Pages tagged ""

Stewart Lee, the Video

Posted on 23rd November, 2008 by Heather

A reference on PhillyChief’s blog reminded me about Stewart Lee and Jerry Springer, the Opera.

Stewart Lee is a comedian who became an arch-hate figure for Christian Voice a couple of years ago, because he was one of the writers of Jerry Springer the Opera. This was a tv programme that Christian Voice considered so inherently blasphemous that they tried to sue the BBC for broadcasting it. They were crowing on a channel Four documentary last year that they’d bankrupted the producers of the show, although I’m not sure if this has any basis in fact.

There are some really funny anti-Christian-Voice-blasphemy-complaint spiels in other Stewart Lee videos but I’ll post links to them at another time. This link isn’t to one of those, but I had to post it because of the irresistible Richard Littlejohn bit at the end.

Whenever I hear the phrase “Political correctness gone mad” I should reach for this video.

Stewart lee on political correctness gone mad

Parental Advisory: contains some extravagant and well-justified cussing :-)

Mid-knight’s Children

Posted on 19th June, 2007 by Heather

Salman Rushdie’s knighthood has caused some very predictable results in Pakistan and Iran.

I can’t help being suspicious over the timing of this. There have been plenty of opportunities to honour Rushdie since the Ayatollah’s fatwa was placed on him, but it seems the UK wasn’t too keen to antagonise Iran.

Until now.

Do you have to be a conspiracy theorist to see this as unfortunate timing?

I normally draw a pretty rigid line against the idea that the US is led by people so demented they will blow up the Twin Towers or whatever to justify a war, so I’m normally all for applying Occam’s Razor. (Explanations based on normal RealPolitik usually suffice and are usually grubby enough.)

However, applying Occam’s Razor in this instance, it is quite hard to believe that our leaders are so naive that they thought “Oh Gosh, that nice Salman Rushdie. We haven’t shown him how good we thought Midnight’s Children was” without remembering that he was still subject to a death sentence for blasphemy based on the Satanic Verses.

So the kinighthood thus comes to look like an act designed only to stir up more fanatical suicide bombers and to enrage Iran even more, thus opening the way for the war with Iran that we’ve all been dreading or looking forward to (depending on the number of shares we hold in Haliburton or oil companies.)

Still, I remain impressed that you can apparently now get a honour without handing over a few million in loans to one political party or another.

Believing in Unbelievers

Posted on 17th June, 2007 by TW

The latest entry from the Department of Missing the Point Completely is by Fr. Robert J. Carr and titled “Making Fool’s For Satan.” (Big hat tip to the Friendly Atheist)

In a nutshell, Father Carr has decided to rant against the Blasphemy Challenge but obviously has not been guided by his invisible friend as he does so. As a result, he not only misses the point about the challenge, but seems to get a bit confused over the whole issue of belief and what the Christian church teaches (or at least did when I went to school). Friendly Atheist has done an excellent job of fisking the (ahem) article so I wont do that here, but there are a couple of points I want to pick up on.

Christian Response

Posted on 10th February, 2007 by TW

Sending a response to one of the blog posts here by the contact form is not the easiest way to go about things, as it makes any ensuing debate a bit harder. That said, it is reasonable and we will try to respond as much as possible.Following a post made here (about why Christians don’t Get It), we had a response sent in over the contact form. Below the fold is the message in full with my return comments. The main reason I want to address these points is that there is the inference I have committed many logical fallacies, so I take it fairly seriously :-)

Idiotic Ranting

Posted on 29th January, 2007 by TW

Thanks to a link on Pharyngula (amazingly aptly titled “John Kasich is a big fat idiot“), I came across a YouTube clip from Fox News where a frankly idiotic fox news presenter is frothing in an amazing manner about the Blasphemy Challenge.

Not living in the US, there is a tendency to miss out on the ranting, and preaching, which seems to be tolerated on network television. I am curious if there is anything similar in the UK – and I really hope not.

Watch the video but be careful not to be drinking at the time. I can pretty much guarantee you will end up choking on some bits. The ranting about how the Blasphemy Challenge is corrupting kids, how Christians are going out playing basketball and the Challenge is an insult to them all, even better – how this is an attack only on (despite the blasphemy being a sin in and as well, but I don’t think will ever be able to educate himself that much).

It really is a good example of how ignorant some people can be, and how despite their claims to being a “Christian” with all the charity, forgiveness and kindness that implies, people use it to be a rude, offensive idiot. Even if Kasich is just playing up to the ratings (almost certainly) it speaks more for what a small minded low life he is than anything else.

Shame on them all.

A bit mellower ….. mentioning metaphors

Posted on 9th January, 2007 by Heather

This source for part of the blog (i.e. me) must confess to being too pompous and argumentative in recent posts, so I’m hoping this will be mellower.

So, in diametric opposition to my normal posts, I am going to list what’s good in religions.

Almost all religions meet our need for a philosophy of existence. We all feel a sense of wonder at the universe. As far as I can see human beings will never grasp the nature of being, just because we  only have our human capacity for thinking.  This is not an argument against pushing our capacity to know things to its limit.   From our perspective, the universe can only know itself through us.

The best of religion provides a language by which we can conceive of our existence.  (In this sense only, I agree that science acts in the same way as religion.)

I suppose that’s saying the main value of religion is in its contribution to philosophy. There are plenty of other valuable things that religion can provide, such as a sense of community, rites of passage, rituals to help us deal with the unbearable.   But we would barely be able to conceieve of anything in philosophical terms without concepts that have been refined over thousands of years.

Religion provides metaphors for the knowledge that is always hanging outside our grasp.

Thought alone is not enough to express the complexity of our experience. 

Where religion – and any magical belief systems –  are distinct from raw philosophy is that they let us interact with the knowledge. They can integrate wonder into our logical-thought knowledge of the nature of  the universe. They offer ways to express this physically – good works, prayer, dance, song, exercise, observing fasts, taking part in pilgrimages, meditation or, even, fighting as in the case of kung fu.

Buddhism, taoism, hinduism, African pantheism and so on all seem to achieve this much more creatively than the God-of- Abraham religions. However, I suspect that may be partly because, in the West, we tend to know them only after any dubious social content has been filtered out (e.g. the caste system) and their philosophy has been interpreted for us. There are also plenty of brilliant things in the God-of- Abraham-style religions.

In that sense, even those of who can admire myth and metaphor without taking it as literally true can play with the ideas. This is a bit like being the kids who know there isn’t really a tooth fairy but will take the coin the tooth fairy leaves. 

The problems with religion are to do with power and ideology. The more powerful the religion, the grubbier it becomes. Religions are not just collections of insights and myths. They are forms of social organisation. They amass resources. They hold power or provide support to the powerful.

I disagree with Dawkins where he treats religion as if it, in itself, has power to cause social effects. I feel that this ignores the ideological role of religion, i.e. the power to influence opinions in favour of particular social groups. (Just because something serves as ideology doesn’t mean it’s not true.) Social change and religion are inextricable, each feeding on and shaping each other.   I don’t think it matters what we actually believe about the nature of the universe or morality.  It matters what we do about it. Specifically, what we do to people who think using a different set of metaphors.

The trend towards fundamentalism in several religions can be explained in a million ways, and although i am obviously more than tempted, (Curse this hubris [note use of religious metaphors])  I’ll have to pass on that now, or this blog will never get published. The relevance here is that  you can’t just dismiss it as silly nonsense (OK, you can)  We need to think about what people are expressing when they hold to those beliefs and try to address the causes. 

(Tough on religion, tough on the causes of religion, following Blair.)

Sorry, I was blatantly lying about not being so pompous and argumentative. I promise to try harder in the next blog.

More comments on WSLS.com

Posted on 8th January, 2007 by TW

It seems after my previous “complaints” there was a bit of a backlog in the comments on the Blasphemy Challenge article and now my comment is there. Phew. First off let me appologise for any misunderstanding made.

On a more entertaining note, it is pleasing to the see the cranks and crackpots can be guaranteed to turn up to a post like this (does this mean I am a crank?) as some of the comments show: (This is long, the bit on the home page is trimmed, please take the time to read on. It really is worth it)

Guardian Newspaper Nonsense

Posted on 7th January, 2007 by TW

Obviously the Guardian is keen to get in on the Dawkins bandwagon (Check Pharyngula – any post which mentions Dawkins gets five or six times as many responses as one which doesn’t). Sadly, the Guardian, being a newspaper is far from well placed to comment on science or scientists commentary. You would think that, being literary minded journalists, they would be able to comment on philosophical matter but it appears this is not the case.

On Saturday, the Guardian published a comment article by Tobias Jones, titled: “Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians” with a tag line which reads:

Militant secularists like Richard Dawkins are taking their revenge on us believers for refusing to stay in the closet

Amazing. I thought for a few minutes that I had slept for months and it was actually 1 April. Madness is apparently a too polite word for it. Intrinsically it highlights what seems to me to be the main flaw in the current religious-anti-Atheist arguments, Dawkins is not a High Priest of Atheism! There is a constant string of nonsense where religious proponents try to undermine the valid debating points made by Dawkins (and PZ Myers, Sam Harris et al) by attacking the nature and behaviour of what they see as the religious leader of the opposition.

Add to this that tag line which implies the faithful have spent millennia being quiet and hiding their beliefs. Wow. What universe does Mr Jones inhabit?
Are all these people insane? (I think the answer to that question is pretty self evident).

Side note: The guardian certainly achieved their aims with the anti-Dawkins comment. As you may imagine it generated a massive volume of response comments. Fortunately most were of the mind that Mr Jones is inherently insane.

WSLS.com comments

Posted on 7th January, 2007 by TW

Well, it has been a considerable time since I tried to leave a “Reader comment” on the Blasphemy Challenge article and nothing has shown up. I am not sure if this is because my comment is from out side the US, met some spam checker comments or what ever. I hope it is not because my comment was critical of some of the content of the article and I am sure that WSLS would not prevent such comments on that basis alone. Basically, I am asking anyone who gets the chance to read the article and, if you have anything to say, please comment on it and see if they show up. Thanks for your help.