print, naturally) inserted width-ways into the aperture you normally use to speak out of. Alternatively, shut the fuck up until you have something constructive to bring to the discussion, you faith-obsessed simpleton.
OK, first rant over, and I know before you say it that I'm not being very constructive here either, and you will have noticed by now that I've not actually stated what I think about abortion as a whole, or this case in particular. Well sorry to disappoint, but my personal opinion on the subject is worth very little too, and will remain hidden unless you want to contact me and really find out. (Don't bother, it's almost certainly not worth it.)
Does this disqualify me from commenting on this case? I think not, because whilst my opinion on this particular case is largely worthless, the continuing damage done to all and sundry by the witless witterings of the Catholic clergy compels me to speak out, and roundly condemn the Church and all its minions and followers as deluded, dangerous and deeply damaging. (Yes, I am experimenting with alliteration, well spotted.)
In this instance you might have little or no sympathy for Ms Tysiac because she was told after the birth of her second child that having another could blind her. How foolish, you may say, to get pregnant again - she should have used contraceptives... No, of course not, that isn't allowed by the Catholic church either. Perhaps she should have abstained from sex, after all, if male priests can control all their sexual urges and remain celibate... Best not go there for now eh? There's a whole blogs-worth of comments on that score. No, of course the Church would not force her to abstain from sex; it doesn't deal in cruelty and misery, after all... they would probably recommend 'natural' methods of contraception such as hoping for the best and coitus interruptus, well known to work of course, and who better to advise you on this subject than an organisation entirely made up of men who have never had sex (well, consensual sex with an adult, anyway)?
I'm slightly puzzled as to why the Church does not allow contraception, and yet thinks that pulling your wang out before you ejaculate would not frustrate God's plans. Or why cunningly working out which days you'll (probably, unless your unlucky) be ovulating and not having sex on those days does not go against God's grand design of filling up the world with even more Catholics. I know I haven't been educated enough in the ways of divinity to understand the difference, so I apologise for being such an ignorant heathen, but it just seems a bit daft to me.
If you'll just indulge me a while: - pull out your head from your pious arsehole, wipe the excrement of papal dogma from your eyes and take a quick peak at the real World, allowing what you see to penetrate the mush of musty old stories gathering dust in what could have been your brain, now - see more clearly? Good... tell me what is the difference between not conceiving by wearing a johnny, and not conceiving by not having sex at every single opportunity? Why is it wrong in the Pope's eyes to crack one off, but OK to pull out at the last minute? Why do I produce enough sperm with each ejaculation to repopulate half of Europe? If each human embryo produced is a sacred and blessed life, a little miracle granted the gift of life by God, why do so many of them spontaneously abort? A few other questions spring to mind but you get my point. Can you answer me without saying 'God'? Can you? Can you give me an answer based in reality? I doubt it, but don't worry, it's OK, panic over, you may now replace your head... feel the walls of your religious rectum close over your eyes and ears... yes, that's better, isn't it? Now you can give me a really good, if slightly muffled, answer from the comfort of your own intestines, or perhaps even issue a challenge. Who am I to question Papal authority? To question the rulings of Christ's Vicar on Earth? Who indeed.
I said earlier that I would turn to Father Gancarczyk's comparison between abortion and the Holocaust, but actually I've decided to put that in a separate post. Many of you will be aware of the Church's almost gleeful collaboration with the Nazis, and why any Catholic figure should know better than ever to even allude to them, far less try to use them to further their cause, regardless of how far up their gastro-intestinal tract their head may be.
Comments and abuse welcome.
Alicje Tysiac, now 38, was not allowed to abort her third child back in 2000 despite being told by doctors that giving birth could cost her her sight. Abortion is illegal in Poland except in extreme circumstances, such as if the life of the mother is threatened, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and even then only up to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
As a result of the birth, Ms Tysiac suffered a retinal haemorraghe and her eyesight is now irreversibly damaged.
Ms Tysiac took her case to the European Court of Human Rights and in 2007 the Polish Government were ordered to pay her 25,000 Euros in compensation.
Following this ruling the magazine's editor, Father Marek Gancarczyk, wrote: "We live in a world where a mother receives an award for very much wanting to kill her child, but not being allowed to do so."
In a clear comparison between the acceptance of abortion and the Nazi extermination of Jews his article also stated that: "They had become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp. And what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible."
Judge Ewa Solecka ruled that the article (whose text I am unfortunately unable to find; I'm sure its a delightful read) had shown "contempt, hostility and malice" toward Ms Tysiac and ordered the magazine to compensate her and issue an apology. The judge also said that Catholics have the right to express their disapproval of abortion, and to call it murder, but they do not have the right to vilify (IE libel) individuals.
The magazine is planning an appeal on grounds of "infringement of freedom of speech". The editor also denied comparing abortion to Nazi exterminations, as well he might, as I'll come to shortly.
OK, we all know that there are many good reasons for being opposed to abortion as simply a choice, fewer for being opposed to it in cases such as this where there are medical grounds for seeking one. I would state categorically that religious belief, and adherence to religious doctrine, do not count as legitimate reasons for anything at all. In any circumstances, for any reason, ever. If your opinion - no matter how deeply and passionately held, however genuinely and even well-intentioned it is - is based upon a belief; based upon what you have been told by an authority, whose own authority rests simply on belief and tradition; based upon a random interpretation of an old book (that you almost certainly have not read from cover to cover) that you believe to be the word of God, a God you cannot prove or in fact feel any need to prove because you know he exists, and you know your opinion comes from doing what he wants, then quite frankly, your opinion is worth about as much as one of my farts, so kindly keep it yourself.
I'll say it again - opinions derived from religion are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing at all, because they are based upon nothing. If you want to bring real morality to a discussion, to invoke (in this instance) science, medicine, or give a real reason why this lady should have been forced to have a child that could've blinded her, then I'm sure you could find lots of decent things to say and have a really good, mature discussion about it - perhaps even win the debate. If you want to say that you think abortion is simply murder, in any circumstances, but hide behind an invisible man in the sky (or all-too visible Nazi in the Vatican) rather than actually think (if you are capable of it) why you really hold this opinion, then you need to have your bible (large print, naturally) inserted width-ways into the aperture you normally use to speak out of. Alternatively, shut the fuck up until you have something constructive to bring to the discussion, you faith-obsessed simpleton.
OK, first rant over, and I know before you say it that I'm not being very constructive here either, and you will have noticed by now that I've not actually stated what I think about abortion as a whole, or this case in particular. Well sorry to disappoint, but my personal opinion on the subject is worth very little too, and will remain hidden unless you want to contact me and really find out. (Don't bother, it's almost certainly not worth it.)
Does this disqualify me from commenting on this case? I think not, because whilst my opinion on this particular case is largely worthless, the continuing damage done to all and sundry by the witless witterings of the Catholic clergy compels me to speak out, and roundly condemn the Church and all its minions and followers as deluded, dangerous and deeply damaging. (Yes, I am experimenting with alliteration, well spotted.)
In this instance you might have little or no sympathy for Ms Tysiac because she was told after the birth of her second child that having another could blind her. How foolish, you may say, to get pregnant again - she should have used contraceptives... No, of course not, that isn't allowed by the Catholic church either. Perhaps she should have abstained from sex, after all, if male priests can control all their sexual urges and remain celibate... Best not go there for now eh? There's a whole blogs-worth of comments on that score. No, of course the Church would not force her to abstain from sex; it doesn't deal in cruelty and misery, after all... they would probably recommend 'natural' methods of contraception such as hoping for the best and coitus interruptus, well known to work of course, and who better to advise you on this subject than an organisation entirely made up of men who have never had sex (well, consensual sex with an adult, anyway)?
I'm slightly puzzled as to why the Church does not allow contraception, and yet thinks that pulling your wang out before you ejaculate would not frustrate God's plans. Or why cunningly working out which days you'll (probably, unless your unlucky) be ovulating and not having sex on those days does not go against God's grand design of filling up the world with even more Catholics. I know I haven't been educated enough in the ways of divinity to understand the difference, so I apologise for being such an ignorant heathen, but it just seems a bit daft to me.
If you'll just indulge me a while: - pull out your head from your pious arsehole, wipe the excrement of papal dogma from your eyes and take a quick peak at the real World, allowing what you see to penetrate the mush of musty old stories gathering dust in what could have been your brain, now - see more clearly? Good... tell me what is the difference between not conceiving by wearing a johnny, and not conceiving by not having sex at every single opportunity? Why is it wrong in the Pope's eyes to crack one off, but OK to pull out at the last minute? Why do I produce enough sperm with each ejaculation to repopulate half of Europe? If each human embryo produced is a sacred and blessed life, a little miracle granted the gift of life by God, why do so many of them spontaneously abort? A few other questions spring to mind but you get my point. Can you answer me without saying 'God'? Can you? Can you give me an answer based in reality? I doubt it, but don't worry, it's OK, panic over, you may now replace your head... feel the walls of your religious rectum close over your eyes and ears... yes, that's better, isn't it? Now you can give me a really good, if slightly muffled, answer from the comfort of your own intestines, or perhaps even issue a challenge. Who am I to question Papal authority? To question the rulings of Christ's Vicar on Earth? Who indeed.
I said earlier that I would turn to Father Gancarczyk's comparison between abortion and the Holocaust, but actually I've decided to put that in a separate post. Many of you will be aware of the Church's almost gleeful collaboration with the Nazis, and why any Catholic figure should know better than ever to even allude to them, far less try to use them to further their cause, regardless of how far up their gastro-intestinal tract their head may be.
Comments and abuse welcome.
Sep
28
It is often said that the question of God's existence cannot be tackled by both religion and science. I agree with this.I also reject reject the idea that just because something exists within the realm of religion, it cannot looked at scientifically.
If these two positions seem to contradict each other, keep reading.
I also reject conventional organization methods, so allow me to start with the second point.
"Science and religion have nothing to do with each other, therefore that which is in the realm of religion cannot be addressed scientifically." We hear statements of this kind all the time, but instead of arguing the point have we stopped to think about the sheer lunacy of the proposition? Yes, religion is not science and vice versa, but how does this even begin to lead to the idea that the two are mutually exclusive? Would anyone agree that just because Gandhi was a religious figure he can not be a historical figure? Or that all of the religious music, paintings, sculptures, poetry, etc. cannot be looked at artistically? After all, religion and art are not one in the same.
This is not to say that everything that is religious is also scientific, or that everything in art is religious. We have to look at these things on an individual basis. In order to say that something lies outside the scope of science or anything else, we must first provide valid reasons for its exclusion. It is not enough to simply say that it belongs within the real of different area—clearly things can, and most things do, exist within many "realms."
Which brings us to the question of God's existence. Earlier I stated that I agree that this question is not within the scopes of both science and religion. So now I must offer my reasons. It's quite simple, really—religion assumes God's existence. The whole idea of faith is belief without (or often in spite of) evidence. There can be no question about God's existence in religion. Indeed it starts with the assertion. Not only is the question in many cases seen as blasphemous, it just doesn't make sense from a religious perspective. The moment you begin to examine the question, the whole foundation (faith) of the religious perspective being used is undermined.
So if God's existence is not a religious question, can it be a scientific question? It seems that the existence of anything at all falls directly under the scientific umbrella. Why should the existence of a god or gods be any different? Some might protest that God exists outside of nature and science can only be useful within nature. But what does it mean to be "outside" of nature? If it was found that something existed beyond what our current idea of "nature" is, wouldn't that state or existence have to then be considered natural also? Nature as it seems to me encompasses all that is reality.
Of course, much of the debate gets lost in the ambiguity of definitions and semantics, but this much is clear: science, so far, is the best and only tool we have in reasonably determining the existence of anything, and religion is certainly not in a position to ask the question, "Does God exist?"
Share this post:
Sep
27
This morning I watched Andrew Marr interviewing Gordon Brown, or rather receive virtually identical replies to each and every question - Yes I'm the right man for the job; I'm single-handedly responsible for saving the world from bankers; Labour will bring us out of recession faster than the Tories (by borrowing more money that my grandchildren will be paying off) etc. Gordon Brown's a hero - no really - it takes some balls to be so unpopular, so bloody useless, and yet remain so determined and bloody-mindedly confident that he really, really is doing our country the best service he can by fighting on to the bitter end and consigning Labour to at least ten to fifteen years in opposition. Good on you Gordon.
When he first took over I thought he'd be alright, there is after all no doubting that he is a very intelligent and determined chap; a career politician, even if he is bit on the dour side. This even seemed a redeeming feature for a while after the unspeakable irritation engendered by watching Blair grin as his leadership hit the rocks.
Two years of his sheer bloody awfulness however has convinced me that actually, he's got barely half a clue what he's doing. I can't help remembering how, as Chancellor, he sold off our gold reserves when the price was at it lowest for years, just to pour a few more billion into public services whose expenditure has rocketed whilst efficiency has dropped by 5%. That gold would certainly come in useful now...
I could go on for a while but actually thinking about Super-Gordon for too long just makes me want to curl into a small ball and cry. And that fake smile (shudders) is enough to give me nightmares.
So we'll only have to deal with him for another few months, at which time I suspect a lot of pundits will be asking this question:
Is Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain? And no, before you ask, I haven't forgotten about Jim Callaghan.
Sep
22
For almost the entirety of human existence, we have been asking the "big" questions, such as "how did we get here?" and "what is our purpose?". However, we rarely stop to think why we ask those questions, and especially why we are so prone to leaning towards some answers innately. For example, the majority of people in the U.S. are Christians, and the when asked why they believe in their, one of the most common responses is that "it just couldn't happen by chance. All of this world, our existence, the love we feel, it can't be random." Many theists cite the their belief that the world is "too complex" to have formed from nature, without being "created".
However, this innate desire to comprehend the world around us as "too complex" is inherently flawed, and I'll show you why:
We attach significance to things that are meaningful to us. For example, my parents are significant to me, because they are meaningful, i.e. I depend on them, I enjoy spending time with them, in fact my existence required them. Therefore, they are very significant to me. Because I see my parents as meaningful, I see them as purposeful, causal, and driven by thought. My parents are not some random, by chance beings that came into existence from nothing. In fact, almost everything we perceive as having "meaning" is because it is not "random" or "by chance". We find faces and shapes in clouds that, to the objective observer, would look like random, blurry shapes. Yet if we realized that they were random, unspecific shapes, we wouldn't find meaning and significance in them. When you happen to meet your old high school friend when you are at a baseball game, you don't see it as random, but you think "what a small world", or "it must be fate".
So, now that we've established that humanity as a whole finds meaning in things they perceive as purposeful, intended, we can turn our view onto religion's role in this. Perhaps the most meaningful "'thing" in my life is my own existence. Without my existence, I wouldn't exist. Therefore, my own current existence is very important and significant to me. With that in mind, consider how we examine the world as a whole with that perspective. Our friends, our family, our pets, our jobs, our planet, our own existence, all of these things are very, very significant to us. Therefor, they could not have come about randomly or by chance. If that was the case, we would think they aren't meaningful anymore, because they are purposeless (the very notion of which I would strongly argue against.
In an overview of above, my main point is that human beings define certain things as meaningful and significant, things which are important to our existence and our lives. We place such import on these things because we see them as intended, purposeful, caused. We do this because almost all of these things are in fact so. My existence was intended and caused, it was not random and without purpose. A couple's love is meaningful because to each person, the other loves them for a reason, with purpose. They love connection was not drawn out of a hat. So when we look at the world around us, our common connection as human beings, and our experiences, we want to find a cause there. Because if it is uncaused, then we would (incorrectly, I would posit) conclude that our lives are meaningless.
One of the best analogies I have ever heard was the poker hand analogy. Imagine you are teaching a friend how to play poker, and you are about to deal them their first hand to explain the game. You shuffle the deck, then deal them 5 cards. To your friend's amazement, your friend has a royal flush, the rarest of all poker hands, the odds of which are 1 in 649,740. The first reaction of your friend will be, inevitably, astonishment, but then suspicion. "Did you plant the cards there?" he will ask, because of course, he is looking for a purpose or a cause, because he sees meaning. This is the most important point, so I will say it again. When someone seeings meaning, they automatically look for purpose or cause. In fact, the royal flush is only the best poker hand because there are rules about the game of poker, which make it so. THE ODDS OF GETTING A ROYAL FLUSH IN 5 CARDS ARE THE EXACT SAME AS ANY OTHER 5 CARDS. The difference is, society has already placed significance, or meaning, on that combination of cards. When we see this meaning, we expect it to be caused.
This is the exact same thing that religious believers are doing when they say "look at the trees, God's hand is everywhere" or "Jesus is love" or "Look at the world. It's so complex and incredible, it can't be random and without purpose". Believers see all this meaning and significance around them, so they automatically expect there to be a creator, a purpose, a cause. They fail to understand that just the meaning and beauty that we see in the world, or in love, or in a newborn child, is there because we've put it there. Society imparts significance into us, along with our own preconceptions. When religious believers claim that the universe is too complex, to unlikely to have come into existence "by chance", they see that as a reason to believe in a higher power.Yet just as with the poker hand analogy, the odds of getting the royal flush are no different from any other 5 card combination, it is only because of the meaning and significance that we already attached to that specific combination that the friend finds it highly unlikely that they actually got dealt that hand, and they suspect planned involvement, purposeful action. In the same way, the religious believer, who of course finds meaning all around them, misplaces the source of that meaning and asserts that it is meaningful for an external, supernatural purpose, rather than the human reasons why we attach significance to certain aspects of our lives.
However, this innate desire to comprehend the world around us as "too complex" is inherently flawed, and I'll show you why:
We attach significance to things that are meaningful to us. For example, my parents are significant to me, because they are meaningful, i.e. I depend on them, I enjoy spending time with them, in fact my existence required them. Therefore, they are very significant to me. Because I see my parents as meaningful, I see them as purposeful, causal, and driven by thought. My parents are not some random, by chance beings that came into existence from nothing. In fact, almost everything we perceive as having "meaning" is because it is not "random" or "by chance". We find faces and shapes in clouds that, to the objective observer, would look like random, blurry shapes. Yet if we realized that they were random, unspecific shapes, we wouldn't find meaning and significance in them. When you happen to meet your old high school friend when you are at a baseball game, you don't see it as random, but you think "what a small world", or "it must be fate".
So, now that we've established that humanity as a whole finds meaning in things they perceive as purposeful, intended, we can turn our view onto religion's role in this. Perhaps the most meaningful "'thing" in my life is my own existence. Without my existence, I wouldn't exist. Therefore, my own current existence is very important and significant to me. With that in mind, consider how we examine the world as a whole with that perspective. Our friends, our family, our pets, our jobs, our planet, our own existence, all of these things are very, very significant to us. Therefor, they could not have come about randomly or by chance. If that was the case, we would think they aren't meaningful anymore, because they are purposeless (the very notion of which I would strongly argue against.
In an overview of above, my main point is that human beings define certain things as meaningful and significant, things which are important to our existence and our lives. We place such import on these things because we see them as intended, purposeful, caused. We do this because almost all of these things are in fact so. My existence was intended and caused, it was not random and without purpose. A couple's love is meaningful because to each person, the other loves them for a reason, with purpose. They love connection was not drawn out of a hat. So when we look at the world around us, our common connection as human beings, and our experiences, we want to find a cause there. Because if it is uncaused, then we would (incorrectly, I would posit) conclude that our lives are meaningless.
One of the best analogies I have ever heard was the poker hand analogy. Imagine you are teaching a friend how to play poker, and you are about to deal them their first hand to explain the game. You shuffle the deck, then deal them 5 cards. To your friend's amazement, your friend has a royal flush, the rarest of all poker hands, the odds of which are 1 in 649,740. The first reaction of your friend will be, inevitably, astonishment, but then suspicion. "Did you plant the cards there?" he will ask, because of course, he is looking for a purpose or a cause, because he sees meaning. This is the most important point, so I will say it again. When someone seeings meaning, they automatically look for purpose or cause. In fact, the royal flush is only the best poker hand because there are rules about the game of poker, which make it so. THE ODDS OF GETTING A ROYAL FLUSH IN 5 CARDS ARE THE EXACT SAME AS ANY OTHER 5 CARDS. The difference is, society has already placed significance, or meaning, on that combination of cards. When we see this meaning, we expect it to be caused.
This is the exact same thing that religious believers are doing when they say "look at the trees, God's hand is everywhere" or "Jesus is love" or "Look at the world. It's so complex and incredible, it can't be random and without purpose". Believers see all this meaning and significance around them, so they automatically expect there to be a creator, a purpose, a cause. They fail to understand that just the meaning and beauty that we see in the world, or in love, or in a newborn child, is there because we've put it there. Society imparts significance into us, along with our own preconceptions. When religious believers claim that the universe is too complex, to unlikely to have come into existence "by chance", they see that as a reason to believe in a higher power.Yet just as with the poker hand analogy, the odds of getting the royal flush are no different from any other 5 card combination, it is only because of the meaning and significance that we already attached to that specific combination that the friend finds it highly unlikely that they actually got dealt that hand, and they suspect planned involvement, purposeful action. In the same way, the religious believer, who of course finds meaning all around them, misplaces the source of that meaning and asserts that it is meaningful for an external, supernatural purpose, rather than the human reasons why we attach significance to certain aspects of our lives.
Sep
21
A chap by the name of Daniel Jones was asked to leave a Tesco store in Bangor, north Wales, after refusing to remove a hood that he 'believes' he has to wear in public as part of his religion, and is now considering taking legal action against the company.
Mr Jones, 23, is the founder of the 'International Church of Jediism', which apparently has as many as 500,000 followers worldwide.
Jones (a.k.a. Morda Hehol) said: "It states in our Jedi doctrination (sic) that I can wear headwear. It just covers the back of my head, you have a choice of wearing headwear in your home or at work but you have to wear a cover for your head when you are in public."
He obviously wrote the religion quite well and thought about how to get attention - doubtless you don't have to wear a hood at home because a) no-one is looking and b) you might get a bit hot and sweaty. Similarly when at work because a) you don't want to look a complete freak in front of your colleagues without at least a few hundred years of tradition to support your 'choice' of apparel and b) you'd never get hired in the first place. Speaking as an employer, if any prospective candidate came to an interview wearing a hood and claiming to be a Jedi, I most assuredly would not hire them, however good their CV. Whether you wish to interpret this as religious discrimination or discrimination against the mentally ill is up to you.
In public, of course, one must make a visual statement of your religion; how else is anybody to know that you have chosen the path to salvation and all who disagree are damned?
In response a wag from Tesco's PR department said: "He hasn't been banned. Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods. Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood.If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers." Clearly they're not fearing a land-mark legal ruling or a massive compensation claim - they'll probably get away with giving him an apology and a light-sabre.
I'm not sure how to take this... If the guy is being genuine and really thinks his religious freedom has been infringed upon, then he either needs psychiatric help or a good kicking, I'm not sure which. It's possible however that it's just a stunt to show up just how ridiculous the laws protecting religious expression are, and how damaging they can be when used by some people with a politico-religiously motivated agenda. I'm sure most of you remember that Tesco recently faced a legal challenge, under the same set of laws, from a Muslim store worker who refused to handle alcohol (despite being well aware that this would be part of their job). The Chemist chain Boots was also in the spotlight, about a year ago I think, after a pharmacist - a pharmacist! - refused to dispense the contraceptive pill because it went against her religious beliefs.
So if the former is the case, then I'm sorry Mr Hehol, but you're just a sad little wanker. And if the latter, then thank you Mr Jones for bringing down such a great deal of derision and ridicule upon your head in pursuit of reminding us all just how stupid the laws pertaining to the free practice of religion are. The Jury is still out.
Mr Jones, 23, is the founder of the 'International Church of Jediism', which apparently has as many as 500,000 followers worldwide.
Jones (a.k.a. Morda Hehol) said: "It states in our Jedi doctrination (sic) that I can wear headwear. It just covers the back of my head, you have a choice of wearing headwear in your home or at work but you have to wear a cover for your head when you are in public."
He obviously wrote the religion quite well and thought about how to get attention - doubtless you don't have to wear a hood at home because a) no-one is looking and b) you might get a bit hot and sweaty. Similarly when at work because a) you don't want to look a complete freak in front of your colleagues without at least a few hundred years of tradition to support your 'choice' of apparel and b) you'd never get hired in the first place. Speaking as an employer, if any prospective candidate came to an interview wearing a hood and claiming to be a Jedi, I most assuredly would not hire them, however good their CV. Whether you wish to interpret this as religious discrimination or discrimination against the mentally ill is up to you.
In public, of course, one must make a visual statement of your religion; how else is anybody to know that you have chosen the path to salvation and all who disagree are damned?
In response a wag from Tesco's PR department said: "He hasn't been banned. Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods. Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood.If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers." Clearly they're not fearing a land-mark legal ruling or a massive compensation claim - they'll probably get away with giving him an apology and a light-sabre.
I'm not sure how to take this... If the guy is being genuine and really thinks his religious freedom has been infringed upon, then he either needs psychiatric help or a good kicking, I'm not sure which. It's possible however that it's just a stunt to show up just how ridiculous the laws protecting religious expression are, and how damaging they can be when used by some people with a politico-religiously motivated agenda. I'm sure most of you remember that Tesco recently faced a legal challenge, under the same set of laws, from a Muslim store worker who refused to handle alcohol (despite being well aware that this would be part of their job). The Chemist chain Boots was also in the spotlight, about a year ago I think, after a pharmacist - a pharmacist! - refused to dispense the contraceptive pill because it went against her religious beliefs.
So if the former is the case, then I'm sorry Mr Hehol, but you're just a sad little wanker. And if the latter, then thank you Mr Jones for bringing down such a great deal of derision and ridicule upon your head in pursuit of reminding us all just how stupid the laws pertaining to the free practice of religion are. The Jury is still out.
Sep
19
That ridiculous little election-stealing monkey, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was once more railing against Israel and denying the Holocaust, at a rally held in Tehran for the annual Al-Quds day. Al-Quds day was instigated by Ayatollah Khomeini shortly after the revolution of 1979, as a day for Muslims around the world to protest against the creation of Israel and the treatment of Palestinians.
Please do not assume that my reference to the dirty, ranting, crumpled little cretin as a 'monkey' is in any way indicative of racism - I am talking only about him, not his co-nationals or co-regionalists (incidentally, Persian women are some of the most beautiful in the world, which is probably why we're not allowed to look at them, but I digress now and am sounding sexist instead of racist, so I'd better move on) I speak only of the fact that he bears an uncanny resemblance to lieutenant Columbo after three weeks on the street. Also, you have to admit that he does look a bit like a monkey.
Of course appearance counts for little where politics is concerned (haha), politics being a discipline where substance is all (haha, again) and we all know that the backbone of Hobo-dinejad's policies involve hating Israel, hating Jews, and giving any Iranian with more than half a brain a strong desire to emigrate. Oh, and of course being the region's military great-power; any chance of the country taking it's rightful place as the region's economic and technological power-house being thoroughly stifled by corruption and religion.
So Tramp-adinejad and his fanatical bigots were rallying yesterday to celebrate Al-Quds. The supporters of his 'defeated' election rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, were also out and about being attacked by the state's thugs, sorry police, and Mr Mousavi himself was forced to leave the rally after his car was attacked.
Mr Beggar-dinejad said that the Holocaust was "a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim" and that "the pretext for the creation of the Zionist regime is false."
It never ceases to amaze me that the political leader of a country entirely based upon centuries old mythical claims can reject mountains, and I do mean mountains, of real, recent, tangible evidence that several million people were murdered for their beliefs just a couple of generations ago, simply for political expedience. I really wonder how many Muslims (and I know it's not just Muslims, before you write in - there are a surprising number of Christian Holocaust deniers too) around the World do not believe that the Holocaust took place. And this is the nub of the matter, the problem with their position is simply one of belief. To the religious mind, belief trumps all else, and the desire to believe a premise is often all that is required to accept it, IE believe it. Evidence to the contrary of your accepted position simply becomes an inconvenience to be skirted around and dismissed - IE dis-believed . For example - I hate Jews, however happy the idea of five million of them dying would make me, I don't want to accept that this happened, because it is convenient for me to believe that it was all a conspiracy to create a Western-friendly state in the middle east, and displace millions of my co-religionists. Because I want to believe this, all evidence that contradicts my position must be false. Only the religious mind can work in this fashion, can work on the principle that truth is something to be chosen and moulded by your preconceptions, rather than something real and definite that exists outside of yourself.
Ahma-dinnerjacket's comments regarding the Holocaust brought the usual condemnation from Western leaders, and the usual 'concerns' regarding Iran's nuclear program, as well as the renewed threat of even more sanctions. I wonder if it might be more appropriate for the World's leaders just to ignore these outbursts - would it not be more effective for World leaders just to laugh at him? To treat him with the derision that this pathetic little excuse for a man deserves, and perhaps to send him a box of bananas, or a signed portrait of Peter Falk? I wonder if my opinions exclude me from a career in the diplomatic corps...
Sep
17
Although not related to religion, I found this article on the web the other day, and thought it was worth sharing:
Swearing can reduce the feeling of pain
Here is a brief overview:
"Scientists have discovered that uttering swear words can help to lessen the feeling of physical pain.
The study by researchers at Keele University found that volunteers were able to withstand pain for longer when they swore compared to when they used words which were not offensive."
"The researchers, whose findings are published in the journal NeuroReport, tested 64 students' tolerance to pain by asking them to submerge their hand in a tub of ice water for as long as they could while repeating a series of swear words of their choice.
They were then asked to carry out the task again while repeating non-offensive words they would use to describe a table. One subject, however, had to be excluded from the trial because they could not suggest any swear words.
They found that volunteers who swore were able to keep their hands submerged in the water for an average of 40 seconds longer. When questioned about their perceived pain they also rated it as being lower."
"Dr Richard Stephens, who conducted the study at the university's school of psychology, believes it may explain why swearing is still common place in languages around the world.
He suggests that swearing could have evolved as a way of raising aggression levels and reducing the feeling of pain to allow our ancestors to flee or fight back when attacked by predators.
He said: "We think it could be part of the flight or fight response. In the volunteers who swore, we also found they had an elevated heart rate, so it could be increasing their aggression levels."
Swearing can reduce the feeling of pain
Here is a brief overview:
"Scientists have discovered that uttering swear words can help to lessen the feeling of physical pain.
The study by researchers at Keele University found that volunteers were able to withstand pain for longer when they swore compared to when they used words which were not offensive."
"The researchers, whose findings are published in the journal NeuroReport, tested 64 students' tolerance to pain by asking them to submerge their hand in a tub of ice water for as long as they could while repeating a series of swear words of their choice.
They were then asked to carry out the task again while repeating non-offensive words they would use to describe a table. One subject, however, had to be excluded from the trial because they could not suggest any swear words.
They found that volunteers who swore were able to keep their hands submerged in the water for an average of 40 seconds longer. When questioned about their perceived pain they also rated it as being lower."
"Dr Richard Stephens, who conducted the study at the university's school of psychology, believes it may explain why swearing is still common place in languages around the world.
He suggests that swearing could have evolved as a way of raising aggression levels and reducing the feeling of pain to allow our ancestors to flee or fight back when attacked by predators.
He said: "We think it could be part of the flight or fight response. In the volunteers who swore, we also found they had an elevated heart rate, so it could be increasing their aggression levels."
While this study certainly gives us an insight into some of the basic instincts and responses of the human body, it also demonstrates an important aspect of evolution. As the human species evolved and developed language, a certain group of words was developed, that, over time, have come to be (biologically) connected to aggression and the fight or flight reflex. This is certainly a useful trait to have, the ability to withstand pain longer to be less sensitive to pain in times of heightened aggression, so one can see why this trait would have gained genetic power over time.
This article often brings to mind another issue, one directly related to religion, and that is the issue of belief and prayer. Just as the human body as evolved to physiologically react to certain swear words, it could have the ability to react to other words or mindsets, such as prayer or other religious believes. For example, in times of stress, I think everyone would agree, it is useful to be able to calm yourself down and relax. Often times, religious people use prayer or other forms of meditation for this purpose. While I fully support meditation and other calming techniques, this example serves to show us that people can be predisposed to the used of certain beliefs or ideas that benefit themselves physically or psychologically. Its a nice thought to think that there is someone out there watching over us, and its nice to think that things happen for a reason, especially bad things. However, how good some thoughts or ideas may be at helping our bodies and mind has zero affect on the actual truth and reality of those ideas. Just because human beings are predisposed to believe in a god does not mean that a god is any more real than if nobody believed in it.
Sep
17
His Holiness The Bearded One was on BBC's Newsnight program 'Aftershock, The Crash A Year On' on Tuesday night (the title of this post is a link to the video on the BBC's iplayer service) to discuss the causes and effects of the crash. As you may remember, The Bearded One and his conservative side-kick Dr John Sentamu both made a little bit of a stir last year as the crash was unfolding, by comparing money to a new idol that has been worshipped by certain sectors of the business community (See Hypocrites? Of course not, they're our spiritual leaders! for my take on this at the time).
Admittedly the Archbishop was not given a central role in the program - about 40 minutes were taken up with reports by the economics editor and a debate between business leaders, an ex bank chairman and economics professors - but he was interviewed for several minutes, and his answers were treated with real respect by the interviewer, Jeremy Paxman, a man noted for his tendency to rip less exalted interviewees to shreds.
Everyone has an opinion on this subject, of course, indeed we're all experts now, but where is the sense, and what is the point, of giving serious air time and credence on a serious news program - this edition of which was entirely devoted to a matter of global significance, the effects of which may be felt for generations - to a man who has devoted his life to the study and interpretation of unreality?
Paxman's first question may just have carried a twinge of sarcasm - he basically asked the Archbishop if he thought it was odd that the political leaders who espoused the credit-based capitalism blamed for the collapse (Tony Blair, George Bush et al) were Christians. The bearded one gave a small wry smile at this, but answered that yes he did think it was odd, especially when 'some of the inspiration for Tony Blair's ideology did come from communitarian and non-strictly capitalist origins'. So straight away, we're in to the important stuff - Christians were in charge, why did their Christian values not stop this greed? Can anyone else see a little smidgen of irony here?
I've transcribed the rest of the interview for you below (see how thoughtful I am?) to save you the bother of watching the video, though I do recommend watching it anyway as it has good entertainment value. The Archbishop's interview begins about two-thirds of the way through the program.
'I think what happened was an enormous wave of unreality, in the whole system whereby the connection of financial instruments, financial operations, with reality, with production, with relationships just disappeared.'
Paxman - 'Do you wish now that the Church had spoken out more about that climate?'
'I guess I do, but I suppose like most people we felt intimidated by expertise, and that's a very dangerous place for the Church to be, because what I hear now is people saying that experts, in fact, didn't know particularly what they were talking about, there was an enormous confidence trick going on.'
Paxman - 'They convinced the rest of us they did'
'They convinced the rest of us, because I think that most of us have grown up with the idea that economics is an exact science, and that suggests that we haven't actually read Keynes in the first place, because Keynes' stress on uncertainty as something utterly unavoidable in economic activity beyond a certain level, that again seems to have vanished.'
Paxman - 'What do you think this whole crisis has done to us?'
'It's left us I think with, as we saw in the clip just now [reference to a report by economics editor Paul Mason] a quite strong sense of diffused resentment, there hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year, there hasn't been what I as a Christian would call repentance, we haven't heard people saying that actually, no, we got it wrong, the whole, fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty.'
Paxman - 'You're talking about the bankers now?'
'I'm talking about bankers but also about all of us who, as you reminded me, Church included, colluded with this.'
Paxman - 'So we should all repent of what...'
'We should all I think, look back and say...
'Politicians too?
'Politicians too...'
'Everybody?...'
'We can look back and say, well we, we were, hypnotised into that sense of unreality, we allowed a big gulf to open up between how finance appeared to be operating and what it was really generating in terms of wealth, as well being for a community.'
P - 'What do you think we should have learned from what's happened?'
'Certainly that economics is too important to be left to economists, that there is no such thing as the rational self-regulating market beyond a very very limited range of activities, therefore that awkward amateurs do have their role in this, whether it's artists or historians or even the odd theologian [wry smile] coming in to say, well, what is wealth? What is this wealth creation that we talk about? We can understand how investment and production that allows purchasing power to be in the hands of more people, that's wealth creation. Whether wealth creation is simply the statistic of a larger amount of money on paper or a screen to be concentrated in certain hands, whether that counts as wealth creation, I'm not even sure.'
P - 'And when you see, as we are told now, of many of the financial institutions going back to business as usual before hand, bonuses and all the rest of it, what do you think?'
'I worry. I feel that, that that's precisely what I call the lack of closure, coming home to roost, it's a failure to name what was wrong, to name that, erm, well, what I called last year idolatry, that, projecting reality and substance on to things that don't have them.'
P - 'What should the Government have done'
'[laughs softly] I think the Government was bound to act, in the way it did as a damage limitation exercise, I, I'm not an economist, I can't comment on the details of that. I saw what Baroness Vadera [Junior minister in the department of business]said about that earlier today in the Standard [London Evening Standard, daily newspaper] I understand the motivation, I don't know what Governments can do...'
P - 'Should they have capped bonuses?'
'I would have said yes, yes, and I think that, that's one of those things that, feeds, the, what I call the diffused resentment that people are...'
P - 'Mm'
'... Somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and what you get, again becomes more obscure.'
P - 'You've referred to resentment now two or three times, [pause] how strongly felt is that? Do, do, d'you, d'you, d'you fear unrest almost?'
'I wouldn't go as far as that, what I'm picking up is just that sense of, of, bafflement, of, a muted anger, that the bonus culture isn't challenged, I wouldn't say unrest but I think that what we are looking at is, is, the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional if the levels of inequality that we've seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged.'
Paxman thanks him and closes the interview.
OK, so I've just transcribed it without dropping in any comments of my own. I am pretty sure that any atheists reading this have spotted the irony and hypocrisy a mile off, and I would put a little bit of money on most Christians spotting it too, but just in case you haven't, go back through the transcript and wherever you see a reference to 'finance', 'economist' or 'wealth' etc, substitute 'religion', 'Christianity', 'God' or 'The Church', and hopefully the hypocrisy will leap from the page.
I'm not saying that the man didn't have anything worth saying about the subject, he is, after all, a decent and intelligent chap, but as I said, we all have an opinion about this subject now, and he was giving his opinion as leader of our State Religion. I would therefore give his utterances more value if he had merely given the interview as Dr R. Williams, 'Concerned' of Canterbury.
I can sense your disappointment there, yes you at the back - 'What! how can he transcribe a whole interview without dropping in his customary sarcasm?' Well fear not, because I can't resist it, I just didn't want to clutter up a decently funny interview with my pointless witterings until you had a chance to read it for yourselves.
There now follows the same transcript, with previous square brackets removed, and my own attempt at humour and/or outrage inserted.
'I think what happened was an enormous wave of unreality, in the whole system whereby the connection of financial instruments, financial operations, with reality, with production, with relationships just disappeared.'
Paxman - 'Do you wish now that the Church had spoken out more about that climate?'
'I guess I do, but I suppose like most people we felt intimidated by expertise, and that's a very dangerous place for the Church to be,[Should be used to it after 300 years] because what I hear now is people saying that experts, in fact, didn't know particularly what they were talking about, [We in the Church do, of course] there was an enormous confidence trick going on.' [!!]
Paxman - 'They convinced the rest of us they did'
'They convinced the rest of us, because I think that most of us have grown up with the idea that economics is an exact science, [just as many of us were forced to grow up believing the Church is aways right] and that suggests that we haven't actually read Keynes in the first place, because Keynes' stress on uncertainty as something utterly anavoidable in economic activity beyond a certain level, that again seems to have vanished.' [Last year he quoted Marx, now he's invoking Keynes - are we seeing a further shift to left in the Church?]
Paxman - 'What do you think this whole crisis has done to us?'
'It's left us I think with, as we saw in the clip just now a quite strong sense of diffused resentment, [and a great deal more uncertainty that my minions are even now attempting to capitalise on (Church attendance is reportedly up in some areas as a direct consequence of 'material uncertainty')] there hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year, there hasn't been what I as a Christian would call repentance, [repent ye sinners! Fill our collection plates!] we haven't heard people saying that actually, no, we got it wrong, the whole, fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty.' [We will never see this day while belief is prevalent, maybe one day.]
Paxman - 'You're talking about the bankers now?'
'I'm talking about bankers but also about all of us who, as you reminded me, Church included, colluded with this.'
Paxman - 'So we should all repent of what...'
'We should all I think, look back and say...
'Politicians too?
'Politicians too...'
'Everybody?...'
'We can look back and say, well we, we were, hypnotised into that sense of unreality, we allowed a big gulf to open up between how finance appeared to be operating and what it was really generating in terms of wealth, as well being for a community.' [Just keep substituting 'religion' for 'finance', no further comment is required]
P - 'What do you think we should have learned from what's happened?'
'Certainly that economics [theology] is too important to be left to economists, [theologians] that there is no such thing as the rational self-regulating market [religion] beyond a very very limited range of activities, [preferably none at all] therefore that awkward amateurs [non-believers] do have their role in this, whether it's artists or historians or even the odd theologian [scientist] coming in to say, well, what is wealth? [religion?] What is this wealth creation [fiction] that we talk about? We can understand how investment and production that allows purchasing power to be in the hands of more people, that's wealth creation. Whether wealth creation is simply the statistic of a larger amount of money on paper or a screen to be concentrated in certain hands, whether that counts as wealth creation, I'm not even sure.'
P - 'And when you see, as we are told now, of many of the financial institutions going back to business as usual before hand, bonuses and all the rest of it, what do you think?'
'I worry. I feel that, that that's precisely what I call the lack of closure, coming home to roost, it's a failure to name what was wrong, to name that, erm, well, what I called last year idolatry, [said the man with a graven image of a man suffering unspeakable torture dangling from his neck] that, projecting reality and substance on to things that don't have them.' [!!]
P - 'What should the Government have done'
'I think the Government was bound to act, in the way it did as a damage limitation exercises, I, I'm not an economist, [I don't have any more of an idea than the rest of you; the fact that I am a spiritual leader, well versed in bullshit, lends credence and authority to my opinion] I can't comment on the details of that. I saw what Baroness Vadera said about that earlier today in the Standard. I understand the motivation, I don't know what Governments can do...'
P - 'Should they have capped bonuses?'
'I would have said yes, yes, and I think that, that's one of those things that, feeds, the, what I call the diffused resentment that people are...'
P - 'Mm'
'... Somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and what you get, again becomes more obscure.'
P - 'You've referred to resentment now two or three times, [pause] how strongly felt is that? Do, do, d'you, d'you, d'you fear unrest almost?'
'I wouldn't go as far as that, what I'm picking up is just that sense of, of, bafflement, of, a muted anger, that the bonus culture isn't challenged, I wouldn't say unrest but I think that what we are looking at is, is, the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional [said the chap who not so long ago voiced the opinion that adopting some aspects of Sharia law in the UK is 'unavoidable'] if the levels of inequality that we've seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged.' [Thanks for having me, I'm off back to the palace now for a couple of sherries and a quick chat with God before bed.]
There simply is no sense in giving authority to the words of a spiritual leader, when they are speaking as such. I would ask that the BBC ask someone more qualified to give their opinion and fill five minutes next time - just grab a random passing bloke off the street for a good common-man's opinion. Alternatively, for balance they should also invite the chief Rabbi and whichever member of the Muslim Council of Great Britain is currently claiming to speak for all Muslims five minutes too, then I could write a post three times as long.
Admittedly the Archbishop was not given a central role in the program - about 40 minutes were taken up with reports by the economics editor and a debate between business leaders, an ex bank chairman and economics professors - but he was interviewed for several minutes, and his answers were treated with real respect by the interviewer, Jeremy Paxman, a man noted for his tendency to rip less exalted interviewees to shreds.
Everyone has an opinion on this subject, of course, indeed we're all experts now, but where is the sense, and what is the point, of giving serious air time and credence on a serious news program - this edition of which was entirely devoted to a matter of global significance, the effects of which may be felt for generations - to a man who has devoted his life to the study and interpretation of unreality?
Paxman's first question may just have carried a twinge of sarcasm - he basically asked the Archbishop if he thought it was odd that the political leaders who espoused the credit-based capitalism blamed for the collapse (Tony Blair, George Bush et al) were Christians. The bearded one gave a small wry smile at this, but answered that yes he did think it was odd, especially when 'some of the inspiration for Tony Blair's ideology did come from communitarian and non-strictly capitalist origins'. So straight away, we're in to the important stuff - Christians were in charge, why did their Christian values not stop this greed? Can anyone else see a little smidgen of irony here?
I've transcribed the rest of the interview for you below (see how thoughtful I am?) to save you the bother of watching the video, though I do recommend watching it anyway as it has good entertainment value. The Archbishop's interview begins about two-thirds of the way through the program.
'I think what happened was an enormous wave of unreality, in the whole system whereby the connection of financial instruments, financial operations, with reality, with production, with relationships just disappeared.'
Paxman - 'Do you wish now that the Church had spoken out more about that climate?'
'I guess I do, but I suppose like most people we felt intimidated by expertise, and that's a very dangerous place for the Church to be, because what I hear now is people saying that experts, in fact, didn't know particularly what they were talking about, there was an enormous confidence trick going on.'
Paxman - 'They convinced the rest of us they did'
'They convinced the rest of us, because I think that most of us have grown up with the idea that economics is an exact science, and that suggests that we haven't actually read Keynes in the first place, because Keynes' stress on uncertainty as something utterly unavoidable in economic activity beyond a certain level, that again seems to have vanished.'
Paxman - 'What do you think this whole crisis has done to us?'
'It's left us I think with, as we saw in the clip just now [reference to a report by economics editor Paul Mason] a quite strong sense of diffused resentment, there hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year, there hasn't been what I as a Christian would call repentance, we haven't heard people saying that actually, no, we got it wrong, the whole, fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty.'
Paxman - 'You're talking about the bankers now?'
'I'm talking about bankers but also about all of us who, as you reminded me, Church included, colluded with this.'
Paxman - 'So we should all repent of what...'
'We should all I think, look back and say...
'Politicians too?
'Politicians too...'
'Everybody?...'
'We can look back and say, well we, we were, hypnotised into that sense of unreality, we allowed a big gulf to open up between how finance appeared to be operating and what it was really generating in terms of wealth, as well being for a community.'
P - 'What do you think we should have learned from what's happened?'
'Certainly that economics is too important to be left to economists, that there is no such thing as the rational self-regulating market beyond a very very limited range of activities, therefore that awkward amateurs do have their role in this, whether it's artists or historians or even the odd theologian [wry smile] coming in to say, well, what is wealth? What is this wealth creation that we talk about? We can understand how investment and production that allows purchasing power to be in the hands of more people, that's wealth creation. Whether wealth creation is simply the statistic of a larger amount of money on paper or a screen to be concentrated in certain hands, whether that counts as wealth creation, I'm not even sure.'
P - 'And when you see, as we are told now, of many of the financial institutions going back to business as usual before hand, bonuses and all the rest of it, what do you think?'
'I worry. I feel that, that that's precisely what I call the lack of closure, coming home to roost, it's a failure to name what was wrong, to name that, erm, well, what I called last year idolatry, that, projecting reality and substance on to things that don't have them.'
P - 'What should the Government have done'
'[laughs softly] I think the Government was bound to act, in the way it did as a damage limitation exercise, I, I'm not an economist, I can't comment on the details of that. I saw what Baroness Vadera [Junior minister in the department of business]said about that earlier today in the Standard [London Evening Standard, daily newspaper] I understand the motivation, I don't know what Governments can do...'
P - 'Should they have capped bonuses?'
'I would have said yes, yes, and I think that, that's one of those things that, feeds, the, what I call the diffused resentment that people are...'
P - 'Mm'
'... Somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and what you get, again becomes more obscure.'
P - 'You've referred to resentment now two or three times, [pause] how strongly felt is that? Do, do, d'you, d'you, d'you fear unrest almost?'
'I wouldn't go as far as that, what I'm picking up is just that sense of, of, bafflement, of, a muted anger, that the bonus culture isn't challenged, I wouldn't say unrest but I think that what we are looking at is, is, the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional if the levels of inequality that we've seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged.'
Paxman thanks him and closes the interview.
OK, so I've just transcribed it without dropping in any comments of my own. I am pretty sure that any atheists reading this have spotted the irony and hypocrisy a mile off, and I would put a little bit of money on most Christians spotting it too, but just in case you haven't, go back through the transcript and wherever you see a reference to 'finance', 'economist' or 'wealth' etc, substitute 'religion', 'Christianity', 'God' or 'The Church', and hopefully the hypocrisy will leap from the page.
I'm not saying that the man didn't have anything worth saying about the subject, he is, after all, a decent and intelligent chap, but as I said, we all have an opinion about this subject now, and he was giving his opinion as leader of our State Religion. I would therefore give his utterances more value if he had merely given the interview as Dr R. Williams, 'Concerned' of Canterbury.
I can sense your disappointment there, yes you at the back - 'What! how can he transcribe a whole interview without dropping in his customary sarcasm?' Well fear not, because I can't resist it, I just didn't want to clutter up a decently funny interview with my pointless witterings until you had a chance to read it for yourselves.
There now follows the same transcript, with previous square brackets removed, and my own attempt at humour and/or outrage inserted.
'I think what happened was an enormous wave of unreality, in the whole system whereby the connection of financial instruments, financial operations, with reality, with production, with relationships just disappeared.'
Paxman - 'Do you wish now that the Church had spoken out more about that climate?'
'I guess I do, but I suppose like most people we felt intimidated by expertise, and that's a very dangerous place for the Church to be,[Should be used to it after 300 years] because what I hear now is people saying that experts, in fact, didn't know particularly what they were talking about, [We in the Church do, of course] there was an enormous confidence trick going on.' [!!]
Paxman - 'They convinced the rest of us they did'
'They convinced the rest of us, because I think that most of us have grown up with the idea that economics is an exact science, [just as many of us were forced to grow up believing the Church is aways right] and that suggests that we haven't actually read Keynes in the first place, because Keynes' stress on uncertainty as something utterly anavoidable in economic activity beyond a certain level, that again seems to have vanished.' [Last year he quoted Marx, now he's invoking Keynes - are we seeing a further shift to left in the Church?]
Paxman - 'What do you think this whole crisis has done to us?'
'It's left us I think with, as we saw in the clip just now a quite strong sense of diffused resentment, [and a great deal more uncertainty that my minions are even now attempting to capitalise on (Church attendance is reportedly up in some areas as a direct consequence of 'material uncertainty')] there hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year, there hasn't been what I as a Christian would call repentance, [repent ye sinners! Fill our collection plates!] we haven't heard people saying that actually, no, we got it wrong, the whole, fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty.' [We will never see this day while belief is prevalent, maybe one day.]
Paxman - 'You're talking about the bankers now?'
'I'm talking about bankers but also about all of us who, as you reminded me, Church included, colluded with this.'
Paxman - 'So we should all repent of what...'
'We should all I think, look back and say...
'Politicians too?
'Politicians too...'
'Everybody?...'
'We can look back and say, well we, we were, hypnotised into that sense of unreality, we allowed a big gulf to open up between how finance appeared to be operating and what it was really generating in terms of wealth, as well being for a community.' [Just keep substituting 'religion' for 'finance', no further comment is required]
P - 'What do you think we should have learned from what's happened?'
'Certainly that economics [theology] is too important to be left to economists, [theologians] that there is no such thing as the rational self-regulating market [religion] beyond a very very limited range of activities, [preferably none at all] therefore that awkward amateurs [non-believers] do have their role in this, whether it's artists or historians or even the odd theologian [scientist] coming in to say, well, what is wealth? [religion?] What is this wealth creation [fiction] that we talk about? We can understand how investment and production that allows purchasing power to be in the hands of more people, that's wealth creation. Whether wealth creation is simply the statistic of a larger amount of money on paper or a screen to be concentrated in certain hands, whether that counts as wealth creation, I'm not even sure.'
P - 'And when you see, as we are told now, of many of the financial institutions going back to business as usual before hand, bonuses and all the rest of it, what do you think?'
'I worry. I feel that, that that's precisely what I call the lack of closure, coming home to roost, it's a failure to name what was wrong, to name that, erm, well, what I called last year idolatry, [said the man with a graven image of a man suffering unspeakable torture dangling from his neck] that, projecting reality and substance on to things that don't have them.' [!!]
P - 'What should the Government have done'
'I think the Government was bound to act, in the way it did as a damage limitation exercises, I, I'm not an economist, [I don't have any more of an idea than the rest of you; the fact that I am a spiritual leader, well versed in bullshit, lends credence and authority to my opinion] I can't comment on the details of that. I saw what Baroness Vadera said about that earlier today in the Standard. I understand the motivation, I don't know what Governments can do...'
P - 'Should they have capped bonuses?'
'I would have said yes, yes, and I think that, that's one of those things that, feeds, the, what I call the diffused resentment that people are...'
P - 'Mm'
'... Somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and what you get, again becomes more obscure.'
P - 'You've referred to resentment now two or three times, [pause] how strongly felt is that? Do, do, d'you, d'you, d'you fear unrest almost?'
'I wouldn't go as far as that, what I'm picking up is just that sense of, of, bafflement, of, a muted anger, that the bonus culture isn't challenged, I wouldn't say unrest but I think that what we are looking at is, is, the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional [said the chap who not so long ago voiced the opinion that adopting some aspects of Sharia law in the UK is 'unavoidable'] if the levels of inequality that we've seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged.' [Thanks for having me, I'm off back to the palace now for a couple of sherries and a quick chat with God before bed.]
There simply is no sense in giving authority to the words of a spiritual leader, when they are speaking as such. I would ask that the BBC ask someone more qualified to give their opinion and fill five minutes next time - just grab a random passing bloke off the street for a good common-man's opinion. Alternatively, for balance they should also invite the chief Rabbi and whichever member of the Muslim Council of Great Britain is currently claiming to speak for all Muslims five minutes too, then I could write a post three times as long.
Sep
15
On a little more light-hearted note today - I was gazing last night before I went to sleep, as I so often do, at the few stars whose light is able to penetrate the dense orange fug of London's night, wondering how many of them might have planets like our own orbiting them... how many of them provide light and life for alien worlds. Thinking how many planets, in all the vastness of space, and all the immensity of time past, present and future, might hold intelligent life, might hold civilizations of thoughtful beings like ourselves. Lost in my frequent nocturnal imaginings, it suddenly occured to me that our own planet, with just one dominant species, has managed to spawn at least seven major religions, and countless minor ones. What if there are, or have been, or will be, millions of planets with intelligent aliens, all with thousands of religions of their own... imagine a Universe where religion is endemic - imagine interplanetary holy wars!
On this happy note, I let the curtain drop and tried to get some sleep.
Amazingly, I didn't have any nightmares.
On this happy note, I let the curtain drop and tried to get some sleep.
Amazingly, I didn't have any nightmares.
Sep
14
I just took the "Belief-O-Matic" quiz and here are my results:
First of all, I think the most obvious conclusion that can be made is that the test is fairly accurate, at least at categorizinig non-believers. I think its accurate to describe myself as a Secular Humanist, an also as a "non-theist" (no atheist option?). However, another thing I immediately noticed, and found rather funny, is the fact that my beliefs (or lack thereof) more closely align with Unitarian Universalists than non theism. This is particularly interesting to me, since for the first 6 years of my life I went to a UU church, and some members of my family still consider themselves Unitarian Universalists. I often joke that the UU church really has no specific doctrine, that its members can believe or not believe whatever they choose. Apparently, I fit more closely with this church than with the non-theistic worldview.
Secondly, the nature of the questions that were asked are highly suspect. I don't recommend this entertainment quiz for anyone who is truly trying to discover what they believe, it is interesting and fun to take it and find out where you fit. However, as I just mentioned, the questioning was far from perfect. In fact, it even indicates an anti-atheist bias, which is something high on my list of "Why a secular world would be better". The way the quiz is design clearly indicates that it is better to have some sort of faith or spirituality. I find this claim highly unsupported, and in fact I would posit that faith does much more damage than is does good. But I guess that's for another time. For example, the first question that the quiz asks
"What is the number and nature of the deity (God, gods, higher power)"?
| 1. | Secular Humanism (100%) |
| 2. | Unitarian Universalism (92%) |
| 3. | Nontheist (80%) |
| 4. | Theravada Buddhism (74%) |
| 5. | Liberal Quakers (72%) |
| 6. | Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (59%) |
| 7. | Neo-Pagan (59%) |
| 8. | Taoism (48%) |
| 9. | Reform Judaism (47%) |
| 10. | New Age (46%) |
| 11. | Mahayana Buddhism (38%) |
| 12. | Scientology (35%) |
| 13. | New Thought (33%) |
| 14. | Orthodox Quaker (26%) |
| 15. | Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (25%) |
| 16. | Sikhism (25%) |
| 17. | Baha'i Faith (24%) |
| 18. | Jainism (22%) |
| 19. | Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (19%) |
| 20. | Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (18%) |
| 21. | Islam (16%) |
| 22. | Orthodox Judaism (16%) |
| 23. | Seventh Day Adventist (12%) |
| 24. | Hinduism (10%) |
| 25. | Eastern Orthodox (8%) |
| 26. | Roman Catholic (8%) |
| 27. | Jehovah's Witness (0%) |
First of all, I think the most obvious conclusion that can be made is that the test is fairly accurate, at least at categorizinig non-believers. I think its accurate to describe myself as a Secular Humanist, an also as a "non-theist" (no atheist option?). However, another thing I immediately noticed, and found rather funny, is the fact that my beliefs (or lack thereof) more closely align with Unitarian Universalists than non theism. This is particularly interesting to me, since for the first 6 years of my life I went to a UU church, and some members of my family still consider themselves Unitarian Universalists. I often joke that the UU church really has no specific doctrine, that its members can believe or not believe whatever they choose. Apparently, I fit more closely with this church than with the non-theistic worldview.
Secondly, the nature of the questions that were asked are highly suspect. I don't recommend this entertainment quiz for anyone who is truly trying to discover what they believe, it is interesting and fun to take it and find out where you fit. However, as I just mentioned, the questioning was far from perfect. In fact, it even indicates an anti-atheist bias, which is something high on my list of "Why a secular world would be better". The way the quiz is design clearly indicates that it is better to have some sort of faith or spirituality. I find this claim highly unsupported, and in fact I would posit that faith does much more damage than is does good. But I guess that's for another time. For example, the first question that the quiz asks
"What is the number and nature of the deity (God, gods, higher power)"?
Sep
14
On Friday a demonstration planned by a group called Stop the Islamisation Of Europe (SIEO) in Harrow, north-west London, was called off at the last minute, at the request of the police, in order to prevent a breach of the peace. The group wanted to protest against plans to build a new, larger mosque next to an older building that is no longer big enough to serve the needs of the local Muslim population.
In the event around twenty or so of the demonstrators turned up, and were met by more than a thousand counter-protesters organised by United Against Fascism (UAF). The counter-demonstration was well organised and supported, and several well known figures including the local MP (one Tony McNulty) and the London Assembly member for Brent and Harrow gave talks at an earlier rally. There were a few minor clashes between police and members of the UAF when the small contingent of SIEO chaps turned up and were chased away by Muslim youths, many of whom were inexplicably wearing balaclavas or scarves to cover their faces and wielding sticks, bottles or stones in that time-honoured tradition of peaceful counter-demonstration.
There has been almost universal condemnation for the SIEO, and the Culture Secretary, John Denham, compared their aims and methods to those of the Blackshirts' anti-Jewish marches in the 30's and National Front rallies in the 70's. Condemnation of armed and masked young men has so far not been forthcoming.
I have a lot of sympathy with the UAF and support much of their stated position, though I emphatically do not share their leftist political ideals. In this instance I have no sympathy at all with the SIEO's demonstration - I see no reason why the Muslims of Harrow should not have a mosque large enough for their needs (apart, of course, from my idealistic desire to see all places of worship rendered obsolete). The BBC's report showed footage of the inside of the current mosque - a poky little building with a low, corrugated iron ceiling. Were the SIOE marching against 'Islamism' or 'Islamic extremism' however I would be right behind them.
The problem I have is that I feel stuck in the middle and unable to express an opinion that I feel I have arrived at through common-sense, reason, and a genuine concern for the future of my country, without being labelled either a fascist or a leftist.
It is a real, genuine problem that so many Muslims in our cities live in isolated communities and want nothing to do with non-Muslims. It is a real problem that in many mosques up and down the land, Imams imported from Arab countries or Pakistan rail about the primacy of Islam and tell their flock - many of whom are young men, unsure about their positions in society and undecided about the direction their lives should take - that Western values will corrupt their faith and that they should reject them. It is a real problem that some sections of these communities hate their own country so much that they would gladly kill our citizens in the name of their faith. It is a real problem that so many young girls are sent for brief 'holidays' to visit their 'uncles' in north Africa or Pakistan, only to return without their external genitalia. It is a real problem that so many young men and women are sent to their parents countries to get married (not to mention the number of women who are married against their will) rather than marry here. It is a real problem that so many people who come to live in this country despise the values that it stands for - that our grandparents fought and died for - and want the country to change to suit them. And I could go on... Now tell me honestly - because I am perfectly prepared to review my position if I am mistaken - does saying any of this make me a fascist? An Islamophobe? A racist?
It is a real problem that minor far-right parties like the British Nationalist Party (BNP) are gaining ground in some areas of the country, by exploiting and misdirecting the fears of sections of the indigenous population, but this is only possible because politicians in all major parties feel unable, or are unwilling, to speak out against the growth and increasing insularity of Muslim communities, for fear of incurring the wrath of a minority who are not only willing to use violence, but who are positively itching for the chance.
I despise the BNP and all that they stand for, but does this make me a lefty?
So this post is for all those people who, like me, feel trapped between a rock and a hard place. Who would naively like to see people of all faiths and backgrounds just coming together and getting along with one another. Who would like to see second and third generation immigrants genuinely feeling that Britain is their home, without expecting it to change for them. I know I'm dreaming, and I know I'm being hopelessly naive, but hey, a man can dream, can't he?
Check the following links for background info:
BBC's online article
SIOE homepage
UAF homepage
Just to clarify, I do not and would not buy either the Daily Mail or the Daily Express. In fact, I would rather walk around in soiled underwear than use either of these publications to wipe my arse if I'd run out of toilet paper. Just thought I'd clear that up.
In the event around twenty or so of the demonstrators turned up, and were met by more than a thousand counter-protesters organised by United Against Fascism (UAF). The counter-demonstration was well organised and supported, and several well known figures including the local MP (one Tony McNulty) and the London Assembly member for Brent and Harrow gave talks at an earlier rally. There were a few minor clashes between police and members of the UAF when the small contingent of SIEO chaps turned up and were chased away by Muslim youths, many of whom were inexplicably wearing balaclavas or scarves to cover their faces and wielding sticks, bottles or stones in that time-honoured tradition of peaceful counter-demonstration.
There has been almost universal condemnation for the SIEO, and the Culture Secretary, John Denham, compared their aims and methods to those of the Blackshirts' anti-Jewish marches in the 30's and National Front rallies in the 70's. Condemnation of armed and masked young men has so far not been forthcoming.
I have a lot of sympathy with the UAF and support much of their stated position, though I emphatically do not share their leftist political ideals. In this instance I have no sympathy at all with the SIEO's demonstration - I see no reason why the Muslims of Harrow should not have a mosque large enough for their needs (apart, of course, from my idealistic desire to see all places of worship rendered obsolete). The BBC's report showed footage of the inside of the current mosque - a poky little building with a low, corrugated iron ceiling. Were the SIOE marching against 'Islamism' or 'Islamic extremism' however I would be right behind them.
The problem I have is that I feel stuck in the middle and unable to express an opinion that I feel I have arrived at through common-sense, reason, and a genuine concern for the future of my country, without being labelled either a fascist or a leftist.
It is a real, genuine problem that so many Muslims in our cities live in isolated communities and want nothing to do with non-Muslims. It is a real problem that in many mosques up and down the land, Imams imported from Arab countries or Pakistan rail about the primacy of Islam and tell their flock - many of whom are young men, unsure about their positions in society and undecided about the direction their lives should take - that Western values will corrupt their faith and that they should reject them. It is a real problem that some sections of these communities hate their own country so much that they would gladly kill our citizens in the name of their faith. It is a real problem that so many young girls are sent for brief 'holidays' to visit their 'uncles' in north Africa or Pakistan, only to return without their external genitalia. It is a real problem that so many young men and women are sent to their parents countries to get married (not to mention the number of women who are married against their will) rather than marry here. It is a real problem that so many people who come to live in this country despise the values that it stands for - that our grandparents fought and died for - and want the country to change to suit them. And I could go on... Now tell me honestly - because I am perfectly prepared to review my position if I am mistaken - does saying any of this make me a fascist? An Islamophobe? A racist?
It is a real problem that minor far-right parties like the British Nationalist Party (BNP) are gaining ground in some areas of the country, by exploiting and misdirecting the fears of sections of the indigenous population, but this is only possible because politicians in all major parties feel unable, or are unwilling, to speak out against the growth and increasing insularity of Muslim communities, for fear of incurring the wrath of a minority who are not only willing to use violence, but who are positively itching for the chance.
I despise the BNP and all that they stand for, but does this make me a lefty?
So this post is for all those people who, like me, feel trapped between a rock and a hard place. Who would naively like to see people of all faiths and backgrounds just coming together and getting along with one another. Who would like to see second and third generation immigrants genuinely feeling that Britain is their home, without expecting it to change for them. I know I'm dreaming, and I know I'm being hopelessly naive, but hey, a man can dream, can't he?
Check the following links for background info:
BBC's online article
SIOE homepage
UAF homepage
Just to clarify, I do not and would not buy either the Daily Mail or the Daily Express. In fact, I would rather walk around in soiled underwear than use either of these publications to wipe my arse if I'd run out of toilet paper. Just thought I'd clear that up.
Sep
14
Dawkins, after all, is probably the world's most famous atheist. At the same time (and not coincidentally, he would insist) he is also the world's foremost defender of Darwin and evolutionary theory. Karen Armstrong is a popularizer of ...
Sep
13
As I'm sure you've noticed, theres been many changes to the layout of the website, I am trying to keep it more organized and less cluttered, while still maintaining all the features and nifty widgets that I can. Feedback on the design is welcomed, and any suggestions will definitely be considered. I'm sure you've also noticed the quite apparent lack of posts recently. Have I given up the blog? Am I no longer an atheist? Am I still alive? Fortunately, it is nothing so drastic.I apologize for the lack of posts, as the new school year just began and it is a very hectic time. As things have slowed down now, I am hoping to devote more time to the blog and continue to keep it updated as I had before. Some upcoming topics I will discuss include Heaven and Hell, the Devil, God in the law, and prayer and free will. Additionally, my good colleague Barnstormer recently referred me to the "Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God", of which I will be taking an in depth examination. As always, feel free to send any topic suggestions or questions you have or things you'd like me to discuss by emailing me. Thanks.
