In case you were in any doubt about how religion can breed some major league nutcases, then you need to see:
Amazing. I love the way she starts off really sad and shocked, then her righteous anger comes to the surface and she becomes a “Christian Warrior.” She is absolutely insane.
I feel sorry for her family more than anything else.
[tags]Religion, Society, Culture, Nutcases, Religious Lunatic, God Delusion, Belief, Catholic, Anti-Atheist, Weird, Woo, Christian[/tags]
For those who do not have the regular, erm, pleasure of reading through the Comment is Free blogs on the Guardian websites, there is an interesting one there from yesterday by AC Grayling titled “A force for evil.”
The post makes interesting reading, but as you can imagine the most humour can be found in the comments. Most are pretty unoriginal and just what you expect when ever someone says religion is bad. You can largely group the comments into categories: (with kudos to jackoba who did this before me!)
I am teetering towards the last group at the moment. Sadly, even though there are some intelligent, educated, people writing articles about atheism now, there is a strong sense of repetition there. It is a good sign of the times that so many news portals carry atheist posts now, and this probably reflects the greater divide between theists and atheists. In the UK at least, a generation ago most people were apathetic enough towards religion as to make the distinction meaningless – even the faithful over here were not rabid enough to get worked up about. Now, though, things are quite different. It is interesting that an apparent British person writes this at the end of their comment:
Also, since humanism tends towards strict individualism, autonomy of the self, reason, independent thought etc, on its own grounds, it features a very spurious supernatural being (in the way he can escape from nature), the human of humanism, the self. Not only this, but the underlying liberalistic logic of evolutionary psychology and humanism (competing individuals where co-operation is a secondary and indeed undergirded by self-interest) is doubtless an easy way at an ideological level inwhich to further shure up capitalism, and I cannot help but think that this logic (though not humanism solely, but capitalism) will ulitimately kill more than ‘religion’ ever has, once the seas begin to boil and the world begins to throw out its selfish stewards.
Heavy on the big, long words but light on the sense and logic. (He began his comment with “Where to to begin with the stupidity of what AC Grayling is saying here?” so you got a sign it was going to be good!)
The problem is, as is often the case where something is either right or wrong, the argument eventually gets bogged down. It has been some time since I read a properly “new” article on the topic. Theists as normal, are often the worst spewing out the same tired, boring, reasons why people should believe in god. Graylings article in the Comment is Free, while interesting and well written does not really open any new ground and is unlikely to convert any theists.
With this in mind, I will endeavour to find some examples of mainstream media which has “new” arguments on the pro-/anti- invisible people debate. Personally, I cant think of any new arguments so finding them will be exciting and interesting (and therefore they will get looked at here!).
Looking for a silver lining on the Comment is Free, there are very good comments from olching. F101voodoo and especially jonwaring, but my personal favourite came from sidc:
The only interesting thing about these religion/atheism threads is that the atheists can spell better than the religious nutters.
Well said! 🙂
(footnote: the title comes from a comment, not something I thought up myself! )
[tags]Atheism, Theism, Religion, AC Grayling, Belief, Religious Nutters, Beliefs, Belief, Nutcases, Fundamentalist, Society, Culture, Logic, Understanding, Guardian, Nazi, God Delusion[/tags]
Is there a difference between “Justice” and “Revenge?” How should a criminal justice system behave when it comes to punishing offenders? Difficult questions to really answer, but they are ones which need to be addressed.
This thought process has been sparked off by a post on the OUStudent blog about a news item on the BBC today. Titled “Criminal Justice in the News” and it does hit a few issues that I like to get on my high horse over
In the BBC news today there is an article titled “Death driver sentence ‘too short’” which begins with:
A widow is calling for a tougher jail term for the lorry driver who was responsible for her husband’s death.
Grandfather Peter Ellison, 62, of Carlton Husthwaite, near Thirsk, was killed when a lorry ploughed into his tractor on the A168 last September.
David Jackson, 56, of Kirkbymoorside, was jailed for nine months at Teesside Crown Court on 22 June after admitting causing death by dangerous driving.
Mr Ellison’s widow, Dorothy, wants the Attorney General to review the case.
It goes on to confirm that the Unduly Lenient Sentence team is considering referring this case to the appeals court and outlines the basic details of the case. While this is indeed a tragic incident, and you cant help but to feel sorry for the widow left behind, it raises the issue of “Justice” or “Revenge.” This is something, which to me, constantly hovers over pretty much every court case – rarely do victims think “justice has been done” unless the offender gets disproportionately punished – and its after effects are often the basis for all manner of political grandstanding (I wont start on how bad the Church can grandstand – that is a rant for another day).
The BBC article finishes with some telling remarks:
Mrs Ellison, who would have celebrated her 34th wedding anniversary last weekend, said: “It just seems like we are the victims really because he gets nine months and comes out and gets on with his life.
“We have lost somebody special and nine months just doesn’t seem fair.
“I know he didn’t do it deliberately, but to kill somebody and just get nine months, it’s an insult really.”
To me, this is a call for revenge rather than justice. Mrs Ellison is the victim, in that it was her husband who died (Murder is an odd situation in that the victims tend to be dead… 🙂 ), so all I can assume the first comment above means is she wants some one else to suffer more than she has. That is not justice.
Her second comment above is a sign of the hurt she is feeling, but the BBC (and radio news today) have spun it into something else. It is not fair that her husband died in the accident, but no amount of punishment of the driver will change the state of affairs. Her husband will remain dead. Nine months in Jail (away from his own family) and a criminal record is not a “light punishment” – this is a myth often pushed about by the Righteous Right-wing media, mostly people who have no concept of the effects of even relatively short periods of detention.
Crucially, it raises the question of how long would Mrs Ellison consider fair? Ten months? Nine Years? 99Â Years?
Her last sentence shows she understands the reality of the situation, but is still hurting. Mr Jackson did not set out to kill (mens rea remember) and it is accepted by the court his actions were not deliberately reckless. This leaves a big question mark over what Mrs Ellison is asking for here.
Every day people drive dangerously and recklessly. Some of these people have accidents which destroy property, some have accidents which injure people and some have accidents which kill. Should the punishment be based on the (almost random) consequences of the act, or the nature of the act itself?
Equally (if not more) importantly, is the “punishment” of criminals there to make them suffer or rehabilitate them and deter others? Are people deterred from having accidents by punishing those who have very serious accidents? I doubt it.
What would sentencing Mr Jackson to a longer prison sentence achieve?
[tags]Society, Culture, Law, Rights, Murder, Crime, Punishment, Social Rights, Social Values, BBC, News, Dangerous Driving[/tags]
Sadly, I am quite short of time to blog at the moment because I have just come across a priceless news item on the BBC.
Headlined “Nervous support for Church rules,” the BBC have examined the early signs of the Anglican Church’s move away from their founding principles – all because of the “risk” of Gay Bishops. I dont have time to dissect this properly, but to give you a flavour, the article begins:
The Church of England’s ruling body, the general synod, is backing a set of rules – or covenant – aimed at resolving disagreements in the Anglican Communion, such as that over the ordination of gay bishops.
While some see the move as a necessity, others believe it goes against the traditions of the Church.
Strange how a religion which is supposed to teach love, compassion and forgiveness can get its cassocks in such a twist over gay people.
[tags]Religion, Philosophy, Society, Anglican, Church, Christians, CofE, Nutters, Bigots, Discrimination, Culture, Synod[/tags]
I had the continued pleasure of listening to Radio 2 quite a bit today – including the Jeremy Vine show. Hidden amongst a dreary line up, there was a hidden gem of philosophical brilliance – the “Violence against expats” bit.
Basically, it being an apparently slow news day, this was a discussion about a British family who were forced out of their house in Brittany, France as the result of what may be hostile locals. This was obviously such a high profile incident, I can’t find any links to it elsewhere on the BBC site. For all I know, the Jeremy Vine show made it up (it wouldn’t be the first time the BBC faked something…).
Anyway, the debate was pretty much as you would expect – lots of people saying there was no hostility, all the French people love the British etc. Until one Scottish woman phoned in. Now, given the BBC’s track record on faking phone ins, she may have been a plant to stir things up (she failed) but she actually seemed to reflect a common opinion I have heard elsewhere. The call came (around the 48min point if you are listening online) soon after a French journalist went to great lengths to say how the French people, especially in Brittany, are welcoming and friendly – even going as far as to specify how the French love the Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Cornish. Hmm. This was followed by the Scottish woman, who phoned in to say how wonderful and friendly the French people she meets every year are. She built on this by saying how all the English people were loud, obnoxious, drunken etc., and how she can understand why the French hate them. Continue reading
I will keep it short for now because it is late and I am tired having covered what feels like the entire length of the United Kingdom today (in a traffic jam).
The BBC have reported, in a news item titled “‘Islamic duty’ to help UK police” that:
Muslims have been told it is their “Islamic duty” to co-operate with the police to ensure Britain’s safety.
This blog has previously been accused of concentrating its attacks on Christianity, and often Atheism in general is accused of being “anti-Christian” rather than “anti-Deity” largely because it concentrates on the dominant religions in the English speaking world. There is no reason, however, why Islam should get off lightly and this brings to mind a startling example of what is really, really wrong with both the religion and how its adherents see themselves within the UK. (I can only assume this is valid elsewhere).
Basically, this statement (is it an edict?) from the Muslim Council of Britain (*) admits that “Muslims” within the United Kingdom see themselves as separate from society. The MCB are basically saying that unless told to do so by authority figures within Islam, Muslims living here will not function as members of the “British” society.
For centuries the “British” (OK, mainly the English) have been worried about Catholics coming to power here, as it was assumed they would place the authority of Rome over the needs, wants and laws of the People of Britain. While this is still a real concern (try to become king if you are Catholic for example), it seems no where near as much of a problem as this portrayal of Islam.
It is sad that a large segment of people born and bred in the United Kingdom feel patriotic towards another nation and will only behave as citizens of their homeland when ordered to do so by their Church. I am constantly amazed that so many people who dislike the lifestyles and behaviours of this (or any country) continue to live here, maybe they are some variation on the flagellants… 🙂
Isn’t the 21st century wonderful.
(*) Does Northern Ireland have its own? Do people forget that the UK is not just Britain? Does the MCB not like Northern Ireland – you could hardly blame them… 🙂 (and it would explain the B rather than MCUK…)
Once more, the actions of the insane, cruel, evil and disturbed make headline news in the UK. Even though I am almost as far from London as you can get in the UK, the news of the Car Bomb outside a London nightclub has been pretty big stuff. Quite understandable as well really, as this is the “purpose” of terrorist attacks – create terror.
Putting a bomb made up off “60 litres of petrol, gas cylinders and nails” outside a busy London nightclub on a Thursday night (often one of the busier nights in the city), strikes me as a pretty effective way to make people frightened. That the bomb did not detonate is certainly amazing (invoke god of choice if you wish, I will stick to the wonders of the bombers ineptitude), and it seems reasonable to assume the police comments about possible casualties are accurate.
It is certainly remarkable that this device was discovered (prior to it announcing itself in a big way) and it is a tribute to the bomb disposal teams who had to render it safe, while retaining forensic evidence. A big well done all round there. Continue reading
Hat tip to Black Sun Journal for sparking this off with his comment on the last post, in which he suggested searching out El Morya
(Mea culpa, I would have to say that I was only vaguely aware of Black Sun’s back story though I’d sort of picked up bits of it from the personal bits of his posts. His parents were pretty well-known leaders of a Blavatsky influenced cult. Really.)
First shock is how often El Morya pops up on web pages. “1 – 10 of about 125,000 for el morya.” Not quite a household word but probably more than you’d get for a fair number of other topics. I was going to see how many hits some science and social science phrases got but,no, it’s not like anyone would thank me.) Continue reading
This blog was tagged by atheist perspective I’ve shamelessly lifted an explanation of what that means from the atheist perspective site, which is excellent by the way.
We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
– Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
– People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
– At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
– Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.
Well part A is completed with minimal effort. Clearly the next stage must have to be the 8 random facts. Argh, 8 things about us that we wouldn’t mind going on the net – but are actually interesting enough to post. Damn that rules out almost anything I could put here….
Hmmm…. hmmm…..
Choosing 8 blogs was no easy task either. There were obvious choices – like nullifidian – who have probably already been tagged within an inch of their lives so would just get pissed off. However, I sprinkled my fairy dust over the atheist blogroll and found some worthy, if less familiar, contenders.
[tags]Blog Meme, Atheism, Wire, WhyDontYou, Why Dont You, Society, Culture, Travel, Languages,Blog, Meme, Blogs[/tags]
Reading through the comment is free part of the Guardian is enlightening, entertaining and a bit saddening. It is enlightening because it shows how confused people become when they want to find a target to attack, it is entertaining because the commenters are, basically, crazy and saddening because once upon a time you would have thought people who read the Guardian were reasonably educated. Obviously in the internet age, this is no longer the case…
Anyway, a rant against the HSE by Simon Jenkins, titled “The zombie health inspectors should be replaced with a risk commission” drew my attention today. As I have mentioned in the past, I am often drawn into the murky world of health and safety much more than I would normally like, so this intrigued me.
The title of the article seems to draw on this part of Mr Jenkins long, repetitive, rant:
Continue reading
Now, of late, the Guardian Money’s obsession with demonising “buy to let” landlords has been more than a little annoying. However in Saturday’s paper, the Capital Letters section had a bit which was quite interesting. Capital Letters is a sort of consumer rights thing, where people write in following problems with various companies and Tony Levene sorts things out for them. Very interesting reading most of the time.
Basically, this week, some one wrote in saying that HM Customs and Excise (Now properly known as HM Revenue and Customs) was threatening to take them to court over non-payment of taxes. The person was complaining because they did not owe any tax and they were on the PAYE scheme where tax is deducted from wages at source. The unfortunate correspondent had tried to convince HMRC about this but was unsuccessful. Continue reading
With a hat tip to the Friendly Atheist: It seems that Richard Dawkins has stumbled upon the crux of Web 2.0 applications and now there is a dedicated social network for evolutionists to join. The blurb from the admin team reads:
We hope this new site feature will help you meet and connect with like-minded people from around the world or in your area.
Brilliant. Now, what are you waiting for? Get over to Richard Dawkins.net, log in and add Friendly Atheist and myself as your friends.
[tags]Richard Dawkins, Friendly Atheist, Social Networking, Society, Technology, Culture, Evolution, Dawkins, Atheist, Atheism[/tags]
I was reading an interesting post on the excellent “The Mary Blog,” titled “Agnostic Atheism.” In this post, Mary puts forward the argument that Atheism is not the most rational choice to make and requires an element of belief very similar to theism – in that the Atheist has to believe the non-existence of God without any evidence to support the idea.
Unusually, Mary also explains that Agnosticism is not entirely rational either and concludes that the rational position is about half way between Agnostic and Atheist. The whole post puts forward a reasonable argument for people seeking a middle ground between what is increasingly seen as “Militant” atheism and the “reasonable” agnosticism.
Sadly, while I consider myself a rational person, I have to disagree and, personally, I find the arguments for Agnosticism a bit “wet” (for want of a politer word). Before I go on, there is always the risk that this could simply be a case of semantics, so I think some definitions are required. To me, Atheist is not a religion and it certainly is not a dogmatic belief structure. My view of the term “Atheist” does not preclude the fact that if, tomorrow, Thor knocked on my door and introduced himself, I would believe he existed. In common parlance, Atheist is used to mean “doesn’t believe in the Christian God” but, personally, this is inaccurate.
Right, that said, I can explain why I feel Agnosticism is not rational and, often, seems to be a way people avoid any stigma associated with being called an “Atheist.” (Sorry if this seems to rehash some ground from a previous debate with Parabiodox over the terms 😀 ).
Often blogs claiming Atheism is irrational will use the argument that the Atheist believes God does not exist, while the Agnostic says “we don’t know if God exists or not.” In this form, the Agnostic view point does appear more rational but closer examination may change this.
It seems that every day now there is an item in the more popular media (take that however you want) which brings the spectre of “Political Correctness” into view. In around 99.99999% of the times the phrase “PC” is used, for something other than a Police Constable 😀 , it is the start of a combination of appeal to ridicule and false dichotomies. The tabloid press are the worst for it, but this attitude is reflected in all walks of life.
One strange, yet recent, example is found amongst the comments on Bernard Manning following his recent real life death (I am sure he died on stage many a time). Now, if you have never heard of him you are truly lucky. Bernard Manning was an overweight comedian (in the loosest sense of the word) who had a small repertoire of jokes that revolved around the mother-in-law, women and ethnic minorities. Famously, when performing at a police convention he made a remark to a black policeman to the effect of asking if he (the policeman) enjoyed walking the beat more than swinging in the trees. Yeah, Bernard manning was that funny. I am not convinced there was ever a time people found sheer offensiveness as “funny” but it seems I may be wrong. People are actually leaving messages about the hateful creature saying he was a comic genius. On the radio (Jermey Vine, again) there were people saying how great he was and that ridiculing politicians and the powerful (rarely targets of Good Ole’ Bernard) was too easy, and that Bernard took the difficult path to attack vulnerable minorities who couldn’t respond.
I never said his supporters were sane did I?
I was listening to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 today (yes, I know…) and as always his “phone in” show attracts odd, outspoken members of society, no matter how trivial the topic is. One of today’s odd topics was about the proposed legislation to force “rights of way” along coastal routes, even if the landowner objects. The Radio 2 website even has a “have your say” on the subject.
Now, I have very mixed opinions on this and would probably lump for maintaining the status quo – we currently have about 70% of the UK coast open for “ramblers,” the rest is in private or Ministry of Defence hands. That said, I can see the arguments put by some of the ramblers – and as a big fan of the countryside in general I think it would be nice if there were more places to go. Anyway, from this position of steadfast ambivalence, it amused me to see one of the arguments used on the show (repeatedly).
Basically put, there was an argument that as we are “born on an island” we have a “birthright” to walk the coast. Seriously. Well, when I say seriously, I mean it is not something I have made up for giggles here but I am not 100% sure how serious the people who said it were.
Sadly, the fact that no one seems to have picked up on this during the bits of the show I listened to and the fact people could actually use such a line of nonsense as an argument, highlights the downsides of the UK’s educational policies. Gone are learning classical philosophy and the origins of society. Now people think a “right” to do something comes with no burden of obligation and is identical to wanting to do something.
Unfortunately this watered down idea of what a “right” actually is, means people are less concerned when important rights are lost… So it looks like we will force landowners to allow access to their land at the same time we bring in ID papers, increased CCTV monitoring, longer detention without trial and so on. Well done Britain.
[tags]Education, Classics, Classical Studies, Philosophy, Culture, Society, UK, Coast, Landscapes, BBC, Radio 2, Jeremy Vine, Civil Rights, Rights[/tags]